Cited by 56Celiac Disease Research and ManagementHealth Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of LifeHealthcare Policy and Management

Tax-Deductible Provisions for Gluten-Free Diet in Canada Compared with Systems for Gluten-Free Diet Coverage Available in Various Countries

Open access
Pinto-Sanchez, Maria Ines, Verdu, Elena F, Gordillo, Maria C, Bai, Julio C, Birch, Stephen, Moayyedi, Paul, Bercik, Premysl·2015·Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology

Abstract

Celiac disease affects 1% of the North American population, with an estimated 350,000 Canadians diagnosed with this condition. The disease is triggered by the ingestion of gluten, and a lifelong, strict gluten-free diet (GFD) is the only currently available treatment. Compliance with a strict GFD is essential not only for intestinal mucosal recovery and alleviation of symptoms, but also for the prevention of complications such as anemia, osteoporotic fractures and small bowel lymphoma. However, a GFD is difficult to follow, socially inconvenient and expensive. Different approaches, such as tax reduction, cash transfer, food provision, prescription and subsidy, have been used to reduce the additional costs of the GFD to patients with celiac disease. The current review showed that the systems in place exhibit particular advantages and disadvantages in relation to promoting uptake and compliance with GFD. The tax offset system used in Canada for GFD coverage takes the form of a reimbursement of a cost previously incurred. Hence, the program does not help celiac patients meet the incremental cost of the GFD – it simply provides some future refund of that cost. An ideal balanced approach would involve subsidizing gluten-free products through controlled vouchers or direct food provision to those who most need it, independently of ‘ability or willingness to pay’. Moreover, if the cost of such a program is inhibitive, the value of the benefits could be made taxable to ensure that any patient contribution, in terms of additional taxation, is directly related to ability to pay. The limited coverage of GFD in Canada is concerning. There is an unmet need for GFD among celiac patients in Canada. More efforts are required by the Canadian medical community and the Canadian Celiac Association to act as agents in identifying ways of improving resource allocation in celiac disease.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1155/2015/508156

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

No references could be resolved yet.

