Dutch Social Health Insurance Research Articles

Questions regarding ‘epistemic injustice’ in knowledge-intensive policymaking: Two examples from Dutch health insurance policy

In contemporary healthcare policies the logic of Evidence-based Medicine (EBM) is typically proposed as a way of addressing a demand to explicitly justify policy decisions. Policymakers' use of ‘evidence’ is presumed to pertain to ideals of justice in decision-making. However, according to some, EBM is liable to generate ‘epistemic injustice’ because it prefers quantitative types of evidence and – as a result of that – potentially undervalues the qualitative testimonies of doctors and patients. Miranda Fricker's concept of ‘epistemic injustice’ refers to a wrong done to a person in their capacity as a knower. This paper explores the usefulness and limits of this concept in the context of public decision-making. How is evidence-based policymaking intertwined with questions of ‘epistemic injustice’? Drawing from ethnographic research conducted at the National Health Care Institute, we analyze two cases of EBM-inspired policy practices in Dutch social health insurance: 1) the use of the principles of EBM in making a public reimbursement decision, and 2) private insurers' use of quantitative performance indicators for the practice of selective contracting on the Dutch healthcare market. While the concept of ‘epistemic injustice’ misses some key processes involved in understanding how ‘knowing gets done’ in public policy, it does shed new light on priority-setting processes. Patients or medical professionals who are not duly recognized as credible and intelligible epistemic agents, subsequently, lack the social power to influence priority-setting practices. They are thus not merely frustrated in their capacity to be heard and make themselves understood, they are potentially deprived of a fair share in collective financial and medical resources. If we fail to recognize inequalities in credibility and intelligibility between diverse groups of knowers, there is a chance that these epistemic inequalities are being reproduced in our system of health insurance and our ways of distributing healthcare provisions.

Collective constructions of \u2018waste\u2019: epistemic practices for disinvestment in the context of Dutch social health insurance

BackgroundFaced with growing budget pressure, policymakers worldwide recognize the necessity of strategic disinvestment from ineffective, inefficient or harmful medical practices. However, disinvestment programs face substantial social, political and cultural challenges: mistrust, struggles for clinical autonomy or stakeholders’ reluctance to engage in what can be perceived as ‘rationing’. Academic literature says little about effective strategies to address these challenges. This paper provides insights on this matter. We analyzed the epistemic work of a group of policymakers at the National Health Care Institute on what was initially a disinvestment initiative within the context of the Dutch basic benefits package: the ‘Appropriate Care’ program. The Institute developed a strategy using national administrative data to identify and tackle low-value care covered from public funds as well as potential underuse, and achieve savings through improved organization of efficiency and quality in health care delivery. How did the Institute deal with the socio-political sensitivities associated with disinvestment by means of their epistemic work?MethodWe conducted ethnographic research into the National Health Care Institute’s epistemic practices. Research entailed document analysis, non-participant observation, in-depth conversations, and interviews with key-informants.ResultsThe Institute dealt with the socio-political sensitivities associated with disinvestment by democratizing the epistemic practices to identify low-value care, by warranting data analysis by clinical experts, by creating an epistemic safe space for health care professionals who were the object of research into low-value care, and by de-emphasizing the economization measure. Ultimately, this epistemic work facilitated a collaborative construction of problems relating to low-value care practices and their solutions.ConclusionsThis case shows that – apart from the right data and adequate expertise – disinvestment requires clinical leadership and political will on the part of stakeholders. Our analysis of the Institute’s Appropriate Care program shows how the epistemic effort to identify low-value care became a co-construction between policymakers, care providers, patients and insurers of problems of ‘waste’ in Dutch social health insurance. This collective epistemic work gave cognitive, moral and political standing to the idea of ‘waste’ in public health expenditure.

Pricing behaviour of nonprofit insurers in a weakly competitive social health insurance market

In this paper we examine the pricing behaviour of nonprofit health insurers in the Dutch social health insurance market. Since for-profit insurers were not allowed in this market, potential spillover effects from the presence of for-profit insurers on the behaviour of nonprofit insurers were absent. Using a panel data set for all health insurers operating in the Dutch social health insurance market over the period 1996–2004, we estimate a premium model to determine which factors explain the price setting behaviour of nonprofit health insurers. We find that financial stability rather than profit maximisation offers the best explanation for health plan pricing behaviour. In the presence of weak price competition, health insurers did not set premiums to maximize profits. Nevertheless, our findings suggest that regulations on financial reserves are needed to restrict premiums.

