Managed competition in the Netherlands – A qualitative study

Background: In 2006, the Health Insurance Act changed Dutch health insurance by implementing managed competition, whereby the health insurance market is strongly regulated by the government. The aim of the study is to investigate key stakeholders' opinions about effects of recent changes in Dutch healthcare policy, focussing upon three important requirements for successful managed competition: risk-adjustment, consumer choice and instruments for managed care.

Method: Expert interviews with 12 key stakeholders were performed (October/November 2009), transcribed and analyzed in a four-step qualitative process.

Results: The Dutch risk-adjustment scheme is very advanced but incentives for health insurers to select risks remain. The Health Insurance Act has given insurers new incentives to focus upon consumer needs and preferences, whereby large group contracts have replaced individual consumer choice with collective decision-making. Managed care concepts are slow in developing. Patient organizations and insurers report taking part in such efforts, but other stakeholders do not perceive that progress has been made.

Conclusions: The prerequisites for successful managed competition in the Netherlands are not yet entirely in place: risk-adjustment schemes cannot yet counteract all incentives to select risks, consumer preferences are just beginning to influence insurer policies and managed care elements are currently in the development stage.

References:

1. Enthoven AC. Consumer-Choice Health Plan New England Journal of Medicine. 1978298:650–8, 709–20.

2. Enthoven AC, Van de Ven WPMM. Going Dutch: Managed-Competition Health Insurance in the Netherlands. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007357:2421–3.

3. Greß S, Okma K, Hessel F. Managed Competition in Health Care in The Netherlands and Germany – Theoretical Foundation, Empirical Findings and Policy Conclusions. Diskussionspapier 04/2001 Ernst-Moritz-Arndt-Universität Greifswald. 2001.

4. Greß S. Regulated competition in social health insurance: A three-country comparison. International Social Security Review 200659(3):27–47.

5. Enthoven AC. Theory and practice of managed competition in health care finance. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Ltd 1988.

6. Schut FT. Workable competition in health care: prospects for the Dutch design. Soc Sci Med. 1992 Dec35(12):1445–55.

7. Nederlandse Zorgautoriteit. Marktscan Zorgverzekeringsmarkt. Weergave van de markt 2007–2011 (http://www.nza.nl/104107/105773/354532/Marktscan_Zorgverzekeringsmarkt.pdf). 2011.

8. van de Ven WPMM, Schut FT, Hermans HEGM, de Jong JD, van der Maat M, Coppen R, et al. Evaluatie Zorgverzekeringswet en Wet op de Zorgtoeslag. Den Haag: ZonMw 2009.

9. Van de Ven WP. Risk adjustment and risk equalization: what needs to be done? Health Econ Policy Law. 2011 Jan6(1):147–56.,

10. van de Ven WP, van Vliet RC, Lamers LM. Health-adjusted premium subsidies in the Netherlands. Health Aff (Millwood). 2004 May-Jun23(3):45–55.

11. Hirschman AO. Exit, Voice and Loyalty – Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge: Harvard University Press 1970.

12. Hendriks M, de Jong JD, van den Brink-Muinen A, Groenewegen PP. The intention to switch health insurer and actual switching behaviour: are there differences between groups of people? Health Expect. 2009 Jun13(2):195–207.

13. Schut FT, Van de Ven WPMM. Rationing and competition in the Dutch health-care system. Health Economics. 200514:59-S74.

14. Rosenau PV, Lako CJ. An Experiment with Regulated Competition and Individual Mandates for Universal Health Care: The New Dutch Health Insurance System. Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law. 2008 6:1031–55.

15. Van de Ven WPMM, Schut FT. Managed Competition in the Netherlands: still work in progress. Health Economics. 200918:253–5.

16. Boonen LH, Schut FT, Koolman X. Consumer channeling by health insurers: natural experiments with preferred providers in the Dutch pharmacy market. Health Econ. 2008 Mar17(3):299–316.

17. Boonen LH, Donkers B, Schut FT. Channeling Consumers to Preferred Providers and the Impact of Status Quo Bias: Does Type of Provider Matter? Health Serv Res. 2010 Oct 28.

18. Boonen LH, Schut FT. Preferred providers and the credible commitment problem in health insurance: first experiences with the implementation of managed competition in the Dutch health care system. Health Econ Policy Law. 2011 Dec 26:219–35.

19. Gläser J, Laudel G. Experteninterviews aund qualitative Inhaltsanalyse. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften 2009.

20. Meuser M, Nagel U. ExpertInneninterviews – vielfach erprobt, wenig bedacht: ein Beitrag zur qualitativen Methodendiskussion. In: Garz D, Kraimer K, editors. Qualitativ-empirische Sozialforschung: Konzepte, Methoden, Analysen. Opladen, Germany: Westdt. Verl. 1991.