Recent from talks
Nothing was collected or created yet.
Health insurance
View on Wikipedia
Health insurance or medical insurance (also known as medical aid in South Africa) is a type of insurance that covers the whole or a part of the risk of a person incurring medical expenses. As with other types of insurance, risk is shared among many individuals. By estimating the overall risk of health risk and health system expenses over the risk pool, an insurer can develop a routine finance structure, such as a monthly premium or payroll tax, to provide the money to pay for the health care benefits specified in the insurance agreement.[1] The benefit is administered by a central organization, such as a government agency, private business, or not-for-profit entity.
According to the Health Insurance Association of America, health insurance is defined as "coverage that provides for the payments of benefits as a result of sickness or injury. It includes insurance for losses from accident, medical expense, disability, or accidental death and dismemberment".[2]: 225
A health insurance policy is an insurance contract between an insurance provider (e.g. an insurance company or a government) and an individual or his/her sponsor (that is an employer or a community organization). The contract can be renewable (annually, monthly) or lifelong in the case of private insurance. It can also be mandatory for all citizens in the case of national plans. The type and amount of health care costs that will be covered by the health insurance provider are specified in writing, in a member contract or "Evidence of Coverage" booklet for private insurance, or in a national health policy for public insurance.
Funding and obligations
[edit]
There are two types of health insurance – tax payer-funded and private-funded.[3] A private-funded insurance plan example includes an employer-sponsored self-funded ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) plan. Typically, these companies promote themselves as having ties to major insurance providers. However, in the context of an ERISA plan, these insurance companies do not actively participate in insurance practices; instead, they handle administrative tasks. Consequently, ERISA plans are exempt from state regulations and fall under federal jurisdiction, overseen by the US Department of Labor (USDOL). Specific details about benefits or coverage can be found in the Summary Plan Description (SPD). Should there be a need for an appeal, the process typically involves initiating it through the insurance company and then reaching out to the Employer's Plan Fiduciary. If a resolution is still not achieved, the decision can be escalated to the USDOL for review to ensure compliance with ERISA regulations, and, if necessary, legal action can be taken by filing a lawsuit in federal court. Health insurance can be combined with publicly funded health care and medical savings accounts.
The individual insured person's obligations may take several forms:[citation needed]
- Premium: The amount the policy-holder or their sponsor (e.g. an employer) pays to the health plan to purchase health coverage. (US specific) According to the healthcare law, a premium is calculated using 5 specific factors regarding the insured person. These factors are age, location, tobacco use, individual vs. family enrollment, and which plan category the insured chooses.[4] Under the Affordable Care Act, the government pays a tax credit to cover part of the premium for persons who purchase private insurance through the Insurance Marketplace.[5]: TS 4:03
- Deductible: The amount that the insured must pay out-of-pocket before the health insurer pays its share. For example, policy-holders might have to pay a $7500 deductible per year, before any of their health care is covered by the health insurer. It may take several doctor's visits or prescription refills before the insured person reaches the deductible and the insurance company starts to pay for care. Furthermore, most policies do not apply co-pays for doctor's visits or prescriptions against the insured's deductible.
- Co-payment: The amount that the insured person must pay out of pocket before the health insurer pays for a particular visit or service. For example, an insured person might pay a $45 co-payment for a doctor's visit, or to obtain a prescription. A co-payment must be paid each time a particular service is obtained.
- Coinsurance: Instead of, or in addition to, paying a fixed amount up front (a co-payment), the co-insurance is a percentage of the total cost that an insured person may also pay. For example, the member might have to pay 20% of the cost of a surgery over and above a co-payment, while the insurance company pays the other 80%. If there is an upper limit on coinsurance, the policy-holder could end up owing very little, or a great deal, depending on the actual costs of the services they obtain.
- Exclusions: Not all services are covered. Billed items like disposables, taxes, etc.[clarification needed] are excluded from admissible claim. The insured are generally expected to pay the full cost of non-covered services out of their own funds.
- Coverage limits: Some health insurance policies only pay for health care up to a certain dollar amount. The insured person may be expected to pay any charges in excess of the health plan's maximum payment for a specific service. In addition, some insurance company schemes have annual or lifetime coverage maxima. In these cases, the health plan will stop payment when they reach the benefit maximum, and the policy-holder must pay all remaining costs.
- Out-of-pocket maximum: Similar to coverage limits, except that in this case, the insured person's payment obligation ends when they reach the out-of-pocket maximum, and health insurance pays all further covered costs. Out-of-pocket maximum can be limited to a specific benefit category (such as prescription drugs) or can apply to all coverage provided during a specific benefit year.
- Capitation: An amount paid by an insurer to a health care provider, for which the provider agrees to treat all members of the insurer.
- In-Network Provider: (U.S. term) A health care provider on a list of providers preselected by the insurer. The insurer will offer discounted coinsurance or co-payments, or additional benefits, to a plan member to see an in-network provider. Generally, providers in network are providers who have a contract with the insurer to accept rates further discounted from the "usual and customary" charges the insurer pays to out-of-network providers.
- Out-of-Network Provider: A health care provider that has not contracted with the plan. If using an out-of-network provider, the patient may have to pay full cost of the benefits and services received from that provider. Even for emergency services, out-of-network providers may bill patients for some additional costs associated.
- Prior Authorization: A certification or authorization that an insurer provides prior to medical service occurring. Obtaining an authorization means that the insurer is obligated to pay for the service, assuming it matches what was authorized.[disputed – discuss] Many smaller, routine services do not require authorization.[6]
- Formulary: the list of drugs that an insurance plan agrees to cover.[7]
- Explanation of benefits: A document that may be sent by an insurer to a patient explaining what was covered for a medical service, and how payment amount and patient responsibility amount were determined.[6] In the case of emergency room billing, patients are notified within 30 days post service. Patients are rarely notified of the cost of emergency room services in-person due to patient conditions and other logistics until receipt of this letter.[8]
Prescription drug plans are a form of insurance offered through some health insurance plans. In the U.S., the patient usually pays a copayment and the prescription drug insurance part or all of the balance for drugs covered in the formulary of the plan.[5]: TS 2:21 Such plans are routinely part of national health insurance programs. For example, in the province of Quebec, Canada, prescription drug insurance is universally required as part of the public health insurance plan, but may be purchased and administered either through private or group plans, or through the public plan.[9]
Some, if not most, health care providers in the United States will agree to bill the insurance company if patients are willing to sign an agreement that they will be responsible for the amount that the insurance company does not pay. The insurance company pays out of network providers according to "reasonable and customary" charges, which may be less than the provider's usual fee. The provider may also have a separate contract with the insurer to accept what amounts to a discounted rate or capitation to the provider's standard charges. It generally costs the patient less to use an in-network provider.
All health care systems ration health care to avoid excessive health system spending, typically with the help of cost-effectiveness analysis (CEA).[10] Higher cost-effectiveness thresholds increase health insurance premiums and can make health insurance less affordable.[11] Low competition between health insurers was found to increase health insurance premiums.[12] Due to higher health care costs with age the costs of health insurance can depend on the old-age dependency ratio of a population.[13]
Comparisons
[edit]

The Commonwealth Fund, in its annual survey, "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall", compares the performance of the health care systems in Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada and the U.S. Its 2007 study found that, although the U.S. system is the most expensive, it consistently under-performs compared to the other countries.[16] One difference between the U.S. and the other countries in the study is that the U.S. is the only country without universal health insurance coverage.[citation needed]
The Commonwealth Fund completed its thirteenth annual health policy survey in 2010.[17] A study of the survey "found significant differences in access, cost burdens, and problems with health insurance that are associated with insurance design."[17] Of the countries surveyed, the results indicated that people in the United States had more out-of-pocket expenses, more disputes with insurance companies than other countries, and more insurance payments denied; paperwork was also higher although Germany had similarly high levels of paperwork.[17]
By country
[edit]Australia
[edit]The Australian public health system is called Medicare, which provides free universal access to hospital treatment and subsidised out-of-hospital medical treatment. It is funded by a 2% tax levy on all taxpayers, an extra 1% levy on high income earners, as well as general revenue.[18]
The private health system is funded by a number of private health insurance organizations. The largest of these is Medibank, which was, until 2014, a government-owned entity, when it was privatized and listed on the Australian Securities Exchange.[19]
Australian health funds can be either 'for profit' including Bupa and nib; 'mutual' including Australian Unity; or 'non-profit' including GMHBA, HCF and HBF. Some, such as Police Health, have membership restricted to particular groups, but the majority have open membership. Membership to most health funds is now also available through comparison websites. These comparison sites operate on a commission-basis by agreement with their participating health funds. The Private Health Insurance Ombudsman also operates a free website that allows consumers to search for and compare private health insurers' products, which includes information on price and level of cover.[20]
Most aspects of private health insurance in Australia are regulated by the Private Health Insurance Act 2007. Complaints and reporting of the private health industry is carried out by an independent government agency, the Private Health Insurance Ombudsman. The ombudsman publishes an annual report that outlines the number and nature of complaints per health fund compared to their market share [21]
The private health system in Australia operates on a "community rating" basis, whereby premiums do not vary solely because of a person's previous medical history, the current state of health, or (generally speaking) their age (but see Lifetime Health Cover below). Balancing this are waiting periods, in particular for pre-existing conditions (usually referred to within the industry as PEA, which stands for "pre-existing ailment"). Funds are entitled to impose a waiting period of up to 12 months on benefits for any medical condition the signs and symptoms of which existed during the six months ending on the day the person first took out insurance. They are also entitled to impose a 12-month waiting period for benefits for treatment relating to an obstetric condition, and a 2-month waiting period for all other benefits when a person first takes out private insurance. Funds have the discretion to reduce or remove such waiting periods in individual cases. They are also free not to impose them, to begin with, but this would place such a fund at risk of "adverse selection", attracting a disproportionate number of members from other funds, or from the pool of intending members who might otherwise have joined other funds. It would also attract people with existing medical conditions, who might not otherwise have taken out insurance at all because of the denial of benefits for 12 months due to the PEA Rule. The benefits paid out for these conditions would create pressure on premiums for all the fund's members, causing some to drop their membership, which would lead to further rises in premiums, and a vicious cycle of higher premiums-leaving members would ensue.[citation needed]
The Government of Australia has introduced a number of incentives to encourage adults to take out private hospital insurance. These include:
- Lifetime Health Cover: If a person has not taken out private hospital cover by 1 July after their 31st birthday, then when (and if) they do so after this time, their premiums must include a loading of 2% per annum for each year they were without hospital cover. Thus, a person taking out private cover for the first time at age 40 will pay a 20 percent loading. The loading is removed after 10 years of continuous hospital cover. The loading applies only to premiums for hospital cover, not to ancillary (extras) cover.
- Medicare Levy Surcharge: People whose taxable income is greater than a specified amount ( from 2025-26 financial year $101,000 for singles and $202,000 for couples[22] and who do not have an adequate level of private hospital cover must pay a 1% surcharge on top of the standard 1.5% Medicare Levy. The rationale is that if the people in this income group are forced to pay more money one way or another, most would choose to purchase hospital insurance with it, with the possibility of a benefit if they need private hospital treatment – rather than pay it in the form of extra tax as well as having to meet their own private hospital costs.
- The Australian government announced in May 2008 that it proposes to increase the thresholds, to $100,000 for singles and $150,000 for families. These changes require legislative approval. A bill to change the law has been introduced but was not passed by the Senate.[23] An amended version was passed on 16 October 2008. There have been criticisms that the changes will cause many people to drop their private health insurance, causing a further burden on the public hospital system, and a rise in premiums for those who stay with the private system. Other commentators believe the effect will be minimal.[24]
- Private Health Insurance Rebate: The government subsidises the premiums for all private health insurance cover, including hospital and ancillary (extras), by 10%, 20% or 30%, depending on age. The Rudd Government announced in May 2009 that as of July 2010, the Rebate would become means-tested, and offered on a sliding scale. While this move (which would have required legislation) was defeated in the Senate at the time, in early 2011 the Gillard Government announced plans to reintroduce the legislation after the Opposition loses the balance of power in the Senate. The ALP and Greens have long been against the rebate, referring to it as "middle-class welfare".[25]
Canada
[edit]As per the Constitution of Canada, health care is mainly a provincial government responsibility in Canada (the main exceptions being federal government responsibility for services provided to aboriginal peoples covered by treaties, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the armed forces, and Members of Parliament). Consequently, each province administers its own health insurance program. The federal government influences health insurance by virtue of its fiscal powers – it transfers cash and tax points to the provinces to help cover the costs of the universal health insurance programs. Under the Canada Health Act, the federal government mandates and enforces the requirement that all people have free access to what are termed "medically necessary services," defined primarily as care delivered by physicians or in hospitals, and the nursing component of long-term residential care. If provinces allow doctors or institutions to charge patients for medically necessary services, the federal government reduces its payments to the provinces by the amount of the prohibited charges. Collectively, the public provincial health insurance systems in Canada are frequently referred to as Medicare. This public insurance is tax-funded out of general government revenues, although British Columbia and Ontario levy a mandatory premium with flat rates for individuals and families to generate additional revenues – in essence, a surtax. Private health insurance is allowed, but in six provincial governments only for services that the public health plans do not cover (for example, semi-private or private rooms in hospitals and prescription drug plans). Four provinces allow insurance for services also mandated by the Canada Health Act, but in practice, there is no market for it. All Canadians are free to use private insurance for elective medical services such as laser vision correction surgery, cosmetic surgery, and other non-basic medical procedures. Some 65% of Canadians have some form of supplementary private health insurance; many of them receive it through their employers.[26] Private-sector services not paid for by the government account for nearly 30 percent of total health care spending.[27]
In 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled, in Chaoulli v. Quebec, that the province's prohibition on private insurance for health care already insured by the provincial plan violated the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and in particular, the sections dealing with the right to life and security, if there were unacceptably long wait times for treatment, as was alleged in this case. The ruling has not changed the overall pattern of health insurance across Canada, but has spurred on attempts to tackle the core issues of supply and demand and the impact of wait times.[28]
China
[edit]Cyprus
[edit]In 2020 in Cyprus introduced the General Healthcare System (GHS, also known as GESY) which is an independent insurance fund through which clinics, private doctors, pharmacists, laboratories, microbiological laboratories, and physiotherapists will be paid so that they can offer medical care to permanent residents of Cyprus who will be paying contributions to this fund.[citation needed]
In addition to GESY, more than 12 local and international insurance companies (e.g. Bupa, Aetna, Cigna, Metlife) provide individual and group medical insurance plans. The plans are divided into two main categories plans providing coverage from inpatient expenses (i.e. hospitalization, operations) and plans covering inpatient and outpatient expenses (such as doctor visits, medications, physio-therapies).[citation needed]
France
[edit]The national system of health insurance was instituted in 1945, just after the end of the Second World War. It was a compromise between Gaullist and Communist representatives in the French parliament. The Conservative Gaullists were opposed to a state-run healthcare system, while the Communists were supportive of a complete nationalisation of health care along a British Beveridge model.[citation needed]
The resulting programme is profession-based: all people working are required to pay a portion of their income to a not-for-profit health insurance fund, which mutualizes the risk of illness, and which reimburses medical expenses at varying rates. Children and spouses of insured people are eligible for benefits, as well. Each fund is free to manage its own budget, and used to reimburse medical expenses at the rate it saw fit, however following a number of reforms in recent years, the majority of funds provide the same level of reimbursement and benefits.[citation needed]
The government has two responsibilities in this system.
