Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Original article

Vol. 144 No. 0506 (2014)

What should be the basis for compulsory and optional health insurance premiums? Opinions of Swiss doctors

  • Anne-Sophie Jannot
  • Thomas V Perneger
DOI
https://doi.org/10.4414/smw.2014.13918
Cite this as:
Swiss Med Wkly. 2014;144:w13918
Published
26.01.2014

Abstract

PRINCIPLES: Little is known about doctors’ opinions on how to finance health services. In Switzerland, mandatory basic health insurance currently uses regional flat fees that are unrelated to health and ability to pay, and optional complementary insurance uses risk-based premiums. Our objective was to assess Swiss physicians’ opinions on what should determine health insurance premiums.

METHODS: We surveyed doctors in the canton of Geneva, Switzerland, about the desirable funding mechanism for mandatory health insurance and complementary health insurance. The proposed determinants of insurance premiums were current health and past medical history, lifestyle, healthcare costs in the previous year, genetic susceptibility to disease, regional average healthcare costs, household income, and wealth and demographic characteristics.

RESULTS: Among the 1,516 respondents, only a few (<5%) believed that the mandatory health insurance premium should depend on health risk (health status, previous costs, genetics, and age and sex). More than 30% of respondents supported premiums based on lifestyle (34.6%), regional average health expenditures (31.2%), and household income and wealth (39.6%). For complementary health insurance, most respondents supported premiums based on lifestyle (74.6%) and on health risk (46.4%), but surprisingly also on household income and wealth (44.9%) and regional average health expenditures (39.4%). The characteristic most influencing the answers was the medical specialty.

CONCLUSION: Doctors’ opinions about healthcare financing mechanisms varied considerably, for both mandatory and complementary health insurance. Lifestyle was a surprisingly frequent choice, even though this criterion is not currently used in Switzerland. Ability to pay was not supported by the majority.

References

  1. Anonymous. OECD Reviews of Health Systems: Switzerland 2011: OECD Publishing 2011.
  2. de Looper M, Lafortune G. Measuring Disparities in Health Status and in Access and Use of Health Care in OECD Countries. OECD Health Working Papers n°43: OECD Publishing 2009.
  3. Dubois M. Insurance and Prevention: Ethical Aspects. J Primary Prevent. 2011;32:3–15.
  4. Anonymous. Enquête suisse sur la santé 2002: Federal Statistics Office, Neuchatel 2002.
  5. Blomqvist A, Horn H. Public-health insurance and optimal income taxation. J Public Econ. 1984;24:353–71.
  6. Breyer F, Haufler A. Health care reform: Separating insurance from income redistribution. Int Tax Public Financ. 2000;7:445–61.
  7. Gouveia M. Majority rule and the public provision of a private good. Public Choice. 1997;93:221–44.
  8. Kifmann M. Health insurance in a democracy: Why is it public and why are premiums income related? Public Choice. 2005;124:283–308.
  9. Perneger TV, Hudelson PM. Public support for social financing of health care in Switzerland. Int J Health Serv. 2005;35:91–9.
  10. Interpharma.ch [Internet]. Basel: Interpharma; c2013 [cited 2013 Sept 15]. Available from: http://www.interpharma.ch/3605-gfs-gesundheitsmonitor-2013.
  11. Santesuisse.ch [Internet]. Solothum: santesuisse; c2012–01 [cited 2013 Sept 15]. Available from: http://www.santesuisse.ch/datasheets/files/201209271757200.pdf.
  12. Balabanova D, McKee M. Reforming health care financing in Bulgaria: the population perspective. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58:753–65.
  13. McCormick D, Woolhandler S, Bose-Kolanu A, Germann A, Bor DH, Himmelstein DU. US physicians’ views on financing options to expand health insurance coverage: a national survey. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:526–31.
  14. Gyrd-Hansen D, Slothuus U. The citizen’s preferences for financing public health care: a Danish survey. Int J Health Care Finance Econ. 2002;2:25–36.
  15. Agoritsas T, Courvoisier DS, Combescure C, Deom M, Perneger TV. Does Prevalence Matter to Physicians in Estimating Post-test Probability of Disease? A Randomized Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2011;26:373–8.
  16. Agoritsas T, Deom M, Perneger TV. Study design attributes influenced patients’ willingness to participate in clinical research: a randomized vignette-based study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:107–15.
  17. Deom M, Agoritsas T, Bovier PA, Perneger TV. What doctors think about the impact of managed care tools on quality of care, costs, autonomy, and relations with patients. BMC Health Serv Res. 2010;10.
  18. Anonymous. Vote no. 499. Popular initiative “Health at affordable cost (health initiative)” (in French). 2003.
  19. Mastilica M, Babic-Bosanac S. Citizens’ views on health insurance in Croatia. Croat Med J. 2002;43:417–24.
  20. Jakobsdottir J, Gorin MB, Conley YP, Ferrell RE, Weeks DE. Interpretation of genetic association studies: markers with replicated highly significant odds ratios may be poor classifiers. PLoS genet. 2009;5:e1000337.
  21. Minkler M. Personal responsibility for health? A review of the arguments and the evidence at century’s end. Health Educ Behav. 1999;26:121–40.
  22. Schmidt H. Bonuses as incentives and rewards for health responsibility: A good thing? J Med Philos. 2008;33:198–220.
  23. Rauprich O, Berns E, Vollmann J. Who should pay for assisted reproductive techniques? Answers from patients, professionals and the general public in Germany. Hum Reprod. 2010;25:1225–33.
  24. Twigg JL. Health care reform in Russia: a survey of head doctors and insurance administrators. Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:2253–65.