{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.027678571428571427, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0035714285714285713, 'mean_word_length': 4.9, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Lessons from London: the British are reforming their national health service.

In an effort to keep abreast of the changing needs of a more affluent society and to ensure better value for money, the British are reforming their National Health Service. They are promoting competition and entrepreneurship, and directing funding to follow a patient rather than flowing directly to institutions. British physicians are resisting these changes. The United States, in the middle of a health care crisis of its own, can learn a great deal from Britain, especially in the area of controlling expenditures. The low cost of the National Health Service can be attributed to four major factors: (1) It is general practitioner driven and no patient accesses a specialist or hospital directly. (2) Hospitals, which employ all the specialists and supply most of the technology, operate on very tight, cash-limited budgets. (3) Administrative costs are very low. (4) The expense of malpractice is not (yet) a major concern. Changes occurring in both countries foretell a future wherein our health care systems may look very much alike.