- The first government responsibility is the fixing of the rate at which medical expenses should be negotiated, and it does so in two ways: The Ministry of Health directly negotiates prices of medicine with the manufacturers, based on the average price of sale observed in neighboring countries. A board of doctors and experts decides if the medicine provides a valuable enough medical benefit to be reimbursed (most medicine is reimbursed, including homeopathy). In parallel, the government fixes the reimbursement rate for medical services: this means that a doctor is free to charge the fee that he wishes for a consultation or an examination, but the social security system will only reimburse it at a pre-set rate. These tariffs are set annually through negotiation with doctors' representative organizations'.
- The second government responsibility is oversight of the health-insurance funds, to ensure that they are correctly managing the sums they receive, and to ensure oversight of the public hospital network.
Today, this system is more or less intact. All citizens and legal foreign residents of France are covered by one of these mandatory programs, which continue to be funded by worker participation. However, since 1945, a number of major changes have been introduced. Firstly, the different health care funds (there are five: General, Independent, Agricultural, Student, Public Servants) now all reimburse at the same rate. Secondly, since 2000, the government now provides health care to those who are not covered by a mandatory regime (those who have never worked and who are not students, meaning the very rich or the very poor). This regime, unlike the worker-financed ones, is financed via general taxation and reimburses at a higher rate than the profession-based system for those who cannot afford to make up the difference. Finally, to counter the rise in health care costs, the government has installed two plans, (in 2004 and 2006), which require insured people to declare a referring doctor in order to be fully reimbursed for specialist visits, and which installed a mandatory co-pay of €1 for a doctor visit, €0.50 for each box of medicine prescribed, and a fee of €16–18 per day for hospital stays and for expensive procedures.[citation needed]
An important element of the French insurance system is solidarity: the more ill a person becomes, the less the person pays. This means that for people with serious or chronic illnesses, the insurance system reimburses them 100% of expenses, and waives their co-pay charges.[citation needed]
Finally, for fees that the mandatory system does not cover, there is a large range of private complementary insurance plans available. The market for these programs is very competitive, and often subsidised by the employer, which means that premiums are usually modest. 85% of French people benefit from complementary private health insurance.[29]
Germany
[edit]Germany has the world's oldest national social health insurance system,[30] with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Sickness Insurance Law of 1883.[31][32]
Beginning with 10% of blue-collar workers in 1885, mandatory insurance has expanded; in 2009, insurance was made mandatory on all citizens, with private health insurance for the self-employed or above an income threshold.[33][34] As of 2016, 85% of the population is covered by the compulsory Statutory Health Insurance (SHI)[35] (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung or GKV), with the remainder covered by private insurance (Private Krankenversicherung or PKV). Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.[36] While public health insurance contributions are based on the individual's income, private health insurance contributions are based on the individual's age and health condition.[33][37]
Reimbursement is on a fee-for-service basis, but the number of physicians allowed to accept Statutory Health Insurance in a given locale is regulated by the government and professional societies.[citation needed]
Co-payments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent over utilization. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the United States (5 to 6 days).[38][39] Part of the difference is that the chief consideration for hospital reimbursement is the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).[40]
Germans are offered three kinds of social security insurance dealing with the physical status of a person and which are co-financed by employer and employee: health insurance, accident insurance, and long-term care insurance. Long-term care insurance (Gesetzliche Pflegeversicherung) emerged in 1994 and is mandatory.[34] Accident insurance (gesetzliche Unfallversicherung) is covered by the employer and basically covers all risks for commuting to work and at the workplace.[41]
Greece
[edit]The National Health System in Greece covers both out and in-patient treatment.[42] The out-patient treatment is carried out by social administrative structures as following:
- EOPPY (National Organization for the Provision of Health Services): contracted private healthcare providers
- PEDY (National Primary Healthcare Network) units: public healthcare
- State hospitals, rural and regional medical units, health centers of the ESY (National Health System)
- Private health professionals: Medical professionals and services not contracted with EOPYY.
The in-patient treatment is carried out by:
- State hospitals of the National Health System (ESY).
- Private Clinics contracted with the National Health Carrier (EOPYY)
- Private hospitals and clinics that are not contracted with the National Health Carrier.
In Greece anyone can cover the hospitalization expenses using a private insurance policy, that can be bought by any of the local or multinational insurance companies that operate in the region (e.g. Metlife, Interamerican, Aetna, IMG).[43]
India
[edit]In India, provision of healthcare services and their efficiency varies state-wise. Public health services are prominent in most of the regions with the national government playing an important role in funding, framing and implementing policies and operating public health insurances.
The vast majority of Indians are covered by either a comprehensive public health insurance scheme run by the National Health Authority called the Ayushman Bharat Yojana or a private health insurance scheme providing comprehensive coverage and that is tightly regulated by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India.[44]
Japan
[edit]There are three major types of insurance programs available in Japan: Employee Health Insurance (健康保険 Kenkō-Hoken), National Health Insurance (国民健康保険 Kokumin-Kenkō-Hoken), and the Late-stage Elderly Medical System (後期高齢医療制度 Kouki-Kourei-Iryouseido).[45] Although private health insurance is available, all Japanese citizens, permanent residents, and non-Japanese with a visa lasting one year or longer are required to be enrolled in either National Health Insurance or Employee Health Insurance. National Health Insurance is designed for those who are not eligible for any employment-based health insurance program. The Late-stage Elderly Medical System is designed for people who are age 75 and older.[[[Health insurance#Japan#{{{section}}}|contradictory]]][46]
National Health Insurance is organised on a household basis. Once a household has applied, the entire family is covered. Applicants receive a health insurance card, which must be used when receiving treatment at a hospital. There is a required monthly premium, but co-payments are standardized so payers are only expected to cover ten to thirty percent of the cost, depending on age.[47][non-primary source needed] If out-of-pocket costs exceed pre-determined limits, payers may apply for a rebate from the National Health Insurance program.[45]
Employee Health Insurance covers diseases, injuries, and death regardless of whether an incident occurred at a workplace. Employee Health Insurance covers a maximum of 180 days of medical care per year for work-related diseases or injuries and 180 days per year for other diseases or injuries. Employers and employees must contribute evenly to be covered by Employee Health Insurance.[48]
The Late-stage Elderly Medical System began in 1983 following the Health Care for the Aged Law of 1982. It allowed many health insurance systems to offer financial assistance to elderly people. There is a medical coverage fee. To be eligible, those insured must be either: older than 70, or older than 65 with a recognized disability.[[[Health insurance#Japan#{{{section}}}|contradictory]]] The Late-stage Elderly Medical System includes preventive and standard medical care.[48]

Issues of the healthcare system
[edit]Due to Japan's aging population, the Late-stage Elderly Medical System represents one third of the country's total healthcare cost. When retiring employees shift from Employee Health Insurance to the Late-stage Elderly Medical System, the national cost of health insurance is expected to increase since individual healthcare costs tend to increase with age.[49]
Netherlands
[edit]In 2006, a new system of health insurance came into force in the Netherlands. This new system avoids the two pitfalls of adverse selection and moral hazard associated with traditional forms of health insurance by using a combination of regulation and insurance equalization pool. Moral hazard is avoided by mandating that insurance companies provide at least one policy that meets a government set minimum standard level of coverage, and all adult residents are obliged by law to purchase this coverage from an insurance company of their choice. All insurance companies receive funds from the equalization pool to help cover the cost of this government-mandated coverage. This pool is run by a regulator which collects salary-based contributions from employers, which make up about 50% of all health care funding, and funding from the government to cover people who cannot afford health care, which makes up an additional 5%.[50]
The remaining 45% of health care funding comes from insurance premiums paid by the public, for which companies compete on price, though the variation between the various competing insurers is only about 5%. However, insurance companies are free to sell additional policies to provide coverage beyond the national minimum. These policies do not receive funding from the equalization pool but cover additional treatments, such as dental procedures and physiotherapy, which are not paid for by the mandatory policy.[50]
Funding from the equalization pool is distributed to insurance companies for each person they insure under the required policy. However, high-risk individuals get more from the pool, and low-income persons and children under 18 have their insurance paid for entirely. Because of this, insurance companies no longer find insuring high-risk individuals an unappealing proposition, avoiding the potential problem of adverse selection.[citation needed]
Insurance companies are not allowed to have co-payments, caps, or deductibles, or deny coverage to any person applying for a policy, or charge anything other than their nationally set and published standard premiums. Therefore, every person buying insurance will pay the same price as everyone else buying the same policy, and every person will get at least the minimum level of coverage. This applies to all people permanently living and working in the Netherlands. International students that move to the Netherlands for study purposes have to take out compulsory Dutch health insurance if they also decide to work (zero-hour contracts included) or do a paid internship during their stay. In that case, they'll need to take out the compulsory basic package of Dutch health insurance. Additional insurance is optional, depending on the student's personal needs.[51][52]
New Zealand
[edit]Since 1974, New Zealand has had a system of universal no-fault health insurance for personal injuries through the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC). The ACC scheme covers most of the costs of related to treatment of injuries acquired in New Zealand (including overseas visitors) regardless of how the injury occurred, and also covers lost income (at 80 percent of the employee's pre-injury income) and costs related to long-term rehabilitation, such as home and vehicle modifications for those seriously injured. Funding from the scheme comes from a combination of levies on employers' payroll (for work injuries), levies on an employee's taxable income (for non-work injuries to salary earners), levies on vehicle licensing fees and petrol (for motor vehicle accidents), and funds from the general taxation pool (for non-work injuries to children, senior citizens, unemployed people, overseas visitors, etc.)
Rwanda
[edit]Rwanda is one of a handful of low income countries that has implemented community-based health insurance schemes in order to reduce the financial barriers that prevent poor people from seeking and receiving needed health services. This scheme has helped reach 90% of the country's population with health care coverage.[53][54]
Singapore
[edit]Singaporeans have one of the longest life expectancy at birth in the world. During this long life, encountering uncertain situations requiring hospitalization are inevitable. Health insurance or medical insurance cover high healthcare costs during hospitalization.[55]
Health insurance for Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents
MediShield Life, is a universal health insurance covering all Singapore Citizens and Permanent Residents. MediShield Life covers hospitalization costs for a stay in ward B2 or C in a Public hospital. For the hospitalization in a Private hospital, or in ward A or B1 in Public hospital, MediShield Life coverage is pegged to B2 or C ward prices and insured is required to pay the remaining bill amount. This remaining bill amount can be paid using MediSave but limits are applied on the MediSave usage. MediShield Life does not cover overseas medical expenses and the treatment of serious pre-existing illnesses for which one has been receiving treatment during the 12 months before the start of the MediShield Life coverage. MediShield Life also does not cover treatment of congenital anomalies (medical conditions that are present at birth), cosmetic surgery, pregnancy-related charges and mental illness.[56]
As the MediShield Life benefits are capped for B2 or C ward hospitalization in public hospitals, Integrated Shield plans provide coverage for the hospitalization in private hospitals, or ward A or B1 in public hospitals.[57] Integrated Shield insurance plans cover large hospitalization bills for Private hospitals or, ward A or B1.[57] However, insured is still required to pay a portion of the bill amount. This is in accordance with Singapore's healthcare philosophy which promotes personal responsibility with getting individuals to share the cost of healthcare. With this philosophy, deductible, co-insurance and peroration are applied on most of the Health Insurance plans in Singapore. Such health insurance plans provide an option to purchase a health insurance rider to cover these charges.[58]
Health insurance for Foreigners in Singapore
Unlike Singapore citizens and permanent residents, foreigners are not automatically covered by the MediShield Life. Foreigners can purchase the health insurance plans from several life insurers in Singapore.[58]
South Korea
[edit]South Korea's life expectancy at birth was 82.7 years in 2017, higher than the OECD average of 80.8. Men's life expectancy was 79.7 years, higher than the OECD average of 78.1 years, and women's life expectancy was 85.7 years, higher than the average of 83.4 years.[59]
Health care in South Korea is provided by the National Health Insurance (NHI), which is mandatory. Anyone residing in South Korea, regardless of nationality or occupation, can purchase this insurance.[60]
Switzerland
[edit]Healthcare in Switzerland is universal[61] and is regulated by the Swiss Federal Law on Health Insurance. Health insurance is compulsory for all persons residing in Switzerland (within three months of taking up residence or being born in the country).[62][63] It is therefore the same throughout the country and avoids double standards in healthcare. Insurers are required to offer this basic insurance to everyone, regardless of age or medical condition. They are not allowed to make a profit off this basic insurance, but can on supplemental plans.[61]
The universal compulsory coverage provides for treatment in case of illness or accident and pregnancy. Health insurance covers the costs of medical treatment, medication and hospitalization of the insured. However, the insured person pays part of the costs up to a maximum, which can vary based on the individually chosen plan, premiums are then adjusted accordingly. The whole healthcare system is geared towards to the general goals of enhancing general public health and reducing costs while encouraging individual responsibility.[citation needed]
The Swiss healthcare system is a combination of public, subsidized private and totally private systems. Insurance premiums vary from insurance company to company, the excess level individually chosen (franchise), the place of residence of the insured person and the degree of supplementary benefit coverage chosen (complementary medicine, routine dental care, semi-private or private ward hospitalization, etc.).[citation needed]
The insured person has full freedom of choice among the approximately 60 recognized healthcare providers competent to treat their condition (in their region) on the understanding that the costs are covered by the insurance up to the level of the official tariff. There is freedom of choice when selecting an insurance company to which one pays a premium, usually on a monthly basis. The insured person pays the insurance premium for the basic plan up to 8% of their personal income. If a premium is higher than this, the government gives the insured person a cash subsidy to pay for any additional premium.
