Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2026
A policy analysis of the three-month waiting period for new and returning residents to access provincial health insurance in Ontario, Canada.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Hadid Dima, Muraca Giulia M, Darling Elizabeth K, Vanstone Meredith
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Ontario's three-month waiting period (Regulation 552, subsection 5 (1) for health insurance eligibility under the Ontario Health Insurance Plan (OHIP) was implemented in 1994 amidst a severe economic recession. Justified by legislators as a cost-saving measure, the policy has affected newcomers during a vulnerable resettlement period.
OBJECTIVE: This analysis examines the policy and political factors underpinning both the policy's implementation in 1994 and temporary suspension during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
METHODS: This is a descriptive health policy analysis using the 3i + E framework. We conducted an environmental scan to identify and analyze publicly available documents related to the policy under study.
RESULTS: The implementation of the waiting period policy reflected a complex interplay of institutional developments, including permissive federal regulations, jurisdictional fragmentation, and a legacy of provincial autonomy. Politically, it targeted a marginal group with limited electoral influence, serving as a low-cost, symbolic measure to signal fiscal discipline. Public discourses of fairness, moral deservingness, and economic nationalism framed the exclusion as acceptable. The policy endured due to institutional inertia and path dependence. In contrast, the temporary suspension in 2020 was driven by a shift in public health priorities, stakeholder convergence, and an ideational reframing of health as a collective good.
CONCLUSION: The policy illustrates how exclusionary health policies are not only fiscal decisions but also reflect deeper institutional structures and dominant political narratives. While the pandemic opened a rare window for reform, the policy's entrenchment underscores the need for structural change, including stronger federal enforcement of equity-based health access.
OBJECTIVE: This analysis examines the policy and political factors underpinning both the policy's implementation in 1994 and temporary suspension during the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020.
METHODS: This is a descriptive health policy analysis using the 3i + E framework. We conducted an environmental scan to identify and analyze publicly available documents related to the policy under study.
RESULTS: The implementation of the waiting period policy reflected a complex interplay of institutional developments, including permissive federal regulations, jurisdictional fragmentation, and a legacy of provincial autonomy. Politically, it targeted a marginal group with limited electoral influence, serving as a low-cost, symbolic measure to signal fiscal discipline. Public discourses of fairness, moral deservingness, and economic nationalism framed the exclusion as acceptable. The policy endured due to institutional inertia and path dependence. In contrast, the temporary suspension in 2020 was driven by a shift in public health priorities, stakeholder convergence, and an ideational reframing of health as a collective good.
CONCLUSION: The policy illustrates how exclusionary health policies are not only fiscal decisions but also reflect deeper institutional structures and dominant political narratives. While the pandemic opened a rare window for reform, the policy's entrenchment underscores the need for structural change, including stronger federal enforcement of equity-based health access.