IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v19y2024i1p3-20_2.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Financial risk protection in private health insurance: empirical evidence on catastrophic and impoverishing spending from Germany's dual insurance system

Author

Listed:
  • Hengel, Philipp
  • Blümel, Miriam
  • Siegel, Martin
  • Achstetter, Katharina
  • Köppen, Julia
  • Busse, Reinhard

Abstract

Financial risk protection from high costs for care is a main goal of health systems. Health system characteristics typically associated with universal health coverage and financial risk protection, such as financial redistribution between insureds, are inherent to, e.g. social health insurance (SHI) but missing in private health insurance (PHI). This study provides evidence on financial protection in PHI for the case of Germany's dual insurance system of PHI and SHI, where PHI covers 11% of the population. Linked survey and claims data of PHI insureds (n = 3105) and population-wide household budget data (n = 42,226) are used to compute the prevalence of catastrophic health expenditures (CHE), i.e. the share of households whose out-of-pocket payments either exceed 40% of their capacity-to-pay or push them (further) into poverty. Despite comparatively high out-of-pocket payments, CHE is low in German PHI. It only affects the poor. Key to low financial burden seems to be the restriction of PHI to a small, overall wealthy group. Protection for the worse-off is provided through special mandatorily offered tariffs. In sum, Germany's dual health insurance system provides close-to-universal coverage. Future studies should further investigate the effect of premiums on financial burden, especially when linked to utilisation.

Suggested Citation

  • Hengel, Philipp & Blümel, Miriam & Siegel, Martin & Achstetter, Katharina & Köppen, Julia & Busse, Reinhard, 2024. "Financial risk protection in private health insurance: empirical evidence on catastrophic and impoverishing spending from Germany's dual insurance system," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 19(1), pages 3-20, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:19:y:2024:i:1:p:3-20_2
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133123000105/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:19:y:2024:i:1:p:3-20_2. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.