DOCSLIB.ORG

INTERNATIONAL PROFILES of Health Care Systems, 2013

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
INTERNATIONAL PROFILES of Health Care Systems, 2013 INTERNATIONAL PROFILES OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, 2013 AUSTRALIA, CANADA, DENMARK, ENGLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY, JAPAN, THE NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES EDITED BY SARAH THOMSON, LONDON SchOOL OF ECONOMIcs AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, ROBIN OSBORN, THE COMMONWEALTH FUND, DAVID SQUIRES, THE COMMONWEALTH FUND, AND MIRAYA JUN, LONDON SchOOL OF ECONOMIcs AND POLITICAL SCIENCE NOVEMBER 2013 THE COMMONWEALTH FUND is a private foundation that promotes a high performance health care system providing better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency. The Fund’s work focuses particularly on society’s most vulnerable, including low- income people, the uninsured, minority Americans, young children, and elderly adults. The Fund carries out this mandate by supporting independent research on health care issues and making grants to improve health care practice and policy. An international program in health policy is designed to stimulate innovative policies and practices in the United States and other industrialized countries. INTERNATIONAL PROFILES OF HEALTH CARE SYSTEMS, 2013 AUSTRALIA, CANADA, DENMARK, ENGLAND, FRANCE, GERMANY, ITALY, JAPAN, THE NETHERLANDS, NEW ZEALAND, NORWAY, SWEDEN, SWITZERLAND, AND THE UNITED STATES EDITED BY SARAH THOMSON, LONDON SchOOL OF ECONOMIcs AND POLITICAL SCIENCE, ROBIN OSBORN, THE COMMONWEALTH FUND, DAVID SQUIRES, THE COMMONWEALTH FUND, AND MIRAYA JUN, LONDON SchOOL OF ECONOMIcs AND POLITICAL SCIENCE NOVEMBER 2013 Abstract: This publication presents overviews of the health care systems of Australia, Canada, Denmark, England, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United States. Each overview covers health insur- ance, public and private financing, health system organization and governance, health care quality and coordination, disparities, efficiency and integration, use of information technology and evidence-based practice, cost containment, and recent reforms and inno- vations. In addition, summary tables provide data on a number of key health system char- acteristics and performance indicators, including overall health care spending, hospital spending and utilization, health care access, patient safety, care coordination, chronic care management, disease prevention, capacity for quality improvement, and public views. To learn more about new publications when they become available, visit the Fund’s website and register to receive email alerts. Commonwealth Fund pub. no. 1717. CONTENTS Table 1. Health Care System Financing and Coverage in Fourteen Countries 6 Table 2. Selected Health Care System Indicators for Fourteen Countries 7 Table 3. Selected Health Care System Performance Indicators for Eleven Countries 8 Table 4. Provider Organization and Payment in Twelve Countries 9 The Australian Health Care System, 2013 11 The Canadian Health Care System, 2013 19 The Danish Health Care System, 2013 28 The English Health Care System, 2013 37 The French Health Care System, 2013 45 The German Health Care System, 2013 57 The Italian Health Care System, 2013 66 The Japanese Health Care System, 2013 76 The Dutch Health Care System, 2013 85 The New Zealand Health Care System, 2013 95 The Norwegian Health Care System, 2013 104 The Swedish Health Care System, 2013 113 The Swiss Health Care System, 2013 120 The U.S. Health Care System, 2013 129 Table 1. Health Care System Financing and Coverage in Fourteen Countries HEALTH SYSTEM AND PUBLIC/PRIVATE INSURANCE ROLE BENEFIT DESIGN Private Insurance Role (Core Benefits; Cost-Sharing; Noncovered Benefits; Private Facilities or Amenities; Government Role Public System Financing Substitute for Public Insurance) Caps on Cost-Sharing Exemptions and Low-Income Protection Australia Regionally administered, joint (national & General tax revenue; earmarked income tax ~50% buy coverage for private hospital costs No. Safety nets include 80% OOP rebate Low-income and older people: Lower cost- state) public hospital funding; universal pub- & noncovered benefits if physician costs exceed AUS$1,222 sharing; lower OOP maximum before 80% lic medical insurance program (Medicare) [US$1,160] subsidy Canada Regionally administered universal public Provincial/federal tax revenue ~67% buy coverage for noncovered benefits No No cost-sharing for Medicare services. Some insurance program (Medicare) cost-sharing exemptions for non-Medicare services, e.g., drugs outside hospital; varies by province Denmark National health service Earmarked income tax ~55% buy coverage for cost-sharing, No. Decreasing copayments with higher Drug OOP cap for chronically ill (DKK 3,410 noncovered benefits, or access to private drug OOP spending [US$617]); financial assistance for low- facilities income and