MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W774403136

Medically Necessary? the Case for Fully Funded End-of-Life Care

2002· article· en· W774403136 on OpenAlex

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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueDigitalGeorgetown (Georgetown University Library) · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Health Care Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHealth careHealth policyHealth lawWork (physics)Health servicesInternational healthService (business)Public relationsMedicinePolitical scienceBusinessPublic administrationNursingPopulationLawEnvironmental health
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction The current work of provincial and national health commissions, and the release of some preliminary reports, is focussing attention on the issue of health services. This is not the first time that the issue of has been debated. Since the formation of the Canadian health care system in the 1960s, and its reinforcement in 1984 by the Canada Health Act, the concept of medically necessary has broadly defined which health services will be publicly funded. As the concept of could also define which services will not be publicly funded, it stands to reason that the issue of defining health services on the basis of whether they are considered or not is of critical importance to Canadians. Medically health services are all those which physicians deem to be for individual clients. This definition has largely resulted in all Canadians having a wide range of medical and hospital services readily available to them when needed. Yet, at the same time, an illness-oriented, hospital-dominated health system has been the primary outcome of this legislated aim to ensure provinces universally provide, at a minimum, health services. However, our health system has evolved and continues to evolve into a more diverse and community-based system. Obviously, there are other influences on our health system. These influences are illustrated by the physician fee-for-service schedules negotiated by health ministries, and political as well as regional health authority policy-making. In short, there are many influences on what is and what is not in our current basket of publicly-funded health services. In some cases, these additional influences result from technological and educa tional advances, as in the case of laparoscopic procedures replacing many of what were previously major invasive surgeries. The widespread but still variable substitution of day surgery care across Canada, along with a shift in the cost of health care supplies and the responsibility for providing pre- and post-operative care to the home, are among the most common outcomes of this single technological advance. Additional influences have also arisen out of fiscal prudence, as was the case in the 1990s when provinces furthered a shift from inpatient to outpatient care. Still other influences have arisen out of the identification of unmet health care needs. Inner city primary health care programs are but one example. Although laudable, the programs that result from these additional health system influences are often only available in select communities. Home care is one such boutique or designer program, with each province and also each regional health authority determining if home care will be provided, and how it will be funded and delivered to community residents. (1) Although targeted programming assists residents of one community, people in other communities normally have similar health care needs. Universal programming is therefore often indicated. This paper argues for a fully funded home-based palliative care program for dying Canadians. Why is There a Need For This Publicly Funded Health Service? Approximately 220,000 Canadians die each year now, three quarters of whom are aged 65 or older. (2) Most of these 220,000 deaths are not unexpected. Death today most often follows a variable but still notable period of declining health due to advanced aging and/or progressive chronic illness. (3) During an ongoing decline in health to death, it is reasonable to expect that some care needs will occur. (4) A key question is: where does this care take place? A recent study of hospital use by dying Albertans over a five year period found one admission in five years was the most common frequency of hospitalization. (5) As this hospitalization was the one that ended in death, it is remarkable that no admissions to hospital occurred in the five previous years. …

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.486
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.261 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it