Courting trouble: the Supreme Court's embrace of private health insurance: use and misuse of social science evidence by the Supreme Court--how should Canadian governments respond?

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed.

1. A case study and state of science review: private versus public healthcare financing.Global journal of health science · 2011
   Review
2. Private health insurance in Germany: consequences of a dual system.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2007
   Article
3. Under the radar: stealth development of two-tier healthcare in Canada.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2006
   Article
4. Interactions: trade policy and healthcare reform after Chaoulli v. Quebec: is it time for Canada to acknowledge the fragile boundary between health and trade policies and strengthen the separation between private and public health insurance?Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2006
   Article

Corrections and comments

• Commented on by
  The Chaoulli judgment or how to sell off a public right.2005

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

Abstract

PubMed holds no abstract for this paper.