Socioeconomic differences in prescription drug supplemental coverage in Canada: A repeated cross-sectional study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Efforts to achieve universal healthcare coverage are fraught with challenges, not only in low- and middle-income countries but also in high-income ones. Canada, for example, is the only high-income country with universal health insurance that does not include universal coverage for prescription drugs. We first described the extent to which Canadians reported supplementary drug insurance coverage (public or private). Second, we examined associations between individuals' socioeconomic and demographic characteristics and self-reported drug insurance coverage. METHODS: We used logistic regressions and repeated cross-sectional data from two national (2015, 2016) and six Ontario (2005, 2008, 2013-2016) cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey. RESULTS: We found large socioeconomic differences in the reporting of prescription drug insurance coverage. Individuals of lower socioeconomic status had higher odds of reporting public drug coverage or no coverage while those of higher socioeconomic status had higher odds of reporting private coverage. Respondents' reports indicated that public drug plans were more likely to cover those in poorer health while private plans were more likely to cover those in very good or excellent health. We also documented substantial underreporting of public drug coverage. which may also have access implications. INTERPRETATION: Both the lack of prescription drug insurance and misunderstandings about one's insurance coverage point to limits in Canada's drug insurance system.
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) | 0.001 | 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".