An assessment of the Dutch experience with health insurers acting as healthcare advisors


Autoři: A. Victoor aff001;  A. E. M. Brabers aff001;  T. E. M. van Esch aff001;  J. D. de Jong aff001
Působiště autorů: Nivel (Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research), Utrecht, the Netherlands aff001;  Maastricht University, Maastricht, the Netherlands aff002
Vyšlo v časopise: PLoS ONE 14(11)
Kategorie: Research Article
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0224829

Souhrn

Introduction

With managed competition, selective contracting and the appointing of preferred providers are important instruments for health insurers to improve their bargaining position in the healthcare purchasing market. Insurers can offer enrollees extra services, such as advice about their healthcare, to attract them, ensure that they remain loyal, and to channel them to preferred providers. We investigate which advice services insurers in the Dutch system of managed competition offer enrollees, how they inform them about services, and if enrollees use and appreciate them.

Materials and methods

From November to December 2017, two researchers independently analyzed the websites of all health insurers in the Netherlands. We also conducted a questionnaire study among 1,500 members (response 44.5%, N = 668) of the Nivel Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel.

Results and discussion

All insurers offer one or more services. Most enrollees do not know if their insurer offers advice (67–87% per service). Twelve per cent (N = 76) of the enrollees indicate that they ever made use of a service, mostly regarding the choice of provider (N = 42). Respondents who used healthcare advice were satisfied with it. Of all enrollees, 41% indicate that they would probably/certainly, contact their insurer for advice and 37% would appreciate it if their insurer approached them. Among enrollees, 40% indicated the potential advice has some or a major influence on their choice of insurer.

Conclusions

While all insurers offer at least one service, enrollees generally are unaware of them. Only a minority ever made use of such a service. However, a reasonable proportion do appreciate their insurers’ advice services and indicate that they would like to have contact with their insurer if they need care. Insurers do not appear to make the best use of the potential for giving healthcare advice and need to think about ways to increase coverage of those services.

Klíčová slova:

Educational attainment – Health care – Health care policy – Health care providers – Health insurance – Netherlands – Physicians – Questionnaires


Zdroje

1. Enthoven AC, van de Ven WPMM. Going Dutch—Managed-Competition Health Insurance in the Netherlands. N Engl J Med. 2007;375.

2. van de Ven WPMM. Market oriented halth care reforms: trends and future options. Soc Sci Med. 1996;43(5).

3. Pauly MV. Monopsony power in health insurance: thinkin straight while standing on your head. J Health Econ. 1987;6.

4. Sorensen AT. Insurer-hospital bargaining: negotiated discounts in post-deregulation Conneticut. J Ind Econ. 2003;51(4).

5. Wu VY. Managed care's price bargaining with hospitals. J Health Econ. 2009;28.

6. Duijmelinck D, van de Ven W. What can Europe learn from the managed care backlash in the United States? Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2016;120(5):509–18. Epub 2016/04/09. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2016.03.010 27055353.

7. Bes RE. Selective contracting by health insurers: the perspective of enrolees. Utrecht: Nivel; 2018.

8. Bes RE, Curfs EC, Groenewegen PP, de Jong JD. Selective contracting and channelling patients to preferred providers: a scoping review. Health policy (Amsterdam, Netherlands). 2017;121(5).

9. Boonen LHHM. Consumer channeling in health care: (im)possible? Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam; 2009.

10. Varkevisser M, Polman N, van der Geest SA. Zorgverzekeraars moeten patiënten kunnen 'sturen'. ESB. 2006;91(4478).

11. Bes RE. Selective contracting by health insurers: the perspective of enrolees. Utrecht: Nivel; 2017.

12. van de Ven WPMM, Schut FT. Managed competition in the Netherlands: still work-in-progress. Health Econ. 2009;18.

13. Varkevisser M. Hand in hand. Op zoek naar de juiste balans tussen marktwerking en overheidsingrijpen in de gezondheidszorg. Rotterdam: Erasmus University Rotterdam, 2019.

14. Bes RE, Curfs EC, Groenewegen PP, de Jong JD. Advice from the health insurer as a channelling strategy: a natural experiment at a Dutch health insurance company. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18.

15. Boonen LHHM, F.T. S. Preferred providers and the credible commitment problem in health insurance: first experiences with the implementation of managed competition in the Dutch health care system. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011;6.

16. Dijs-Elsinga J, Otten W, Versluijs MM, Smeets HJ, Kievit J, Vree R, et al. Choosing a hospital for surgery: the importance of information on quality of care. Med Decis Making. 2010;30.

17. Rosen R, Curry N, Florin D. Public vieuws on choices in health and health care. A qualitative study. London: King’s Fund, 2005.

18. Chiou J-S, Droge C. Service quality, trust, specific asset investment, and expertise: direct and indirect effect in a satisfaction-loyalty framework. J Acad Mark Sci. 2006;34.

19. Lassar WM, Manolis C, Winsor RD. Service quality perspectives and satisfation in private banking. J Serv Mark. 2000;14(3).

20. Lien NH, Kao SL. The effects of service quality dimensions on customer satisfation across different service types: alternative differntiation as a moderator. Proceedings of Advances in Consumer Research. 2008;35.

21. Strategists G. Het bedrijfsmodel van zorgverzekeraars. Mogelijkheden om te concurreren. Amsterdam: Gupta Strategists, 2015.

22. Donelan K, Rao SR, Rogers RS, Mailhot JR, Galvin R. Experience with Health Coach-Mediated Physician Referral in an Employed Insured Population. J Gen Intern Med. 2010;25(10).

23. Siciliani L, Borowitz M, Moran V. Waitig Time Policies in the Health Sector: What Works? Paris, France: OECD Health Policy Studies, 2013.

24. Brabers AE, Reitsma-van Rooijen M, de Jong JD. Consumentenpanel Gezondheidszorg. Basisrapport met informatie over het panel. Utrecht: Nivel, 2015.

25. Subjects CCoRIH. Your research: Is it Is it subject to the WMO or not? [cited 2019 5-03-2019]. Available from: https://english.ccmo.nl/investigators/legal-framework-for-medical-scientific-research/your-research-is-it-subject-to-the-wmo-or-not.

26. Verwijzingen naar geslacht en leeftijd [Internet]. Nivel Zorgregistraties eerste lijn. 2018 [cited 15-03-2018]. Available from: https://www.nivel.nl/nl/nzr/zzorgverlener/huisarts/verwijzingen/verwijzingen-naar-geslacht-en-leeftijd.

27. Bes RE, Wendel S, Curfs EC, Groenewegen PP, de Jong JD. Acceptance of selective contracting: the role of trust in the health insurer. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13.

28. Victoor A, Noordman J, Potappel A, Meijers M, Kloek CJJ, de Jong JD. Dicussing patients' insurance and out-of-pocket expenses during GP's consultations. BMC Health Serv Res. 2019;19.

29. Victoor A, Delnoij DM, Friele RD, Rademakers JJ. Determinants of patient choice of healthcare providers: a scoping review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12.

30. Victoor A, Friele RD, Delnoij DMJ, Rademakers JJDJM. Free choice of healthcare providers in the Netherlands is both a goal in itself and a precondition: modelling the policy assumptions underlying the promotion of patient choice through documentary analysis and interviews. BMC Health Serv Res. 2012;12.


Článek vyšel v časopise

PLOS One


2019 Číslo 11