The compulsory insurance can be supplemented by private "complementary" insurance policies that allow for coverage of some of the treatment categories not covered by the basic insurance or to improve the standard of room and service in case of hospitalization. This can include complementary medicine, routine dental treatment and private ward hospitalization, which are not covered by the compulsory insurance.
As far as the compulsory health insurance is concerned, the insurance companies cannot set any conditions relating to age, sex or state of health for coverage. Although the level of premium can vary from one company to another, they must be identical within the same company for all insured persons of the same age group and region, regardless of sex or state of health. This does not apply to complementary insurance, where premiums are risk-based.
Switzerland has an infant mortality rate of about 3.6 out of 1,000. The general life expectancy in 2012 was for men 80.5 years compared to 84.7 years for women.[64] These are the world's best figures.[65]
United Kingdom
[edit]The UK's National Health Service (NHS) is a publicly funded healthcare system that provides coverage to everyone normally resident in the UK. It is not strictly an insurance system because (a) there are no premiums collected, (b) costs are not charged at the patient level and (c) costs are not pre-paid from a pool. However, it does achieve the main aim of insurance which is to spread financial risk arising from ill-health. The costs of running the NHS (est. £104 billion in 2007–8)[66] are met directly from general taxation. The NHS provides the majority of health care in the UK, including primary care, in-patient care, long-term health care, ophthalmology, and dentistry.
Private health care has continued parallel to the NHS, paid for largely by private insurance, but it is used by less than 8% of the population, and generally as a top-up to NHS services. There are many treatments that the private sector does not provide. For example, health insurance on pregnancy is generally not covered or covered with restricting clauses. Typical exclusions for Bupa schemes (and many other insurers) include:
aging, menopause and puberty; AIDS/HIV; allergies or allergic disorders; birth control, conception, sexual problems and sex changes; chronic conditions; complications from excluded or restricted conditions/ treatment; convalescence, rehabilitation and general nursing care ; cosmetic, reconstructive or weight loss treatment; deafness; dental/oral treatment (such as fillings, gum disease, jaw shrinkage, etc.); dialysis; drugs and dressings for out-patient or take-home use† ; experimental drugs and treatment; eyesight; HRT and bone densitometry; learning difficulties, behavioural and developmental problems; overseas treatment and repatriation; physical aids and devices; pre-existing or special conditions; pregnancy and childbirth; screening and preventive treatment; sleep problems and disorders; speech disorders; temporary relief of symptoms.[67] († = except in exceptional circumstances)
There are a number of other companies in the United Kingdom which include, among others, Chubb Limited, Axa, Aviva, Bupa, Groupama Healthcare, WPA and VitalityHealth. Similar exclusions apply, depending on the policy which is purchased.
In 2009, the main representative body of British Medical physicians, the British Medical Association, adopted a policy statement expressing concerns about developments in the health insurance market in the UK. In its Annual Representative Meeting which had been agreed earlier by the Consultants Policy Group (i.e. Senior physicians) stating that the BMA was "extremely concerned that the policies of some private healthcare insurance companies are preventing or restricting patients exercising choice about (i) the consultants who treat them; (ii) the hospital at which they are treated; (iii) making top up payments to cover any gap between the funding provided by their insurance company and the cost of their chosen private treatment." It went in to "call on the BMA to publicise these concerns so that patients are fully informed when making choices about private healthcare insurance."[68] The practice of insurance companies deciding which consultant a patient may see as opposed to GPs or patients is referred to as Open Referral.[69] The NHS offers patients a choice of hospitals and consultants and does not charge for its services.
The private sector has been used to increase NHS capacity despite a large proportion of the British public opposing such involvement.[70] According to the World Health Organization, government funding covered 86% of overall health care expenditures in the UK as of 2004, with private expenditures covering the remaining 14%.[36]
Nearly one in three patients receiving NHS hospital treatment is privately insured and could have the cost paid for by their insurer. Some private schemes provide cash payments to patients who opt for NHS treatment, to deter use of private facilities. A report, by private health analysts Laing and Buisson, in November 2012, estimated that more than 250,000 operations were performed on patients with private medical insurance each year at a cost of £359 million. In addition, £609 million was spent on emergency medical or surgical treatment. Private medical insurance does not normally cover emergency treatment but subsequent recovery could be paid for if the patient were moved into a private patient unit.[71]
United States
[edit]Short Term Health Insurance
On the 1st of August, 2018 the DHHS issued a final rule which made federal changes to Short-Term, Limited-Duration Health Insurance (STLDI) which lengthened the maximum contract term to 364 days and renewal for up to 36 months.[72][73] This new rule, in combination with the expiration of the penalty for the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act,[74] has been the subject of independent analysis.[72][75][76][77][78][79][80][81]
The United States health care system relies heavily on private health insurance, which is the primary source of coverage for most Americans. As of 2018, 68.9% of American adults had private health insurance, according to The Center for Disease Control and Prevention.[82] The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) found that in 2011, private insurance was billed for 12.2 million U.S. inpatient hospital stays and incurred approximately $112.5 billion in aggregate inpatient hospital costs (29% of the total national aggregate costs).[83] Public programs provide the primary source of coverage for most senior citizens and for low-income children and families who meet certain eligibility requirements. The primary public programs are Medicare, a federal social insurance program for seniors and certain disabled individuals; and Medicaid, funded jointly by the federal government and states but administered at the state level, which covers certain very low income children and their families. Together, Medicare and Medicaid accounted for approximately 63 percent of the national inpatient hospital costs in 2011.[83] SCHIP is a federal-state partnership that serves certain children and families who do not qualify for Medicaid but who cannot afford private coverage. Other public programs include military health benefits provided through TRICARE and the Veterans Health Administration and benefits provided through the Indian Health Service. Some states have additional programs for low-income individuals.[84]
In the late 1990s and early 2000s, health advocacy companies began to appear to help patients deal with the complexities of the healthcare system. The complexity of the healthcare system has resulted in a variety of problems for the American public. A study found that 62 percent of persons declaring bankruptcy in 2007 had unpaid medical expenses of $1000 or more, and in 92% of these cases the medical debts exceeded $5000. Nearly 80 percent who filed for bankruptcy had health insurance.[85] The Medicare and Medicaid programs were estimated to soon account for 50 percent of all national health spending.[86] These factors and many others fueled interest in an overhaul of the health care system in the United States. In 2010 President Obama signed into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. This Act includes an 'individual mandate' that every American must have medical insurance (or pay a fine). Health policy experts such as David Cutler and Jonathan Gruber, as well as the American medical insurance lobby group America's Health Insurance Plans, argued this provision was required in order to provide "guaranteed issue" and a "community rating," which address unpopular features of America's health insurance system such as premium weightings, exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and the pre-screening of insurance applicants. During 26–28 March, the Supreme Court heard arguments regarding the validity of the Act. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was determined to be constitutional on 28 June 2012. The Supreme Court determined that Congress had the authority to apply the individual mandate within its taxing powers.[87]
History and evolution
[edit]In the late 19th century, "accident insurance" began to be available, which operated much like modern disability insurance.[88][89] This payment model continued until the start of the 20th century in some jurisdictions (like California), where all laws regulating health insurance actually referred to disability insurance.[90]
Accident insurance was first offered in the United States by the Franklin Health Assurance Company of Massachusetts. This firm, founded in 1850, offered insurance against injuries arising from railroad and steamboat accidents. Sixty organizations were offering accident insurance in the U.S. by 1866, but the industry consolidated rapidly soon thereafter. While there were earlier experiments, the origins of sickness coverage in the U.S. effectively date from 1890. The first employer-sponsored group disability policy was issued in 1911.[91]
Before the development of medical expense insurance, patients were expected to pay health care costs out of their own pockets, under what is known as the fee-for-service business model. During the middle-to-late 20th century, traditional disability insurance evolved into modern health insurance programs. One major obstacle to this development was that early forms of comprehensive health insurance were enjoined by courts for violating the traditional ban on corporate practice of the professions by for-profit corporations.[92] State legislatures had to intervene and expressly legalize health insurance as an exception to that traditional rule. Today, most comprehensive private health insurance programs cover the cost of routine, preventive, and emergency health care procedures. They also cover or partially cover the cost of certain prescription and over-the-counter drugs. Insurance companies determine what drugs are covered based on price, availability, and therapeutic equivalents. The list of drugs that an insurance program agrees to cover is called a formulary.[7] Additionally, some prescriptions drugs may require a prior authorization[93] before an insurance program agrees to cover its cost.
Hospital and medical expense policies were introduced during the first half of the 20th century. During the 1920s, individual hospitals began offering services to individuals on a pre-paid basis, eventually leading to the development of Blue Cross organizations.[91] The predecessors of today's Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs) originated beginning in 1929, through the 1930s and on during World War II.[94][95]
The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) regulated the operation of a health benefit plan if an employer chooses to establish one, which is not required. The Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) gives an ex-employee the right to continue coverage under an employer-sponsored group health benefit plan.
Through the 1990s, managed care insurance schemes including health maintenance organizations (HMO), preferred provider organizations, or point of service plans grew from about 25% US employees with employer-sponsored coverage to the vast majority.[96] With managed care, insurers use various techniques to address costs and improve quality, including negotiation of prices ("in-network" providers), utilization management, and requirements for quality assurance such as being accredited by accreditation schemes such as the Joint Commission and the American Accreditation Healthcare Commission.[97]
Employers and employees may have some choice in the details of plans, including health savings accounts, deductible, and coinsurance. As of 2015, a trend has emerged for employers to offer high-deductible plans, called consumer-driven healthcare plans which place more costs on employees, while employees benefit by paying lower monthly premiums. Additionally, having a high-deductible plan allows employees to open a health savings account, which allows them to contribute pre-tax savings towards future medical needs. Some employers will offer multiple plans to their employees.[98]
Russia
[edit]The private health insurance market, known in Russian as "voluntary health insurance" (Russian: добровольное медицинское страхование, ДМС) to distinguish it from state-sponsored Mandatory Medical Insurance, has experienced sustained levels of growth.[99] It was introduced in October 1992.[100]
Taiwan
[edit]See also
[edit]- ANSI 834 Enrollment Implementation Format
- Economic capital
- Financial risk management § Insurance
- Health administration
- Health Advocate (a US-based patient advocacy company)
- Health system – cross-national comparisons
- Health care reform
- Healthcare in Costa Rica
- Health Insurance Innovations
- Health crisis
- Health economics
- Health insurance failure
- Health insurance marketplace
- Health insurance mandate
- Hospital accreditation
- International healthcare accreditation
- Nyman's model
- PAYGO
- Philosophy of healthcare
- Prescription analytics
- ProtectSeniors.Org (a US lobbying group)
- Public health
- Quality-adjusted life year
- Self-funded health care
- Single-payer healthcare
- Social security
- Welfare
- The Hospital Uninsured Patient Discount Act (Illinois)
- Unfunded mandate
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights
References
[edit]- ^ Pekerti, Andre; Vuong, Quan-Hoang; Ho, Tung; Vuong, Thu-Trang (25 September 2017). "Health care payments in Vietnam: patients' quagmire of caring for health versus economic destitution". International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 14 (10): 1118. doi:10.3390/ijerph14101118. PMC 5664619. PMID 28946711.
- ^ How Private Insurance Works: A Primer by Gary Caxton, Institution for Health Care Research and Policy, Georgetown University, on behalf of the Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.
- ^ "How Insurance Works". hcsc.com. Archived from the original on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 21 November 2019.
- ^ "How Health Insurance Marketplace Plans Set Your Premiums". HealthCare.gov. Retrieved 23 October 2019.
- ^ a b The YouToons Get Ready for Obamacare. Kaiser Family Foundation. 17 July 2013. Retrieved 24 March 2022.
- ^ a b Prior Authorizations. Healthharbor.com. Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ a b "Formulary - HealthCare.gov Glossary". HealthCare.gov. Retrieved 6 November 2019.
- ^ "Bill Text - AB-1611 Emergency hospital services: Costs".
- ^ Regie de l'assurance maladie du Quebec. Prescription drug insurance. Archived 25 May 2020 at the Wayback Machine Accessed 3 June 2011.
- ^ Kim, David D.; Silver, Madison C.; Kunst, Natalia; Cohen, Joshua T.; Ollendorf, Daniel A.; Neumann, Peter J. (2020). "Perspective and Costing in Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, 1974–2018". PharmacoEconomics. 38 (10): 1135–1145. doi:10.1007/s40273-020-00942-2. ISSN 1179-2027. PMC 7373843. PMID 32696192.
- ^ Vanness, David J.; Lomas, James; Ahn, Hannah (2021). "A Health Opportunity Cost Threshold for Cost-Effectiveness Analysis in the United States" (PDF). Annals of Internal Medicine. 174 (1): 25–32. doi:10.7326/M20-1392. ISSN 0003-4819. PMID 33136426. Retrieved 8 June 2025.
- ^ Parys, Jessica Van (2018). "ACA Marketplace Premiums Grew More Rapidly In Areas With Monopoly Insurers Than In Areas With More Competition". Health Affairs. 37 (8): 1243–1251. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2018.0054. ISSN 0278-2715. PMID 30080465.
- ^ Johansson, Per-Olov (2000). "Properties of actuarially fair and pay-as-you-go health insurance schemes for the elderly. An OLG model approach" (PDF). Journal of Health Economics. 19 (4): 477–498. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(99)00042-9. PMID 11010236. Retrieved 1 June 2025.
