IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/eujhec/v19y2018i2d10.1007_s10198-017-0874-x.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Improving risk equalization using information on physiotherapy diagnoses

Author

Listed:
  • Frank Eijkenaar

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

  • René C. J. A. Vliet

    (Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Abstract

Background Worldwide, risk-equalization (RE) models in competitive health insurance markets have evolved from simple demographic models to sophisticated models containing diagnosis and pharmacy-based indicators of health. However, these models still have important imperfections; adding information on (diagnoses of) physiotherapy treatment may further improve RE-models. Therefore, a new risk-adjuster based on physiotherapy costs in the prior year was introduced in the Dutch RE-model of 2016. Methods Physiotherapy claims-data (2012) and administrative data on costs and risk-characteristics (2013) for 94% of the Dutch population (N = 15.8 million) are used to evaluate the current risk-adjuster based on physiotherapy costs and to assess the effects of replacing it by different modalities of a risk-adjuster based on physiotherapy diagnoses. Of the 89 diagnoses in the claims-data, 62 are dropped because they relate to temporary health problems. The 27 retained diagnoses are added to the Dutch model in 4 modalities: 27 separate risk-classes, 9 diagnosis-clusters based on main pathology category, 4 diagnosis-clusters based on residual costs, and the 4 clusters of modality 3 interacted with age. Results Although the cost-based risk-adjuster improves the model’s predictive power and removes the average undercompensation (€919) for enrollees with physiotherapy costs in the prior year, it is outperformed by all 4 diagnosis-based modalities. Of these modalities, modality 3 is preferred based on its simplicity and comparable predictive power. Conclusions Adding information on physiotherapy can further improve the performance of sophisticated RE-models. Regarding the Dutch model, a risk-adjuster containing 4 risk-classes for clustered diagnoses based on residual costs is the preferred modality.