terminally ill people England National health service General tax revenue (includes employment- ~11% buy for private facilities mainly for No general cap for OOP. Prepayment certifi- Drug cost-sharing exemption for low- related insurance contributions) elective surgery and consultations with cate with £2 [US$3.20] per week ceiling for income, older people, children, pregnant specialists those needing a large number of prescrip- women and new mothers, and some dis- tion drugs. abled/chronically ill. Financial assistance with transport costs available to people on low incomes. France Statutory health insurance system, with all Employer/employee earmarked income and ~90% buy or receive government vouchers No. €50 [US$67] cap on deductibles for con- Exemption for low-income, chronically ill and SHI insurers incorporated into single national payroll tax; general tax revenue, earmarked for cost-sharing; some noncovered benefits sultations and services disabled, and children exchange taxes Germany Statutory health insurance system, with 134 Employer/employee earmarked payroll tax; Cost-sharing + amenities (~20%); Substitute: Yes. 2% income; 1% income for chronically ill Children exempt competing SHI insurers (“sickness funds” in a general tax revenue 10% opt-out of SHI system for private cover- + low-income people national exchange); high income can opt out age only for private coverage Italy National health service National earmarked corporate and value- ~15% buy coverage for access to private No. €46.15 [$59 USD] copayment on outpa- Exemptions for low-income older people/ added taxes; general tax revenue and facilities and amenities tient care; limited copayment (regional rates) children, pregnant women, chronic condi- regional tax revenue on drugs tions/disabilities, rare diseases Japan Statutory health insurance system, with General tax revenue; insurance contributions Majority buy coverage for cash benefits/ No. Coinsurance reduced to 1% after 80,100 Low-income monthly OOP ceiling: 35,400 approx. 3,500 noncompeting public, quasi- cost-sharing yen [$999 USD] monthly cap yen [$441 USD]; reduced cost-sharing for public, and employer-based insurers young children and older people Netherlands Statutory health insurance system, with Earmarked payroll tax; community-rated Private plans provide universal core benefits; No. But annual deductible of €350 [US$472] Children exempt from cost-sharing; premium universally mandated private insurance insurance premiums; general tax revenue 90% buy for noncovered benefits covers most cost-sharing subsidies for low-income (national exchange) New Zealand National health service General tax revenue ~33% buy for cost-sharing, access to special- No. Subsidies after 12 doctor visits/20 pre- Lower cost-sharing for low-income, some ists, and elective surgery in private hospitals scriptions in past year chronic conditions, Maori and Pacific Island- ers; young children mostly exempt Norway National health service General tax revenue <10% holds VHI, mainly bought by employ- Yes. Main cost sharing ceiling is NOK 2,040 Exemptions for children <16 years somatic, ers for providing employees quicker access [US$342] <18 years psychiatric, pregnant women, and for some communicable diseases (STDs) Sweden National health service General tax revenue <5% buy for private facilities Yes. SEK 1100 [US$169] for health services & Exemption for children and pregnant women SEK 2200 [US$337] for drugs Switzerland Statutory health insurance system, with Community-rated insurance premiums; Private plans provide universal core benefits; Yes. 700 CHF [US$768] max after deductible Income-related premium assistance (30% re- universally mandated private insurance general tax revenue majority buy private plans for noncovered ceive); some assistance for low-income; some (regional exchanges) benefits and amenities exemptions for children, pregnant women United Medicare: age 65+, some disabled; Medicaid: Medicare: payroll tax, premiums, federal tax Primary private insurance covers 56% of No Low-income: Medicaid; older people and States* some low-income (most under age 65 cov- revenue; Medicaid: federal, state tax revenue population (employer-based and individual); some disabled on Medicare ered by private insurance; 16% of population supplementary for Medicare uninsured) * Prior to January 1, 2014. 6 THE COMMONWEALTH FUND Table 2. Selected Health Care System Indicators for Fourteen Countries New United United Australia Canada Denmark France Germany Italy Japan Netherlands Zealand Norway Sweden Switzerland Kingdom States Population, 2011 Total Population (1,000,000s of people) 22.323 34.484 5.571 65.161 81.373 60.724 127.799 16.718 4.404 4.952 9.447 7.912 61.760 311.588 Percentage of Population Over Age 65 13.7% 14.7%
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Protecting Europe Against Large-Scale Cyber-Attacks
