↓ Skip to main content

Overpaying morbidity adjusters in risk equalization models

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, September 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 (87th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (83rd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
1 news outlet
policy
1 policy source
twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
5 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Overpaying morbidity adjusters in risk equalization models
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, September 2015
DOI 10.1007/s10198-015-0729-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Most competitive social health insurance markets include risk equalization to compensate insurers for predictable variation in healthcare expenses. Empirical literature shows that even the most sophisticated risk equalization models-with advanced morbidity adjusters-substantially undercompensate insurers for selected groups of high-risk individuals. In the presence of premium regulation, these undercompensations confront consumers and insurers with incentives for risk selection. An important reason for the undercompensations is that not all information with predictive value regarding healthcare expenses is appropriate for use as a morbidity adjuster. To reduce incentives for selection regarding specific groups we propose overpaying morbidity adjusters that are already included in the risk equalization model. This paper illustrates the idea of overpaying by merging data on morbidity adjusters and healthcare expenses with health survey information, and derives three preconditions for meaningful application. Given these preconditions, we think overpaying may be particularly useful for pharmacy-based cost groups.

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 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 30%
Student > Master 4 17%
Professor 3 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 9 39%
Medicine and Dentistry 6 26%
Computer Science 1 4%
Social Sciences 1 4%
Mathematics 1 4%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 5 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 30 September 2016.
All research outputs
#2,759,722
of 25,373,627 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#148
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#36,635
of 286,192 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#4
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,373,627 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th 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 88% 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 286,192 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 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its contemporaries.