Skip to main content
Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2016

29.02.2016 | Editorial

The demand for health insurance and behavioural economics

verfasst von: K. P. M. van Winssen, R. C. van Kleef, W. P. M. M. van de Ven

Erschienen in: The European Journal of Health Economics | Ausgabe 6/2016

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Excerpt

A vast amount of traditional economic literature [e.g. 2, 13, 20] describes the advantages and disadvantages of taking out health insurance. The major advantage of insurance is the reduction of uncertainty regarding financial losses [12]. The welfare gain from this uncertainty reduction depends on the individual’s degree of risk aversion [14], which is affected by the presence of background risks (i.e. risks that cannot be avoided or insured against, such as labour income risks). Several studies show that background risks to wealth makes risk averse individuals behave in a more risk averse way with respect to any other independent risk [e.g. 5]. This concept is called risk vulnerability [8], and causes insured to reduce their exposure to avoidable risks, for instance by increasing their insurance demand [9]. Another advantage of health insurance is that it provides access to healthcare services that would otherwise be unaffordable [12]. The disadvantages of insurance are moral hazard, the loading fee and the transaction costs related to purchasing the insurance and handling the claims. The literature shows that full insurance is far from optimal and that a mix between coverage and cost sharing is preferred. Optimal designs of health insurance (1) protect individuals against unpredictable high financial risks, (2) provide access to otherwise unaffordable healthcare services, (3) include first-dollar cost sharing, and (4) incorporate individual caps on out-of-pocket expenses [4] (see Table 1). In practice, however, insurance design does not always comply with these principles. An obvious example concerns the Dutch supplementary health insurance (SHI). As we will explain below, the Dutch SHI substantially deviates from the optimal design. It is therefore surprising to observe the popularity of this scheme: 84 % of the Dutch insured took out SHI in 2015. This intriguing paradox suggests that additional aspects––compared to those mentioned in the traditional economic literature––may play a role in the demand for health insurance. After a short description of the Dutch SHI, we will discuss a series of potential explanations for the high uptake of “suboptimal” insurance stemming from key insights described in the behavioural economic literature.
Table 1
Characteristics of health insurance design: “optimal” versus the Dutch supplementary health insurance (SHI)
Characteristic
Optimal insurance design
Dutch SHI
1
What does the insurance provide protection against and what does it provide access to?
Unpredictable high financial risks and otherwise unaffordable healthcare services
Mostly predictable low financial risks (e.g. dental check-ups and consultations at the physiotherapist). Some SHIs provide protection against large expenses, but these are mostly maximised (e.g. dental expenses after an accident (up to about €10,000), care consumed in a foreign country)
2
Is cost sharing applied and if so, how?
Yes, in the form of first-dollar cost sharing
No, except only dental insurances apply coinsurance of 20–25 %
3
Are caps on out-of-pocket expenses applied and if so, how?
Yes, in the form of an individual cap
No, after the coverage limits (e.g. nine treatments at a physiotherapist) are reached, insured pay the full expenses for healthcare services out-of-pocket
Fußnoten
1
Note that, if insured want coverage for healthcare services not covered by BHI, their only option is the current SHI since no better alternative SHI policies are offered at the Dutch SHI market. One could question why insurers do not offer alternative SHI policies that are more in line with traditional economics. Firstly, this might be due to the fact that other aspects provide a welfare gain to individuals that may affect the decision to take out SHI. Consequently, there might be no need (and no demand) for alternative policies. Secondly, such alternative policies would imply a tendency towards equivalence (i.e. risk rating and risk selection) at the SHI market. However, Dutch society demands solidarity even for healthcare services offered at the free SHI market. A potential fear of reputation loss might therefore prevent insurers from offering such policies.
 
2
Note that not all insured make a suboptimal choice when taking out SHI. Some insured may buy SHI because they know they will financially profit from it. Nonetheless, 30 % of the Dutch insured with SHI did not file any bills to their insurer for reimbursement in 2013.
 
