Despite numerous publications, evidence about the effectiveness of interventions that aim to reduce ED use remains insufficient. Studies on more homogeneous patient groups with a clearly described intervention and control group are needed to determine for which specific target group what type of intervention is most successful and how the intervention should be designed. The effective use of ED services in general is a complex and multi-factorial problem that requires integrated interventions that will have to be adapted to the specific context of a country with a feedback system to monitor its (un-)intended consequences. Yet, the co-location of GP posts and emergency departments seems together with the introduction of telephone triage systems the preferred interventions to reduce inappropriate ED visits while case-management might reduce the number of ED attendances by frequent ED users.
This article considers the potential for insurer competition to improve health system performance by strengthening purchasing. Economic theory suggests that insurer competition will enhance efficiency if: (1) people have free choice of insurer, (2) competition is based on price and quality rather than risk selection and (3) insurers have tools to influence health care costs and quality. The article assesses the extent to which these assumptions hold in Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands and Switzerland. It finds that health insurance market reforms in these countries have had mixed results in fulfilling these assumptions. In spite of significant investment in risk equalisation, incentives for risk selection remain. Consumer mobility is lower among older and chronically ill people, possibly due to close interaction between statutory and voluntary coverage. Although insurers in some countries increasingly have tools to enhance value, they may not always use them. The analysis suggests that the instrumental value of insurer competition rests on multiple assumptions that can only be upheld through frequently complex interventions often requiring elusive data. Making it work therefore requires action on several fronts, particularly to ensure incentives are aligned across the health system, and awareness of the political nature of some barriers to success.
During the 1990s, the social health insurance schemes of Germany, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Belgium and Israel were significantly reformed by the introduction of freedom of choice (open enrolment) of health insurer. This was introduced alongside a system of risk adjustment to compensate health insurers for enrolees with predictable high medical expenses. Despite the similarity in the health insurance reforms in these countries, we find that both the rationale behind these reforms and their impact on consumer choice vary widely.In this article we seek to explain the observed variation in switching rates by cross-country comparison of the potential determinants of health insurer choice. We conclude that differences in choice setting, and in the net benefits of switching, offer a plausible explanation for the large differences in consumer mobility.Finally, we discuss the policy implications of our cross-country comparison. We argue that the optimal switching rate crucially depends on the goals of the reforms and the quality of the risk-adjustment system. In view of this, we conclude that switching rates are currently too low in the Netherlands, and an active government policy to encourage consumer mobility seems warranted. In Germany and Switzerland, high switching rates call for an improvement of the rather poor risk-adjustment systems. Given low switching rates in Israel and Belgium, improving risk adjustment is less urgent, but still required in the long run.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.