Differences in price elasticities of demand for health insurance: a systematic review

30Citations
Citations of this article
88Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.
Get full text

Abstract

Many health insurance systems apply managed competition principles to control costs and quality of health care. Besides other factors, managed competition relies on a sufficient price-elastic demand. This paper presents a systematic review of empirical studies on price elasticity of demand for health insurance. The objective was to identify the differing international ranges of price elasticity and to find socio-economic as well as setting-oriented factors that influence price elasticity. Relevant literature for the topic was identified through a two-step identification process including a systematic search in appropriate databases and further searches within the references of the results. A total of 45 studies from countries such as the USA, Germany, the Netherlands, and Switzerland were found. Clear differences in price elasticity by countries were identified. While empirical studies showed a range between −0.2 and −1.0 for optional primary health insurance in the US, higher price elasticities between −0.6 and −4.2 for Germany and around −2 for Switzerland were calculated for mandatory primary health insurance. Dutch studies found price elasticities below −0.5. In consideration of all relevant studies, age and poorer health status were identified to decrease price elasticity. Other socio-economic factors had an unclear impact or too limited evidence. Premium level, range of premiums, homogeneity of benefits/coverage and degree of forced decision were found to have a major influence on price elasticity in their settings. Further influence was found from supplementary insurance and premium-dependent employer contribution.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Pendzialek, J. B., Simic, D., & Stock, S. (2016). Differences in price elasticities of demand for health insurance: a systematic review. European Journal of Health Economics, 17(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-014-0650-0

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free