MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3123022058

Paying for Hospital Services: A Hard Look at the Options

2013· article· en· W3123022058 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueC.D. Howe Institute Commentary · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCanadian Policy and Governance
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStatus quoIncentiveHealth careBusinessStrengths and weaknessesFinanceEconomic growthPolitical scienceEconomicsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hospitals hold a special place in the hearts of Canadians as the most visible representation of provinces’ commitment to publicly funded healthcare. As pillars of medicare and the centrepieces of provincial healthcare systems, hospitals are expected to be accessible when Canadians have healthcare crises, illnesses or injuries, irrespective of a patient’s ability to pay. Hospitals are also the most costly form of care, to the tune of over $58 billion per year across Canada. Provincial governments routinely dedicate a greater share of their budgets to hospitals than to many of their entire ministries. But in all provinces, there are many examples to be found of the inefficient or ineffective use of hospitals, including the continued use of obsolete procedures and the prevalence of beds filled by patients ready for discharge to the community. With all this money going to hospitals, provincial governments have historically paid little attention to how this money has flowed to hospitals and how it affects hospital behaviour. This Commentary draws attention to the strengths and weaknesses of alternate methods for funding hospital-based care in Canada. It examines both the funding models currently in use, such as global budgeting and fixed annual lump-sum transfers, and the methods that some provinces are contemplating for future reform efforts. The report then discusses the policy experiments currently underway in British Columbia and Ontario that are changing the financial incentives for hospitals in those provinces. While the appropriate reforms will vary by province, the status quo of near total reliance on global budgets for funding hospitals is not well aligned with the current policy imperatives of improving access stated by many provincial governments. Activity-based funding (ABF) – hospital payments based on the volume of care provided – is a viable complement to global budgets for rebalancing the financial incentives for Canadian hospitals. The dismal performance of Canada relative to other OECD countries on measures of access suggests this is an area with huge room for improvement across provinces, and where the introduction of ABF for partial funding of hospitals would have a good chance of driving meaningful change. Further, ABF for acute care should be complemented with funding policies for other sectors to align incentives across settings, and to promote the delivery of care in the most appropriate place, capturing as broad a range of activity as possible.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.254 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it