K. P. Companje, R.H.M. Hendriks, K.F.E. Veraghtert en B.E.M. Widdershoven, Two Centuries of Solidarity. German, Belgian and Dutch Social Health Insurance 1770-2008

TSEG (Tijdschrift voor Sociale en Economische Geschiedenis) - The Low Countries Journal of Social and Economic History, is het Nederlands-Vlaamse vaktijdschrift op het gebied van de sociale en economische geschiedenis

The Changing Role of the State in the Dutch Healthcare System

This paper deals with the changing role of the state in the Dutch healthcare system. At the eve of the first oil crisis the Netherlands had a relatively compound healthcare system combining several characteristics of the three Western healthcare system types: National Health Service, social health insurance system, and private health insurance system. Comparative case-studies on OECD countries indicate a hybridization trend from relatively pure to mixed healthcare systems during the era of ‘permanent austerity’. The adequate question is therefore, how and why the role of the state has changed in the relatively mixed Dutch social health insurance system. In order to approach this research question in a systematic way, we distinguish between three dimensions of the healthcare system: regulation, financing, and service provision. In the regulation dimension we observe an increasing state influence on coverage by an incremental socialization of the private sector. This progress culminated in 2006 in the merger of sickness funds and private health insurances into a functional social health insurance under private law. Since the early 1980s the state also directly intervened in the corporatist bar-gaining of providers and insurers in order to contain costs and regain global competiveness. At the beginning of the new millennium tight budgets resulting in long waiting lists were no longer accepted against the background of a booming economy. Instead, the role of competition increased through new opportunities and incentives for selective contracting between insurers and providers. Therefore, we observe a shift from corpora-tist self-regulation towards state-regulated market competition within the institutional framework of a social health insurance system. This ongoing reform process towards a welfare market for medical goods was supported by the main political parties on the left and right in order to enhance efficiency and safeguard solidarity.

Health-Based Risk Adjustment: Improving the Pharmacy-Based Cost Group Model by Adding Diagnostic Cost Groups

Since 1991, risk-adjusted premium subsidies have existed in the Dutch social health insurance sector, which covered about two-thirds of the population until 2006. In 2002, pharmacy-based cost groups (PCGs) were included in the demographic risk adjustment model, which improved the goodness-of-fit, as measured by the R2, to 11.5%. The model's R2 reached 22.8% in 2004, when inpatient diagnostic information was added in the form of diagnostic cost groups (DCGs). PCGs and DCGs appear to be complementary in their ability to predict future costs. PCGs particularly improve the R2 for outpatient expenses, whereas DCGs improve the R2 for inpatient expenses. In 2006, this system of risk-adjusted premium subsidies was extended to cover the entire population.

Risk adjusted premium subsidies and risk sharing: key elements of the competitive sickness fund market in the Netherlands

As part of a market-oriented health care reform, in 1991 risk adjusted premium subsidies were introduced in the Dutch social health insurance sector. Currently the premium subsidies are primarily based on demographic variables. To mitigate the obvious inadequacy of these risk adjusters, the system of risk adjustment is supplemented with a system of risk sharing. This paper describes the main characteristics of the Dutch health care system and the development of risk adjustment and risk sharing in the last decade. The effects of introducing financial risk for Dutch sickness funds on risk selection and consumer mobility are analysed. The paper concludes with a description of expected future developments.

Managed competition and consumer price sensitivity in social health insurance

This paper examines whether the introduction of managed competition in Dutch social health insurance has resulted in effective price competition among insurance funds. We find evidence of limited price competition, which may be caused by low consumer price sensitivity. Using aggregate panel data from all insurance funds over the period 1996–1998, estimated premium elasticities of market share are −0.3 for compulsory coverage and −0.8 for supplementary coverage. These elasticities are much smaller than in managed competition settings in US group insurance. This may be explained by differences in switching experience and higher search costs associated with individual insurance.

The high costs of death: should health plans get higher payments when members die?

Since 1993, major reforms have been implemented in the Dutch social health insurance system. The competing sickness funds receive risk-adjusted capitation payments based on age, gender, region, and a disability indicator. As these very crude health indicators do not reflect expected costs accurately, an extensive ex post equalization between sickness funds takes place. Mortality has been suggested as an additional risk adjuster, mainly because of high health care expenditures before death. The authors investigated whether capitation payments could be improved by using mortality as a risk adjuster. Using data sets that cover a general population and contain individual-level information on demographic characteristics, health care costs, hospitalizations, and year of death (when applicable), expenditures in a period of up to 7 years before death and the consequences for capitation payments if mortality-related costs are taken into account, were analyzed. For a general population, costs per person-year in the last calendar year of life were estimated at 15.3 times average. For those younger than 65 years, this number was 27.3 times average, and for the elderly, it was 4.7 times average. Most of these excess costs were unpredictable. Even with the most comprehensive regression model, actual costs of decedents were still 250% higher than predicted costs. Mortality would improve capitation payments marginally, at best. The empirical findings, added to theoretical and practical problems of using mortality in this context, suggest that mortality should not be used as a risk adjuster. Further research should be directed at other, more promising risk adjusters.