Like many other countries, the Netherlands has a health insurance system that combines mandatory basic insurance with voluntary supplementary insurance. Both types of insurance are founded on different principles. Since basic and supplementary insurance are sold by the same health insurers, both markets may interact. This paper examines to what extent basic and supplementary insurance are linked to each other and whether these links generate spillover effects of supplementary on basic insurance. Our analysis is based on an investigation into supplementary health insurance contracts, underwriting procedures and annual surveys among 1,700–2,100 respondents over the period 2006–2009. We find that health insurers increasingly use a variety of strategies to enforce a joint purchase of basic and supplementary health insurance. Despite incentives for health insurers to use supplementary insurance as a tool for risk selection in basic insurance, we find limited evidence of supplementary insurance being used this way. Only a minority of health insurers uses health questionnaires when people apply for supplementary coverage. Nevertheless, we find that an increasing proportion of high-risk individuals believe that insurers would not be willing to offer them another supplementary insurance contract. We discuss several strategies to prevent or to counteract the observed negative spillover effects of supplementary insurance.

In many OECD countries, healthcare sectors have become increasingly concentrated as a result of mergers. However, detailed empirical insight into why healthcare providers merge is lacking. Also, we know little about the influence of national healthcare policies on mergers. We fill this gap in the literature by conducting a survey study on mergers among 848 Dutch healthcare executives, of which 35% responded (resulting in a study sample of 239 executives). A total of 65% of the respondents was involved in at least one merger between 2005 and 2012. During this period, Dutch healthcare providers faced a number of policy changes, including increasing competition, more pressure from purchasers, growing financial risks, de-institutionalisation of long-term care and decentralisation of healthcare services to municipalities. Our empirical study shows that healthcare providers predominantly merge to improve the provision of healthcare services and to strengthen their market position. Also efficiency and financial reasons are important drivers of merger activity in healthcare. We find that motives for merger are related to changes in health policies, in particular to the increasing pressure from competitors, insurers and municipalities.

Regulators may be hesitant to permit price competition in healthcare markets because of its potential to damage quality. We assess whether this fear is well founded by examining a reform that permitted Dutch health insurers to freely negotiate prices with hospitals. Unlike previous research on hospital competition that has relied on quality indicators for urgent treatments, we take advantage of a plausible absence of selection bias to identify the effect on the quality of elective procedures that should be more price responsive. Using data on all admissions for hip replacements to Dutch hospitals and a difference-indifferences comparison between more and less concentrated markets, we find no evidence that price deregulation in a competitive environment reduces quality measured by hip replacement readmission rates.

Across OECD countries, healthcare organizations increasingly rely on inter-organizational collaboration (IOC). Yet, systematic insight into the relations across different healthcare sectors is lacking. The aim of this explorative study is twofold. First, to understand how IOC differs across healthcare sectors with regards to characteristics, motives and the role of health policy. Second, to understand which potential effects healthcare executives consider prior to the establishment of the collaborations. For this purpose, a survey was conducted among a representative panel of Dutch healthcare executives from medium-sized or large healthcare organizations. Almost half (n = 344, 48%) of the invited executives participated. Our results suggest that differences in policy changes and institutional developments across healthcare sectors affect the scope and type of IOC: hospitals generally operate in small horizontal collaborations, while larger and more complex mixed and non-horizontal collaborations are more present among nursing homes, disability care and mental care organizations. We find that before establishing IOCs, most healthcare executives conduct a self-assessment including the potential effects of the collaboration. The extensive overview of policy developments, collaboration types and intended outcomes presented in our study offers a useful starting point for a more in-depth assessment of the effectiveness of collaborations among healthcare organizations.