Value for Money: An Evaluation of Health Spending in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The long-term increase in international health spending sparked concerns about sustainability of health care systems but also the impact of such spending and the value for money from health spending. The period since 1975 has witnessed an increase in per capita health spending in Canada along with improvements in health outcomes. This paper is an economic evaluation of health spending in Canada –an analysis of the cost-effectiveness of aggregate health spending. Estimates of the cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) are made for the whole 1980–2012 period and for four sub-periods of time — 1980–1989; 1989–1998; 1998–2007 and 2007–2012. This is done for both the general population as well as Canadian seniors. Under a medium contribution of health spending to life expectancy scenario for the 1980 to 2012 period, the costs per QALY gained averaged $16,977 and $14,968, respectively for the general population and the seniors. This suggests that the Canadian health system produces relatively good value for money, especially for the seniors. After applying separate adjustments to match total health spending in the US and NHS health spending in the UK, we found that costs per QALY gained in Canada were generally lower than those found for the US, but not for the UK.
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 | 0.005 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".