Research works printed but not linked: 33

  1. Pulido O, Zarkadas M, Dubois S, et al. Clinical features and symptoms recovery on a gluten-free diet in Canadian adults with celiac disease. Can J Gastroenterol 2013;27:449-53.
  2. Ludvigsson JF, Rubio-Tapia A, van Dyke CT, et al. Increasing incidence of celiac disease in a North American population. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:818-24.
  3. Fasano A, Berti I, Gerarduzi T, et al. Prevalence of celiac disease in at-risk and not-at-risk groups in the US: A large multicenter study. Arch Intern Med 2003;163:286-92.
  4. Zarkadas M, Case S. Celiac diasease and the gluten free diet: An overview. Topics Clin Nutr 2005;20:127-38.
  5. Rashtak S, Murray JA. Celiac disease: New approaches to therapy. Alim Pharmacol Ther 2012;35:768-81.
  6. Rubio-Tapia A, Hill I, Kelly CP, et al. ACG clinical guidelines: Diagnosis and management of celiac disease. Am J Gastroenterol 2013;108:656-76.
  7. Akobeng AK, Thomas AG. Systematic review: Tolerable amount of gluten for people with coeliac disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2008;27:1044-52.
  8. Lucendo AJ, García-Manzanares A. Bone mineral density in adult coeliac disease: An updated review. Rev Esp Enferm Dig 2013;105:154-62.
  9. Pinto-Sánchez MI, Mohaidle A, Baistrocchi A, et al. Risk of fracture in celiac disease: Gender, dietary compliance, or both? World J Gastroenterol 2011;17:3035-42.
  10. Olmos M, Antelo M, Vazquez H, et al. Systematic review and meta- analysis of observational studies on the prevalence of fractures in coeliac disease. Dig Liver Dis 2008;40:46-53.
  11. Ludvigsson JF. Mortality and malignancy in celiac disease. Gastrointest Endosc Clin N Am 2012;22:705-22.
  12. West J, Logan RF, Smith CJ, et al. Malignancy and mortality in people with coeliac disease: Population based cohort study. BMJ 2004;329:716-9.
  13. Askling J, Linet M, Gridley G, et al. Cancer incidence in a population based cohort of individuals hospitalized with celiac disease or dermatitis herpetiformis. Gastroenterology 2002;123:1428-35.
  14. Corrao G, Corazza GR, Bagnardi V, et al. Mortality in patients with coeliac disease and their relatives: A cohort study. Lancet 2001;358:356-61.
  15. Sategna-Guidetti C, Grosso SB, Grosso S, et al. The effects of 1-year gluten withdrawal on bone mass, bone metabolism and nutritional status in newly-diagnosed adult coeliac disease patients. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2000;14:35-43.
  16. Valdimarsson T, Lofman O, Toss G, et al. Reversal of osteopenia with diet in adult coeliac disease. Gut 1996;38:322-7.
  17. Choi JM, Lebwohl B, Wang J, et al. Increased prevalence of celiac disease in patients with unexplained infertility in the United States. J Reprod Med 2011;56:199-203.
  18. Ciacci C, Cirillo M, Auriemma G, et al. Celiac disease and pregnancy outcome. Am J Gastroenterol 1996;91:718-22.
  19. Norgard B, Fonager K, Sorensen HT, et al. Birth outcomes of women with celiac disease: A nationwide historical cohort study. Am J Gastroenterol 1999;94:2435-40.
  20. Ludvigsson JF, Montgomery SM, Ekbom A. Celiac disease and risk of adverse fetal outcome: A population-based cohort study. Gastroenterology 2005;129:454-63.
  21. Khashan AS, Henriksen TB, Mortensen PB, et al. The impact of maternal celiac disease on birth weight and preterm birth: A Danish population based cohort study. Hum Reprod 2010;25:528-34.
  22. Verrill L, Zhang Y, Kane R. Food label usage and reported difficulty with following a gluten-free diet among individuals in the USA with coeliac disease and those with noncoeliac gluten sensitivity. J Hum Nutr Diet 2013;26:479-87.
  23. Lee A, Ng DL, Zivin J, Green P. Economic burden of a gluten-free diet. J Hum Nutr Diet 2007;20:423-30.
  24. Tennyson CA, Simpson S, Lebwohl B, et al. Interest in medical therapy for celiac disease. Therap Adv Gastroenterol 2013;6:358-64.
  25. Barham T, Maluccio JA. Eradicating diseases: The effect of conditional cash transfers on vaccination coverage in rural Nicaragua. J Health Econ 2009;28:611-21
  26. Professional matters. Pharmaceut J 2013;291:582.
  27. Morris S, Devlin N, Parkin D, et al. Economic Analysis in Health Care, 2nd edn. Hoboken: Wiley, 2007.
  28. Tack GJ, Verbeek WH, Schreurs MW, et al. The spectrum of celiac disease: Epidemiology, clinical aspects and treatment. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol 2010;7:204-13.
  29. Niewinski MM. Advances in celiac disease and gluten-free diet. J Am Diet Assoc 2008;108:661-72.
  30. See J, Murray JA. Gluten-free diet: The medical and nutrition management of celiac disease. Nutr Clin Pract 2006;21:1-15.
  31. De Irala-Estevez J, Groth M, Johansson L, et al. A systematic review of socio-economic differences in food habits in Europe: Consumption of fruit and vegetables. Eur J Clin Nutr 2000;54:706-14.
  32. Clark AM, Duncan AS, Trevoy JE. Healthy diet in Canadians of low socioeconomic status with coronary heart disease: Not just a matter of knowledge and choice. Heart Lung 2011;40:156-63.
  33. Parkin D. Comparing health service efficiency across countries. Oxford Rev Econ Policy 1989;5:75-88.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pinto-Sanchez, M. I., Verdu, E. F., Gordillo, M. C., Bai, J. C., Birch, S., Moayyedi, P., & Bercik, P.
Affiliations
  • Department of Medicine, Farncombe Family Digestive Research Institute, McMaster University, Canada
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Kaizen Accounting, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
  • Hospital de Gastroenterología Dr C B Udaondo, Buenos Aires, Argentina
Venue
Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology
Published
2015
Volume
29
Issue
2
Pages
104-110
ISSN
  • 2291-2789 (ISSN-L)
  • 2291-2797
OpenAlex
W2227523318
Cited by
56
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1
FWCI
0.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Canadian Journal of Gastroenterology and Hepatology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Celiac Disease Research and Management
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Health Systems, Economic Evaluations, Quality of Life
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Healthcare Policy and Management
Keywords
celiac disease, gluten-free diet, food assistance programs, dietary adherence, food vouchers, food provisioning, Canada, cross-national comparison
MeSH terms
Canada, Celiac Disease, Humans, Taxes, Cost Sharing, Diet, Gluten-Free

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review