Reading Comprehension Questions

 Financial Inclusion (FI) is an emerging priority for banks that have nowhere else to go to achieve business growth. The viability of FI business is under question, because while banks and their delivery partners continue to make investments, they haven't seen commensurate returns. In markets like India, most programmes are focused on customer on-boarding, an expensive process which people often find difficult to afford, involving issuance of smart cards to the customers. However, large-scale customer acquisition hasn't translated into large-scale business, with many accounts lying dormant and therefore yielding no return on the bank's investment. For the same reason, Business Correspondent Agents, who constitute the primary channel for financial inclusion, are unable to pursue their activity as a full-time job. One major reason for this state of events is that the customer on-boarding process is often delayed after the submission of documents (required to validate the details of the concerned applicant) by the applicant and might take as long as two weeks. By this time the initial enthusiasm of applicants fades away. Moreover, the delivery partners don't have the knowledge and skill to propose anything other than the most basic financial products to the customer and hence do not serve their bank's goal of expanding the offering in unbanked markets.

Contrary to popular perception, the inclusion segment is not a singular impoverished, undifferentiated mass and it is important to navigate its diversity to identify the right target customers for various programmes. Rural markets do have their share of rich people who do not use banking services simply because they are inconvenient to access or have low perceived value. At the same time, urban markets, despite a high branch density, have multitude of low wage earners outside the financial net. Moreover, the branch timings of banks rarely coincide with the off-work hours of the labour class.

Creating affordability is crucial in tapping the unbanked market. No doubt pricing is a tool, but banks also need to be innovative in right-sizing their proposition to convince customers that they can derive big value even from small amounts. One way of doing this is to show the target audience that a bank account is actually a lifestyle enabler, a convenient and safe means to send money to family or make a variety of purchases. Once banks succeed in hooking customers with this value proposition they must sustain their interest by introducing a simple and intuitive user application, ubiquitous access over mobile and other touch points, and adopting a banking mechanism which is not only secure but also reassuring to the customer. Technology is the most important element of financial inclusion strategy and an enabler of all others. The choice of technology is therefore a crucial decision, which could make or mar the agenda. Of the various selection criteria, cost is perhaps the most important. This certainly does not mean buying the cheapest package, but rather choosing that solution which by scaling transactions to huge volumes reduces per unit operating cost. An optimal mix of these strategies would no doubt offer an innovative means of expansion in the unbanked market.

 Financial Inclusion (FI) is an emerging priority for banks that have nowhere else to go to achieve business growth. The viability of FI business is under question, because while banks and their delivery partners continue to make investments, they haven't seen commensurate returns. In markets like India, most programmes are focused on customer on-boarding, an expensive process which people often find difficult to afford, involving issuance of smart cards to the customers. However, large-scale customer acquisition hasn't translated into large-scale business, with many accounts lying dormant and therefore yielding no return on the bank's investment. For the same reason, Business Correspondent Agents, who constitute the primary channel for financial inclusion, are unable to pursue their activity as a full-time job. One major reason for this state of events is that the customer on-boarding process is often delayed after the submission of documents (required to validate the details of the concerned applicant) by the applicant and might take as long as two weeks. By this time the initial enthusiasm of applicants fades away. Moreover, the delivery partners don't have the knowledge and skill to propose anything other than the most basic financial products to the customer and hence do not serve their bank's goal of expanding the offering in unbanked markets.

Contrary to popular perception, the inclusion segment is not a singular impoverished, undifferentiated mass and it is important to navigate its diversity to identify the right target customers for various programmes. Rural markets do have their share of rich people who do not use banking services simply because they are inconvenient to access or have low perceived value. At the same time, urban markets, despite a high branch density, have multitude of low wage earners outside the financial net. Moreover, the branch timings of banks rarely coincide with the off-work hours of the labour class.

Creating affordability is crucial in tapping the unbanked market. No doubt pricing is a tool, but banks also need to be innovative in right-sizing their proposition to convince customers that they can derive big value even from small amounts. One way of doing this is to show the target audience that a bank account is actually a lifestyle enabler, a convenient and safe means to send money to family or make a variety of purchases. Once banks succeed in hooking customers with this value proposition they must sustain their interest by introducing a simple and intuitive user application, ubiquitous access over mobile and other touch points, and adopting a banking mechanism which is not only secure but also reassuring to the customer. Technology is the most important element of financial inclusion strategy and an enabler of all others. The choice of technology is therefore a crucial decision, which could make or mar the agenda. Of the various selection criteria, cost is perhaps the most important. This certainly does not mean buying the cheapest package, but rather choosing that solution which by scaling transactions to huge volumes reduces per unit operating cost. An optimal mix of these strategies would no doubt offer an innovative means of expansion in the unbanked market.

 Public general hospitals originated in the almshouse infirmaries established as early as colonial times by local governments to care for the poor. Later, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the infirmary separated from the almshouse and became an independent institution supported by local tax money. At the same time, private charity hospitals began to develop. Both private and public hospitals provided mainly food and shelter for the impoverished sick, since there was little that medicine could actually do to cure illness, and the middle class was treated at home by private physicians.

Late in the nineteenth century, the private charity hospital began trying to attract middle-class patients. Although the depression of 1890 stimulated the growth of charitable institutions and an expanding urban population became dependent on assistance, there was a decline in private contributions to these organizations which forced them to look to local government for financial support. Since private institutions had also lost benefactors; they began to charge patients. In order to attract middle-class patients, private institutions provided services and amenities that distinguished between paying and non-paying patients and made the hospital a desirable place for private physicians to treat their own patients. As paying patients became more necessary to the survival of the private hospital, the public hospitals slowly became the only place for the poor to get treatment. By the end of the nineteenth century, cities were reimbursing private hospitals for their care of indigent patients and the public hospitals remained dependent on the tax dollars.