    HOUSE OF LORDS European Union Committee 5th Report of Session 2009–10 Protecting Europe against large-scale cyber-attacks Report with Evidence Ordered to be printed 9 March 2010 and published 18 March 2010 Published by the Authority of the House of Lords London : The Stationery Office Limited £price HL Paper 68 The European Union Committee The European Union Committee of the House of Lords considers EU documents and other matters relating to the EU in advance of decisions being taken on them in Brussels. It does this in order to influence the Government’s position in negotiations, and to hold them to account for their actions at EU level. The Government are required to deposit EU documents in Parliament, and to produce within two weeks an Explanatory Memorandum setting out the implications for the UK. The Committee examines these documents, and ‘holds under scrutiny’ any about which it has concerns, entering into correspondence with the relevant Minister until satisfied. Letters must be answered within two weeks. Under the ‘scrutiny reserve resolution’, the Government may not agree in the EU Council of Ministers to any proposal still held under scrutiny; reasons must be given for any breach. The Committee also conducts inquiries and makes reports. The Government are required to respond in writing to a report’s recommendations within two months of publication. If the report is for debate, then there is a debate in the House of Lords, which a Minister attends and responds to. The Committee has seven Sub-Committees which are: Economic and
    [Show full text]
  • UNITED KINGDOM 1. Consumer Policy Institutions
    UNITED KINGDOM 1. Consumer policy institutions ................................................... 2 1.1. MINISTRY RESPONSIBLE FOR CONSUMER POLICY ......................................................................... 2 1.2. PUBLIC AGENCIES......................................................................................................................... 3 1.3. NATIONAL CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS....................................................................................... 8 1.4. NATIONAL COUNCILS/ASSEMBLIES OF CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS AND OTHER STAKEHOLDERS 10 1.5. CONSUMER MEDIA ..................................................................................................................... 12 1.6. REDRESS BODIES: COURTS AND ADRS ....................................................................................... 12 1.7. EUROPEAN CONSUMER CENTRE.................................................................................................. 13 1.8. SELF OR CO-REGULATION........................................................................................................... 14 2. Consumer policies................................................................... 20 2.1. CONSUMER PROTECTION LEGISLATION ...................................................................................... 20 2.2. CONSUMER ORGANISATIONS ..................................................................................................... 25 2.3. ENFORCEMENT/REDRESS ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Empowering and Protecting Consumers Consultation On
    Empowering and protecting consumers Consultation on institutional changes for provision of consumer information, advice, education, advocacy and enforcement Response from Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland September 2011 Myddelton House | 115-123 Pentonville Road | London | N1 9LZ | Tel: 020 7833 2181 | Fax: 020 7833 4371 | www.citizensadvice.org.uk: 7833 2181 2 1. Introduction 1.1 Citizens Advice and Citizens Advice Scotland welcome the Government’s consultation on reform of the consumer landscape. 1.2 We wish to ensure that the outcome provides consumers with access to the best possible information and high quality individual advice about their rights; that consumers have powerful advocates representing their views to the Government, industry and regulators; and that there are strong enforcement and consumer protection agencies ensuring fair and effective markets, basing this work wherever possible on evidence that our organisations obtain from providing services to consumers. 1.3 The Government has proposed some significant reforms to the consumer landscape so that in future the organisations which have the brief to look after and advocate for the consumer interest are those which are best known and trusted by consumers, are evidence based and have their feet firmly on the ground. 1.4 We agree that consumer advocates should have strong support from consumers, and citizens, if they are to have the right to speak on their behalf to influence businesses, regulators and governments. 1.5 To earn this support and trust, consumer advocates need to be totally rooted in and in touch with the consumer community; passionate about getting the best deal for consumers, whoever they are and whatever the issue, and competent and creative in arguing for and securing solutions.
