IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v117y2014i2p257-265.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Choosing your health insurance package: A method for measuring the public's preferences for changes in the national health insurance plan

Author

Listed:
  • Victoor, Aafke
  • Hansen, Johan
  • van den Akker-van Marle, M. Elske
  • van den Berg, Bernard
  • van den Hout, Wilbert B.
  • de Jong, Judith D.

Abstract

With rising healthcare expenditure and limited budgets available, countries are having to make choices about the content of health insurance plans. The views of the general population can help determine such priorities. In this article, we investigate whether preferences of the general population regarding the content of health insurance plans could be measured with the help of a stated preference method: the Basket Method (BM). In this method, people use an online tool to include or exclude healthcare interventions from their hypothetical insurance package; this then affects their monthly premium. The study was conducted in the Netherlands. In total, 1007 members of two panels managed by the NIVEL filled out an online questionnaire that included the BM. The suitability of the BM was tested with the help of five criteria, e.g. the BM's ability to distinguish between healthcare interventions. Our results suggest that the BM is suitable for measuring preferences of the general population regarding the content of the health insurance plan, as it performs well on most criteria. Policy makers can use these preferences when deciding the content of the health insurance plan. Its contents will then be more aligned to the population's needs and preferences.

Suggested Citation

  • Victoor, Aafke & Hansen, Johan & van den Akker-van Marle, M. Elske & van den Berg, Bernard & van den Hout, Wilbert B. & de Jong, Judith D., 2014. "Choosing your health insurance package: A method for measuring the public's preferences for changes in the national health insurance plan," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 117(2), pages 257-265.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:117:y:2014:i:2:p:257-265
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.017
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016885101400116X
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2014.04.017?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. Laura J. Damschroder & Todd R. Roberts & Brian J. Zikmund-Fisher & Peter A. Ubel, 2007. "Why People Refuse to Make Tradeoffs in Person Tradeoff Elicitations: A Matter of Perspective?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 27(3), pages 266-280, May.
    2. Harvey Goldstein & Michael J. R. Healy, 1995. "The Graphical Presentation of a Collection of Means," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 158(1), pages 175-177, January.
    3. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Pereira, Joao, 2004. "The insensitivity of 'willingness-to-pay' to the size of the good: New evidence for health care," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 25(4), pages 445-460, August.
    4. Protière, Christel & Donaldson, Cam & Luchini, Stéphane & Paul Moatti, Jean & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "The impact of information on non-health attributes on willingness to pay for multiple health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 58(7), pages 1257-1269, April.
    5. Foster, Michele M. & Earl, Peter E. & Haines, Terry P. & Mitchell, Geoffrey K., 2010. "Unravelling the concept of consumer preference: Implications for health policy and optimal planning in primary care," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 97(2-3), pages 105-112, October.
    6. Dixon, Anna & Robertson, Ruth & Bal, Roland, 2010. "The experience of implementing choice at point of referral: a comparison of the Netherlands and England," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 5(3), pages 295-317, July.
    7. Slothuus, Ulla & Larsen, Mette L. & Junker, Peter, 2002. "The contingent ranking method--a feasible and valid method when eliciting preferences for health care?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 54(10), pages 1601-1609, May.
    8. O'Shea, Eamon & Gannon, Brenda & Kennelly, Brendan, 2008. "Eliciting preferences for resource allocation in mental health care in Ireland," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(2-3), pages 359-370, December.
    9. Bondonio, Piervincenzo & Marchese, Carla, 1994. "Equilibrium in Fiscal Choices: Evidence from a Budget Game," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 78(3-4), pages 205-218, March.
    10. John A. List, 2004. "Neoclassical Theory Versus Prospect Theory: Evidence from the Marketplace," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 72(2), pages 615-625, March.
    11. Ryan, Mandy & Scott, David A. & Donaldson, Cam, 2004. "Valuing health care using willingness to pay: a comparison of the payment card and dichotomous choice methods," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 237-258, March.
    12. David Mark Dror, 2018. "Health Insurance Benefit Packages Prioritized by Low-Income Clients in India: Three Criteria to Estimate Effectiveness of Choice," World Scientific Book Chapters, in: Financing Micro Health Insurance Theory, Methods and Evidence, chapter 13, pages 253-270, World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd..
    13. Olsen, Jan Abel & Kidholm, Kristian & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2004. "Willingness to pay for public health care: a comparison of two approaches," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 217-228, November.
