The Fiscal Sustainability of Alberta's Public Health Care System
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From 1975 to 2007, Alberta’s real per capita government health expenditures grew from $1,679 to $3,696 (in 2007 dollars), at a median annual growth rate of 3.5%. Over the same period, Alberta’s real per capita gross domestic product and real per capita total government revenues grew at median annual rates of 2.2% and 1.7%, respectively. This difference between the growth rates of health care spending on the one hand and government revenues and the economy on the other gives rise to concern about the fiscal sustainability of the province’s public health care system. This study presents projections of real per capita spending on public health care in Alberta over the medium term out to 2030. They suggest that, by then, real per capita spending could reach anywhere between $5,339 and $14,215, soaking up between 32% and 87% of total government revenues; more worrying, the high end of these ranges reflects a continuation of the policy settings that guide current provincial public health spending. Alberta is fortunate to have a wealthy economy that can support a high level of public health spending. But that support is precarious given the cyclical nature of non-renewable natural resource revenues and Alberta’s past tendency to experience periods of boom and bust. Basing the financing of key spending programs such as health care on a volatile revenue base is not advisable, for it puts them at risk should economic conditions turn unfavourable, as they have recently. Indeed, adjusting government revenues in our projections to match a more reasonable measure of what might be relied upon with a degree of certainty simply enhances the precariousness of the fiscal sustainability of the public health care system. Not all categories of provincial government health care spending — in particular, the traditional core medicare areas of physician services and hospitals — are growing faster than either the revenue base or the economy. The growth of spending on non-medicare categories such as drugs, capital, and all other health expenditures, however, is a particular source of concern. Options for sustaining provincial government health expenditures include choosing what other government programs could be allowed to grow more slowly over time, what tax rates could be increased to cause the revenue base to grow more quickly, and what health programs currently provided by the public sector instead could be provided privately. These approaches need not exist in watertight compartments, however, and a portfolio of policies that combines these solutions likely would be a pragmatic policy outcome. Such a strategy would help to ensure the fiscal sustainability of Alberta’s public health care system and responsibly provide for the future welfare of its citizens.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".