Public funding for private for-profit centres and access to cataract surgery by patient socioeconomic status: an Ontario population-based study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Public funding of cataract surgery provided in private, for-profit surgical centres increased to help mitigate surgical backlogs during the COVID-19 pandemic in Ontario, Canada. We sought to compare the socioeconomic status of patients who underwent cataract surgery in not-for-profit public hospitals with those who underwent this surgery in private for-profit surgical centres and to evaluate whether differences in access by socioeconomic status decreased after the infusion of public funding for private, for-profit centres. METHODS: We conducted a population-based study of all cataract operations in Ontario, Canada, between January 2017 and March 2022. We analyzed differences in socioeconomic status among patients who accessed surgery at not-for-profit public hospitals versus those who accessed it at private for-profit surgical centres before and during the period of expanded public funding for private for-profit centres. RESULTS: Overall, 935 729 cataract surgeries occurred during the study period. Within private for-profit surgical centres, the rate of cataract surgeries rose 22.0% during the funding change period for patients in the highest socioeconomic status quintile, whereas, for patients in the lowest socioeconomic status quintile, the rate fell 8.5%. In contrast, within public hospitals, the rate of surgery decreased similarly among patients of all quintiles of socioeconomic status. During the funding change period, 92 809 fewer cataract operations were performed than expected. This trend was associated with socioeconomic status, particularly within private for-profit surgical centres, where patients with the highest socioeconomic status were the only group to have an increase in cataract operations. INTERPRETATION: After increased public funding for private, for-profit surgical centres, patient socioeconomic status was associated with access to cataract surgery in these centres, but not in public hospitals. Addressing the factors underlying this incongruity is vital to ensure access to surgery and maintain public confidence in the cataract surgery system.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".