An examination of health care efficiency in Canada: a two-stage semi-parametric approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Using data envelopment analysis, we examine the efficiency of Canada's universal health care system by considering a set of labour (physicians) and capital (beds) inputs, which produce a level of care (measured in terms of health quality and quantity) in a given region. Data from 2013-2015 were collected from the Canadian Institute for Health Information regarding inputs and from the Canadian Community Health Survey and Statistics Canada regarding our output variables, health utility (quality) and life expectancy (quantity). We posit that variation in efficiency scores across Canada is the result of regional heterogeneity regarding socioeconomic and demographic disparities. Regressing efficiency scores on such covariates suggests that regional unemployment and an older population are quite impactful and associated with less efficient health care production. Moreover, regional variation indicates the Atlantic provinces (Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick) are quite inefficient, have poorer economic prospects, and tend to have an older population than the rest of Canada. Oaxaca-Blinder decompositions suggest that the latter two factors explain about one-third of this efficiency gap. Based on our two-stage semi-parametric analysis, we recommend Canada adjust their transfer payments to reflect these disparities, thereby potentially reducing inequality in regional efficiency.
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 | 0.014 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".