東華大學圖書館 |

語系: 繁體中文

說明(常見問題)

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

登入

回首頁

切換: 標籤 | MARC模式 | ISBD

A Public Matter? : An Ethical Analys...

Komparic, Ana.

FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

A Public Matter? : An Ethical Analysis of the Canadian Pharmacare Public Policy Debate, 1997-2019.

紀錄類型:	書目-電子資源 : Monograph/item
正題名/作者:	A Public Matter? : An Ethical Analysis of the Canadian Pharmacare Public Policy Debate, 1997-2019./
作者:	Komparic, Ana.
出版者:	Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, : 2021,
面頁冊數:	316 p.
附註:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-02, Section: B.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International83-02B.
標題:	Ethics. -
電子資源:	https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28320876
ISBN:	9798522946838

A Public Matter? : An Ethical Analysis of the Canadian Pharmacare Public Policy Debate, 1997-2019.
Komparic, Ana.

A Public Matter? : An Ethical Analysis of the Canadian Pharmacare Public Policy Debate, 1997-2019. - Ann Arbor : ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, 2021 - 316 p.

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-02, Section: B.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2021.

This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.

Background: Canada lacks universal pharmaceutical coverage (pharmacare). Calls for the implementation of national pharmacare date back to the introduction of Canadian Medicare and have recently resurfaced on the federal health policy agenda. Although public policies raise ethical and political questions, to date there has been limited analysis of the normative rationales that underpin arguments in the Canadian pharmacare debate. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to examine how bioethics-as a practically-oriented, normative inquiry-could contribute to understanding and informing the contemporary pharmacare policy debate. Methods: I conducted a qualitative, empirical bioethics case study of the Canadian pharmacare public policy debate from 1997 to 2019. I used an adapted thematic analysis to characterize the main policy arguments in 72 policy documents and transcripts in terms of their underlying normative rationales. To inform my analysis and interpretation of the data, I drew on a theoretical framework of four philosophical accounts of the division of public and private responsibility in the organization, financing, and delivery of health insurance. Findings: The contemporary pharmacare policy debate has shifted from considering whether to determining how universal pharmaceutical coverage ought to be realized; three main forms of universal coverage have been considered: public single-payer, a 'fill-in-the-gaps,' multi-payer program that builds on the existing mix of public and private insurance, and catastrophic coverage. The three proposals appeal to distinct normative rationales and accounts of political responsibility vis-a-vis health and health insurance. In turn, they frame and justify the problems of access, costs, and appropriateness and their attendant policy solutions differently. Growing support for public single-payer pharmacare in the contemporary debate is justified in reference to more explicit appeals to its efficiency-promoting features in addition to its equity- and community-promoting ones.Conclusion: This study provides an understanding of how arguments in the Canadian pharmacare policy debate are justified normatively. It suggests that the pharmacare debate is a politically normative debate that will require adjudicating between distinct policy objectives. The analysis illustrates how normative policy analysis can help discern and reframe underlying normative disputes in public policy debates.

ISBN: 9798522946838Subjects--Topical Terms:

517264
Ethics.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Justice

A Public Matter? : An Ethical Analysis of the Canadian Pharmacare Public Policy Debate, 1997-2019.
LDR:03796nmm a2200433 4500 001 2283099
005 20211022115643.5
008 220723s2021 ||||||||||||||||| ||eng d
020 $a 9798522946838
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI28320876
035 $a AAI28320876
040 $a MiAaPQ $c MiAaPQ
100 1 $a Komparic, Ana. $3 3562002
245 1 0 $a A Public Matter? : An Ethical Analysis of the Canadian Pharmacare Public Policy Debate, 1997-2019.
260 1 $a Ann Arbor : $b ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, $c 2021
300 $a 316 p.
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 83-02, Section: B.
500 $a Advisor: Thompson, Alison K.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Toronto (Canada), 2021.
506 $a This item must not be sold to any third party vendors.
520 $a Background: Canada lacks universal pharmaceutical coverage (pharmacare). Calls for the implementation of national pharmacare date back to the introduction of Canadian Medicare and have recently resurfaced on the federal health policy agenda. Although public policies raise ethical and political questions, to date there has been limited analysis of the normative rationales that underpin arguments in the Canadian pharmacare debate. Accordingly, the objective of this study was to examine how bioethics-as a practically-oriented, normative inquiry-could contribute to understanding and informing the contemporary pharmacare policy debate. Methods: I conducted a qualitative, empirical bioethics case study of the Canadian pharmacare public policy debate from 1997 to 2019. I used an adapted thematic analysis to characterize the main policy arguments in 72 policy documents and transcripts in terms of their underlying normative rationales. To inform my analysis and interpretation of the data, I drew on a theoretical framework of four philosophical accounts of the division of public and private responsibility in the organization, financing, and delivery of health insurance. Findings: The contemporary pharmacare policy debate has shifted from considering whether to determining how universal pharmaceutical coverage ought to be realized; three main forms of universal coverage have been considered: public single-payer, a 'fill-in-the-gaps,' multi-payer program that builds on the existing mix of public and private insurance, and catastrophic coverage. The three proposals appeal to distinct normative rationales and accounts of political responsibility vis-a-vis health and health insurance. In turn, they frame and justify the problems of access, costs, and appropriateness and their attendant policy solutions differently. Growing support for public single-payer pharmacare in the contemporary debate is justified in reference to more explicit appeals to its efficiency-promoting features in addition to its equity- and community-promoting ones.Conclusion: This study provides an understanding of how arguments in the Canadian pharmacare policy debate are justified normatively. It suggests that the pharmacare debate is a politically normative debate that will require adjudicating between distinct policy objectives. The analysis illustrates how normative policy analysis can help discern and reframe underlying normative disputes in public policy debates.
590 $a School code: 0779.
650 4 $a Ethics. $3 517264
650 4 $a Public policy. $3 532803
650 4 $a Pharmaceutical sciences. $3 3173021
650 4 $a Medical ethics. $3 526828
650 4 $a Health care management. $3 2122906
650 4 $a Health care policy. $3 3550686
650 4 $a Health care expenditures. $3 3433801
650 4 $a Prescription drugs. $3 3562003
650 4 $a Philosophy. $3 516511
653 $a Justice
653 $a Pharmaceutical insurance
653 $a Public health ethics
653 $a Qualitative research
653 $a Solidarity
653 $a Universal health coverage
653 $a 1997-2019
690 $a 0394
690 $a 0630
690 $a 0572
690 $a 0497
690 $a 0769
690 $a 0422
710 2 $a University of Toronto (Canada). $b Pharmaceutical Sciences. $3 3170825
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 83-02B.
790 $a 0779
791 $a Ph.D.
792 $a 2021
793 $a English
856 4 0 $u https://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=28320876