Search

Canada's national migration regimes, which are witnessing an increase in temporary foreign workers, underscore the contentious nature of inclusion for migrant farmworkers in smaller communities. While migrant farmworkers are entitled to benefits, their access to services and social support is limited. Even though settlement initiatives that welcome and support immigrant newcomers have shifted and intensified toward smaller towns and communities across Canada, support initiatives and the benefits for which temporary migrant farmworkers qualify have received far less attention and resources. Moreover, the COVID-19 pandemic not only highlighted the importance of migrant farmworkers to agricultural industries in Canada, given their designation as "essential" workers, but also catalyzed a significant shift in how communities can support workers. This paper focuses on a migrant-intensive region in southwestern Ontario. It utilizes a qualitative constructivist approach to interviews with 30 migrant farmworkers and 32 service providers to examine the support and services available to workers. Employing the conceptual framework of differential inclusion, this study analyzes the nature of support and highlights how temporary migrant farmworkers are embedded in relations of inclusion and exclusion. This study also explores the potential and capacity of community-based support initiatives to foster inclusion for workers in migrant-intensive communities and the emergence of a support framework during COVID-19. Given the rise in the migrant population in smaller cities and rural communities across Canada, this study aims to address the limited scholarship on the support landscape for migrant farmworkers in these regions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Non-valvular atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common heart arrhythmia in the elderly population. AF patients are at high-risk of ischemic strokes, but oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy reduces such risks. Warfarin had been the standard OAC for AF patients, however its effectiveness is highly variable and dependent on close monitoring of the anticoagulant response. Newer OACs such as rivaroxaban and apixaban address these drawbacks but are more costly. It is uncertain which OAC therapy for AF is cost-saving from the healthcare system perspective. Methods: We followed a cohort of patients in Ontario, Canada, aged ≥ 66 who were newly diagnosed with AF and prescribed OACs between 2012 and 2017. We used a two-stage estimation procedure. First, we account for the patient selection into OACs using a multinomial logit regression model and estimated propensity scores. Second, we used an inverse probability weighted regression adjustment approach to determine cost-saving OAC options. We also examined component-specific costs (i.e., drug, hospitalization, emergency department and physician) to understand the drivers of cost-saving OACs. Results: We found that compared to warfarin, rivaroxaban and apixaban treatments were cost-saving options, with per-patient 1-year healthcare cost savings at $2436 and $1764, respectively. These savings were driven by cost-savings in hospitalization, emergency department visits, and physician visits, outweighing higher drug costs. These results were robust to alternative model specifications and estimation procedures. Conclusions: Treating AF patients with rivaroxaban and apixaban than warfarin reduces healthcare costs. OAC reimbursement policies for AF patients should consider rivaroxaban or apixaban over warfarin as the first-line treatment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]