38 research outputs found
\u3cb\u3eSYMPOSIUM JUSTICE AND HEALTH CARE: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE\u3c/b\u3e -- Principles and Power in the Health Care Arena: Reflections on the Canadian Experence
Institutional boundaries and the challenges of aligning science advice and policy dynamics: the UK and Canada in the time of COVID-19
This comparison of institutions of science advice during COVID-19 between the Westminster systems of England/UK and Ontario/Canada focuses on the role of science in informing public policy in two central components of the response to the pandemic: the adoption of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) and the procuring of vaccines. It compares and contrasts established and purpose-built bodies with varying degrees of independence from the political executive, and shows how each attempted to manage the tensions between scientific and governmental logics of accountability as they negotiated the boundary between science and policy. It uses the comparison to suggest potential lessons about the relative merits and drawbacks of different institutional arrangements for science advice to governments in an emergency
The Borders of Solidarity: How Countries Determine the Public/Private Mix in Spending and the Impact on Health Care
Bureaucracy in Canada: Control and ReformSharon L. Sutherland and G. Bruce Doern, Volume 43, Research Co-ordinator Research Report, Royal Commission on the Economic Union and Development Prospects for Canada Toronto: University of Toronto Press for Supply and Services Canada, 1985, pp. xix, 230
El paradigma emergente en las polĂticas de cuidados a la salud: el caso de Canadá
El paradigma emergente en las polĂticas de cuidados a la salud: el caso de Canad
Regulation and Scientific Complexity: Decision Rules and Processes in the Occupational Health Arena
Models of professional regulation: institutionalizing an agency relationship
Abstract
The regulation of medical practice can historically be understood as a second-level agency relationship whereby the state delegated authority to professional bodies to police the primary agency relationship between the individual physician and the patient. Borow, Levi and Glekin show how different national systems vary in the degree to which they insist on institutionally insulating the agency function from the promotion of private professional interests, and relate these variations to different models of the health care state. In fact these differences have even deeper roots in different “liberal” or “coordinated” varieties of capitalist political economies. Neither model is inherently more efficient than the other: what matters is the internal coherence or logic of these systems that conditions the expectations of actors in responding to particular challenges. The territory that Borow, Levi and Glekin have usefully mapped invites further exploration in this regard.
This is a commentary on
http://www.ijhpr.org/content/2/1/8