    [Show full text]
  • Report for OFT on Markets with Bidding Processes
    Markets with bidding processes Economic discussion paper May 2007 Report prepared for the OFT by DotEcon Ltd OFT923 Markets Characterised by Bidding Processes © Crown copyright (2007) This publication (excluding the OFT logo) may be reproduced free of charge in any format or medium provided that it is reproduced accurately and not used in a misleading context. The material must be acknowledged as crown copyright and the title of the publication specified. Report prepared for the OFT by DotEcon Ltd 2 FOREWORD This report was commissioned by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) from DotEcon Ltd. They were asked to prepare a report setting out the implications for the analysis of competition when a market is characterized by bidding process and provide a guide to the qualitative and quantitative analysis of such markets . Any views expressed in this report are those of DotEcon Ltd and do not necessarily reflect the views of the OFT nor the legal position under existing competition law which the OFT applies in exercise of its competition law enforcement functions. This report is part of the OFT's Economic Discussion Paper series, and is intended to inform current discussion within the competition policy community in the UK about cooperation between purchasers. If you would like to comment on the paper, please write to me, Amelia Fletcher, at the address below. The OFT welcomes suggestions for future research topics on all aspects of UK competition and consumer policy. Dr Amelia Fletcher Chief Economist Office of Fair Trading Fleetbank House 2-6
    [Show full text]
  • Powerful Partnerships
    Powerful Partnerships How Trading Standards and Citizens Advice Bureau can achieve more by working together for consumers About Consumer Empowerment Partnerships Consumer Empowerment Partnerships (CEPs) are networks led by a Citizens Advice Bureau. They provide local leadership and work closely with partners, in particular the Trading Standards Service, to improve consumer protection and empowerment through shared information on consumer problems, education and advocacy. There are eleven CEPs across England. North West – Cheshire West CEP; North East – Newcastle CEP; Yorkshire and Humber – Hull CEP; Central (regional lead) – Coventry CEP; Central – BRANCAB CEP; East Midlands – Northampton CEP; East – Cambridgeshire CEP; London – Citizens Advice-led CEP; South East (regional lead) – Kent CEP; South East – Oxfordshire CEP; South West – Plymouth CEP For more on CEPs visit www.citizensadvice.org.uk/ceps Working together for the same consumers Trading Standards and Citizens Advice Bureau are working to help the same local people – those being scammed, targeted by doorstep fraudsters, ripped-off by rogue traders or struggling to get a fair deal. The Citizens Advice service • offers individual advice on consumer problems; • runs consumer education workshops and awareness-raising campaigns; • undertakes advocacy campaigning to get consumers a fair deal. Trading Standards can take tough enforcement action against criminals and bring rogue businesses into line. In many areas, they can also offer advice to consumers and engage in preventative education work. Both Trading Standards and Citizens Advice Bureau are part of a national network, but the services are different in every area reflecting local needs and pressures. Together we have an unparalleled understanding of what local consumers need to feel both empowered and protected.
