The present American healthcare system is undergoing radical changes that are intended to increase access, improve outcomes, and reduce costs. (Durand, Narayan, Rybicki, Burleson, Nagy, McGinty, & Duszak, 2015). The public, private, and nonprofit sectors make up the intended audience for this campaign about healthcare transparency, with an emphasis primarily on initiatives that are pertinent to radiology.
In order to revive a failing market, the US healthcare marketing movement makes use of the dominant theory, which is the bridging of value transparency in the healthcare sector. (Strome, 2013). In this theory, the only way to improve the value of the US health system is only by drastically increasing the transparency of both quality and price. This initiative is believed to increase the patient cost consciousness when combined with higher deductibles as well as other related mechanisms (Strome, 2013).
On the other hand, the US healthcare system uses both prices as well as quality data so as to be able to influence the behavior of patients in a differential manner so as to be able to result in several potential market outcomes (Ball, Weaver, & Kiel, 2004). This is because predicting the market behavior is one of the related benefits to the consumers’ assignment with the price data versus the quality data which in most cases mainly depends on the data nature provided. A good example is when quality information is available and not well understood or trusted; the consumers are not likely to value it. However, the initiative by the US healthcare system of the consumer transparency into the radiology prices to the other specialties has been able to experience rapid growth. This is because price transparency initiatives in healthcare have been able to roll across the entire nation by some part of it being driven by state legislation as well as federal laws. (Ball, Weaver, & Kiel, 2004). A good example is the New Hampshire’s Health Cost website which represents one of the initiatives which is well-documented.
However, there are strategies which need to be enhanced by the US healthcare system so as to be able to improve the image branding as well as promotional techniques. First of all, the healthcare system should broadly invest in quality research as well as ensure the endorsement of the metrics which are expressly intended to facilitate a meaningful comparison of quality among the providers (Strome, 2013). This appreciates the fact that the radiologists' performance is not equal. The other strategy involves actively supporting the professional societies such as the ACR in their efforts of providing a systematic oversight which involves the quality metrics which are used by the players as well as the radiology benefits management organizations, and the other firms dealing with value transparency.
References
Ball, M. J., Weaver, C. A., & Kiel, J. M. (2004). Healthcare information management systems: Cases, strategies, and solutions. New York: Springer.
Durand, D. J., Narayan, A. K., Rybicki, F. J., Burleson, J., Nagy, P., McGinty, G., & Duszak, R. (January 01, 2015). The Health Care Value Transparency Movement and Its Implications for Radiology. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 12, 1, 51-58.
Strome, T. L. (2013). Healthcare Analytics for Quality and Performance Improvement. Hoboken: Wiley.
