Basic versus Supplementary Health Insurance: The Role of Cost Effectiveness and Prevalence

Research output: Working paperDiscussion paperOther research output

583 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In a model where patients face budget constraints that make some treatments unaffordable, we ask which treatments should be covered by universal basic insurance and which by private voluntary insurance. We argue that both cost effectiveness and prevalence are important if the government wants to maximize the health gain that it gets from its health budget. In particular, basic insurance should cover treatments that are used by people who at the margin buy treatments that are highly cost effective. This is not the same as covering treatments that are themselves highly cost effective.
Original languageEnglish
Place of PublicationTilburg
PublisherEconomics
Pages1-37
Number of pages37
Volume2014-065
Publication statusPublished - 24 Oct 2014

Publication series

NameCentER Discussion Paper
Volume2014-065
NameTILEC Discussion Paper
Volume2014-039

Keywords

  • universal basic health insurance
  • voluntary supplementary insurance
  • public vs private insurance
  • access to care,
  • cost effectiveness

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Basic versus Supplementary Health Insurance: The Role of Cost Effectiveness and Prevalence'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

  • Cite this

    Boone, J. (2014). Basic versus Supplementary Health Insurance: The Role of Cost Effectiveness and Prevalence. (pp. 1-37). (CentER Discussion Paper; Vol. 2014-065), (TILEC Discussion Paper; Vol. 2014-039). Economics.