    [Show full text]
  • Qhe the Consumer Movement, Wealth
    QhE (The Consumer Movement, Wealth, and the Pharmaceutical °Industry~ The sixth in a series of Office of Health Economics monographs dealing with aspects of the prescription medicine market in Britain David Taylor •• IF _J m- • •Ill • /. - • : . •.. 11 . • • • • . • IS?" ' Wffiffl • m§M" : fifittJ ''Ms, ' >®P . i • '••. : . „ . > ' ' : . ' . §i . |||| wmammmmm-. The Consumer Movement, ^Health, and the Pharmaceutical <7hdustry" The sixth in a series of Office of Health Economics monographs dealing with aspects of the prescription medicine market in Britain David Taylor QhE Office of Health Economics 12 Whitehall, London SWIA 2DY Telephone 01—930 9203 Office of Health Economics The Office of Health Economics was founded in 1962 by the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. Its terms of reference are: To undertake research on the economic aspect of medical care. To investigate other health and social problems. To collect data from other countries. To publish results, data and conclusions relevant to the above. The Office of Health Economics welcomes financial support and discussions on research problems with any persons or bodies interested in its work. Previous publications in this series: The Canberra Hypothesis; the economics of the prescription medicine market. £ 1.50 Brand Names in Prescribing. 5op Sources of Information for Prescribing Doctors in Britain. £1.00 Pharmaceutical Prices; a continental view. £1.00 A Question of Balance; the benefits and risks of pharmaceutical innovation. £1.50 Price £2.00 ©January 1983, Office of Health Economics ISSN 0473 8837 Printed in England by White Crescent Press Ltd, Luton Introduction In his Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, which was first published in 1776, Adam Smith BOX I Industry's reactions to the consumer placed special emphasis on the assertion that the ultimate movement purpose of producing any good (or service) is to meet the Esther Peterson held positions as a union lobbyist, as an needs of its consumers.
    [Show full text]
  • Policy Instruments for Resource Efficiency Towards Sustainable Consumption and Production
    Policy Instruments for Resource Efficiency Towards Sustainable Consumption and Production Preface 1 Introduction 3 I. Regulatory Instruments I. 1 1. Norms and Standards I. 1 Case Study: European Directive on Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), European Union 2. Environmental Liability I. 7 Case Study: EU Environmental Liability Directive, European Union 3. Environmental Control and Enforcement I. 13 II. Economic Instruments II. 1 1. Environmental Taxes II. 1 Case Study: Trade Tax Reductions for Cleaner Production at Municipal Level, Paraguay Case Study: United Kingdom Landfill Tax, United Kingdom 2. Fees and User-Charges II. 9 3. Certificate Trading II. 13 Case Study: European Union Greenhouse Gas Emission Trading Scheme, European Union 4. Environmental Financing II. 19 Case Study: Environmental Fund Tunisia - Promotion with grant financing, Tunisia Case Study: KfW - Environmental Programme Promotion with preferential credit terms, Germany 5. Green Public Procurement II. 27 6. Subsidies II. 31 Case Study: Promotion of Solar Home Systems in Bangladesh, Bangladesh III. Research & Educational Instruments III. 1 1. Research and Development III. 1 Case Study: Environment-driven Business Development in Sweden, Sweden 2. Education and Training III. 7 IV. Cooperation Instruments IV. 1 1. Technology Transfer IV. 1 2. Voluntary Agreements IV. 5 Case Study: Voluntary Commitments in Chile (APLs), Chile V. Informational Instruments V. 1 1. Eco-labelling V. 1 Case Study: European Union Energy Label, European Union Case Study: Forest Stewardship Council Label (FSC), International 2. Sustainability Reporting V. 9 Case Study: The Global Reporting Initiative (GRI), International 3. Information Centres V. 15 Case Study: Effizienz-Agentur NRW (EFA), Germany 4.
