Waiting for Health Care: What Role for a Patients' Bill of Rights?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
While Canadians are generally satisfied with the quality of the health care they receive, many are increasingly concerned about access to health care services and, in particular, about waiting times for treatment. These concerns have been fuelling the growing momentum for health care reform over the past few years. One of the reform possibilities currently being considered at both the federal and provincial level is a patients' bill of rights, which would confer certain rights on all users of the health care system. In this article, the authors explore the merits of a patients' bill of rights and examine whether or not such a reform would address Canadians' concerns regarding the public health care system. The authors begin by highlighting Canadians' concerns about access to health care and discussing the perception that waiting times are increasing. They then explain the distinction between rights in and rights to health care and the extent to which these different rights can be protected in Canada. Finally, the authors present a detailed survey of the experiences of seven jurisdictions in implementing and enforcing a patients' bill of rights. In particular, the authors focus on those jurisdictions that have established the right to access health care services in a timely fashion and examine the mechanisms created to enforce this right. Drawing on the lessons from these jurisdictions, the authors conclude with suggestions regarding the potential models that could be used to guarantee patients' rights in Canada.
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 | 0.010 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".