© 2002 Canadian Medical Association or its licensors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In his review of the literature on Medical Savings Ac-counts (MSAs) and the implications for the integrationof MSAs into Canada’s health care system1 (see page 159 of this issue), Samuel Shortt rightly emphasizes that MSAs must be assessed, not against a predominately pri-vately financed system such as the one in Singapore, or a fragmented, multi-payer system such as the one in the United States, but rather against Canada’s publicly fi-nanced system and the objectives set out for it. Evidence of “success ” in these other contexts may still imply failure against Canadian goals. MSA-based financing would represent a radical depar-ture from Canada’s current system of health care finance. Under publicly financed MSAs, the government would provide individuals and families with a lump sum of money annually to be spent (paying full price) on purchasing health care services. This would be supplemented with comprehensive, universal catastrophic health insurance for severe illnesses. Those who do not spend the annual allot-ment would be able to accumulate funds over time that could be spent on a broader range of goods and services. Thus, MSAs are designed to give people greater choice and control of health care services, provide them with an incen-tive to use fewer services and encourage them to shop around with their MSA funds, thereby inducing competi-tion among health care providers. In economic terms, these are “demand-side ” controls. Like Shortt, I believe that MSAs are unlikely to advance key Canadian policy goals with respect to expenditure con-trol and health system equity. Demand-side controls have historically been used extensively and found wanting: they do not lead to effective expenditure control, they generate wide-spread inefficiencies, and they are incompatible with equity in the financing and utilization of health care services. For well-understood reasons, health care markets do not operate the same way most markets for ordinary consumer Medical Savings Accounts will not advance Canadian health care objectives
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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.761 | 0.642 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".