- ^ "OECD.StatExtracts, Health, Health Expenditure and Financing, Main Indicators, Health Expenditure since 2000" (Online Statistics). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD's iLibrary. 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
- ^ "OECD.StatExtracts, Health, Health Status, Life expectancy, Total population at birth" (Online Statistics). Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. OECD's iLibrary. 2013. Retrieved 23 April 2014.
- ^ "Mirror, Mirror on the Wall: An International Update on the Comparative Performance of American Health Care". The Commonwealth Fund. 15 May 2007. Archived from the original on 29 March 2009. Retrieved 7 March 2009.
- ^ a b c Schoen C et al. (2010). How Health Insurance Design Affects Access To Care And Costs, By Income, In Eleven Countries. Health Affairs. Free full-text.
- ^ What is the Medicare levy Australian Taxation Office
- ^ Medibank float touted as win win for taxpayers and investors Sydney Morning Herald 25 November 2014
- ^ Australian Health Insurance Information Archived 18 May 2021 at the Wayback Machine. PrivateHealth.gov.au. Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ PHIO's Annual Reports Archived 6 January 2016 at the Wayback Machine. Phio.org.au. Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ "The Medicare Levy Surcharge". iSelect. Archived from the original on 26 March 2025. Retrieved 7 April 2025.
- ^ "Parlininfoweb.aph.gov.au" (PDF). aph.gov.au. Archived from the original (PDF) on 17 December 2008. Retrieved 9 February 2016.
- ^ "Medicare levy surcharge effect 'trivial': inquiry". ABC News. 12 August 2008. Archived from the original on 14 August 2008. Retrieved 28 November 2017.
- ^ Middle class, middle income and caught in the cross-hairs as Labor turns its sights on a welfare crackdown The Age 1 May 2011 Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ Development, Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and (2004). Private Health Insurance in OECD Countries. OECD Health Project. ISBN 978-92-64-00668-3. Retrieved 19 November 2007.
- ^ National Health Expenditure Trends, 1975–2007. Canadian Institute for Health Information. 2007. ISBN 978-1-55465-167-2. Archived from the original on 14 February 2008. Retrieved 19 November 2007.
- ^ Hadorn, D. (2 August 2005). "The Chaoulli challenge: getting a grip on waiting lists". Canadian Medical Association Journal. 173 (3): 271–73. doi:10.1503/cmaj.050812. PMC 1180658. PMID 16076823.
- ^ John S. Ambler, "The French Welfare State: surviving social and ideological change," New York University Press, 30 September 1993, ISBN 978-0-8147-0626-8.
- ^ Bump, Jesse B. (19 October 2010). "The long road to universal health coverage. A century of lessons for development strategy" (PDF). Seattle: PATH. Archived from the original (PDF) on 6 April 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2013.
Carrin and James have identified 1988—105 years after Bismarck's first sickness fund laws—as the date Germany achieved universal health coverage through this series of extensions to minimum benefit packages and expansions of the enrolled population. Bärnighausen and Sauerborn have quantified this long-term progressive increase in the proportion of the German population covered by public and private insurance. Their graph is reproduced below as Figure 1: German Population Enrolled in Health Insurance (%) 1885–1995.
Carrin, Guy; James, Chris (January 2005). "Social health insurance: Key factors affecting the transition towards universal coverage" (PDF). International Social Security Review. 58 (1): 45–64. doi:10.1111/j.1468-246x.2005.00209.x. S2CID 154659524. Retrieved 10 March 2013.Initially the health insurance law of 1883 covered blue-collar workers in selected industries, craftspeople and other selected professionals.6 It is estimated that this law brought health insurance coverage up from 5 to 10 per cent of the total population.
Bärnighausen, Till; Sauerborn, Rainer (May 2002). "One hundred and eighteen years of the German health insurance system: are there any lessons for middle- and low income countries?". Social Science & Medicine. 54 (10): 1559–87. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(01)00137-X. PMID 12061488. Archived from the original (PDF) on 15 May 2020. Retrieved 10 March 2013.As Germany has the world's oldest SHI [social health insurance] system, it naturally lends itself to historical analyses.
- ^ Leichter, Howard M. (1979). A comparative approach to policy analysis: health care policy in four nations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 121. ISBN 978-0-521-22648-6.
The Sickness Insurance Law (1883). Eligibility. The Sickness Insurance Law came into effect in December 1884. It provided for compulsory participation by all industrial wage earners (i.e., manual laborers) in factories, ironworks, mines, shipbuilding yards, and similar workplaces.
- ^ Hennock, Ernest Peter (2007). The origin of the welfare state in England and Germany, 1850–1914: social policies compared. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. 157. ISBN 978-0-521-59212-3.
- ^ a b "Private or public? An introduction health insurance in Germany". allaboutberlin.com. Retrieved 10 February 2019.
- ^ a b Busse, Reinhard; Blümel, Miriam; Knieps, Franz; Bärnighausen, Till (August 2017). "Statutory health insurance in Germany: a health system shaped by 135 years of solidarity, self-governance, and competition". The Lancet. 390 (10097): 882–897. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(17)31280-1. ISSN 0140-6736. PMID 28684025.
- ^ Ehrich, Jochen; Grote, Ulrike; Gerber-Grote, Andreas; Strassburg, Michael (October 2016). "The Child Health Care System of Germany". The Journal of Pediatrics. 177: S71 – S86. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2016.04.045. ISSN 0022-3476. PMID 27666278.
- ^ a b World Health Organization Statistical Information System: Core Health Indicators. Who.int. Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ GmbH, Finanztip Verbraucherinformation gemeinnützige. "Finanztip : Finanztip – Das gemeinnützige Verbraucherportal". finanztip.de. Archived from the original on 1 June 2014.
- ^ Length of hospital stay, Germany Archived 12 June 2011 at the Wayback Machine. Group-economics.allianz.com (25 July 2005). Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ Length of hospital stay, U.S. Cdc.gov. Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ Borger C, Smith S, Truffer C, et al. (2006). "Health spending projections through 2015: changes on the horizon". Health Aff (Millwood). 25 (2): w61–73. doi:10.1377/hlthaff.25.w61. PMID 16495287.
- ^ "Statutory Accident Insurance Cover During Foreign Assignments" (PDF). Deutsche Gesetzliche Unfallversicherung (DGUV). 2013. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 April 2021. Retrieved 10 November 2020.
- ^ The Greek Health System Archived 26 October 2021 at the Wayback Machine by the National Organization for the Provision of Health Services.
- ^ List of Health Insurance companies operating in Greece
- ^ Health Insurance for India's Missing Middle (PDF). NITI Aayog. October 2021.
- ^ a b 国民健康保険の手引 [The National Health Insurance Guidebook] (PDF) (in Japanese and English). Kyoto Institute of Technology. 2017. Archived from the original (PDF) on 1 August 2020. Retrieved 30 March 2023.
- ^ Yamauchi, Toyoaki (March 1999). "Healthcare system in Japan". Nursing & Health Sciences. 1 (1): 45–48. doi:10.1046/j.1442-2018.1999.00007.x. ISSN 1441-0745. PMID 10894651.
- ^ "en.indd" (PDF). Retrieved 1 March 2022.
- ^ a b Luk, Sabrina Ching Yuen (6 January 2020). Ageing, Long-term Care Insurance and Healthcare Finance in Asia. Routledge studies in the modern world economy (1 ed.). London: Routledge. doi:10.4324/9781315115689. ISBN 978-1-315-11568-9. S2CID 213140829.
- ^ Wise, David A.; Yashiro, Naohiro (2006). Health Care Issues in the United States and Japan. University of Chicago Press. doi:10.7208/chicago/9780226903248.001.0001. ISBN 978-0-226-90292-0.
- ^ a b "Risk adjustment under the health insurance act in the Netherlands". Dutch Government. Retrieved 21 March 2023.
- ^ "Dutch health insurance". Studenten Zorgverzekering. Retrieved 21 May 2025.
- ^ "Health insurance for international Students in the Netherlands". Student Health Insurance. Retrieved 30 March 2023.
- ^ Wisman, Rosann; Heller, John; Clark, Peggy (2011). "A blueprint for country-driven development". The Lancet. 377 (9781): 1902–03. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)60778-2. PMID 21641465. S2CID 13371951.
- ^ Carrin G et al. "Universal coverage of health services: tailoring its implementation." Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 2008; 86(11): 817–908.
- ^ "MOH | News Highlights". www.moh.gov.sg. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
- ^ "MOH | MediShield Life FAQs". www.moh.gov.sg. Archived from the original on 20 March 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
- ^ a b "MOH | About Integrated Shield Plans". www.moh.gov.sg. Archived from the original on 9 April 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
- ^ a b "Health Insurance Singapore | Kloodo Singapore". kloodo.com. Archived from the original on 28 March 2022. Retrieved 19 February 2021.
- ^ "The public health system in Korea". OECD Library. 13 December 2024. Archived from the original on 12 July 2024. Retrieved 6 March 2024.
- ^ "Health Insurance in South Korea". International Student Insurance.
- ^ a b Schwartz, Nelson D. (1 October 2009). "Swiss health care thrives without public option". The New York Times. p. A1.
- ^ "Requirement to take out insurance, "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQ)". bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/06377/index.html?lang=en. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA. 8 January 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 3 December 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
- ^ "The compulsory health insurance in Switzerland: Your questions, our answers". bag.admin.ch/themen/krankenversicherung/index.html?lang=en. Swiss Federal Office of Public Health (FOPH), Federal Department of Home Affairs FDHA. 21 December 2012. Archived from the original (PDF) on 14 December 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
- ^ "Bevölkerungsbewegung – Indikatoren: Todesfälle, Sterblichkeit und Lebenserwartung" (in German). Swiss Federal Statistical Office, Neuchâtel 2013. 2012. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
- ^ "The Human Capital Report, Insight Report". World Economic Forum. 2013. pp. 12, 14, 478–81. Archived from the original (PDF) on 5 October 2013. Retrieved 21 November 2013.
- ^ HM Treasury (21 March 2007). "Budget 2007" (PDF). p. 21. Retrieved 11 May 2007.
- ^ BUPA exclusions Archived 31 January 2009 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ BMA policies – search results Archived 14 April 2021 at the Wayback Machine. British Medical Association. Retrieved on 26 October 2011.
- ^ "Open Referral schemes explained". BUPA. Archived from the original on 14 July 2014.
- ^ "Survey of the general public's views on NHS system reform in England" (PDF). BMA. 1 June 2007. Archived from the original (PDF) on 27 February 2008.
- ^ "NHS wasting £1 billion a year treating patients with private medical insurance". Independent. 6 November 2012. Archived from the original on 9 May 2022. Retrieved 4 May 2014.
- ^ a b Keith, Karen (2018). "The Short-Term, Limited-Duration Coverage Final Rule: The Background, The Content, And What Could Come Next | Health Affairs". Health Affairs Forefront. doi:10.1377/forefront.20180801.169759.
- ^ Internal Revenue Service, Department of the, Treasury.; Employee Benefits Security Administration, Department of, Labor.; Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, Department of Health and Human, Services. (3 August 2018). "Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance. Final rule". Federal Register. 83 (150): 38212–43. PMID 30074743.
- ^ "Analysis of The CBO's shifting view on the impact of the Obamacare individual mandate". Washington Post. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
- ^ Keith, Katie (2018). "Reports Find Risk Of Non-ACA-Compliant Plans To Be Higher Than Federal Estimates | Health Affairs". Health Affairs Forefront. doi:10.1377/forefront.20180303.392660.
- ^ Keith, Katie (2018). "New Reports On Potential Negative Impacts Of Short-Term Plans | Health Affairs". Health Affairs Forefront. doi:10.1377/forefront.20180420.803263.
- ^ "What Is the Impact on Enrollment and Premiums if the Duration of Short-Term Health Insurance Plans Is Increased? | Commonwealth Fund". commonwealthfund.org. 5 June 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
- ^ "ACA Open Enrollment: For Consumers Considering Short-Term Policies…". The Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. 29 October 2018. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
- ^ Sweeney, Catherine (14 September 2018). "Doak pushes for short-term health insurance plans". The Journal Record. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
- ^ Friedman, Rebecca (11 October 2018). "Short-Term Limited Duration Insurance Can Now Be Less Short-Term". Bill of Health. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
- ^ Levey, Noam N. "Trump's new insurance rules are panned by nearly every healthcare group that submitted formal comments". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 4 March 2019.
- ^ "FastStats". cdc.gov. 14 April 2020. Retrieved 26 May 2020.
- ^ a b Torio CM, Andrews RM. National Inpatient Hospital Costs: The Most Expensive Conditions by Payer, 2011. HCUP Statistical Brief #160. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. August 2013. [1] Archived 14 March 2017 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ U.S. Census Bureau, "CPS Health Insurance Definitions" Archived 5 May 2010 at the Wayback Machine
- ^ Himmelstein, D. U.; Thorne, D.; Warren, E.; Woolhandler, S. (2009). "Medical Bankruptcy in the United States, 2007: Results of a National Study". The American Journal of Medicine. 122 (8): 741–46. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009.04.012. PMID 19501347. S2CID 25720725. See full text.
- ^ Siska, A, et al, Health Spending Projections Through 2018: Recession Effects Add Uncertainty to The Outlook Health Affairs, March/April 2009; 28(2): w346-w357.
- ^ "SCOTUS ACA Ruling" (PDF).
- ^ Howstuffworks: How Health Insurance Works.
- ^ "Encarta: Health Insurance". Archived from the original on 17 July 2009.
- ^ See California Insurance Code Section 106 (defining disability insurance). Caselaw.lp.findlaw.com In 2001, the California Legislature added subdivision (b), which defines "health insurance" as "an individual or group disability insurance policy that provides coverage for hospital, medical, or surgical benefits."
- ^ a b Fundamentals of Health Insurance: Part A, Health Insurance Association of America, 1997, ISBN 1-879143-36-4.
- ^ People ex rel. State Board of Medical Examiners v. Pacific Health Corp., 12 Cal.2d 156 (1938).
- ^ "Prior Authorization - HealthCare.gov Glossary". HealthCare.gov. Retrieved 6 November 2019.
- ^ Thomas P. O'Hare, "Individual Medical Expense Insurance," The American College, 2000, p. 7, ISBN 1-57996-025-1.
- ^ Managed Care: Integrating the Delivery and Financing of Health Care – Part A, Health Insurance Association of America, 1995, p. 9 ISBN 1-879143-26-7.
