Choosing a Model for eConsult Specialist Remuneration: Factors to Consider
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Electronic consultation (eConsult) is an innovative solution that allows specialists and primary care providers to communicate electronically, improving access to specialist care. Understanding the cost implications of different remuneration models available to pay specialists is of critical importance as adoption of these services continues to increase. We used data collected through the Champlain BASE (Building Access to Specialists through eConsultation) eConsult service to simulate the cost implications of different remuneration models in Canada. The prorated hourly rate model averaged $45.72 CAD (Canadian Dollar) per eConsult while the prorated hourly rate with incentive averaged $51.90 CAD per eConsult, and the fee for service cost $60.50 CAD per eConsult. Paying all specialty groups to block three hours per week for eConsults averaged $337.44 CAD per eConsult and paying for 1-h blocks averaged $133.41 CAD per eConsult. As the remuneration of specialists is the largest cost driver of an established eConsult service, our findings can inform policymakers considering the implementation of eConsult or wishing to further develop an existing service.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it