Do health insurers use target marketing as a tool for risk selection? Evidence from the Netherlands.

In health care systems based on managed competition, enrolees can choose between insurers who are positioned as prudent buyers of care on their behalf. To avoid risk selection, insurers are compensated through a system of risk equalisation. The Dutch system of risk equalisation is generally considered to be one of the most sophisticated in the world. Empirical evidence, however, shows there are still consumer segments that are profitable for insurers. To examine whether insurers use target marketing for attracting these segments, we assessed promotional material used by Dutch insurers during the switching season of 2019. Our findings provide preliminary evidence that large insurers with different brands primarily use their sub brands as strategic vehicles to improve their competitive positions by targeting these brands at financially favourable groups and price sensitive buyers. By contrast, the more visible main brands are targeted at a much broader spectrum of consumer groups to display the insurer's social character. Only a minority of insurers' marketing expressions are targeted at actual users of care. Despite continuous improvements in the risk equalisation system, on average this group is still unprofitable for insurers. From a health policy perspective, further improvements are key to motivate health insurers to target their efforts at improving care for the chronically ill and to eliminate incentives for risk selection.

Cooperation amongst insurers on enhancing quality of care: precondition or substitute for competition?

In health care systems based upon managed competition, insurers are expected to negotiate with providers about price and quality of care. The Dutch experience, however, shows that quality plays a limited role in insurer-provider negotiations. It has been suggested that this is partly due to a lack of cooperation among insurers. This raises the question whether cooperation amongst insurers is a precondition or a substitute for quality-based competition. To answer this question, we mapped insurers' cooperating activities to enhance quality of care using a six-stage continuum. The first three stages (defining, designing and measuring quality indicators) may enhance competition, whereas the next three stages (setting benchmarks, steering patients and selective contracting) may reduce it. We investigated which types of insurer cooperation currently take place in the Netherlands. Additionally, we organized focus groups among insurers, providers and other stakeholders to examine their perceptions on insurer cooperation. We find that all stakeholders see advantages of cooperation amongst insurers in the first stages of the continuum and sometimes cooperate in this domain. Cooperation in the next stages is almost absent and more controversial because without adequate quality information, it is difficult to assess whether the benefits outweigh the cost associated with reduced competition.

Managed competition in the Netherlands: Do insurers have incentives to steer on quality?

In health care systems based on managed competition, insurers are expected to negotiate with providers about price, quantity, and quality of care. The Dutch experience shows that this expectation may be justified with regard to price and quantity, but for quality the results are less conclusive. To examine the incentives insurers face for enhancing quality of care, we conducted in-depth interviews with CEOs and organised separate focus groups with purchasers and marketers of five Dutch health insurers. Jointly these insurers account for more than 90 percent of the market. We distinguished three categories of both positive and negative incentives to steer on quality: social, competitive and financial incentives. The overall picture emerging is that insurers are caught in a struggle between positive and negative incentives, with CEOs being more positive about the incentives to steer on quality than purchasers and marketers. At present, the social mission perceived by insurers seems to be their most important driver to invest in quality enhancement. However, whether or not the role of the social mission is sustainable in a competitive market remains unclear. Improving publicly available information on quality therefore seems to be crucially important for reinforcing the positive as well as counteracting the negative incentives insurers face with respect to enhancing quality of care.