- ^ "Employer Health Insurance: 2007," Archived October 11, 2007, at the Wayback Machine Kaiser Family Foundation, September 2007
- ^ Health Care in America: Trends in Utilization. National Center for Health Statistics (2003). CDC.gov
- ^ Straz, Matt. "What Employers Need to Know About the Hottest Trends in Health Insurance". Entrepreneur Magazine. 27 April 2015. Web. 2 July 2015.
- ^ "ДМС в России – добровольное медицинское страхование – MetLife". MetLife (in Russian). Archived from the original on 24 April 2017. Retrieved 23 April 2017.
- ^ "За медуслуги платят более половины российских горожан". Vedomosti. 24 October 2011. Archived from the original on 24 April 2017. Retrieved 24 April 2017.
External links
[edit]
Media related to Health insurance at Wikimedia Commons
Health insurance
View on GrokipediaHealth insurance constitutes a contractual arrangement in which participants pay premiums to an insurer or public entity, which assumes the financial risk of covered medical expenses arising from illness, injury, or preventive care, thereby pooling resources to shield individuals from catastrophic costs.[1][2]
Health insurance manifests in diverse systems worldwide, categorized primarily into the Beveridge model of government-owned providers and funding, the Bismarck model relying on employer-mandated nonprofit insurers, the national health insurance model featuring single-payer government administration with private delivery, and out-of-pocket dominant arrangements in resource-constrained environments where formal coverage is minimal.[3][4]
In practice, health insurance enhances access to services and averts financial ruin from healthcare bills, yet empirical analyses reveal its influence on mortality and morbidity is modest relative to determinants such as personal behaviors and socioeconomic conditions, while administrative overhead and premium escalation—often outpacing inflation—fuel debates over efficiency and value.[5][6][7]
Cross-nationally, higher insurance penetration correlates with robust economic output, though in market-oriented systems like the United States—where employer-sponsored plans cover over half of the population alongside public options—persistent underinsurance affects nearly one in four adults, prompting scrutiny of mandates, subsidies, and cost-sharing mechanisms.[8][9][10]
Fundamentals
Definition and Coverage
Health insurance is a contractual arrangement between an individual or group and an insurer, whereby the insurer agrees to indemnify or reimburse the policyholder for specified medical expenses arising from illness, injury, or preventive care, in exchange for periodic premium payments.[11][2] This mechanism pools risk across a large population to mitigate the financial uncertainty of unpredictable health costs, with coverage determined by policy terms including deductibles, copayments, and out-of-pocket maximums.[12] Unlike general property or casualty insurance, health insurance focuses on services rendered by licensed medical professionals and facilities, often subject to utilization review to ensure medical necessity.[13] Typical coverage encompasses a range of essential health benefits, such as ambulatory and inpatient hospital services, emergency care, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder treatment, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services, laboratory tests, preventive screenings, and pediatric care including oral and vision services for children.[14] In many systems, preventive services like vaccinations, annual wellness exams, and chronic disease management are covered at no additional cost to encourage early intervention and reduce long-term expenditures.[15] However, coverage scopes vary significantly by jurisdiction and plan type; for instance, private plans may exclude experimental treatments or elective procedures, while public programs often prioritize catastrophic coverage over comprehensive outpatient benefits.[16] Exclusions commonly include cosmetic surgery, long-term custodial care, and certain alternative therapies unless explicitly endorsed, reflecting actuarial assessments of low-probability, high-cost events versus routine care.[17] Network restrictions in managed care models, such as health maintenance organizations (HMOs) or preferred provider organizations (PPOs), further delineate coverage by limiting reimbursements to in-network providers to control costs through negotiated rates.[18] Empirical data from insurer claims indicate that hospital inpatient stays and pharmaceuticals account for the largest shares of payouts, underscoring the emphasis on acute and chronic condition management.[19]Core Economic Principles
Health insurance operates on the principle of risk pooling, whereby premiums collected from a large group of individuals finance the unpredictable healthcare costs of a subset who become ill, thereby mitigating financial catastrophe for any single participant. This mechanism relies on the law of large numbers to predict aggregate claims accurately, assuming a diverse risk distribution within the pool.[20] In health markets, however, deviations from ideal pooling arise due to the inherent uncertainty of medical needs, as individuals face unpredictable health shocks that cannot be contracted upon ex ante like routine goods.[21] A primary market imperfection is adverse selection, stemming from asymmetric information where potential insureds possess private knowledge of their health risks superior to insurers'. High-risk individuals disproportionately seek coverage, elevating average pool costs and premiums, which in turn may deter low-risk entrants and precipitate a "death spiral" of rising prices and shrinking participation. Empirical studies, such as those examining employee choices at Harvard University in the 1990s, confirm this dynamic, with sicker workers opting for more generous plans and contributing to premium escalation.[22] Similarly, analyses of private markets disentangling selection from other effects reveal positive correlations between plan generosity and enrollee health expenditures, indicative of riskier types self-selecting.[23] Moral hazard introduces post-contract inefficiencies, as insurance lowers the perceived cost of care at the point of consumption, prompting greater utilization than under full self-payment. Ex ante moral hazard may involve riskier behaviors knowing coverage exists, though evidence is weaker; ex post effects dominate, with insureds demanding services whose marginal benefit falls below cost. The RAND Health Insurance Experiment (1974–1982), involving over 5,800 participants randomized across cost-sharing levels, quantified this: free care led to 30–40% higher outpatient and inpatient utilization compared to 95% coinsurance, without commensurate health gains for most, underscoring overconsumption driven by subsidized prices.[24][25] The third-party payer structure—where neither patients nor providers bear full marginal costs—exacerbates these issues by severing price incentives, fostering supplier-induced demand and inefficient allocations. Providers, facing fee-for-service reimbursements, may recommend excess interventions, while patients undervalue services. Kenneth Arrow's 1963 framework emphasized how such uncertainties and information gaps prevent competitive equilibria akin to other markets, though subsequent critiques note these do not inherently mandate government monopoly but highlight needs for targeted remedies like risk adjustment.[21][26] Empirical work confirms moral hazard's quantitative significance, with elasticities around -0.2 for spending response to cost-sharing, balancing risk protection against induced waste.[27]Historical Development
Origins in Mutual Aid and Early Insurance
Mutual aid societies, precursors to modern health insurance, originated in Europe as voluntary associations where members pooled resources to provide financial support during illness, injury, or death. In England, the earliest friendly societies emerged in the late 17th century, with records of organized groups like the "Friendly Society of Scaynes Hill" dating to 1695, offering weekly sickness payments typically equivalent to half a member's wage for up to 20-26 weeks.[28] By the early 19th century, these societies had proliferated, enrolling over 4 million members by 1870 and providing not only cash benefits but also access to physicians or dispensaries, funded by regular contributions from working-class participants.[29] This model emphasized self-reliance and reciprocity, mitigating the risks of income loss from health events without reliance on state welfare, though benefits were limited and often excluded pre-existing conditions or long-term disabilities.[30] Similar structures took root in the United States during the late 18th and early 19th centuries through fraternal benefit societies and mutual aid associations, adapting European traditions to the frontier context. Organizations such as the Independent Order of Odd Fellows, founded in 1819, and the Ancient Order of Hibernians offered sickness benefits alongside burial and unemployment aid, with membership growing to cover about 10% of the population by the 1890s.[29] These groups insured millions against short-term incapacity—by 1910, fraternal societies alone provided coverage to approximately 4 million Americans for weekly indemnity payments averaging $5-10 during illness—drawing from weekly dues of 10-50 cents per member.[29] Company-sponsored mutual benefit associations also arose in the 1870s, particularly in railroads and manufacturing, where employers facilitated employee contributions for medical aid, foreshadowing employer-sponsored plans.[29] Participation was widespread among industrial workers, peaking in the 1920s when up to one-third of Americans belonged to such groups, which emphasized moral hazard controls like peer oversight to prevent abuse.[31] The transition from pure mutual aid to formalized early insurance occurred in the mid-19th century, as commercial insurers began offering accident and sickness policies distinct from life coverage. In the United States, the first dedicated accident policies appeared around 1850 from companies like the Travelers Insurance Company, which by 1864 extended coverage to railway workers for injuries, paying fixed sums per week of disability.[32] These policies evolved into broader health coverage by the 1890s, with insurers like Metropolitan Life providing industrial sickness benefits to low-income policyholders, often bundled with life insurance and collected via weekly premiums from factory wages.[33] In Europe, Germany's 1883 compulsory sickness insurance law built on friendly society frameworks, mandating employer-employee contributions for wage replacement up to 13 weeks, covering 3.1 million workers initially and influencing global models.[34] Unlike mutual aid's community-based trust, early commercial health insurance introduced actuarial pricing and underwriting to assess risks, though it remained limited to short-term benefits and excluded chronic conditions, reflecting the era's understanding of insurable events as temporary disruptions rather than comprehensive lifetime protection.[29]19th and Early 20th Century Innovations
In the 19th century, mutual aid societies represented an early innovation in collective health risk-sharing, particularly among working-class populations in Europe and the United States. These voluntary organizations, including friendly societies in Britain and fraternal benefit associations in America such as the Odd Fellows, pooled member dues to disburse cash benefits for illness, injury, or death, often covering lost wages rather than direct medical services. By the 1870s, such societies insured millions; for instance, British friendly societies enrolled about 4 million members by 1870, providing rudimentary sickness pay that reduced reliance on charity or personal savings.[35][36] This model emphasized self-reliance and community solidarity, though benefits were limited and excluded physician fees or hospital stays, reflecting the era's low hospitalization rates. A landmark state-driven innovation emerged in Germany with the Health Insurance Act of 1883, enacted under Chancellor Otto von Bismarck to counter socialist influences by securing worker loyalty through mandatory coverage. The law required industrial workers earning below a certain threshold to join nonprofit sickness funds (Krankenkassen), financed by equal contributions from employees (two-thirds) and employers (one-third), providing medical treatment, medications, and up to 13 weeks of wage replacement annually. Covering approximately 3 million workers initially—about 10% of the population—this system formalized insurance administration, standardized benefits, and integrated employer funding, influencing subsequent European models while prioritizing industrial productivity over universal access.[37]31280-1/fulltext)[38] In the United States, early 20th-century innovations shifted toward prepaid group plans amid urbanization and rising hospital utilization. The Baylor Plan of 1929, developed by Baylor University Hospital administrator Justin Ford Kimball in Dallas, Texas, offered 1,200 school teachers 21 days of annual hospital care for $6 monthly, addressing unpaid bills during the Great Depression while guaranteeing hospital revenue. This prototype evolved into Blue Cross associations, with plans in 39 states by 1937 covering over 3 million enrollees through employer and community groups, focusing on hospital expenses via nonprofit structures that negotiated discounted rates. These developments marked a transition from ad hoc mutual aid to scalable, institutionalized prepaid coverage, driven by hospitals' financial needs rather than government mandate.[39][40]Post-World War II Expansion and Government Involvement
Following World War II, employer-sponsored health insurance in the United States expanded rapidly due to wartime economic policies and subsequent tax incentives. During the war, federal wage and price controls limited salary increases, prompting employers to offer non-wage benefits like health coverage to attract labor; the National War Labor Board exempted such fringe benefits from these freezes, facilitating collective bargaining agreements that included insurance provisions.[41][42] In 1942, the Internal Revenue Service ruled that employer contributions to employee health plans were tax-deductible business expenses, while benefits received by employees were excluded from taxable income, creating a powerful subsidy for private coverage growth.[43] This led to a surge in enrollment: private health insurance covered fewer than 10 percent of Americans (about 12 million people) in 1940, rising to approximately 49 percent (75 million) by 1950, predominantly through employment-based plans.[44] Government efforts to establish broader national health insurance faced resistance. In November 1945, President Harry S. Truman proposed a voluntary national program financed by payroll taxes, aiming to cover medical expenses and income loss from illness for all citizens, but it encountered staunch opposition from the American Medical Association, which labeled it "socialized medicine," and failed to pass Congress.[45][46] Despite Truman's repeated advocacy through his 1949 Fair Deal initiative, private sector expansion—bolstered by union negotiations and commercial insurers—stabilized coverage for the working population, reducing urgency for universal mandates.[47] Significant federal involvement materialized in 1965 with the enactment of Medicare and Medicaid under the Social Security Amendments, signed by President Lyndon B. Johnson on July 30. Medicare provided hospital insurance (Part A) to individuals aged 65 and older via mandatory payroll taxes, with optional supplementary medical insurance (Part B) for physician services funded by premiums and general revenues; it addressed the fact that only about half of seniors had coverage pre-enactment.[48][49] Medicaid, a joint federal-state program, offered coverage to low-income families, the elderly, blind, and disabled, with federal matching funds to states based on per capita income, filling gaps in private markets for the poor.[48] These programs marked the first major public health insurance initiatives, initially enrolling over 19 million in Medicare alone by year's end.[50] Internationally, post-war reconstruction spurred government-led expansions in social health insurance across Europe. In the United Kingdom, the National Health Service Act of 1946 established the NHS, operational from July 5, 1948, delivering universal, tax-funded care free at the point of use to address wartime disruptions and inequities.[51] Continental systems, building on pre-war Bismarckian models, extended mandatory coverage: Germany's social insurance encompassed nearly all workers by the 1950s with employer-employee contributions, while countries like France and Belgium integrated mutual funds into national frameworks with state oversight and subsidies.[52][53] These developments reflected a consensus on state intervention to achieve broader risk pooling, contrasting with the U.S. reliance on private mechanisms supplemented by targeted public programs.[54]Types of Health Insurance
Private Commercial Insurance
