Do consumers perceive and trust health insurers within a system of managed competition as prudent buyers of care?

IF 3.3 3区 医学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES Health Economics Policy and Law Pub Date : 2025-03-11 DOI:10.1017/S1744133124000185
Karel C F Stolper, Izel Yildirim, Lieke H H M Boonen, Frederik T Schut, Marco Varkevisser
{"title":"Do consumers perceive and trust health insurers within a system of managed competition as prudent buyers of care?","authors":"Karel C F Stolper, Izel Yildirim, Lieke H H M Boonen, Frederik T Schut, Marco Varkevisser","doi":"10.1017/S1744133124000185","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In health care systems based upon the principles of managed competition, health insurers are expected to act as prudent buyers of care. Consumers are expected to switch between insurers based upon the performance of insurers in this role. Yet, the Dutch experience shows that trust of consumers in health insurers is low and that switching consumers focus primarily on price. The question arises if consumers do in fact perceive and trust insurers as prudent buyers of care. We addressed this question by using a mixed-method approach. The results show that most people know that insurers buy health care and feel that the purchasing tasks suit their role. They even have reasonable, though fragile, trust in the purchasing competencies of the insurer. However, the results also revealed that consumers have insufficient information to cast a judgement about insurers as purchasers and incorrectly think that insurers are commercial organisations. Hence, improving the public information about insurers and their purchasing role seems to be crucial. Given the inherent complexity in the system, it remains to be seen if this objective can be reached in the (near) future. For that reason, policymakers should also consider additional measures to encourage that insurers will take integral purchasing responsibility.</p>","PeriodicalId":46836,"journal":{"name":"Health Economics Policy and Law","volume":" ","pages":"1-26"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-11","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/S1744133124000185","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

In health care systems based upon the principles of managed competition, health insurers are expected to act as prudent buyers of care. Consumers are expected to switch between insurers based upon the performance of insurers in this role. Yet, the Dutch experience shows that trust of consumers in health insurers is low and that switching consumers focus primarily on price. The question arises if consumers do in fact perceive and trust insurers as prudent buyers of care. We addressed this question by using a mixed-method approach. The results show that most people know that insurers buy health care and feel that the purchasing tasks suit their role. They even have reasonable, though fragile, trust in the purchasing competencies of the insurer. However, the results also revealed that consumers have insufficient information to cast a judgement about insurers as purchasers and incorrectly think that insurers are commercial organisations. Hence, improving the public information about insurers and their purchasing role seems to be crucial. Given the inherent complexity in the system, it remains to be seen if this objective can be reached in the (near) future. For that reason, policymakers should also consider additional measures to encourage that insurers will take integral purchasing responsibility.

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
在一个有管理的竞争体系中,消费者是否认为并信任医疗保险公司是谨慎的医疗购买者?
在基于管理竞争原则的卫生保健系统中,健康保险公司应作为谨慎的医疗购买者。预计消费者会根据保险公司在这一角色中的表现在不同的保险公司之间进行切换。然而,荷兰的经验表明,消费者对医疗保险公司的信任度很低,转变的消费者主要关注价格。如果消费者确实认为并信任保险公司是谨慎的医疗购买者,问题就出现了。我们使用混合方法解决了这个问题。结果表明,大多数人知道保险公司购买医疗保健,并认为购买任务适合他们的角色。他们甚至对保险公司的购买能力抱有合理(尽管脆弱)的信任。然而,结果也显示,消费者没有足够的信息来判断作为购买者的保险公司,并错误地认为保险公司是商业组织。因此,改善有关保险公司及其购买角色的公共信息似乎至关重要。鉴于该系统固有的复杂性,这一目标能否在(不久的)将来实现还有待观察。出于这个原因,政策制定者还应考虑采取额外措施,鼓励保险公司承担整体购买责任。
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
Depoliticising resilience? Uncovering the political theories of health system resilience. Acting reactively: private investment, controversies and regulatory and policy responses in residential long-term care in Ontario (Canada), Lombardy (Italy), the Netherlands and England (United Kingdom). Legal implications of joint clinical assessments under the EU HTA regulation. Private equity involvement in long-term care: what can we learn from the United States, Ireland, and Poland? Cost-effectiveness thresholds in policy and practice: do HTA guidelines align with estimates of health opportunity cost?
×
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:604180095
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