When universal health care isn’t truly universal: Beyond filling gaps in access to medicines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Issue The Canadian healthcare system is defined by universality, but unfortunately that does not extend to drugs outside of hospitals. Access to medication remains an area of inequity, fragmentation and system failure, with millions struggling with cost related non-adherence. This has created major implications for public health, limiting the health status of populations. Canada's inequitable system and the recent pursuit to fix it, provides an opportunity to examine ways of balancing public health goals and health systems reform in a country with established public and private care services. Background The government mandated the creation of a plan to improve access to medications. Stakeholder consultations ran from June -September 2018 and the Heart & Stroke Foundation (H&S) aimed to create policy recommendations that would improve population health outcomes and inequities. Research review and analysis determined the scope of the problem and viable solutions. Questions arose around whether a solution could improve equity and lower health care costs without dismantling the existing private system. Results Visionary principles led to the recommendation of a universal pharmacare program, designed to improve access to cost-effective medicines for all people in Canada regardless of geography, age, or ability to pay. A hybrid -program would include a robust common formulary for which the public payer is the first payer creating cost efficiencies. Top-up private insurance would result in less strain on the public system and maintain the presence of the existing private industry. Lessons Health charities have a unique role to play in creating innovative policy solutions that also serve patient interests. In order to advance public health, health charities need to maintain focus on equity and avoid policy development that is biased with conflict of interest. Key messages Canada is primed to implement a unique universal pharmacare program that addresses healthy inequities. Varied stakeholder interests can block public health goals.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.101 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".