Income-related disparities in private prescription drug coverage in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Canada does not have universal public coverage for prescription drugs, which leaves an important role for private insurance plans. However, we do not have recent data on the characteristics of Canadians who report holding such coverage, particularly differences based on household income. We performed a study to examine the relation between household income and private drug insurance coverage in Canada. METHODS: We used data from the 2015-2016 cycle of the Canadian Community Health Survey to investigate the relation between household income and holding private drug insurance. We constructed modified multivariate Poisson regression models with robust error variances, including several potential confounders. RESULTS: Overall, 59.4% of respondents reported having private drug insurance. We found a strong dose-response relation between household income level and private drug insurance coverage: 19.8% of those with a household income less than $20 000 reported private coverage, compared to 76.2% of those with a household income of $80 000 or more. INTERPRETATION: Higher-income households are much more likely to hold private drug insurance coverage in Canada. This likely contributes to differential access to medicines and health outcomes by different income groups.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".