↓ Skip to main content

Improving the prediction model used in risk equalization: cost and diagnostic information from multiple prior years

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, February 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
3 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
10 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
26 Mendeley
Title
Improving the prediction model used in risk equalization: cost and diagnostic information from multiple prior years
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, February 2014
DOI 10.1007/s10198-014-0567-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

S. H. C. M. van Veen, R. C. van Kleef, W. P. M. M. van de Ven, R. C. J. A. van Vliet

Abstract

Currently-used risk-equalization models do not adequately compensate insurers for predictable differences in individuals' health care expenses. Consequently, insurers face incentives for risk rating and risk selection, both of which jeopardize affordability of coverage, accessibility to health care, and quality of care. This study explores to what extent the predictive performance of the prediction model used in risk equalization can be improved by using additional administrative information on costs and diagnoses from three prior years. We analyze data from 13.8 million individuals in the Netherlands in the period 2006-2009. First, we show that there is potential for improving models' predictive performance at both the population and subgroup level by extending them with risk adjusters based on cost and/or diagnostic information from multiple prior years. Second, we show that even these extended models do not adequately compensate insurers. By using these extended models incentives for risk rating and risk selection can be reduced substantially but not removed completely. The extent to which risk-equalization models can be improved in practice may differ across countries, depending on the availability of data, the method chosen to calculate risk-adjusted payments, the value judgment by the regulator about risk factors for which the model should and should not compensate insurers, and the trade-off between risk selection and efficiency.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 26 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 26 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 19%
Professor 4 15%
Student > Bachelor 3 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 8%
Researcher 2 8%
Other 6 23%
Unknown 4 15%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 5 19%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 12%
Mathematics 2 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 8%
Computer Science 2 8%
Other 7 27%
Unknown 5 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 February 2014.
All research outputs
#16,722,190
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#899
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#200,096
of 329,388 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#30
of 35 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,303 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.7. This one is in the 29th percentile – i.e., 29% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 329,388 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 35 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.