Variation in Physician Reimbursement for Endoscopy across Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Endoscopy accounts for a significant proportion of income for physicians practicing gastroenterology. Fees are set provincially, and the consistency with regard to compensation for colonoscopy and gastroscopy across the provinces has yet to be established. OBJECTIVE: To compare and contrast provincial endoscopy fees across Canada and internationally. METHODS: Provincial and territorial ministries responsible for health care were contacted for their most current fee schedule. This was reviewed, and the billing amounts for colonoscopy and endoscopy collected. International contacts were made with regard to rates outside of Canada. RESULTS: The mean (+/- SD) national fee for gastroscopy was $114.19+/-$31.47 per procedure, with a range of $52.50 to $156.10. Physician billing nationally averaged $170.99+/-$33.49 per colonoscopy procedure, with a range of $105.00 to $223.00. The province of Quebec provided the least amount of compensation for both procedures, and the province of Nova Scotia provided the most for both procedures. CONCLUSION: Physician fees for gastroscopy and colonoscopy vary widely among the provinces, and, on average, seem to be less than international rates.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".