ReviewHealth economics review2024
A framework for ex-ante evaluation of the potential effects of risk equalization and risk sharing in health insurance markets with regulated competition.
Review in Health economics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Selecting risk adjusters with penalized regression and expert judgment: evidence from Colombia.Health economics review · 2025Article
- Shifting care from hospitals to general practice from the health insurers' perspective: an interview study.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- A critical review of the use of RThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Many health insurance markets are organized by principles of regulated competition. Regulators of these markets typically apply risk equalization (aka risk adjustment) and risk sharing to mitigate risk selection. Risk equalization and risk sharing can have various positive and negative effects on efficiency and fairness. This paper provides a comprehensive framework for ex-ante evaluation of these effects. In a first step, we distinguish 22 potential effects. In a second step, we summarize and discuss quantitative measures used for evaluating risk equalization and risk sharing schemes in academic research. To underline the relevance of our work, we compare our framework with an existing framework that was previously used in the Dutch regulated health insurance market. We conclude that this framework is incomplete and uses inappropriate measures. To avoid suboptimal policy choices, we recommend policymakers (1) to consider the entire spectrum of potential effects and (2) to select their measures carefully.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.