Changing roles of health insurers in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: any lessons to learn from Bismarckian systems?

IF 3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2023-10-01 Epub Date: 2023-09-07 DOI:10.1017/S1744133123000191
Frederik T Schut, Cornelia Henschke, Zeynep Or
{"title":"Changing roles of health insurers in France, Germany, and the Netherlands: any lessons to learn from Bismarckian systems?","authors":"Frederik T Schut,&nbsp;Cornelia Henschke,&nbsp;Zeynep Or","doi":"10.1017/S1744133123000191","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Bismarckian health systems are mainly governed by social health insurers, but their role, status, and power vary across countries and over time. We compare the role of health insurers in three distinct social health insurance systems in improving health systems' efficiency. In France, insurers work together as a single payer within a highly regulated context. Although this gives insurers substantial bargaining power, collective negotiations with providers are highly political and do not provide appropriate incentives for efficiency. Both Germany and the Netherlands have introduced competition among insurers to foster efficiency. However, the rationale of insurer competition in Germany is unclear because contracts are mostly concluded at a collective level and individual insurers have little power to influence health system efficiency. In the Netherlands, insurer competition is substantially more effective, but primarily focused on price and cost containment. In all three countries, the role of insurers has been transforming slowly to respond to common challenges of assuring care quality and continuity for an ageing population. To assure sustainability, they need to ensure that care providers cooperate with the same quality and efficiency objectives, but their capacity to do so has been limited by insufficient support to enforce public information on provider quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-01","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/S1744133123000191","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

Bismarckian health systems are mainly governed by social health insurers, but their role, status, and power vary across countries and over time. We compare the role of health insurers in three distinct social health insurance systems in improving health systems' efficiency. In France, insurers work together as a single payer within a highly regulated context. Although this gives insurers substantial bargaining power, collective negotiations with providers are highly political and do not provide appropriate incentives for efficiency. Both Germany and the Netherlands have introduced competition among insurers to foster efficiency. However, the rationale of insurer competition in Germany is unclear because contracts are mostly concluded at a collective level and individual insurers have little power to influence health system efficiency. In the Netherlands, insurer competition is substantially more effective, but primarily focused on price and cost containment. In all three countries, the role of insurers has been transforming slowly to respond to common challenges of assuring care quality and continuity for an ageing population. To assure sustainability, they need to ensure that care providers cooperate with the same quality and efficiency objectives, but their capacity to do so has been limited by insufficient support to enforce public information on provider quality.

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
法国、德国和荷兰医疗保险公司角色的变化:从俾斯麦制度中可以吸取什么教训?
俾斯麦的医疗系统主要由社会医疗保险公司管理,但它们的作用、地位和权力因国家而异。我们比较了医疗保险公司在三种不同的社会医疗保险系统中提高医疗系统效率的作用。在法国,保险公司作为一个单一的付款人在高度监管的环境中合作。尽管这给了保险公司很大的议价能力,但与供应商的集体谈判具有高度的政治性,并不能为效率提供适当的激励。德国和荷兰都引入了保险公司之间的竞争,以提高效率。然而,德国保险公司竞争的理由尚不清楚,因为合同大多是在集体层面签订的,个人保险公司几乎没有权力影响医疗系统的效率。在荷兰,保险公司的竞争要有效得多,但主要集中在价格和成本控制上。在这三个国家,保险公司的角色一直在缓慢转变,以应对确保老龄化人口护理质量和连续性的共同挑战。为了确保可持续性,他们需要确保护理提供者按照相同的质量和效率目标进行合作,但由于缺乏足够的支持来执行关于提供者质量的公共信息,他们这样做的能力受到了限制。
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
Private equity involvement in primary care: the case of Ireland. Procedural fairness to recalibrate the power imbalance in health decision-making: comment on the report: 'Open and inclusive: Fair processes for financing universal health coverage'. Navigating conflicting expectations in addressing healthcare scarcity: a q-methodology study on the Dutch National Health Care Institute. Including carer health-related quality of life in NICE health technology assessments in the United Kingdom. The inefficient effects of non-clinical factors on health care costs.
×
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