IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/hepoli/v119y2015i3p245-251.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The basic benefit package: Composition and exceptions to the rules. A case study

Author

Listed:
  • Kroneman, Madelon
  • de Jong, Judith D.

Abstract

With the introduction of the Health Insurance Act in 2006 in the Netherlands, the basic package of the former sickness funds became valid for all citizens. The basic benefit package has been subject to change, responding to increasing health care expenditures, medical innovations and the economic crisis. In this paper we address the decision criteria used to assess the package annually since 2006 and describe some developments that do not follow the criteria, leading to a yo-yo effect. We discuss the formation of the decision for in- or exclusion and why some treatments seem to follow an, at first sight, arbitrary in- and exclusion pathway. We first describe the official way of establishing the basic benefit package and than will describe why some treatments follow a deviated path. We conclude that political pressure and pressure from interest groups may lead to inclusion or postponement of exclusion. Reform of the organization of certain forms of health care (in our example mental care) may lead to seemingly inconsequent changes. The yo-yo effect of some treatments or pharmaceuticals may have negative effects on health care providers, insurers and patients. The seemingly well defined criteria available for defining the basic package appear to be broadly interpretable and other influences may determine the final decision of inclusion or exclusion.

Suggested Citation

  • Kroneman, Madelon & de Jong, Judith D., 2015. "The basic benefit package: Composition and exceptions to the rules. A case study," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(3), pages 245-251.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:hepoli:v:119:y:2015:i:3:p:245-251
    DOI: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.01.013
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168851015000299
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.01.013?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.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Remmerswaal, Minke & Boone, Jan & Bijlsma, Michiel & Douven, R.C.M.H., 2017. "Cost-Sharing Design Matters : A Comparison of the Rebate and Deductible in Healthcare," Other publications TiSEM 624251d4-89fb-4c0b-8dd1-f, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.
    2. Aditi Garg & Dimitrios Skempes & Jerome Bickenbach, 2020. "Legal and Regulatory Approaches to Rehabilitation Planning: A Concise Overview of Current Laws and Policies Addressing Access to Rehabilitation in Five European Countries," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(12), pages 1-31, June.
    3. Minke Remmerswaal & Jan Boone & Michiel Bijlsma & Rudy Douven, 2017. "Cost-Sharing Design Matters: A Comparison of the Rebate and Deductible in Healthcare," CPB Discussion Paper 367, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    4. Minke Remmerswaal & Jan Boone & Michiel Bijlsma & Rudy Douven, 2017. "Cost-Sharing Design Matters: A Comparison of the Rebate and Deductible in Healthcare," CPB Discussion Paper 367.rdf, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    5. Remmerswaal, Minke & Boone, Jan & Bijlsma, Michiel & Douven, R.C.M.H., 2017. "Cost-Sharing Design Matters : A Comparison of the Rebate and Deductible in Healthcare," Discussion Paper 2017-039, Tilburg University, Tilburg Law and Economic Center.
    6. Boone, Jan & Remmerswaal, Minke & Bijlsma, Michiel & Douven, Rudy, 2017. "Cost-Sharing Design Matters: A Comparison of the Rebate and Deductible in Healthcare," CEPR Discussion Papers 12507, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    7. Amanda Cole;Grace Hampson;Nancy Devlin;David Grainger;Eui-Kyung Lee;Wija Oortwijn, 2016. "“New Age” Decision Making in HTA: Is It Applicable in Asia?," Briefing 001741, Office of Health Economics.
    8. Skempes, Dimitrios & Kiekens, Carlotte & Malmivaara, Anti & Michail, Xanthi & Bickenbach, Jerome & Stucki, Gerold, 2022. "Supporting government policies to embed and expand rehabilitation in health systems in Europe: A framework for action," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(3), pages 158-172.
    9. Kleinhout-Vliek, Tineke & de Bont, Antoinette & Boer, Bert, 2017. "The bare necessities? A realist review of necessity argumentations used in health care coverage decisions," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 121(7), pages 731-744.
    10. Remmerswaal, Minke & Boone, Jan & Bijlsma, Michiel & Douven, R.C.M.H., 2017. "Cost-Sharing Design Matters : A Comparison of the Rebate and Deductible in Healthcare," Other publications TiSEM 67163c04-3d3b-499c-882c-d, Tilburg University, School of Economics and Management.

    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:119:y:2015:i:3:p:245-251. 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: 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.