IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v21y2026i3p324-348_5.html

Market distortions in the Dutch mixed long-term care market: an exploratory analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Krabbe-Alkemade, Yvonne
  • Makai, Peter
  • Canoy, Marcel
  • Kemp, Ron
  • Portrait, France

Abstract

Mixed markets can enhance welfare compared to full public or private provision. However, this welfare gain depends on the extent to which market distortions exist. Recent literature demonstrates distortions in mixed long-term care markets worldwide. Our study explores potential distortions in the Dutch institutional market. While all Dutch residential nursing homes are non-profit, for-profit organisations, including private equity (PE) firms, have increasingly entered the market, offering round-the-clock care provided in home-like settings as an alternative to non-profit residential care. We analysed claims data from 2017–2021 for dementia patients aged 70 and older using multinomial logit and Cox Proportional Hazards models. Specifically, we compared risk selection, upgrading, and care quality (measured by avoidable hospitalisations and mortality) between for-profit and non-profit providers. Our findings do not suggest increased risk selection, higher upgrading, or lower care quality by for-profit (PE-owned) providers compared to non-profit providers. Consequently, we did not find evidence of strong market distortions in the Dutch institutional long-term care market. These results contrast with the existing international literature, suggesting that adverse incentives in the Netherlands may be influenced more by the way care is provided (in home-like settings versus in residential nursing homes) and financing structures rather than ownership type alone.

Suggested Citation

  • Krabbe-Alkemade, Yvonne & Makai, Peter & Canoy, Marcel & Kemp, Ron & Portrait, France, 2026. "Market distortions in the Dutch mixed long-term care market: an exploratory analysis," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 21(3), pages 324-348, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:21:y:2026:i:3:p:324-348_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S1744133125100248/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:21:y:2026:i:3:p:324-348_5. 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.