Supplementary Private Health Insurance in Selected Countries: Lessons for EU Governments?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A famous idea to maintain affordable health expenditures is to cut back statutory health insurance (SHI) to a basic insurance and to widen the field for supplementary private health insurance (PHI), permitted to cover the remaining benefits and to apply managed care mechanisms. This is supposed to lower public health expenditures and to enhance cost containment and quality of service. To test these reasonings, the article draws empirical evidence from health insurance markets of Australia (AUS), Canada (CAN), and Switzerland (CH) applying a structure, conduct, and performance (SCP) framework. Irrespective of good preconditions for competition, PHI fails to meet the claims in these countries. Quality improvements cannot be expected, as managed care mechanisms are actually not applied. Expensive cream skimming arises instead. Particularly, the unregulated PHI markets (CAN and CH) perform worse compared to their SHI counterparts concerning total expenses and administrative expenses per insuree, while the more regulated PHI market (AUS) can keep up with its SHI pendant. Neither a regulation-to-cost-containment trade‐off nor an equality-to-cost-containment trade‐off occurs. However, since strong regulation encourages adverse selection, additional incentives are necessary, but they might counteract the aim of lowering public health expenditures. (JEL codes: H51, G22, I11, I18, L1)
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it