Financial risk protection in private health insurance: empirical evidence on catastrophic and impoverishing spending from Germany's dual insurance system.

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2024-01-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1017/S1744133123000105
Philipp Hengel, Miriam Blümel, Martin Siegel, Katharina Achstetter, Julia Köppen, Reinhard Busse
{"title":"Financial risk protection in private health insurance: empirical evidence on catastrophic and impoverishing spending from Germany's dual insurance system.","authors":"Philipp Hengel, Miriam Blümel, Martin Siegel, Katharina Achstetter, Julia Köppen, Reinhard Busse","doi":"10.1017/S1744133123000105","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Financial risk protection from high costs for care is a main goal of health systems. Health system characteristics typically associated with universal health coverage and financial risk protection, such as financial redistribution between insureds, are inherent to, e.g. social health insurance (SHI) but missing in private health insurance (PHI). This study provides evidence on financial protection in PHI for the case of Germany's dual insurance system of PHI and SHI, where PHI covers 11% of the population. Linked survey and claims data of PHI insureds (<i>n</i> = 3105) and population-wide household budget data (<i>n</i> = 42,226) are used to compute the prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE), i.e. the share of households whose out-of-pocket payments either exceed 40% of their capacity-to-pay or push them (further) into poverty. Despite comparatively high out-of-pocket payments, CHE is low in German PHI. It only affects the poor. Key to low financial burden seems to be the restriction of PHI to a small, overall wealthy group. Protection for the worse-off is provided through special mandatorily offered tariffs. In sum, Germany's dual health insurance system provides close-to-universal coverage. Future studies should further investigate the effect of premiums on financial burden, especially when linked to utilisation.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"3-20"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Economics Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1744133123000105","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/9/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Financial risk protection from high costs for care is a main goal of health systems. Health system characteristics typically associated with universal health coverage and financial risk protection, such as financial redistribution between insureds, are inherent to, e.g. social health insurance (SHI) but missing in private health insurance (PHI). This study provides evidence on financial protection in PHI for the case of Germany's dual insurance system of PHI and SHI, where PHI covers 11% of the population. Linked survey and claims data of PHI insureds (n = 3105) and population-wide household budget data (n = 42,226) are used to compute the prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE), i.e. the share of households whose out-of-pocket payments either exceed 40% of their capacity-to-pay or push them (further) into poverty. Despite comparatively high out-of-pocket payments, CHE is low in German PHI. It only affects the poor. Key to low financial burden seems to be the restriction of PHI to a small, overall wealthy group. Protection for the worse-off is provided through special mandatorily offered tariffs. In sum, Germany's dual health insurance system provides close-to-universal coverage. Future studies should further investigate the effect of premiums on financial burden, especially when linked to utilisation.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
私人医疗保险中的财务风险保护:德国双重保险制度中灾难性和贫困性支出的经验证据。
防范高额医疗费用带来的财务风险是医疗系统的主要目标。通常与全民医保和财务风险保护相关的医疗系统特征,如被保险人之间的财务再分配,是社会医疗保险(SHI)所固有的,但在私人医疗保险(PHI)中却不存在。本研究以德国的私人医疗保险和社会医疗保险双重保险体系为例,提供了私人医疗保险中财务保护的证据,其中私人医疗保险覆盖了 11% 的人口。本研究利用 PHI 受保人的关联调查和理赔数据(n = 3105)以及全人口家庭预算数据(n = 42226)来计算灾难性医疗支出(CHE)的发生率,即自付费用超过其支付能力的 40% 或使其进一步陷入贫困的家庭所占的比例。尽管自付费用相对较高,但 CHE 在德国 PHI 中的比例很低。它只影响穷人。经济负担低的关键似乎在于私人医疗保险仅限于少数总体富裕的群体。通过强制提供的特别费率,为经济条件较差的人提供了保障。总之,德国的双重医疗保险制度提供了接近全民的保障。未来的研究应进一步调查保费对经济负担的影响,特别是与使用率相关的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Economics Policy and Law
Health Economics Policy and Law HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
5.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: International trends highlight the confluence of economics, politics and legal considerations in the health policy process. Health Economics, Policy and Law serves as a forum for scholarship on health policy issues from these perspectives, and is of use to academics, policy makers and health care managers and professionals. HEPL is international in scope, publishes both theoretical and applied work, and contains articles on all aspects of health policy. Considerable emphasis is placed on rigorous conceptual development and analysis, and on the presentation of empirical evidence that is relevant to the policy process.
期刊最新文献
How should medicines reimbursement work? The views of Spanish experts. Success and failure in establishing national physician databases: a comparison between Canada and Israel. Implications of the fair processes for financing UHC report for development assistance: reflections and an application of the decision-making principles to PEPFAR. A systematic literature review of real-world evidence (RWE) on post-market assessment of medical devices. Response to critics of Open and Inclusive: Fair Processes for Financing Universal Health Coverage.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1