Private commercial health insurance consists of coverage provided by for-profit entities, distinct from government-sponsored programs, where policyholders pay premiums in exchange for reimbursement of medical expenses subject to policy terms. Within private commercial health insurance, policies are categorized as individual or group. Individual health insurance policies are bought directly for personal use, with the individual or family as the policyholder, and may include family floaters covering multiple family members or senior citizen plans for older adults. Group health insurance policies are typically employer-sponsored, corporate, or association-based, with the group or organization as the master policyholder.[56] In the United States, it represents the predominant form of health insurance, covering approximately 66.1% of the population as of 2023, primarily through employer-sponsored plans or individual purchases.[57] These plans typically feature risk-based underwriting, where premiums vary by factors such as age, health status, and occupation, along with cost-sharing mechanisms including deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance, as well as restrictions via provider networks to manage utilization and costs. [59] Operationally, private insurers pool risks across enrollees but often segment markets to mitigate adverse selection, employing actuarial models to set rates and deny coverage for pre-existing conditions in unregulated individual markets prior to reforms like the Affordable Care Act.[60] In 2023, the U.S. market exhibited high concentration, with the largest three insurers controlling over 80% of enrollment in many metropolitan statistical areas, potentially influencing bargaining power with providers and premiums.[61] Insurers manage claims through utilization review and prior authorizations to curb moral hazard, though empirical analyses indicate varying efficiency; for instance, privatized hospital services have shown improved productive efficiency in some contexts due to competitive pressures.[62] Administrative costs in U.S. private insurance average around 12-18% of premiums, higher than in public programs, attributed to sales, marketing, and profit margins.[63] Across OECD countries, private commercial insurance serves diverse functions: as a primary payer in systems like the U.S., substitutive for public coverage in select groups (e.g., high-income earners in Germany), or complementary to fill gaps in public benefits such as dental or elective procedures.[64] In nations with universal public systems, it supplements access to faster care or broader choices, covering 10-30% of expenditure in countries like Australia and France, though evidence suggests it can duplicate public resources without net efficiency gains in some cases.[64] [65] Comparative studies reveal mixed outcomes on efficiency; private provision may enhance innovation and responsiveness but incurs higher per-enrollee costs due to profit incentives and fragmentation, contrasting with public systems' lower administrative overhead in integrated models.[66] [67]Public and Social Insurance Programs
Public and social insurance programs encompass government-mandated or directly provided health coverage systems designed to achieve broad or universal access, typically financed through compulsory contributions, taxes, or a combination thereof. Social health insurance (SHI), often associated with the Bismarck model originating in 19th-century Germany, relies primarily on earnings-related payroll contributions shared between employers and employees, administered by nonprofit sickness funds that compete on service quality while benefits are standardized by law.[68] In contrast, public tax-funded systems, akin to the Beveridge model, draw revenue mainly from general taxation and provide services through government-owned or contracted providers, emphasizing free access at the point of use.[69] These models differ fundamentally in funding mechanisms: SHI ties contributions to income, potentially reducing progressivity but linking payments to benefits, whereas tax-funded systems spread costs across the population via progressive income or consumption taxes.[70] In Germany, the statutory health insurance system covers approximately 90% of the population through over 100 nonprofit funds, with contributions averaging 14-15% of gross income split equally between employers and employees, supplemented by government subsidies for the unemployed or low-income.[68] Established by the 1883 Health Insurance Act, it mandates coverage for inpatient, outpatient, and preventive care, with private insurance optional for higher earners exceeding income thresholds.[71] Empirical analyses indicate SHI systems like Germany's correlate with 3-4% higher per capita health expenditures compared to tax-funded alternatives, attributed to contribution-based incentives and administrative structures, though they maintain high enrollment and service utilization.[72] Tax-funded public programs predominate in systems like the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), launched in 1948, which receives about 80% of funding from general taxation and 20% from national insurance payroll levies, totaling £188.5 billion in 2023/24 for hospital, primary, and community care delivered free at delivery.[73] [74] In the United States, Medicare, enacted in 1965, provides coverage to over 65 million elderly and disabled individuals, funded by a 2.9% payroll tax on employers and employees (with additional income-related premiums and general revenues), expending $1,029.8 billion in 2023 for hospital insurance (Part A) and physician services (Part B).[75] Complementing it, Medicaid, a means-tested program for low-income groups, is jointly financed by federal and state governments—covering 7.2 million dual-eligible seniors and others—with $871.7 billion spent in 2023, varying benefits by state.[75] [76] Globally, these programs often pursue universal health coverage goals, as defined by the World Health Organization, ensuring needed services without financial hardship, though implementation varies: SHI models in countries like France and Japan emphasize solidarity via risk pooling across funds, while tax-funded systems in Canada and Scandinavia prioritize equity through centralized budgeting.[77] Studies of OECD transitions from tax to SHI financing reveal modestly higher spending under SHI due to earmarked contributions insulating funds from fiscal pressures, yet both approaches face challenges in cost control amid aging populations and technological advances.[78]Employer-Sponsored and Hybrid Models
Employer-sponsored health insurance (ESI) constitutes a model where employers arrange and often subsidize health coverage for employees and their dependents as part of compensation packages, typically through group policies purchased from insurers or self-funded arrangements where the employer assumes financial risk for claims. In the United States, this remains the largest source of health coverage for non-elderly individuals, accounting for 53.8% of the population's insurance in 2024, with over 178 million people enrolled by late 2023.[79][80] Employers generally cover the majority of premiums, with average annual family plan costs reaching $26,993 in 2025—a 6% increase from 2024—while workers contributed an average of $6,850 via payroll deductions.[81] Single coverage premiums averaged $9,325 annually, up 5% from the prior year.[82] Offer rates vary by firm size, with 54% of establishments employing three or more workers providing benefits in 2024, though 86% of private-sector employees worked at firms offering coverage based on 2021-2023 data.[83][84] ESI plans commonly include preferred provider organizations (PPOs), health maintenance organizations (HMOs), and high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) paired with health savings accounts (HSAs), with employers selecting based on cost control and network adequacy. Self-insured plans, prevalent among large employers, allow direct claims administration and customization but expose firms to variability in expenditures, often mitigated by stop-loss insurance.[83] Premium contributions and plan generosity have trended toward higher employee cost-sharing, with average deductibles for covered workers at $1,735 for single coverage in 2024, reflecting efforts to manage escalating costs driven by medical inflation and utilization.[85] Unlike public programs, ESI ties coverage to employment status, influencing labor markets through incentives like tax exclusions for employer-paid premiums under Internal Revenue Code Section 106.[83] Hybrid models integrate ESI elements with alternative funding or delivery mechanisms to enhance flexibility, particularly for small or variable-workforce employers. Level-funded plans operate as a blend of self-funding and full insurance: employers pay fixed monthly premiums covering projected claims, administrative fees, and a risk margin, with potential refunds if actual claims fall short, reducing overall costs compared to fully insured options while capping liability via stop-loss coverage.[86] Individual Coverage Health Reimbursement Arrangements (ICHRAs), permitted since 2020 under regulatory changes, allow employers to set budgets for reimbursing employee-purchased individual market plans tax-free, bypassing traditional group underwriting and enabling portable coverage across jobs.[87] Exclusive provider organizations (EPOs) represent another hybrid, merging HMO gatekeeping with PPO-like networks but excluding out-of-network care except emergencies, offered by 24% of covered workers in recent surveys.[85] These approaches address limitations of pure ESI, such as job-lock risks, by incorporating individual portability and employer-defined contributions, though adoption remains modest—ICHRAs covered under 1% of the ESI market as of 2023—due to administrative complexity and regulatory hurdles.[87] Globally, pure ESI models akin to the U.S. variant are rare, as most nations favor social insurance systems with mandatory employer payroll contributions funding public or quasi-public funds rather than private group plans. For instance, in Germany and Japan, employers remit contributions to statutory health funds, blending compulsory elements with occupational ties but under government oversight to ensure universality, contrasting the U.S.'s decentralized, voluntary framework.[83] Hybrid international variants may involve employer subsidies to supplemental private coverage atop basic public entitlements, as in Switzerland's mandatory individual insurance with optional employer top-ups, though these cover far smaller shares than U.S. ESI.[83] Empirical data indicate U.S. ESI sustains high administrative costs—up to 12% of premiums versus 2-5% in single-payer systems—attributable to fragmented risk pools and profit motives, per analyses of OECD benchmarks.[80]Economic and Operational Mechanics
Funding and Premium Structures
Health insurance funding primarily derives from premiums paid by individuals, employers, or governments, with additional contributions from taxes, subsidies, and out-of-pocket payments. In private systems, premiums form the core revenue stream, calculated actuarially to cover expected claims plus administrative costs and profit margins. Globally, funding mechanisms vary: social insurance models often rely on mandatory payroll contributions shared between employers and employees, while tax-funded systems draw from general government revenues. For instance, the World Health Organization's Global Health Expenditure Database tracks health spending across 194 countries, showing that domestic sources like compulsory prepaid plans and government budgets predominate over voluntary private insurance in most nations.[88] Premium structures hinge on rating methods that distribute risk across pools. Community rating charges uniform premiums within a geographic or policy group, irrespective of individual health status, age, or gender, to promote broad access but potentially subsidizing higher-risk individuals at the expense of healthier ones. In contrast, experience rating adjusts premiums based on a group's historical claims data, incentivizing cost containment through wellness programs or utilization management, though it can disadvantage smaller or newer groups with volatile claims. Hybrid approaches blend these, as seen in group health insurance where initial community-based rates transition to experience adjustments after sufficient data accumulation.[89] [90] [91] Employer-sponsored plans, common in systems like the United States, amplify funding through shared premiums: in 2025, average annual premiums reached $9,325 for single coverage and $26,993 for family coverage, with employers covering 83% of single and 73% of family premiums on average. Government subsidies further bolster funding, particularly for low-income or high-risk populations; under mechanisms like the U.S. Affordable Care Act's premium tax credits, enrollees pay capped amounts relative to income, with federal outlays covering the balance to avert adverse selection. Such subsidies constituted about 6% of U.S. federal health insurance spending in 2023, underscoring their role in expanding coverage without fully supplanting premium-based financing.[81] [92] [93] These structures influence incentives: experience-rated premiums align insurer and insured interests toward efficiency, as higher utilization raises future costs, whereas pure community rating may blunt such signals, potentially inflating overall expenditures unless offset by mandates or risk equalization funds. Empirical analyses indicate that shifting toward experience rating in group markets reduces moral hazard by tying costs to actual usage, though community elements ensure viability for heterogeneous populations. Funding stability thus depends on balancing risk spreading with accountability, as over-reliance on subsidies or uniform rates can distort resource allocation away from preventive care.[94][95]Risk Management and Incentives
Risk pooling forms the cornerstone of health insurance risk management, aggregating premiums from a diverse group of enrollees to cover unpredictable individual claims, thereby leveraging the law of large numbers for cost predictability.[96] Actuaries assess pool characteristics—such as age, health status, and occupation—to estimate aggregate claims and set premiums that balance solvency and affordability, with larger pools reducing variance in per-person costs by distributing high-cost outliers across the group.[97] In practice, this requires ongoing monitoring of pool demographics to prevent destabilization from disproportionate enrollment of high-risk individuals, as smaller or skewed pools can lead to premium spirals exceeding 20-50% annually in unadjusted markets.[98] Insurers employ risk adjustment mechanisms to equalize financial burdens across pools by transferring funds from plans with healthier enrollees to those with sicker ones, based on actuarial models incorporating diagnostic codes and Hierarchical Condition Category scores.[99] Implemented in U.S. Affordable Care Act marketplaces since 2014, this system uses regression-based predictions of costs, drawing from millions of claims to calibrate payments and mitigate incentives for cream-skimming low-risk members.[100] Complementary tools include reinsurance, where primary insurers cede extreme losses to secondary markets, capping exposure to events like rare diseases; for instance, stop-loss contracts often trigger above $1 million per enrollee, stabilizing reserves amid rising specialty drug costs that averaged $500,000 per patient in 2023 for certain therapies.[101] To address moral hazard—the tendency for insured individuals to overutilize services due to shielded costs—policies incorporate consumer incentives such as deductibles, copayments, and coinsurance, which empirical studies link to 10-30% reductions in discretionary spending like outpatient visits.[102] Deductibles, requiring out-of-pocket payment up to a threshold (e.g., $2,000 annually in many U.S. plans), align patient decisions with resource scarcity, though evidence from randomized trials indicates they disproportionately deter low-value care while preserving essential utilization.[25] High-deductible plans paired with health savings accounts further incentivize thrift by allowing tax-advantaged savings for qualified expenses, with data showing enrollment in such plans correlates to 5-15% lower overall premiums through moderated claims growth.[103] These structures counteract ex post moral hazard but must balance against underutilization risks, as cost-sharing exceeding 20% of income can delay preventive care.[104]Cost Drivers and Efficiency Measures
Major drivers of costs in health insurance systems include demographic changes such as population aging, which substantially elevates per capita expenditures; in the United States, personal health care spending for individuals aged 65 and older reached $22,356 in 2020, exceeding five times the amount spent per child under 19.[75] Aging exerts upward pressure on spending through increased demand for acute and long-term care, with studies indicating it accounts for a moderate rise in acute care costs but a pronounced increase in long-term care outlays.[105] Chronic diseases, often linked to lifestyle factors like obesity and sedentary behavior, represent another key driver, contributing to sustained high utilization of services and pharmaceuticals.[106] Technological advancements in medical treatments and diagnostics further propel costs by enabling more expensive interventions, though they also improve outcomes in some cases.[106] In the U.S., administrative expenses constitute a disproportionate burden, comprising about 7.6% of total health spending compared to 3.8% in other high-income countries, driven by the complexity of multiple private and public payers requiring extensive billing, coding, and compliance processes.[107] U.S. insurers and providers spent $812 billion on administration in recent estimates, equating to $2,497 per capita or 34.2% of national health expenditures, far exceeding figures in single-payer systems like Canada's $551 per capita.[108] High provider prices, end-of-life care intensity, and hospital services also amplify expenditures, with fee-for-service reimbursement incentivizing volume over necessity.[106][109] Efficiency measures to counteract these drivers emphasize incentive alignment and market mechanisms. Price transparency initiatives, mandated in the U.S. since 2021 for hospitals, aim to foster competition by allowing consumers to compare costs, potentially curbing price inflation through informed choice, though evidence on direct cost reductions remains mixed and implementation challenges persist.[110][111] Shifting from fee-for-service to value-based payment models, such as bundled payments or capitation, can enhance efficiency by rewarding outcomes rather than service volume, as demonstrated in targeted Medicare reforms that reduced unnecessary procedures.[112] Streamlining administrative processes through standardized claims and reduced regulatory fragmentation offers potential savings; estimates suggest U.S. billing and insurance-related costs alone exceed $496 billion annually, with simplification yielding billions in efficiencies without compromising care quality.[113][114] Preventive care incentives via high-deductible plans and health savings accounts encourage cost-conscious behavior, while competitive insurer markets can negotiate lower provider rates, particularly in concentrated markets where monopsony power counters provider consolidation.[112] Comparative effectiveness research supports efficient resource allocation by identifying lower-cost, equivalent interventions, potentially bending cost curves as seen post-2009 U.S. slowdowns attributed partly to such evidence-based practices.[115] State-level tools, including all-payer rate setting and certificate-of-need reforms to limit excess capacity, have shown variable success in containing growth, underscoring the need for rigorous evaluation over ideological preferences for public or private dominance.[116]Challenges and Controversies
