Who pays for privatization? : an analysis of out-of-pocket health care spending in Canada, 1969-1996
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis explores whether out-of-pocket health care spending has increased since 1969, and how out-of-pocket health care spending is distributed throughout the population.Family Expenditure Surveys (FAMEX) between 1969 and 1996 were analyzed.Descriptive statistics and multiple regression results are reported.This study found that since the 1990s Canadians are spending more out-of-pocket on health care.Furthermore, socio-demographic characteristics affect households' out-of-pocket health care spending.Households in British Columbia and the three prairie provinces spend more out-of-pocket on health care than do households in the eastern provinces.Lower income households spend the least amount on health care, yet their spending represents a greater proportion of their income.Between 1969 and 1996 out-oÊpocket health spending has increased the most for people aged 65 and over.Out-of-pocket health spending increases as household size increases.However, per person health spending is highest for households with one or two members.The findings are discussed in a political economy perspective, recognizing the political and economic factors which shape health care policy.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".