↓ Skip to main content

Can premium differentiation counteract adverse selection in the Dutch supplementary health insurance? A simulation study

Overview of attention for article published in HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
18 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Can premium differentiation counteract adverse selection in the Dutch supplementary health insurance? A simulation study
Published in
HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care, July 2017
DOI 10.1007/s10198-017-0918-2
Pubmed ID
Authors

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

Abstract

Most health insurers in the Netherlands apply community-rating and open enrolment for supplementary health insurance, although it is offered at a free market. Theoretically, this should result in adverse selection. There are four indications that adverse selection indeed has started to occur on the Dutch supplementary insurance market. The goal of this paper is to analyze whether premium differentiation would be able to counteract adverse selection. We do this by simulating the uptake and premium development of supplementary insurance over 25 years using data on healthcare expenses and background characteristics from 110,261 insured. For the simulation of adverse selection, it is assumed that only insured for whom supplementary insurance is expected not to be beneficial will consider opting out of the insurance. Therefore, we calculate for each insured the financial profitability (by making assumptions about the consumer's expected claims and the premium set by the insurer), the individual's risk attitude and the probability to opt out or opt in. The simulation results show that adverse selection might result in a substantial decline in insurance uptake. Additionally, the simulations show that if insurers were to differentiate their premium to 28 age and gender groups, adverse selection could be modestly counteracted. Finally, this paper shows that if insurers would apply highly refined risk-rating, adverse selection for this type of supplementary insurance could be counteracted completely.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 18 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 4 22%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 22%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 11%
Librarian 1 6%
Other 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 6 33%
Social Sciences 2 11%
Medicine and Dentistry 2 11%
Psychology 1 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 6%
Other 2 11%
Unknown 4 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 31 July 2017.
All research outputs
#20,660,571
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#1,039
of 1,303 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#252,930
of 326,986 outputs
Outputs of similar age from HEPAC Health Economics in Prevention and Care
#12
of 19 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 7th percentile – i.e., 7% 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 326,986 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 12th percentile – i.e., 12% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 19 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.