Socioeconomic Status and the Use of Medicines in the Ontario Public Drug Program
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residents of Ontario aged 65 years and older are covered by a provincially funded prescription drug program. The aim of this paper is to assess the extent of inequity in prescription drug use for people eligible for Ontario Drug Benefit coverage, and to explore the different possible explanations for inequities. The analyses draw on the Canadian Community Health Survey from 2005, which is linked to pharmacy and Ontario Health Insurance Plan claims data. We model the number of therapeutically different prescription drugs and the total expenditures on medications on a set of health, demographic, and socioeconomic indicators, and we calculate the concentration index of income-related inequality in medicine use. The results show that low-income individuals who have enrolled in the reduced cost-sharing program on average use more medications than those with higher income, even after adjusting for a comprehensive set of health and demographic variables. While Ontario's public drug program appears to have ensured access to medications for low-income seniors, the results of this study raise concerns about the potential inappropriateness of medication use and point to a gap in drug policy in Ontario.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".