Literatur
2.
Zurück zum Zitat Arrow, K.J.: Welfare analysis of change in health co-insurance rates. In: Rosett, R. (ed.) The role of health insurance in the health services sector, pp. 3–23. NBER, New York (1976) Arrow, K.J.: Welfare analysis of change in health co-insurance rates. In: Rosett, R. (ed.) The role of health insurance in the health services sector, pp. 3–23. NBER, New York (1976)
5.
Zurück zum Zitat Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., Schlesinger, H.: Changes in background risk and risk taking behavior. Econometrica 64(3), 683–689 (1996). doi:10.2307/2171866 CrossRef Eeckhoudt, L., Gollier, C., Schlesinger, H.: Changes in background risk and risk taking behavior. Econometrica 64(3), 683–689 (1996). doi:10.​2307/​2171866 CrossRef
6.
Zurück zum Zitat Ellsberg, D.: Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75(4), 643–669 (1961)CrossRef Ellsberg, D.: Risk, ambiguity, and the savage axioms. Q. J. Econ. 75(4), 643–669 (1961)CrossRef
8.
10.
Zurück zum Zitat Johnson, E.J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., Kunreuther, H.: Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J. Risk Uncertain. 7, 35–51 (1993)CrossRef Johnson, E.J., Hershey, J., Meszaros, J., Kunreuther, H.: Framing, probability distortions, and insurance decisions. J. Risk Uncertain. 7, 35–51 (1993)CrossRef
11.
Zurück zum Zitat Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979)CrossRef Kahneman, D., Tversky, A.: Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2), 263–291 (1979)CrossRef
14.
Zurück zum Zitat Pratt, J.W.: Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32, 122–136 (1964)CrossRef Pratt, J.W.: Risk aversion in the small and in the large. Econometrica 32, 122–136 (1964)CrossRef
15.
Zurück zum Zitat Reed, M., Fung, V., Price, M., Brand, R., Benedetti, N., Derose, S.F., Newhouse, J.P., Hsu, J.: High-deductible health insurance plans: efforts to sharpen a blunt instrument. Health Aff. 28(4), 1145–1154 (2009). doi:10.1377/hlthaff.28.4.1145 CrossRef Reed, M., Fung, V., Price, M., Brand, R., Benedetti, N., Derose, S.F., Newhouse, J.P., Hsu, J.: High-deductible health insurance plans: efforts to sharpen a blunt instrument. Health Aff. 28(4), 1145–1154 (2009). doi:10.​1377/​hlthaff.​28.​4.​1145 CrossRef
17.
Zurück zum Zitat Thaler, R.H.: Mental accounting matters. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 12(3), 183–206 (1999)CrossRef Thaler, R.H.: Mental accounting matters. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 12(3), 183–206 (1999)CrossRef
18.
19.
Zurück zum Zitat Wakker, P.P., Timmermans, D.R.M., Machielse, I.: The effects of statistical information on risk and ambiguity attitudes, and on rational insurance decisions. Manag. Sci. 53(11), 1770–1784 (2007). doi:10.1287/mnsc.1070.0735 CrossRef Wakker, P.P., Timmermans, D.R.M., Machielse, I.: The effects of statistical information on risk and ambiguity attitudes, and on rational insurance decisions. Manag. Sci. 53(11), 1770–1784 (2007). doi:10.​1287/​mnsc.​1070.​0735 CrossRef
Metadaten
Titel
The demand for health insurance and behavioural economics
verfasst von
K. P. M. van Winssen
R. C. van Kleef
W. P. M. M. van de Ven
Publikationsdatum
29.02.2016
Verlag
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Erschienen in
The European Journal of Health Economics / Ausgabe 6/2016
Print ISSN: 1618-7598
Elektronische ISSN: 1618-7601
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0776-3

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2016

The European Journal of Health Economics 6/2016 Zur Ausgabe