Adverse Selection and Moral Hazard
Adverse selection occurs in health insurance markets when individuals with higher expected healthcare costs are more likely to purchase coverage than those with lower risks, leading to an imbalanced risk pool that raises premiums for all participants.[20] This asymmetry arises because buyers possess private information about their health status that insurers cannot fully observe or price discriminate against, potentially causing low-risk individuals to exit the market and premiums to spiral upward in a "death spiral."[117] Empirical evidence from employee group choices, such as at Harvard University in the 1990s, demonstrates this effect: sicker employees disproportionately selected more generous plans, resulting in losses for insurers offering those options and evidence of risk segmentation.[118] Similarly, analyses of U.S. state-level small-group reforms in the 1990s found that community rating and guaranteed issue provisions exacerbated selection by spreading high-risk costs across broader pools without sufficient risk adjustment, increasing uninsurability for healthier groups.[119] Moral hazard refers to the tendency of insured individuals to consume more healthcare services than they would if bearing full costs, as insurance reduces the marginal price of care and distorts incentives for prudent utilization.[25] In health insurance, this manifests ex post, after coverage is obtained, through increased demand for both necessary and discretionary services, such as elective procedures or frequent physician visits, contributing to overall cost inflation.[120] The RAND Health Insurance Experiment (1974–1982), involving over 5,800 participants across six U.S. sites, provided randomized evidence of this: households with free care used 40% more outpatient services and 30% more total medical services compared to those facing full out-of-pocket costs, with an estimated price elasticity of demand around -0.2 for overall spending.[121] Subsequent reviews confirm that moral hazard accounts for substantial spending increases, with quasi-experimental studies showing that reducing cost-sharing lowers utilization barriers but elevates aggregate expenditures without commensurate health improvements for most populations.[25] These phenomena interact and amplify inefficiencies: adverse selection can lead to plans attracting high utilizers who then exhibit greater moral hazard, while "selection on moral hazard" occurs when individuals self-select into coverage based on their anticipated overconsumption response to subsidies.[122] For instance, empirical work on private U.S. health plans finds a positive correlation between plan generosity and enrollee spending, partly due to high-moral-hazard types choosing richer benefits, distorting markets beyond simple risk-based sorting.[23] Mitigating strategies like experience rating or mandates address symptoms but often fail to eliminate underlying information asymmetries, as seen in persistent selection issues post-Affordable Care Act implementation despite risk corridors.[123] Overall, these frictions underscore causal drivers of insurance market failures, where unpriced risks and subsidized consumption lead to overinsurance and resource misallocation.[120]Public vs. Private Systems: Outcomes and Critiques
Public health insurance systems, often characterized by government-funded universal coverage such as the UK's National Health Service or Canada's single-payer model, achieve near-complete population coverage but frequently encounter extended wait times for non-emergency procedures. In Canada, 33% of patients reported waiting one month or more for specialist appointments in recent surveys, compared to 12% in Switzerland's mandatory private insurance system. Similarly, OECD data indicate median wait times for elective surgery vary tenfold across countries, with public-dominant systems like those in Australia and the UK averaging 21-40 days longer than in mixed or private-oriented models. These delays stem from resource rationing via queues rather than price signals, potentially delaying diagnosis and treatment for conditions like cancer, where timely intervention correlates with improved survival.[124][125][126] In contrast, private systems, exemplified by the U.S. market-oriented approach with employer-sponsored and individual plans, offer shorter waits and greater provider choice but at higher per capita costs—$13,432 in 2023 versus the OECD average of around $6,000—while achieving superior outcomes in specific treatable conditions. U.S. five-year cancer survival rates exceed those in universal public systems; for instance, breast cancer survival stands at 90% in the U.S. compared to 87% in Canada and 86% in the UK, and prostate cancer at 98% versus 89% and 88%, respectively, attributable to advanced diagnostics and therapies available sooner. Administrative costs in U.S. private insurance range from 12-18% of premiums, higher than Medicare's reported 2-3%, though critics argue public figures understate bureaucratic overhead in single-payer models, where government administration absorbs similar functions without competitive efficiencies. Private systems incentivize innovation, with the U.S. accounting for over half of global pharmaceutical R&D investment, subsidizing drug development that benefits public systems worldwide through lower negotiated prices abroad.[127][128][129] Overall life expectancy metrics favor public systems, with the OECD average at 80.3 years in 2021 versus 76.4 in the U.S., despite the latter's disproportionate spending; however, this gap partly reflects non-healthcare factors like U.S. obesity rates (42% adult prevalence versus 20-30% in peer nations) and higher homicide rates, rather than solely system deficiencies, as U.S. amenable mortality rates for treatable conditions like heart attacks and strokes match or exceed OECD averages. Critiques of public systems highlight reduced incentives for efficiency and innovation due to monopoly provision and third-party payment, leading to overuse in primary care but under-provision in specialized services, as evidenced by lower private-sector responsiveness in drug availability and patient-centered care in comparative low-income studies extrapolated to high-income contexts. Private systems face reproach for pre-existing coverage exclusions and premium escalation absent mandates, though hybrid models like Switzerland's—requiring private purchase with subsidies—demonstrate balanced outcomes with wait times 20 percentage points below Canada's and life expectancy near the OECD top. Empirical reviews in mixed economies show private providers often yield lower mortality for acute conditions like myocardial infarction while public systems excel in equity of access, underscoring that outcomes hinge on regulatory design over pure public-private dichotomy.[130][131][66]Access, Equity, and Rationing Issues
Access to health insurance remains uneven across populations, with barriers including high premiums, eligibility restrictions, and information asymmetries that exacerbate adverse selection—wherein individuals with anticipated higher medical needs are more likely to purchase coverage, inflating costs for all participants and reducing availability for lower-risk groups. In the United States, the uninsured rate for nonelderly individuals stood at 9.5% in 2023, affecting 25.3 million people ages 0-64, though this marked a historic low following expansions under the Affordable Care Act, which halved the national uninsured rate from 14.4% in 2013 by mandating coverage and subsidizing exchanges.[132][133] Despite these gains, post-pandemic Medicaid redeterminations contributed to rises in uninsured rates in 18 states and the District of Columbia between 2023 and 2024, driven by procedural hurdles and lapses in continuous enrollment.[134] Globally, access gaps persist in voluntary systems due to cost sensitivity, while mandatory schemes mitigate but do not eliminate exclusions through subsidies or penalties. Equity concerns arise from persistent disparities in coverage and utilization tied to socioeconomic status, geography, and demographics, often rooted in causal factors like income levels and employment stability rather than systemic discrimination alone. Lower-income households face higher uninsured rates, with projections estimating 3.6 million young adults uninsured in 2025 at an 11.3% rate, largely among those ineligible for or unaware of subsidies.[135] By race and ethnicity, 2018 data showed non-Hispanic Whites at 94.6% insured, Asians at 93.2%, Blacks at 90.3%, and Hispanics at lower levels, reflecting compounded effects of wage gaps, family structures, and migration patterns that influence eligibility for employer-sponsored plans.[136] These differences correlate strongly with poverty and education, as evidenced by higher food insecurity among American Indian/Alaska Native (24%) and Black (21%) children compared to White children (6%), underscoring how economic determinants drive health access variances independent of insurance design.[137] Empirical analyses indicate that adjusting for behavioral and lifestyle factors narrows apparent racial gaps in outcomes, suggesting equity efforts should prioritize universal risk pooling over identity-based quotas to avoid distorting incentives. Rationing of health care, inevitable given resource scarcity exceeding demand, manifests differently by system: through price mechanisms and insurer denials in market-oriented models, or queues and priority triage in tax-funded universal schemes. In the U.S., rationing occurs via ability to pay and coverage limits, with insurers denying claims or excluding pre-existing conditions absent mandates, though this preserves incentives for cost control absent in open-access models.[138] Conversely, single-payer systems like Canada's or the UK's National Health Service employ waiting times as non-price rationing, with patients in such frameworks facing delays averaging months for elective procedures—often 2-3 times longer than in the U.S.—prioritizing urgency over timeliness and leading to deferred care for non-critical needs.[139][140] Studies confirm these waits correlate with clinical need but disadvantage lower-acuity cases, while U.S. price rationing, though harsh on the uninsured, aligns allocation more closely with productive capacity by curbing overuse.[141] Explicit rationing protocols, as during COVID-19 ventilator shortages, further highlight trade-offs, where age or prognosis-based criteria emerge to maximize overall survival gains amid fixed supplies.[142]Global Systems and Comparisons
Overview of Variation Across Models
Health insurance models vary globally in financing mechanisms, coverage requirements, and the balance between public and private involvement, influencing access, costs, and outcomes. In high-income countries, most systems aim for universal coverage through mandatory mechanisms, but funding sources differ: general taxation in national health service models funds care via government budgets, while social health insurance relies on earmarked payroll contributions to non-profit funds.[143] [144] Private premiums dominate in market-oriented systems with regulatory mandates, and out-of-pocket payments prevail in many low- and middle-income countries, often exceeding 50% of total health spending.[145] Across OECD nations, public sources account for an average of 72% of health expenditure, though this ranges from over 85% in tax-funded systems like the United Kingdom to around 50% in the United States, where employer-sponsored private insurance covers about half the population.[146] Operational variations include insurer structure and provider integration. Single-payer or monopsonistic public insurers, as in Canada, centralize purchasing to control costs through negotiated fees, achieving administrative efficiencies below 2% of spending, compared to 8% or more in fragmented multi-payer U.S. systems.[143] In multi-payer social insurance models like Germany's, competing non-profit sickness funds cover 90% of the population via income-based contributions, fostering competition on service quality while maintaining risk equalization to prevent adverse selection.[143] Private duplicate or supplementary insurance supplements public benefits in many systems, covering 30% or more of OECD populations for faster access or extras, but its role expands in underfunded public systems, potentially exacerbating inequities.[64] Empirical outcomes highlight trade-offs: universal mandatory systems correlate with lower uninsured rates (under 1% in most OECD countries versus 8-10% in the U.S. pre-ACA expansions) and better equity in access, but may involve longer wait times for elective care due to supply constraints.[147] Per capita spending varies widely, from under $3,000 in Eastern Europe to over $12,000 in the U.S. and Switzerland, with no clear linear link to life expectancy, which averages 80+ years across high-coverage OECD systems despite differing models.[146] In developing regions, reliance on out-of-pocket funding leads to catastrophic expenditures for 10-20% of households annually, prompting shifts toward prepaid schemes, though implementation challenges persist due to informal economies.[144] These differences stem from institutional paths, with Beveridge-style tax funding emphasizing equity and Bismarck-style contributions prioritizing worker protections, while market models stress choice at higher administrative costs.[148]Beveridge-Style Systems
Beveridge-style systems, named after the 1942 Beveridge Report authored by British economist William Beveridge, feature government ownership or direct control of healthcare provision and financing primarily through general taxation, treating medical services as a public good akin to education or defense.[149] In these models, the state employs most healthcare providers or operates facilities, ensuring universal coverage without direct patient payments at the point of service, though supplemental private insurance exists for faster access or non-essential treatments.[149] Funding derives from progressive income and other taxes, enabling centralized budgeting and resource allocation by government agencies.[150] Prominent examples include the United Kingdom's National Health Service (NHS), established on July 5, 1948, which provides comprehensive care to all residents funded by National Insurance contributions and taxation, covering approximately 99% of the population without user fees for primary, hospital, or emergency services.[149] Similar systems operate in Spain, where the National Health System since 1986 integrates regional services under national standards, and Nordic countries like Sweden and Denmark, where decentralized county-level administration delivers tax-funded care emphasizing primary prevention.[149] Italy and New Zealand also adopt variations, with public funding accounting for over 70% of total health expenditures in these nations.[151] These systems achieve broad equity in access, minimizing financial barriers and yielding low administrative costs relative to private models, often below 5% of total spending.[150] However, centralized control introduces rationing through non-price mechanisms, such as waiting lists for elective procedures; in the UK, over 7.6 million patients awaited NHS treatment as of mid-2023, with median waits exceeding 14 weeks for non-urgent specialist care.[152] Empirical analyses indicate that such delays correlate with worsened health outcomes, including increased mortality risks from deferred interventions, as budget constraints limit capacity expansion.[153] Critics, including policy evaluations, argue that government monopolies stifle innovation and efficiency, evidenced by stagnant productivity in public hospitals compared to private sectors, though proponents highlight cost containment during economic pressures.[154] OECD data show Beveridge countries like the UK spending about 10% of GDP on health in 2022, with life expectancies around 80-82 years, trailing some Bismarck models despite comparable per-capita investments.[131][155]Bismarck-Style Systems
