MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2749491372

Breaking the Silos: Funding for the Healthcare We Need

2017· article· en· W2749491372 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncentiveHealth carePaymentBusinessMedical prescriptionFinancePublic economicsEconomic growthEconomicsMedicineNursing
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Once held in high esteem worldwide, Canadian healthcare has taken a drubbing in recent international comparisons, posting repeated poor showings against similarly high-spending OECD peers. The erosion in the worldwide status of Canadian healthcare has been attributed to the failure of the provinces to adapt their aging health systems to the changing face of healthcare demand. Since the late 1950s, the provinces have only tinkered at the margins of the Canadian healthcare delivery silos – a system that is arbitrarily divided among hospitals, specialists, and the provision of prescription drugs, primary care, and home and community care. This Commentary provides an overview of current payment models for provincial health services, focusing especially on areas where there is misalignment among the methods. Then, turning our attention beyond Canada, we examine a diverse range of international integrated payment reforms – defined here as models that distribute single payments or funding envelopes across groups of once disparately remunerated providers in order to foster shared financial incentives. A series of emerging policy reforms in the United States, the Netherlands, England, and Germany has attracted attention from international policymakers for going beyond the silos of traditional payment reforms in healthcare to introduce new financial flows that bridge sectors and settings. New models such as bundled payments and accountable-care organizations disburse single payments across groups of provider entities, offering shared financial incentives to improve coordination, efficiency, and effectiveness across a patient’s entire journey. Although still in their infancy, early evaluations have found compelling evidence of the potential for some of these models to reduce healthcare costs while maintaining or improving the quality of care. With a still relatively new federal government and the recent success of the pan-Canadian Pharmaceutical Alliance in providing a potential template for cross-provincial collaboration, the time appears ripe for collaboration on integrated payment reforms and greater sharing of experiences and expertise. Federal players such as Health Canada and the Canadian Institute for Health Information can have a strong role in facilitating this Canada-wide collaboration, with funding to facilitate transition, analytic tools that generate insights across the continuum, and information brokering among provinces.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.908
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0100.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.261 · 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