...
首页> 外文期刊>Health economics, policy, and law. >A successful Charter challenge to medicare? Policy options for Canadian provincial governments
【24h】

A successful Charter challenge to medicare? Policy options for Canadian provincial governments

机译:对Medicare的成功挑战挑战? 加拿大省政府的政策选择

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

In September 2016, a case went to trial in British Columbia that seeks to test the constitutionality of provincial laws that (1) ban private health insurance for medically necessary hospital and physician services; (2) ban extra-billing (physicians cannot charge patients more than the public tariff); and (3) require physicians to work solely for the public system or ‘opt-out’ and practice privately. All provinces have similar laws that have been passed to meet the requirements of federal legislation, the Canada Health Act (and thus qualify for federal funds). Consequently, a finding of unconstitutionality of one or more of these laws could have a very significant impact on the future of Canada’s single-payer system (‘medicare’). However, should the court find that a particular law is not in compliance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the baton is then passed back to the government which may respond with other laws or policies that they believe to be constitutionally compliant. The ultimate impact of any successful Charter challenge to laws protecting medicare from privatization will thus significantly depend on how Canadian governments respond. Provincial governments could allow privatization to undercut equity and access, or they could respond creatively with new legal and policy solutions to both improve equity and access and tackle some of the problems that have long bedeviled Canadian medicare. This paper provides an understanding – grounded in comparative health systems evidence – of law and policy options available to Canadian lawmakers for limiting two-tier care in the wake of any successful challenge to existing laws. The paper presents the results of a large inter-disciplinary, comparative study, started in 2015, that systematically reviewed the legal and broader regulatory schemes used to regulate the public/private divide in 15 Organization for Economic Co-Operation and Development countries with a particular eye to what the effect of such regulations would be upon wait times.
机译:2016年9月,案件在不列颠哥伦比亚省审判,寻求测试省级法律的宪法,如(1)禁止医疗医院和医生服务的私人健康保险; (2)禁止额外计费(医生不能超过患者超过公众关税); (3)要求医生完全用于公共系统或“选择退出”并私下练习。所有省份都有类似的法律,以满足联邦立法的要求,加拿大卫生法(因此有资格获得联邦基金)。因此,一项或多项法律的违宪的发现可能对加拿大单笔付款制度('Medicare')的未来产生非常重大影响。但是,如果法院发现特定法律不符合加拿大权利和自由的宪章,则巴登将被送回政府,这些政府可能会与他们认为宪法符合宪法兼容的其他法律或政策。因此,任何成功的章程挑战对保护医疗保险免受私有化的挑战的最终影响将大大依赖加拿大政府如何应对的作用。省政府可以允许私有化来削弱公平和获取,或者他们可以通过新的法律和政策解决方案来改善股权和获取,并解决一些具有长期讨论的加拿大医疗保险的问题。本文提供了对比较卫生系统的理解 - 基于对加拿大立法者提供的法律和政策选择,以限制对现有法律的任何成功挑战的两层护理。本文提出了大量跨学科,比较研究的结果,于2015年开始,系统地审查了法律和更广泛的监管计划,用于规范公共/私人划分的公共/私人划分,以特定的经济合作和发展国家对等待时间的效果将在等待时视为什么。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号