J Korean Med Sci.  2017 Mar;32(3):393-400. 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.3.393.

Recognition of the Concept of Publicness in Healthcare: a Content Analysis of Korean Newspapers

• Min HS
• Park Y
• Kim CY

• KMID: 2366633
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2017.32.3.393

Abstract

The traditional boundaries between public and private sectors has been blurred, and questions raised regarding how publicness could be conceptualized. The empirical study on the concept of publicness can reveal greatly diversified views on publicness, and help to reduce confusion over publicness. For the content analysis, 750 news articles of 8 national Korean newspapers were retrieved from the Korea Integrated News Database System. The articles were coded by the inductive category for the topic of the paragraph, the concept related to publicness, and the overall tone toward publicness. Publicness was addressed in a number of different issues, and diverse and specific statuses or actions were associated with the realization of publicness. The most frequent concept was "government," which represented the main agent of healthcare provision and the owner of institutions for "the vulnerable." Issues of industrialization of healthcare/healthcare industry and reform of the national healthcare system mentioned publicness in a normative sense, which laid stress on "not-for-profit" service and the right of "universal access" to service for publicness. Articles of health/disease information or global health regarded "the population/public" as the main targets or beneficiaries of healthcare services. Occasionally, publicness was not related to specific concepts, being used unclearly or as a routine. The fulfillment of the specific actions or status may lead to the enhancement of publicness. However, publicness itself could not be reduced to the specific concepts suggested. The use of publicness in healthcare delivered only its normative sense without substantive meaning.

Keyword

Publicness; Public; Healthcare; Content; Analysis

MeSH Terms

Delivery of Health Care*
Global Health
Korea
Periodicals*
Private Sector

Reference

1. Duckett S. Does it matter who owns health facilities? J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001; 6:59–62.

2. Hall K, Miller R, Millar R. Public, private or neither? Analysing the publicness of health care social enterprises. Public Manage Rev. 2016; 18:539–557.

3. Bozeman B, Bretschneider S. The “publicness puzzle” in organization theory: a test of alternative explanations of differences between public and private organizations. J Public Adm Res Theory. 1994; 4:197–223.

4. Anderson S. Public, private, neither, both? Publicness theory and the analysis of healthcare organisations. Soc Sci Med. 2012; 74:313–322.

5. Anderson S. The end of publicness?: public and private healthcare organizations are alike in all important respects. Int J Public Private Healthc Manage Econ. 2014; 3:44–61.

6. Pesch U. The publicness of public administration. Adm Soc. 2008; 40:170–193.

7. Newman J. Rethinking ‘the public’ in troubled times: unsettling state, nation and the liberal public sphere. Public Policy Adm. 2007; 22:27–47.

8. Cho DY. Transition of modernity and restructuring of publicness: logic of social constructive publicness and structure of micro publicness. J Soc Res. 2012; 13:3–62.

9. Kim CY. Publicness of healthcare in Korea: path dependency or “modernization” [Internet]. accessed on 1 October 2016. Available at http://www.cykim.pe.kr/KSSH_PubHe2012Oct19.pdf.

10. Kim J. Where can we find “publicness” in Korea health policy? Korean J Public Health. 2013; 50:113–127.

11. Jones RS. Health-care Reform in Korea: OECD Economics Department Working Papers No. 797. Paris: OECD Publishing;2010.

12. Kim CY. The Korean economic crisis and coping strategies in the health sector: pro-welfarism or neoliberalism? Int J Health Serv. 2005; 35:561–578.

13. Yoon TH. Health policy-centering public and market function. Trends Welf. 2008; 111:17–22.

14. Kang EJ. Alternatives in the expansion of the public sector in health care. Health Welf Policy Forum. 2004; 96:57–67.

15. Shin YJ. The historical context and policy implications of health care privatization policy and social response in South Korea. J Crit Soc Welf. 2010; 45–90.

16. Byun JO. Health cooperative-healthcare movement for publicness in healthcare of private sector. Soc Crit. 2003; 35:221–237.

17. Kim M, Min HJ. A study of the role and style of the role execution of health-and-medical-service-related NGOs: perspectives from civic group actors. Korean Policy Sci Rev. 2005; 9:49–71.

18. Seale C. Health and media: an overview. Sociol Health Illn. 2003; 25:513–531.

19. Hayes M, Ross IE, Gasher M, Gutstein D, Dunn JR, Hackett RA. Telling stories: news media, health literacy and public policy in Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 64:1842–1852.

20. Choi HJ. A study on the diversity of Korean newspapers: analyzing the tendencies of covering three major issues. Korean J Journal Commun Stud. 2010; 54:399–426.

21. Choi JH, Han DS. The partisanship of media and the media intervention in political-power creation in Korea: focusing on the analysis of the major newspapers’ editorial articles during the 13-17th presidential election campaigns. J Commun Sci. 2012; 12:534–571.

22. Park HS, Kim SH. Crisis management in time of media partisanship: media’s discursive patterns in dealing with political scandals. J Commun Sci. 2014; 14:75–112.

23. Prasad BD. Content analysis: a method in social science research. In : Lal Das DK, Bhaskaran V, editors. Research Methods for Social Work. New Delhi: Rawat Publications;2008. p. 173–193.

24. Zhang Y, Wildemuth BM. Qualitative analysis of contents. In : Wildemuth BM, editor. Applications of Social Research Methods to Questions in Information and Library Science. Westport, CT: Libraries Unlimited;2009. p. 308–319.

25. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med. 2005; 37:360–363.

26. Kim JH, Song YK. Spreading of opposition from citizens and political circle “stop the shutdown of public medical center”. Kyunghyang Shinmun. 2013. 04. 02.

27. Lee KS. Good quality service with good price...‘Relief Hospital’ in the limelight. Kukmin Daily. 2013. 09. 23.

28. Kim YJ. Public healthcare: distinction between ‘healthy deficit’ and ‘bad deficit’.Hankyoreh. 2013. 05. 14.

29. Shim JE. The dark side of for-profit-hospital. Seoul Shinmun. 2011. 10. 21.

30. Choi HJ. Conflict over ‘for-profit hospital-hospital chain-pharmacy chain’. Kyunghyang Shinmun. 2013. 12. 19.

31. Choi MY, Song YK, Yoo JI. Abandon of medical care to private sector, to the ‘jungle’ of unnecessary care and profit-seeking behavior. Kyunghyang Shinmun. 2011. 06. 16.

32. Kim JH. South Gyeongsangdo already determined to close Jinju medical center in March but has hidden. Kyunghyang Shinmun. 2013. 07. 04.

33. Lee HJ. “In return for 100-year's love...”, the highest challenge of an university hospital. Dong-a Ilbo. 2010. 11. 22.

34. Yoo MN, Park SA. The dilemma of public administration: publicness and profitability. In : Proceedings of the 2013 Korean Association for Public Administration Summer Conference; 2013 June 28-29; Sejeong. Seoul: Korean Association for Public Administration;2013. p. 1106–1138.