{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.016454749439042633, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0029917726252804786, 'mean_word_length': 5.252336448598131, '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}}
Privatisation and transparency: A marketing perspective

Abstract The healthcare problem is to provide access to high-quality services to the overall population for an affordable cost. Among industrial nations, only the USA has taken the private market approach, covering most people through employers. Since 2001 the USA has sought to move the coverage or the costs of coverage more directly to the individual. The US approach utilises transparency of price and quality, insurance initiatives such as consumer-driven healthcare and pay for performance. What may other nations learn from these efforts — something to emulate or to avoid? Contrasted to individuals, competition and the purchasing power of large employers give them the edge in taming the healthcare market. However, the data suggest they have been remiss in using the available information to influence provider or employee behaviour. Internationally, many employers are using healthcare as a recruiting and retention tool. Transparency and effective education and motivation of employees hold great promise, but the US model suggests much more aggressive action is needed from employers before the system will bear fruit. A variety of strategies for using information in a more patient-centred way and as a means to influence provider and subscriber behaviour are shown.