Risk adjustment and risk selection on the sickness fund insurance market in five European countries
- PMID: 12818747
- DOI: 10.1016/s0168-8510(02)00118-5
Risk adjustment and risk selection on the sickness fund insurance market in five European countries
Abstract
From the mid-1990s citizens in Belgium, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands and Switzerland have a guaranteed periodic choice among risk-bearing sickness funds, who are responsible for purchasing their care or providing them with medical care. The rationale of this arrangement is to stimulate the sickness funds to improve efficiency in health care production and to respond to consumers' preferences. To achieve solidarity, all five countries have implemented a system of risk-adjusted premium subsidies (or risk equalization across risk groups), along with strict regulation of the consumers' direct premium contribution to their sickness fund. In this article we present a conceptual framework for understanding risk adjustment and comparing the systems in the five countries. We conclude that in the case of imperfect risk adjustment-as is the case in all five countries in the year 2001-the sickness funds have financial incentives for risk selection, which may threaten solidarity, efficiency, quality of care and consumer satisfaction. We expect that without substantial improvements in the risk adjustment formulae, risk selection will increase in all five countries. The issue is particularly serious in Germany and Switzerland. We strongly recommend therefore that policy makers in the five countries give top priority to the improvement of the system of risk adjustment. That would enhance solidarity, cost-control, efficiency and client satisfaction in a system of competing, risk-bearing sickness funds.
Similar articles
-
Risk adjusted premium subsidies and risk sharing: key elements of the competitive sickness fund market in the Netherlands.Health Policy. 2003 Jul;65(1):49-62. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(02)00116-1. Health Policy. 2003. PMID: 12818745
-
Risk adjustment in Switzerland.Health Policy. 2003 Jul;65(1):63-74. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(02)00117-3. Health Policy. 2003. PMID: 12818746
-
Risk adjustment and risk selection in Europe: 6 years later.Health Policy. 2007 Oct;83(2-3):162-79. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2006.12.004. Epub 2007 Jan 31. Health Policy. 2007. PMID: 17270311
-
Forming and reforming the market for third-party purchasing of health care: a German perspective.Soc Sci Med. 1994 Nov;39(10):1473-81. doi: 10.1016/0277-9536(94)90241-0. Soc Sci Med. 1994. PMID: 7863359 Review.
-
Growing importance of capitation in Switzerland.Health Care Manag Sci. 2000 Feb;3(2):111-9. doi: 10.1023/a:1019081021645. Health Care Manag Sci. 2000. PMID: 10780279 Review.
Cited by
-
Risk Adjustment in Capitation Payments to Primary Care Providers: Does It Matter How We Account for Patients' Socioeconomic Status?Med Care. 2025 Jun 1;63(6):430-435. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0000000000002141. Epub 2025 Apr 24. Med Care. 2025. PMID: 40272267 Free PMC article.
-
Modest risk-sharing significantly reduces health plans' incentives for service distortion.Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Dec;20(9):1359-1374. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01102-w. Epub 2019 Aug 22. Eur J Health Econ. 2019. PMID: 31440856
-
Identifying patients with chronic conditions using pharmacy data in Switzerland: an updated mapping approach to the classification of medications.BMC Public Health. 2013 Oct 30;13:1030. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-13-1030. BMC Public Health. 2013. PMID: 24172142 Free PMC article.
-
Measuring customer preferences in the German statutory health insurance.Eur J Health Econ. 2017 Sep;18(7):831-845. doi: 10.1007/s10198-016-0829-7. Epub 2016 Sep 21. Eur J Health Econ. 2017. PMID: 27655398
-
Spatial risk adjustment between health insurances: using GWR in risk adjustment models to conserve incentives for service optimisation and reduce MAUP.Eur J Health Econ. 2019 Sep;20(7):1079-1091. doi: 10.1007/s10198-019-01079-6. Epub 2019 Jun 13. Eur J Health Econ. 2019. PMID: 31197612
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources