Oral health care’s contribution to catastrophic spending in Canada: a descriptive study
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Oral health care (OHC) in Canada is largely financed through employer-sponsored insurance and out-of-pocket (OOP) payments and is generally excluded from its system of universal health coverage, although public financing will increase substantially with the introduction of the Canadian Dental Care Plan (CDCP). We generate estimates of catastrophic health expenditure (CHE) in Canada and assess the contribution of OOP spending in OHC on CHE between 2010 and 2019. Methods: We examined the Survey of Household Spending from 2010 to 2019 by year and in pooled cross-sections and followed the WHO/Europe methodology to determine CHE. Spending OOP in OHC was compared to medicines, medical products, outpatient care, diagnostic tests, and inpatient care. We assessed CHE and the share of OOP spending annually, nationally, provincially, across income quintiles and presence of private insurance including oral health coverage. Results: Estimates in CHE dropped from 5 % (2010) to 3.4 % (2019) and was more common among lower income groups, those without private insurance and Québec residents. Oral health care was the second highest contributor to CHE (after medicines) especially among the lowest income groups. Having private insurance yielded a higher share of OOP spending among lower than higher income groups. Conclusions: From 2010 to 2019, OOP spending in OHC was the second-highest contributor to CHE in Canada. Further monitoring is warranted to ensure financial protection is achieved for OHC after the full implementation of the CDCP.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it