Why Canada Is in Court to Protect Healthcare for All: Global Implications for Universal Health Coverage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Countries worldwide are currently endeavoring to safeguard the long-term health of their populations through implementing Universal Health Coverage (UHC), in line with the United Nation's 2015-30 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Canada has some of the world's strongest legislation supporting equitable access to care for medically necessary hospital and physician services based on need, not ability to pay. A constitutional challenge to this legislation is underway in British Columbia (BC), led by a corporate plaintiff, Cambie Surgeries Corporation (CSC). This constitutional challenge threatens to undermine the high bar for UHC protection that Canada has set for the world, with potential adverse implications for equitable international development. CSC claims that BC's healthcare law-the Medicare Protection Act (MPA)-infringes patients' rights under Canada's constitution, by essentially preventing physicians who are enrolled in BC's publicly-funded Medicare plan from providing expedited care to patients for a private fee. In September 2020, after a trial that ran for 3.5 years and included testimony by more than 100 witnesses from around the world, the court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim. Having lost their case in the Supreme Court of BC, the plaintiffs' appealed in June 2021. The appellate court's ruling and reasons for judgment are expected sometime in 2021. We consider the evidence before the court from the perspective of social epidemiology and health inequalities, demonstrating that structural features of a modern society that exacerbate inequalities, including inequitable access to healthcare, can be expected to lead to worse overall societal outcomes.
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 | 0.008 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.031 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 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".