IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ohe/monogr/000452.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Risk Adjusting Health Care Resource Allocations

Author

Listed:
  • Adam Oliver

Abstract

Most health care systems are characterised by both purchasers (insurers, health authorities), who buy health care for a particular population, and providers (hospitals, primary care physicians), who supply health care services. In circumstances where the purchasers or providers bear any of the financial risk associated with covering a population, incentives to prefer to ‘risk select’ are present; i.e. purchasers will prefer to provide cover for people who are likely to require relatively little health care. In order to reduce these incentives to risk select, many countries have introduced risk adjustment mechanisms. Van de Ven and Ellis (1999) have defined risk adjustment as ‘the use of information to calculate the expected health expenditures of individual consumers over a fixed interval of time (e.g., a month, quarter, or year) and set subsidies to consumers or health plans to improve efficiency and equity’. However, Van de Ven and Ellis are concerned only with competitive health plan markets. In the current monograph, the discussion of risk adjustment will be extended beyond competitive health plan markets, to include National Health Service (NHS)-type systems. Within an NHS-type system, the principal purchasers of health care are non-competing health authorities (or their equivalents), fully responsible for a regionally defined population. The health authorities are allocated an annual budget from central government funds, and are required to purchase health care for everybody within their area of jurisdiction. The health authorities are government agencies, and do not bear any financial risk. Therefore, there is no incentive for them to risk select. However, there is likely to be a large degree of diversification concerning the demographic and socio-economic structure of the numerous regionally defined populations within any particular country. Therefore, on grounds of fairness, or equity, it may be appropriate for government to adjust the resource allocations to health authorities on the basis of population characteristics that proxy health care need. Throughout this monograph, it is assumed that a person is in need of health care if they would experience an improvement in their health status on receiving further health care. As stated above, Van de Ven and Ellis’ definition that risk adjustment is ‘the use of information to calculate the expected health expenditures of individual consumers over a fixed interval of time … and set subsidies to consumers or health plans to improve efficiency and equity’, is applicable specifically to competitive insurance systems where the aim is to remove the incentives to risk select. In this monograph, the definition is broader, namely: ‘the use of information to calculate the expected health expenditures or health care need of individual consumers over a fixed interval of time … and set subsidies to consumers or health plans to improve efficiency and equity’, in order to accommodate considerations of equity in NHS-type systems. Thus, there are two principal reasons why a government may want to introduce a risk adjustment mechanism into the health care financing system, with the specific reason being largely a function of the structure of the health care system: (i) To promote some form of equity that accounts for the fact that people have differential levels of health care need. (ii) To discourage risk selecting activity. In this monograph, the principle of equity that was the stated motivation for introducing risk adjustment in England is outlined. Also, the reasons why it is considered important to discourage risk selecting, and how risk adjustment may achieve this, are detailed. An in-depth description of the mechanisms of all of the countries that have introduced risk adjustment is beyond the scope of this monograph. Moreover, the practical application of risk adjustment has been developing quite rapidly, and, consequently, published reports are soon dated. The author of this monograph had contact with people intrinsic to the practical application of risk adjustment in England, The Netherlands and Germany, which facilitated an up to date description of these systems at the time of writing. Thus, the health care financing structures and risk adjustment mechanisms currently in operation in England, The Netherlands and Germany, three European countries with a strong, historical commitment to providing good, universal health care coverage, are discussed. The discussion is conducted with reference to the principal reasons for introducing risk adjustment in these respective countries. Finally, whether England, The Netherlands and Germany have anything to learn from each other with respect to risk adjustment, and how the various mechanisms might be improved, is considered.

Suggested Citation

  • Adam Oliver, 1999. "Risk Adjusting Health Care Resource Allocations," Monograph 000452, Office of Health Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ohe:monogr:000452
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.ohe.org/publications/risk-adjusting-health-care-resource-allocations/attachment-255-1999_risk_adjustment_oliver/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mooney, Gavin & Hall, Jane & Donaldson, Cam & Gerard, Karen, 1992. "Reweighing heat: Response to Culyer, van Doorslaer and Wagstaff," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 199-205, August.
    2. Sen, Amartya, 1998. "Mortality as an Indicator of Economic Success and Failure," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(446), pages 1-25, January.
    3. Martin, Stephen & Rice, Nigel & Smith, Peter C., 1998. "Risk and the general practitioner budget holder," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1547-1554, November.
    4. Stuart Peacock & Peter Smith, 1995. "The resource allocation consequences of the new NHS needs formula," Working Papers 134chedp, Centre for Health Economics, University of York.
    5. Mooney, Gavin & Hall, Jane & Donaldson, Cam & Gerard, Karen, 1991. "Utilisation as a measure of equity: weighing heat?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(4), pages 475-480.
    6. van Barneveld, Erik M. & Lamers, Leida M. & van Vliet, René C. J. A. & van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M., 1998. "Mandatory pooling as a supplement to risk-adjusted capitation payments in a competitive health insurance market," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 47(2), pages 223-232, July.
    7. Erik Schokkaert & Geert Dhaene & Carine Van De Voorde, 1998. "Risk adjustment and the trade‐off between efficiency and risk selection: an application of the theory of fair compensation," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(5), pages 465-480, August.
    8. Royston, G. H. D. & Hurst, J. W. & Lister, E. G. & Stewart, P. A., 1992. "Modelling the use of health services by populations of small areas to inform the allocation of central resources to larger regions," Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 169-180, July.
    9. Nonneman, Walter & van Doorslaer, Eddy, 1994. "The role of the sickness funds in the Belgian health care market," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 39(10), pages 1483-1495, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Office of Health Economics, 2001. "The Economics of the Private Finance Initiative in the NHS," Monograph 000470, Office of Health Economics.