    14. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam, 1998. "Helicopters, hearts and hips: Using willingness to pay to set priorities for public sector health care programmes," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 1-12, January.
    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. Olsen, Jan Abel & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2005. "Implicit versus explicit ranking: On inferring ordinal preferences for health care programmes based on differences in willingness-to-pay," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 990-996, September.
    2. Callan, Aoife & O'Shea, Eamon, 2015. "Willingness to pay for telecare programmes to support independent living: Results from a contingent valuation study," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 124(C), pages 94-102.
    3. Rinaldo Brau & Matteo Lippi Bruni & Anna Maria Pinna, 2010. "Public versus private demand for covering long-term care expenditures," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(28), pages 3651-3668.
    4. Katherine Carr & Cam Donaldson & John Wildman & Robert Smith & Christopher R. Vernazza, 2021. "An Examination of Consistency in the Incremental Approach to Willingness to Pay: Evidence Using Societal Values for NHS Dental Services," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(4), pages 465-474, May.
    5. Alene Sze Jing Yong & Yi Heng Lim & Mark Wing Loong Cheong & Ednin Hamzah & Siew Li Teoh, 2022. "Willingness-to-pay for cancer treatment and outcome: a systematic review," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 23(6), pages 1037-1057, August.
    6. Joan Costa-Font & Joan Rovira, 2005. "Eliciting preferences for collectively financed health programmes: the 'willingness to assign' approach," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(14), pages 1571-1583.
    7. Baker, Rachel & Robinson, Angela & Smith, Richard, 2008. "How do respondents explain WTP responses? A review of the qualitative evidence," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(4), pages 1427-1442, August.
    8. Stewart, Jennifer M. & O'Shea, Eamon & Donaldson, Cam & Shackley, Phil, 2002. "Do ordering effects matter in willingness-to-pay studies of health care?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 585-599, July.
    9. Karine Lamiraud & Robert Oxoby & Cam Donaldson, 2015. "Incremental willingness to pay," Working Papers hal-01205938, HAL.
    10. Jennifer Whitty & Emily Lancsar & Kylie Rixon & Xanthe Golenko & Julie Ratcliffe, 2014. "A Systematic Review of Stated Preference Studies Reporting Public Preferences for Healthcare Priority Setting," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 7(4), pages 365-386, December.
    11. Lamiraud, Karine & Oxoby, Robert & Donaldson, Cam, 2016. "Reference Dependence and Incremental WTP," ESSEC Working Papers WP1609, ESSEC Research Center, ESSEC Business School.
    12. Phil Shackley & Simon Dixon, 2014. "The Random Card Sort Method And Respondent Certainty In Contingent Valuation: An Exploratory Investigation Of Range Bias," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(10), pages 1213-1223, October.
    13. Bobinac, Ana & van Exel, N. Job A. & Rutten, Frans F.H. & Brouwer, Werner B.F., 2012. "GET MORE, PAY MORE? An elaborate test of construct validity of willingness to pay per QALY estimates obtained through contingent valuation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 31(1), pages 158-168.
    14. Karine Lamiraud & Robert Oxoby & Cam Donaldson, 2016. "Incremental willingness to pay: a theoretical and empirical exposition," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 80(1), pages 101-123, January.
    15. Pedersen, Line Bjørnskov & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte & Kjær, Trine, 2011. "The influence of information and private versus public provision on preferences for screening for prostate cancer: A willingness-to-pay study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 101(3), pages 277-289, August.
    16. Awad Mataria & Stéphane Luchini & Yousef Daoud & Jean-Paul Moatti, 2007. "Demand assessment and price-elasticity estimation of quality-improved primary health care in palestine: a contribution from the contingent valuation method," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 16(10), pages 1051-1068.
    17. Lotte Soeteman & Job Exel & Ana Bobinac, 2017. "The impact of the design of payment scales on the willingness to pay for health gains," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 18(6), pages 743-760, July.
    18. Hackl, Franz & Pruckner, Gerald Josef, 2006. "Demand and supply of emergency help: An economic analysis of Red Cross services," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(3), pages 326-338, August.
    19. Costa -Font, Joan & Forns, Joan Rovira & Sato, Azusa, 2015. "Participatory health system priority setting: Evidence from a budget experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 182-190.
    20. Cam Donaldson & Helen Mason & Phil Shackley, 2012. "Contingent Valuation in Health Care," Chapters, in: Andrew M. Jones (ed.), The Elgar Companion to Health Economics, Second Edition, chapter 40, Edward Elgar Publishing.

    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:eee:hepoli:v:117:y:2014:i:2:p:257-265. 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: Catherine Liu or the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/healthpol .

    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.