    [Show full text]
  • The Evolution of News and the Internet
    Unclassified DSTI/ICCP/IE(2009)14/FINAL Organisation de Coopération et de Développement Économiques Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 11-Jun-2010 ___________________________________________________________________________________________ _____________ English - Or. English DIRECTORATE FOR SCIENCE, TECHNOLOGY AND INDUSTRY COMMITTEE FOR INFORMATION, COMPUTER AND COMMUNICATIONS POLICY U DSTI/ICCP/IE(2009)14/FINAL nclassified Working Party on the Information Economy THE EVOLUTION OF NEWS AND THE INTERNET English - Or. English JT03285390 Document complet disponible sur OLIS dans son format d'origine Complete document available on OLIS in its original format + DSTI/ICCP/IE(2009)14/FINAL FOREWORD This report was presented to the Working Party on the Information Economy (WPIE) in December 2009 and was declassified subject to minor revisions by the Committee for Information, Computer and Communications Policy in March 2010. The report was prepared by Sacha Wunsch-Vincent in conjunction with Graham Vickery of the OECD‘s Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry. Cristina Serra Vallejo (OECD) and Soo Youn Oh (Seoul National University, Korea) have contributed to the research of this study. The report has benefitted from multiple inputs provided by delegations and external experts as referenced in the ‗Background‘ section. This work is part of the WPIE‘s work on digital broadband content under the overall direction of Graham Vickery. Other studies in the series include scientific publishing, music, online computer games, mobile content, user-created content, film and video, public sector information and content, and work on virtual worlds. It is published on the responsibility of the Secretary-General of the OECD. © OECD, 2010 2 DSTI/ICCP/IE(2009)14/FINAL TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMMARY ...................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • An Overview of International Cyber-Security Awareness Raising
    An overview of international cyber-security awareness raising and educational initiatives Research report commissioned by the Australian Communications and Media Authority MAY 2011 communicating | facilitating | regulating Canberra Melbourne Sydney Purple Building Level 44 Level 15 Tower 1 Benjamin Offices Melbourne Central Tower Darling Park Chan Street 360 Elizabeth Street 201 Sussex Street Belconnen ACT Melbourne VIC Sydney NSW PO Box 78 PO Box 13112 PO Box Q500 Belconnen ACT 2616 Law Courts Queen Victoria Building Melbourne VIC 8010 Sydney NSW 1230 T +61 2 6219 5555 F +61 2 6219 5353 T +61 3 9963 6800 T +61 2 9334 7700 F +61 3 9963 6899 1800 226 667 TTY 03 9963 6948 F +61 2 9334 7799 © Commonwealth of Australia 2011 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted under the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth. Requests and enquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be addressed to the Manager, Editorial Services, Australian Communications and Media Authority, PO Box 13112 Law Courts, Melbourne Vic 8010. Published by the Australian Communications and Media Authority An Overview of International Cyber-Security Awareness Raising and Educational Initiatives Authors: Chris Connolly Alana Maurushat David Vaile Peter van Dijk Additional research: Stephanie Cuevas Melissa Wong 2011 A Galexia research report, with assistance from the Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre at the University of New South Wales – commissioned and funded by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) www.galexia.com Cyberspace Law and Policy Centre An Overview of International Cyber-Security Awareness Raising and Educational Initiatives Contents 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Explanatory Document to the Public Bodies
    EXPLANATORY DOCUMENT TO THE PUBLIC BODIES (THE OFFICE OF FAIR TRADING TRANSFER OF CONSUMER ADVICE SCHEME FUNCTION AND MODIFICATION OF ENFORCEMENT FUNCTIONS) ORDER 2013 2013 No. XXXX 1. This explanatory document has been prepared by the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) and is laid before Parliament under section 11(1) of the Public Bodies Act 2011 (“PBA”). 2. Purpose of the instrument 2.1. The purpose of this instrument is to make amendments to statutory provisions to finalise the transfer of the consumer advice scheme function from the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) to Citizens Advice1 and to Citizens Advice Scotland (the Citizens Advice Services) and to make minor modifications to a number of the enforcement functions of the OFT2. We are also changing the provisions for the dissemination of information on the operation of two sets of Regulations3. 