    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. Fleurbaey, Marc & Schokkaert, Erik, 2009. "Unfair inequalities in health and health care," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(1), pages 73-90, January.
    2. Schokkaert, Erik & Van de Voorde, Carine, 2003. "Belgium: risk adjustment and financial responsibility in a centralised system," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 65(1), pages 5-19, July.
    3. van de Ven, Wynand P. M. M. & van Vliet, Rene C. J. A. & Schut, Frederik T. & van Barneveld, Erik M., 2000. "Access to coverage for high-risks in a competitive individual health insurance market: via premium rate restrictions or risk-adjusted premium subsidies?," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(3), pages 311-339, May.
    4. Schut, Frederik T. & van Doorslaer, Eddy K. A., 1999. "Towards a reinforced agency role of health insurers in Belgium and the Netherlands," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(1), pages 47-67, July.
    5. Richard Layte & Brian Nolan, 2004. "Equity in the Utilisation of Health Care in Ireland," The Economic and Social Review, Economic and Social Studies, vol. 35(2), pages 111-134.
    6. Sato, Azusa, 2012. "Do Inequalities in Health Care Utilization in Developing Countries Change When We Take into Account Traditional Medicines?," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 40(11), pages 2275-2289.
    7. Mohammad Hajizadeh & Luke B. Connelly & James R.G. Butler & Aredshir Khosravi, 2012. "Unmet need and met unneed in health care utilisation in Iran," International Journal of Social Economics, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 39(6), pages 400-422, May.
    8. Adam Oliver, 2001. "Why Care About Health Inequality?," Monograph 000472, Office of Health Economics.
    9. Layte, Richard, 2007. "Equity in the Use of Health Care in Ireland?," Book Chapters, in: Nolan, Brian (ed.),The Provision and Use of Health Services, Health Inequalities and Health and Social Gain, Economic and Social Research Institute (ESRI).
    10. Rosa M. Urbanos-Garrido, "undated". "Measurement of Inequity in the Delivery of Public Health Care: Evidence from Spain (1997)," Working Papers 2001-15, FEDEA.
    11. Mark Blaug, 1998. "Where are we now in British health economics?," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(S1), pages 63-78, August.
    12. Óscar Lourenço & Carlota Quintal & Pedro Lopes Ferreira & Pedro Pita Barros, 2007. "A equidade na utilização de cuidados de saúde em Portugal: Uma avaliação baseada em modelos de contagem," Notas Económicas, Faculty of Economics, University of Coimbra, issue 25, pages 6-26, June.
    13. Michael Marmot & Ruth Bell & Angela Donkin, 2013. "Tackling Structural and Social Issues to Reduce Inequities in Children’s Outcomes in Low- to Middle-income Countries," Papers indipa708, Innocenti Discussion Papers.
    14. James J. Feigenbaum & Christopher Muller & Elizabeth Wrigley-Field, 2019. "Regional and Racial Inequality in Infectious Disease Mortality in U.S. Cities, 1900–1948," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 56(4), pages 1371-1388, August.
    15. Leroux, Marie-Louise & Pestieau, Pierre & Ponthière, Grégory, 2015. "Longévité différentielle et redistribution : enjeux théoriques et empiriques," L'Actualité Economique, Société Canadienne de Science Economique, vol. 91(4), pages 465-497, Décembre.
    16. José Joaquín García-Gómez & Juan Diego Pérez-Cebada, 2020. "A Socio-Environmental History of a Copper Mining Company: Rio-Tinto Company Limited (1874–1930)," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(11), pages 1-17, June.
    17. Sushanta K. Mallick, 2014. "Disentangling the Poverty Effects of Sectoral Output, Prices, and Policies in India," Review of Income and Wealth, International Association for Research in Income and Wealth, vol. 60(4), pages 773-801, December.
    18. Elisa Cavatorta, 2010. "Unobserved Common Factors In Military Expenditure Interactions Across Mena Countries," Defence and Peace Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 21(4), pages 301-316.
    19. Fabio Pammolli & Francesco Porcelli & Francesco Vidoli & Monica Auteri & Guido Borà, 2017. "La spesa sanitaria delle Regioni in Italia - Saniregio2017," Working Papers CERM 01-2017, Competitività, Regole, Mercati (CERM).
    20. Pierre Pestieau & Gregory Ponthiere, 2012. "The Public Economics of Increasing Longevity," Hacienda Pública Española / Review of Public Economics, IEF, vol. 200(1), pages 41-74, March.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Risk Adjusting Health Care Resource Allocations;

    JEL classification:

    • I1 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health

    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:ohe:monogr:000452. 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: Publications Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/ohecouk.html .

    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.