Literature DB >> 24175733

Risk equalization in The Netherlands: an empirical evaluation.

Richard C Van Kleef1, René C J A Van Vliet, Wynand P M M Van de Ven.   

Abstract

The Netherlands relies on risk equalization to compensate competing health insurers for predictable variation in individual medical expenses. Without accurate risk equalization insurers are confronted with incentives for risk selection. The goal of this study is to evaluate the improvement in predictive accuracy of the Dutch risk equalization model since its introduction in 1993. Based on individual-level claims data (n = 15.6 million), we estimate the risk equalization models that have been successively applied in The Netherlands since 1993. Using individual-level survey data (n = 8735), we examine the average under-/overcompensation by these models for several relevant subgroups in the population. We find that in the course of years, the risk equalization model has been substantially improved. Even the current model (2012), however, does not eliminate incentives for risk selection completely. To achieve the public objectives, further improvement of the Dutch risk equalization model is crucial.

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24175733     DOI: 10.1586/14737167.2013.842127

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res        ISSN: 1473-7167            Impact factor:   2.217


  18 in total

1.  Overpaying morbidity adjusters in risk equalization models.

Authors:  R C van Kleef; R C J A van Vliet; W P M M van de Ven
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-09-29

2.  Do insurers respond to risk adjustment? A long-term, nationwide analysis from Switzerland.

Authors:  Viktor von Wyl; Konstantin Beck
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-02-08

3.  Spatial risk adjustment between health insurances: using GWR in risk adjustment models to conserve incentives for service optimisation and reduce MAUP.

Authors:  Danny Wende
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2019-06-13

4.  Adverse Selection into and within the Individual Health Insurance Market in California in 2014.

Authors:  Vicki Fung; Cassandra G K Peitzman; Julie Shi; Catherine Y Liang; William H Dow; Alan M Zaslavsky; Bruce H Fireman; Stephen F Derose; Michael E Chernew; Joseph P Newhouse; John Hsu
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2018-05-17       Impact factor: 3.402

5.  Improving the Performance of Risk Adjustment Systems: Constrained Regressions, Reinsurance, and Variable Selection.

Authors:  Thomas G McGuire; Anna L Zink; Sherri Rose
Journal:  Am J Health Econ       Date:  2021-10-04

6.  Measuring efficiency of health plan payment systems in managed competition health insurance markets.

Authors:  Timothy J Layton; Randall P Ellis; Thomas G McGuire; Richard van Kleef
Journal:  J Health Econ       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 3.883

7.  Switching health insurers: the role of price, quality and consumer information search.

Authors:  Lieke H H M Boonen; Trea Laske-Aldershof; Frederik T Schut
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2015-03-28

8.  A voluntary deductible in health insurance: the more years you opt for it, the lower your premium?

Authors:  K P M van Winssen; R C van Kleef; W P M M van de Ven
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-02-09

9.  Improving risk equalization using information on physiotherapy diagnoses.

Authors:  Frank Eijkenaar; René C J A van Vliet
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2017-02-09

10.  Improving risk equalization with constrained regression.

Authors:  Richard C van Kleef; Thomas G McGuire; René C J A van Vliet; Wynand P P M van de Ven
Journal:  Eur J Health Econ       Date:  2016-12-10
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.