↓ Skip to main content

Redistribution through social health insurance: evidence on citizen preferences

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, July 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (83rd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (73rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
46 Mendeley
Title
Redistribution through social health insurance: evidence on citizen preferences
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, July 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10198-015-0704-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Christian Pfarr, Andreas Schmid

Abstract

The extent of social health insurance (SHI) and supplementary private insurance is frequently analyzed in public choice. Most of these analyses build on the model developed by Gouveia (1997), who defines the extent of SHI as consequence of a choice by self-interested voters. In this model, an indicator reflecting individuals' relative income position and relative risk of falling ill determines the voting decision. Up to now, no empirical evidence for this key assumption has been available. We test the effect of this indicator on individuals' preferences for the extent of SHI in a setting with mandatory SHI that can be supplemented by private insurance. The data is based on a DCE conducted in the field with a representative sample of 1538 German citizens in 2012. Conditional logit and latent class models are used to analyze preference heterogeneity. Our findings strongly support the assumptions of the models. Individuals likely to benefit from public coverage show a positive marginal willingness to pay (MWTP) for both a shift away from other beneficiary groups toward the sick and an expansion of publicly financed resources, and the expected net payers have a negative MWTP and prefer lower levels of public coverage.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 46 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 46 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 17%
Student > Master 7 15%
Researcher 4 9%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 9%
Student > Bachelor 3 7%
Other 7 15%
Unknown 13 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 10 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 6 13%
Social Sciences 6 13%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 11%
Environmental Science 2 4%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 13 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 10. 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 09 June 2016.
All research outputs
#3,622,393
of 25,374,917 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#225
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#44,416
of 277,583 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#5
of 23 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,917 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 85th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
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 has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
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 277,583 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 23 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its contemporaries.