MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2323603368 · doi:10.1215/03616878-2416229

Framing Incremental Expansions to Public Health Insurance Systems: The Case of Canadian Pharmacare

2014· article· en· W2323603368 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jamie R. Daw, Steven G. Morgan, Patricia Collins, Julia Abelson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Health Politics Policy and Law · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicHealthcare Policy and Management
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityQueen's UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Medical prescriptionMedia coverageNarrativePolitical sciencePublic health policyContext (archaeology)Public healthPublic administrationHealth policyPublic economicsBusinessPublic relationsSociologyEconomicsHealth careMedia studiesMedicineGeographyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada is the only country in the world to offer universal comprehensive public health insurance that excludes outpatient prescription medicines. Few scholars have attempted to explain this policy puzzle. We study media coverage of prescription drug financing from 1990 to 2010 to elucidate how the policy problem and potential solutions have been framed in media discourse and identify the actors that have dominated media texts. We confirm previous analyses that have revealed the significant role played by policy elites in media coverage of health reform debates. We also find that proposed expansions to public coverage are presented as a financial liability that could "crowd out" the existing (and popular) public insurance program. Within the context of a predominantly public funded system, framing of incremental expansion reorients away from values and toward discourse related to costs--both of the current system and of potential reforms. This may reflect a strategic narrative used by actors to maintain "silos of values" for coverage for prescription medicines versus those for other services. This has significant implications for the motivation for reform among the electorate and politicians alike, and for the extent to which policy developments, if they occurred, would legitimately reflect societal values for health financing.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.893

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.112
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.237 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Health Politics Policy and LawSame topicHealthcare Policy and ManagementFrench-language works237,207