Suggested Citation

  • Frank Eijkenaar & René C. J. A. Vliet, 2018. "Improving risk equalization using information on physiotherapy diagnoses," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 19(2), pages 203-211, March.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0874-x
    DOI: 10.1007/s10198-017-0874-x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10198-017-0874-x
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s10198-017-0874-x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. van Kleef, R.C. & van Vliet, R.C.J.A. & van Rooijen, E.M., 2014. "Diagnoses-based cost groups in the Dutch risk-equalization model: The effects of including outpatient diagnoses," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 52-59.
    2. Buchner, Florian & Goepffarth, Dirk & Wasem, Juergen, 2013. "The new risk adjustment formula in Germany: Implementation and first experiences," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 109(3), pages 253-262.
    3. Amir Shmueli, 2015. "On the calculation of the Israeli risk adjustment rates," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 16(3), pages 271-277, April.
    4. Lamers, Leida M., 1998. "Risk-adjusted capitation payments: Developing a diagnostic cost groups classification for the Dutch situation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 15-32, July.
    5. Erik Schokkaert & Carine Van de Voorde, 2005. "Health care reform in Belgium," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 14(S1), pages 25-39, September.
    6. Viktor von Wyl & Konstantin Beck, 2016. "Do insurers respond to risk adjustment? A long-term, nationwide analysis from Switzerland," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 17(2), pages 171-183, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Eijkenaar, Frank & van Vliet, René C.J.A., 2017. "Improving risk equalization for individuals with persistently high costs: Experiences from the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(11), pages 1169-1176.
    2. van Kleef, R.C. & van Vliet, R.C.J.A. & van Rooijen, E.M., 2014. "Diagnoses-based cost groups in the Dutch risk-equalization model: The effects of including outpatient diagnoses," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 115(1), pages 52-59.
    3. Pilny, Adam & Wübker, Ansgar & Ziebarth, Nicolas R., 2017. "Introducing risk adjustment and free health plan choice in employer-based health insurance: Evidence from Germany," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 330-351.
    4. Bauhoff, Sebastian & Fischer, Lisa & Göpffarth, Dirk & Wuppermann, Amelie C., 2017. "Plan responses to diagnosis-based payment: Evidence from Germany’s morbidity-based risk adjustment," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 56(C), pages 397-413.
    5. Michel Oskam & Richard C. van Kleef & René C. J. A. van Vliet, 2023. "Improving diagnosis-based cost groups in the Dutch risk equalization model: the effects of a new clustering method and allowing for multimorbidity," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 303-324, June.
    6. Richard C. van Kleef, 2012. "Managed competition in the Dutch Health Care System: Preconditions and experiences so far," Public Policy Review, Policy Research Institute, Ministry of Finance Japan, vol. 8(2), pages 145-170, July.
    7. Schmid, Christian P.R. & Beck, Konstantin, 2016. "Re-insurance in the Swiss health insurance market: Fit, power, and balance," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(7), pages 848-855.
    8. Erik Schokkaert & Tom Van Ourti & Diana De Graeve & Ann Lecluyse & Carine Van de Voorde, 2010. "Supplemental health insurance and equality of access in Belgium," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 19(4), pages 377-395, April.
    9. Álvaro Riascos & Eduardo Alfonso & Mauricio Romero, 2014. "The Performance of Risk Adjustment Models in Colombian Competitive Health Insurance Market," Documentos CEDE 12062, Universidad de los Andes, Facultad de Economía, CEDE.
    10. Lamers, Leida M. & van Vliet, Rene C. J. A., 2004. "The Pharmacy-based Cost Group model: validating and adjusting the classification of medications for chronic conditions to the Dutch situation," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 113-121, April.
    11. Bryndová, Lucie & Hroboň, Pavel & Tulejová, Henrieta, 2019. "The 2018 risk-adjustment reform in the Czech Republic: Introducing Pharmacy-based Cost Groups and strengthening reinsurance," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(8), pages 700-705.
    12. Wasem, Jürgen & Buchner, Florian & Lux, Gerald & Schillo, Sonja, 2017. "High Cost Pool in a Health Status Based Risk Adjustment System – Some Conceptional and Empirical Considerations," VfS Annual Conference 2017 (Vienna): Alternative Structures for Money and Banking 168122, Verein für Socialpolitik / German Economic Association.
    13. K. P. M. Winssen & R. C. Kleef & W. P. M. M. Ven, 2017. "A voluntary deductible in health insurance: the more years you opt for it, the lower your premium?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 209-226, March.
    14. Wynand P. M. M. Ven & René C. J. A. Vliet & Richard C. Kleef, 2017. "How can the regulator show evidence of (no) risk selection in health insurance markets? Conceptual framework and empirical evidence," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(2), pages 167-180, March.
    15. Conor Keegan & Conor Teljeur & Brian Turner & Steve Thomas, 2017. "Addressing Market Segmentation and Incentives for Risk Selection: How Well Does Risk Equalisation in the Irish Private Health Insurance Market Work?," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 48(1), pages 61-84.
    16. Pieter Bakx & Frederik Schut & Eddy Doorslaer, 2015. "Can universal access and competition in long-term care insurance be combined?," International Journal of Health Economics and Management, Springer, vol. 15(2), pages 185-213, June.
    17. Christian Philipp Rudolf Schmid, 2017. "Unobserved health care expenditures: How important is censoring in register data?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(12), pages 1807-1812, December.
    18. Schillo, Sonja & Lux, Gerald & Wasem, Juergen & Buchner, Florian, 2016. "High cost pool or high cost groups—How to handle high(est) cost cases in a risk adjustment mechanism?," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(2), pages 141-147.
    19. van den Broek-Altenburg, Eline M. & Atherly, Adam J., 2020. "The relation between selective contracting and healthcare expenditures in private health insurance plans in the United States," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 124(2), pages 174-182.
    20. Ines Weinhold & Christian Schindler & Nils Kossack & Benjamin Berndt & Dennis Häckl, 2019. "Economic impact of disease prevention in a morbidity-based financing system: does prevention pay off for a statutory health insurance fund in Germany?," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(8), pages 1181-1193, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Health insurance; Risk equalization; Physiotherapy diagnoses; Claims data;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • G22 - Financial Economics - - Financial Institutions and Services - - - Insurance; Insurance Companies; Actuarial Studies

    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:spr:eujhec:v:19:y:2018:i:2:d:10.1007_s10198-017-0874-x. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    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.