2.2. These changes are part of a series of measures being taken following reviews by the Department in 2011 of the consumer and competition bodies. The Enterprise Regulatory Reform Bill (ERR), which is currently passing through Parliament, will abolish the OFT and Competition Commission (CC) from April 2014 and replace them with the Competition Markets Authority (CMA). A second Public Bodies Act order will be laid in draft next year and will amongst other things, make provision for the transfer of OFT’s estate agency functions, and the transfer of Consumer Focus functions. The OFT’s consumer credit functions are due to be transferred to the Financial Conduct Authority using powers in the Financial Services Bill. 2.3.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Dialogue
    ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES PRODUCER CONSUMER DIALOGUE OPINION Brussels 1984 The European Communities' Economic and Social Committee, chai' red by Mi Frangois CEYRAC, approved this own'initiative Opinion at its-217fi Plehary Session of 23 and 24 May 1984. The preliminary work was done by the Section for Protection of the Enviionment, Public Health and Gonsumer Affairs with Mr G.H.E. HILKENS as Rappporteur. ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMIfiEE OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES PRODUCER CONSUMER DIALOGUE OPINION Brussels, October 1984 This publication is also available in : Danish, Dutch, French, German, Greek and ltalian. A bibliographical slip can be found at the end of this volurne. Texts appearing in this document may be reproduced freely in whole or in part, so long as their source is mentioned. Gatalogue Number : ESC-84-011-EN CONTENTS Preface I A. OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE ON THE PRODUCER . CONSUMER DIALOGUE ........... 1 B. REPORT OF THE SECTION FOR PROTECTION OF THE ENVIRONMENT, PUBLTC HEALTH AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS ....... 7 l. Introduction 7 ll. Development of Community Consumer Policy I lll. Pointsof view 10 lV. The Consumer in the Market Economy : Basic Conditions for Dialogue 14 V. The Situation in the Member States 18 Vl. Classification of Forms of Dialogue in the Member States 18 Vll. Consultation procedures at Community level 22 Vlll. The Dialogue at Gommunity Level ' Conclusions 25 C. APPENDIX TO THE REPORT BELGIUM 27 DENMARK 32 FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF GERMANY ........... 34 GREECE 38 FRAN CE 39 IRELAN D 42 ITALY 45 LUXEM BOURG 47 N ETH ERLANDS ....,.... 49 UNITED KINGDOM 52 PREFACE In a market economy consumers must have a free choice of goods and.services and at the same time enjoy adequate protec' tion.
    [Show full text]
  • Consumer Information in the Electronic Media: Neutral Information, Advertising, Selling
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 278 367 IR 012 478 AUTHOR Sepstrup, Preben; Olander, Folke TITLE Consumer Information in the Electronic Media: Neutral Information, Advertising, Selling. WorkingPaper No. 4. INSTITUTION Aarhus School of Business Administration & Economics (Denmark). PUB DATE Aug 86 NOTE 61p.; For a related report, see ED 268 981. AVAILABLE FROMDepartment of Marketing, Aarhus School of Business Administration & Economics, Ryhavevej 8, DK-8210 Aarhus V, Denmark (free). PUB TYPE Information Analyses (070)-- Viewpoints (120) -- Reports - Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC0-3 PIus Postage. DESCRIPTORS Advertising; Behavior Theories; *Consumer Education; Databases; Developed Nations; Foreign Countries; *Information Dissemination; *InformationTechnology; Interviews; Literature Reviews; Media Adaptation; *Policy; *Videotex IDENTIFIERS *Consumer Information; *Consumer Organizations; Nordic Countries; United Kingdom; UnitedStates; West Germany ABSTRACT This paper presents a self-containedsummary in English of the results of a research projectconducted for the Nordic Council of Ministers to define problems,advantages, and disadvantages of the electronic disseminationof information for consumers, and to determine whether consumer organizationsshould adapt their information activities andconsumer policies to suit developments in information technology. TheIntroduction and Chapter 1 provide background informationon the project, and Chapters 2 through 6 contain detailed documentation of electronicdata mediateletext, cabletext, and videotex--andother
    [Show full text]