The Bismarck-style system, named after Otto von Bismarck's reforms in the German Empire, represents a social health insurance model characterized by mandatory, employment-based contributions to non-profit insurers that pool risks across participants. Enacted through the Health Insurance Act of June 15, 1883, it established the world's first compulsory health insurance scheme, initially covering industrial workers with benefits for illness, maternity, and disability, funded by equal payroll deductions from employees and employers. This framework emphasized solidarity, where contributions are income-proportional rather than risk-based, enabling broad risk pooling while allowing multiple competing sickness funds to administer coverage.[37][52]31280-1/fulltext) In its archetypal form, as seen in contemporary Germany, statutory health insurance (Gesetzliche Krankenversicherung, or GKV) covers approximately 90% of the population, including all employees earning below an annual threshold of €64,350 (as of 2023), with voluntary enrollment for self-employed and higher earners. Insurers, known as Krankenkassen, operate as self-governing, non-profit entities—over 100 compete nationwide—offering standardized benefits such as hospital care, physician visits, pharmaceuticals, and preventive services, negotiated collectively with providers through regional associations. Funding derives primarily from earmarked payroll contributions averaging 14.6% of gross income in 2023, split equally between employers and employees, with the federal government subsidizing the unemployed and low-income via transfers to a central Health Fund that equalizes resources across funds using a morbidity-adjusted risk compensation mechanism.[37][68][71] This model's risk-pooling structure mitigates adverse selection by mandating participation for most workers, while competition among funds incentivizes efficiency in administration, though benefits remain uniform to prevent cream-skimming. Private health insurance supplements GKV for the remaining 10-11% of higher-income individuals, offering faster access and broader amenities, but without cross-subsidization from public funds. Empirical data indicate high coverage rates—99% of Germans insured in 2022—but per-capita health spending reached €5,339 in 2021, reflecting challenges in containing costs amid aging demographics and technological advances.[156][37] Variations exist in other adopting nations, adapting the core elements of mandatory contributions and multi-payer administration. France employs a similar system with over 400 funds consolidated into a national framework, funding via 13.3% payroll taxes plus a 7.5% income tax supplement, achieving 99.9% coverage but with supplemental private insurance covering 95% of the population for extras like dental. Japan's model mandates employer-employee contributions (8.2% of income in 2023) to municipal and occupational funds, emphasizing gatekeeping by primary physicians to control costs, resulting in spending at 10.9% of GDP in 2021. Switzerland requires private insurers to offer basic mandatory packages with community-rated premiums subsidized for low-income via cantonal funds, blending Bismarck principles with market elements to yield wait times shorter than in single-payer systems. These implementations demonstrate the model's flexibility in achieving near-universal access through decentralized governance, though they often face upward pressure on premiums due to income-based financing decoupling contributions from utilization incentives.[149][37]Market-Oriented Mandatory Insurance
Market-oriented mandatory insurance systems require individuals to purchase private health insurance coverage, with insurers operating under regulatory frameworks that promote competition while ensuring universal access and financial protection. These models emphasize consumer choice among competing providers, standardized basic benefits, and mechanisms like risk equalization to mitigate adverse selection, alongside means-tested subsidies for low-income populations. Unlike single-payer or tax-funded systems, financing relies primarily on premiums supplemented by government contributions, fostering incentives for efficiency through market dynamics such as price competition and service differentiation.[157][158] Switzerland exemplifies this approach, where since 1996, all residents must obtain basic health insurance (Krankenversicherung) from one of approximately 50 nonprofit private insurers competing in cantonal markets. Policies feature guaranteed issue, community-rated premiums independent of health status, and deductibles ranging from CHF 300 to CHF 2,500 annually, with standardized benefits covering ambulatory care, hospital services, pharmaceuticals, and preventive measures. Insurers vie for enrollees via premiums and optional managed-care models (e.g., HMOs, selected by 65.7% of insureds in 2016), while a federal risk-equalization scheme compensates for high-risk pools to prevent cherry-picking. Premiums averaged CHF 5,584 (about USD 5,770) per adult in 2018, with subsidies aiding 27.3% of the population; out-of-pocket spending constituted 26.2% of total costs in 2019, though capped for low earners.[158][159] In the Netherlands, mandatory private insurance under the 2006 Health Insurance Act (Zorgverzekeringswet) requires all residents to buy a basic package from competing nonprofit insurers, achieving near-universal coverage (99.9% compliance). Regulated competition includes open enrollment, community rating adjusted for age and regional factors, and a central risk-equalization fund distributing payments based on enrollee demographics and health status to curb risk selection. Insurers negotiate provider contracts and premiums, with consumers selecting from four plan types; the government funds 55% of costs via income-related contributions, while nominal flat premiums (about €1,200 annually per adult in recent years) cover the rest, subsidized for lower incomes. This structure has sustained broad access to primary, specialist, and hospital care, with emphasis on coordinated care through general practitioners as gatekeepers.[160][161] These systems yield high coverage rates and strong outcomes, though at elevated costs. Switzerland's health expenditure reached USD 9,688 per capita in 2023 (11.8% of GDP), second-highest globally, yet supports a life expectancy of 84.2 years and low unmet needs (under 1% reporting barriers). The Netherlands spends USD 7,179 per capita (10.2% of GDP in 2021), with life expectancy at 82.5 years and efficient access via short wait times for elective procedures. Competition drives innovation, such as telemedicine adoption and generic drug uptake (over 70% in Switzerland), but regulations like uniform benefits limit differentiation, contributing to administrative overhead (5-10% of spending) and premium pressures; empirical analyses indicate risk equalization reduces selection incentives but does not fully curb cost growth from supplier-induced demand. Subsidies mitigate equity gaps, yet critics note persistent OOP burdens for middle-income households without aid, prompting periodic referenda on reforms like single-payer alternatives, rejected in 2021.[127][162][163][164]| Country | Health Expenditure per Capita (USD, latest) | Life Expectancy (years, latest est.) | % GDP on Health | Uninsured Rate |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Switzerland | 9,688 (2023) | 84.2 (2025) | 11.8 (2021) | <1% |
| Netherlands | 7,179 (2021) | 82.5 (2025) | 10.2 (2021) | <0.1% |
Out-of-Pocket Dominant Systems
In out-of-pocket dominant systems, patients directly finance the majority of health care costs at the point of service, with limited government subsidies, social insurance, or private coverage mechanisms absorbing risks. These arrangements prevail in numerous low- and lower-middle-income countries, where out-of-pocket payments (OOP) comprise over 50% of total current health expenditures, often exceeding 70% in cases like Afghanistan, Nigeria, and parts of sub-Saharan Africa.[166] [167] In 2021, eleven countries in the WHO African region alone reported OOP shares above 50%, reflecting constrained public budgets and underdeveloped insurance markets that leave households vulnerable to unpredictable medical expenses.[167] Such systems emerge from resource scarcity, where formal prepayment options are infeasible, resulting in a market-driven approach reliant on individual ability to pay rather than pooled funds.[168] Examples include Pakistan, where OOP accounted for 67% of total health spending as of 2012 data, though recent trends show persistence amid partial reforms, and Vietnam, where direct payments historically dominated before expansions in social health insurance.[169] [170] In these contexts, health services are often provided by a mix of public facilities underfunded and charging user fees, alongside private providers catering to those who can afford episodic care. Annual OOP spending in developing countries surpasses $500 billion, equivalent to over $80 per person on average, underscoring the scale of direct financing burdens.[171] High OOP exposure generates financial catastrophes, with payments exceeding 40% of household capacity-to-pay impoverishing around 100 million people globally each year, predominantly in low-income settings.[172] Poorer households face disproportionate impacts, often forgoing preventive or essential care to avoid debt, which delays interventions and elevates mortality from treatable illnesses like infections or maternal conditions.[173] [174] This dynamic perpetuates inequities, as wealthier individuals access quality services while the indigent rely on suboptimal public options or none at all, crowding out investments in nutrition, education, and other necessities.[175] Empirically, these systems correlate with lower overall health spending per capita and poorer population health metrics compared to insurance-based models, though they may curb overtreatment by tying costs to usage.[168] Transition efforts, such as user fee exemptions or community-based insurance pilots, have yielded mixed results, with OOP shares declining modestly in some nations but remaining entrenched due to fiscal constraints and administrative challenges.[176] As of 2023, global analyses highlight the need for scaled prepayment to avert ongoing cycles of impoverishment, though implementation barriers persist in resource-limited environments.[176]United States: Mixed Private-Public Approach
The United States health insurance system combines private and public elements without achieving universal coverage, with private insurers covering the majority of the non-elderly population through employer-sponsored plans and individual markets, while public programs target specific groups such as the elderly, disabled, and low-income individuals. Employer-sponsored insurance accounts for approximately 49% of the population's coverage, facilitated by tax exclusions for employer contributions that encourage group purchasing but tie coverage to employment stability. Public programs like Medicare, serving over 65 million beneficiaries primarily aged 65 and older or disabled, and Medicaid, covering about 80 million low-income individuals including children and expansion adults under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), provide targeted safety nets funded through federal and state taxes.[75] The ACA, enacted in 2010, introduced marketplaces for individual purchases with premium subsidies for those below 400% of the federal poverty level, expanded Medicaid in participating states (covering adults up to 138% of poverty), and imposed mandates prohibiting denial for pre-existing conditions, which collectively reduced the uninsured rate from 16% in 2010 to about 8.2% by 2024, though gaps persist among non-citizens, young adults, and rural populations.[177][133] Despite these expansions, the overall uninsured population numbered around 27 million in 2024, with rates rising slightly from 7.9% in 2023 due to Medicaid redeterminations post-pandemic continuous enrollment.[178] Private plans, regulated at federal and state levels, emphasize choice and competition but face critiques for high administrative costs—estimated at 12-18% of premiums versus 2-5% in public programs—driven by billing complexity and profit motives. Health expenditures in the U.S. reached $4.9 trillion in 2023, or $14,570 per capita, far exceeding the OECD average of about $7,393, with private insurance comprising 28% of spending and public programs 38%, reflecting fragmented financing that incentivizes price insensitivity via third-party payments.[179] This high spending correlates with advanced medical innovation and shorter wait times for elective procedures compared to single-payer systems, yet yields middling population health outcomes, such as lower life expectancy (78.8 years in 2023 versus OECD average of 80.3), attributable partly to behavioral factors like obesity and opioid use rather than insurance structure alone.[180] Efficiency challenges include overutilization in fee-for-service models and underinsurance, where 23% of insured adults reported problems affording care in 2023, prompting ongoing debates over value-for-money absent systemic cost controls.[181]Recent Developments and Trends
Technological and Benefit Innovations
Artificial intelligence has transformed health insurance operations by automating claims processing, enhancing fraud detection, and enabling predictive analytics for risk assessment. In 2025, AI applications are projected to reduce U.S. healthcare costs by up to $150 billion annually through streamlined underwriting and personalized premium adjustments based on real-time data from wearables and electronic health records.[182] Blockchain technology complements these efforts by providing decentralized ledgers for secure data sharing, reducing administrative fraud via smart contracts that automate payouts and verify claims without intermediaries, as demonstrated in pilot programs that cut processing times by over 30%.[183][184] Post-COVID-19, telehealth integration has become a core feature of health insurance benefits, with virtual visits accounting for 22% of outpatient encounters by 2025, sustained by policy extensions allowing reimbursement parity with in-person care.[185] Remote patient monitoring via IoT devices, covered under many plans, enables continuous health tracking to prevent costly interventions, correlating with a 15-20% reduction in hospital readmissions in insured populations using these tools.[186] This shift has expanded access in rural and underserved areas, though challenges persist in ensuring equitable broadband infrastructure for all policyholders.[187] On the benefits side, innovations emphasize precision medicine and targeted coverages, such as add-ons for genomic testing and personalized therapies, which adjust premiums based on genetic risk profiles to incentivize preventive behaviors.[188] Emerging riders for dementia care and early-stage interventions, introduced in select life-health hybrid policies since 2023, provide defined payouts for long-term management, addressing gaps in traditional indemnity models amid rising chronic disease prevalence.[189] Data-driven personalization, leveraging AI analytics, allows dynamic benefit adjustments—like expanded mental health or fertility coverage—in employer-sponsored plans, with 2025 trends showing a 5-7% shift toward flexible, consumer-directed options to align costs with individual needs.[190][182] These developments prioritize outcome-based reimbursements over fee-for-service, fostering efficiency but requiring robust evidence to validate long-term cost savings.[191]Policy Reforms and Market Shifts
In the United States, the 2025 Budget Reconciliation Act introduced modifications to the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Medicaid, and Medicare, including adjustments to eligibility criteria and subsidy structures that reduced federal spending on premium tax credits while expanding work requirements for certain Medicaid enrollees.[192] These reforms, enacted amid efforts to curb escalating program costs exceeding $1.5 trillion annually, aimed to promote personal responsibility in coverage decisions, though critics argued they increased uninsured rates among low-income groups by an estimated 2-3 million by 2027.[192] [193] The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) finalized the 2025 Marketplace Integrity and Affordability Rule on June 20, 2025, repealing provisions that barred insurers from denying coverage based on unpaid past-due premiums, thereby allowing carriers greater flexibility in risk management and potentially lowering average premiums by 1-2% in competitive markets.[194] [195] Additionally, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (HR 1), signed into law in August 2025, mandated phased expansions of health savings accounts (HSAs) with contribution limits raised to $4,500 for individuals and $9,000 for families, alongside tax incentives for direct primary care arrangements, fostering a shift toward consumer-driven health plans that enrolled over 5 million participants by mid-2025.[196] Globally, progress toward universal health coverage (UHC) stagnated after 2021, with the World Health Organization's service coverage index rising only marginally from 68 to 69 by 2024, attributed to fiscal pressures from aging populations and post-pandemic debt in countries like those in the European Union, where public systems faced wait times averaging 4-6 months for elective procedures.[197] In Bismarck-model nations such as Germany and Switzerland, reforms emphasized risk equalization adjustments; for instance, Switzerland's 2024 premium caps for low-income households reduced subsidies by 5% while mandating digital health records to cut administrative costs by up to 10%.[143] Market shifts reflected consolidation among insurers, with U.S. markets averaging 3-4 dominant carriers per state by 2024—down from 5-6 a decade prior—contributing to premium hikes of 5-7% for employer-sponsored plans in 2025, driven by medical loss ratios climbing to 85% amid rising specialty drug expenditures totaling $300 billion annually.[198] [195] Adoption of artificial intelligence for claims processing and predictive analytics accelerated, reducing denial rates by 15-20% in large plans, while telehealth utilization surged 30% post-2023 regulatory relaxations, enabling cost savings of $50-100 per virtual visit compared to in-person equivalents.[199] [191] Overall, non-acute care segments, including ambulatory and home-based services, captured 25% of premium growth in 2024-2025, signaling a broader transition from fee-for-service to value-based reimbursement models that tied 40% of Medicare payments to performance metrics.[191]References
- https://www.[investopedia](/page/Investopedia).com/terms/c/commercial-health-insurance.asp
- https://www.[congress](/page/Congress).gov/crs-product/R47507
