Many health insurance systems apply managed competition principles to control costs and quality of health care. Besides other factors, managed competition relies on a sufficient price-elastic demand. This paper presents a systematic review of empirical studies on price elasticity of demand for health insurance. The objective was to identify the differing international ranges of price elasticity and to find socio-economic as well as setting-oriented factors that influence price elasticity. Relevant literature for the topic was identified through a two-step identification process including a systematic search in appropriate databases and further searches within the references of the results. A total of 45 studies from countries such as the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were found. Clear differences in price elasticity by countries were identified. While empirical studies showed a range between -0.2 and -1.0 for optional primary health insurance in the US, higher price elasticities between -0.6 and -4.2 for Germany and around -2 for Switzerland were calculated for mandatory primary health insurance. Dutch studies found price elasticities below -0.5. In consideration of all relevant studies, age and poorer health status were identified to decrease price elasticity. Other socio-economic factors had an unclear impact or too limited evidence. Premium level, range of premiums, homogeneity of benefits/coverage and degree of forced decision were found to have a major influence on price elasticity in their settings. Further influence was found from supplementary insurance and premium-dependent employer contribution.

This long-term secondary prevention programme with inpatient rehabilitation at the beginning and telephone reminder for a 3-year period was successful. There were significant differences in health-related quality of life between the IG and CG, despite the relatively positive outcomes in the CG. In this low-education (predominantly male), middle-aged cohort, the positive impact on cardiovascular risk was pronounced in the high-risk subgroup (PROCAM 10-year risk 10-40%).

Elderly people are especially prone to suffer adverse drug reactions (ADR). Main reasons for the higher vulnerability of the elderly to ADR are changes in metabolism as i.e. slower renal clearance and polypharmacie which often results from multimorbidity. To prevent ADR careful prescription with special consideration of these aspects is warranted. To help physicians avoid drugs which are especially likely to cause ADR lists have been developed following the consensus method process. For Germany this list is called the PRISCUS list. It was developed based on a literature review, review of international lists such as the American Beers list, and a consensus process based on a Delphi survey. It contains 83 drugs from 18 classes which are classified as potentially inapropriate medication (PIM). It also lists alternatives for each PIM. If a drug is registered with the PRISCUS list this does not mean automatically that it is contraindicated in the elderly but that special caution should be excercised in prescribing the drug, alternatives should be considered and the patient carefully monitored.Prescription rates for PIMs in Germany in the elderly is pretty much stable at around 23% with only a small decline in the past years. Also, more than 5% of all prescriptions in the elderly are PIM prescriptions. Physicians specially trained in geriatrics tend to prescribe less PIMs compared to other physicians.

Improving the quality of care for chronic diseases is an important issue for most health care systems in industrialized nations. One widely adopted approach is the Chronic Care Model (CCM), which was first developed in the late 1990s. In this article we present the results from two large surveys in the United States and Germany that report patients' experiences in different models of patient-centered diabetes care, compared to the experiences of patients who received routine diabetes care in the same systems. The study populations were enrolled in either Geisinger Health System in Pennsylvania or Barmer, a German sickness fund that provides medical insurance nationwide. Our findings suggest that patients with type 2 diabetes who were enrolled in the care models that exhibited key features of the CCM were more likely to receive care that was patient-centered, high quality, and collaborative, compared to patients who received routine care. This study demonstrates that quality improvement can be realized through the application of the Chronic Care Model, regardless of the setting or distinct characteristics of the program.

In general, participants preferred condensed, plain information in a clear and moderately colored design, but preferences towards drug information are affected by age and level of education.