The advent of private hospital health insurance, which provided middle-class patients with the purchasing power to pay for private hospital services, guaranteed the private hospital a regular source of income. Private hospitals restricted themselves to revenue-generating patients, leaving the public hospitals to care for the poor. Although public hospitals continued to provide services for patients with communicable diseases and outpatient and emergency services, the Blue Cross plans developed around the needs of the private hospitals and the inpatients they served. Thus, reimbursement for ambulatory care has been minimal under most Blue Cross plans, and provision of outpatient care has not been a major function of the private hospital, in part because private patients can afford to pay for the services of private physicians. Additionally, since World War II, there has been a tremendous influx of federal money into private medical schools and the hospitals associated with them. Further, large private medical centres with expensive research equipment and programs have attracted the best administrators, physicians, and researchers. As a result of the greater resources available to the private medical centres, public hospitals have increasing problems attracting highly qualified research and medical personnel. With the mainstream of health care firmly established in the private medical sector, the public hospital has become a "dumping ground"

 Public general hospitals originated in the almshouse infirmaries established as early as colonial times by local governments to care for the poor. Later, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the infirmary separated from the almshouse and became an independent institution supported by local tax money. At the same time, private charity hospitals began to develop. Both private and public hospitals provided mainly food and shelter for the impoverished sick, since there was little that medicine could actually do to cure illness, and the middle class was treated at home by private physicians.

Late in the nineteenth century, the private charity hospital began trying to attract middle-class patients. Although the depression of 1890 stimulated the growth of charitable institutions and an expanding urban population became dependent on assistance, there was a decline in private contributions to these organizations which forced them to look to local government for financial support. Since private institutions had also lost benefactors; they began to charge patients. In order to attract middle-class patients, private institutions provided services and amenities that distinguished between paying and non-paying patients and made the hospital a desirable place for private physicians to treat their own patients. As paying patients became more necessary to the survival of the private hospital, the public hospitals slowly became the only place for the poor to get treatment. By the end of the nineteenth century, cities were reimbursing private hospitals for their care of indigent patients and the public hospitals remained dependent on the tax dollars.

The advent of private hospital health insurance, which provided middle-class patients with the purchasing power to pay for private hospital services, guaranteed the private hospital a regular source of income. Private hospitals restricted themselves to revenue-generating patients, leaving the public hospitals to care for the poor. Although public hospitals continued to provide services for patients with communicable diseases and outpatient and emergency services, the Blue Cross plans developed around the needs of the private hospitals and the inpatients they served. Thus, reimbursement for ambulatory care has been minimal under most Blue Cross plans, and provision of outpatient care has not been a major function of the private hospital, in part because private patients can afford to pay for the services of private physicians. Additionally, since World War II, there has been a tremendous influx of federal money into private medical schools and the hospitals associated with them. Further, large private medical centres with expensive research equipment and programs have attracted the best administrators, physicians, and researchers. As a result of the greater resources available to the private medical centres, public hospitals have increasing problems attracting highly qualified research and medical personnel. With the mainstream of health care firmly established in the private medical sector, the public hospital has become a "dumping ground"

 Public general hospitals originated in the almshouse infirmaries established as early as colonial times by local governments to care for the poor. Later, in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, the infirmary separated from the almshouse and became an independent institution supported by local tax money. At the same time, private charity hospitals began to develop. Both private and public hospitals provided mainly food and shelter for the impoverished sick, since there was little that medicine could actually do to cure illness, and the middle class was treated at home by private physicians.

Late in the nineteenth century, the private charity hospital began trying to attract middle-class patients. Although the depression of 1890 stimulated the growth of charitable institutions and an expanding urban population became dependent on assistance, there was a decline in private contributions to these organizations which forced them to look to local government for financial support. Since private institutions had also lost benefactors; they began to charge patients. In order to attract middle-class patients, private institutions provided services and amenities that distinguished between paying and non-paying patients and made the hospital a desirable place for private physicians to treat their own patients. As paying patients became more necessary to the survival of the private hospital, the public hospitals slowly became the only place for the poor to get treatment. By the end of the nineteenth century, cities were reimbursing private hospitals for their care of indigent patients and the public hospitals remained dependent on the tax dollars.

The advent of private hospital health insurance, which provided middle-class patients with the purchasing power to pay for private hospital services, guaranteed the private hospital a regular source of income. Private hospitals restricted themselves to revenue-generating patients, leaving the public hospitals to care for the poor. Although public hospitals continued to provide services for patients with communicable diseases and outpatient and emergency services, the Blue Cross plans developed around the needs of the private hospitals and the inpatients they served. Thus, reimbursement for ambulatory care has been minimal under most Blue Cross plans, and provision of outpatient care has not been a major function of the private hospital, in part because private patients can afford to pay for the services of private physicians. Additionally, since World War II, there has been a tremendous influx of federal money into private medical schools and the hospitals associated with them. Further, large private medical centres with expensive research equipment and programs have attracted the best administrators, physicians, and researchers. As a result of the greater resources available to the private medical centres, public hospitals have increasing problems attracting highly qualified research and medical personnel. With the mainstream of health care firmly established in the private medical sector, the public hospital has become a "dumping ground"