Market structure and performance: evaluating the U.S. health system reform

An experiment with regulated competition and individual mandates for universal health care: the new Dutch health insurance system

The 2006 Enthoven-inspired Dutch health insurance reform, based on regulated competition with a mandate for individuals to purchase insurance, will interest U.S. policy makers who seek universal coverage. This ongoing experiment includes guaranteed issue, price competition for a standardized basic benefits package, community rating, sliding-scale income-based subsidies for patients, and risk equalization for insurers. Our assessment of the first two years is based on Dutch Central Bank statistics, national opinion polls, consumer surveys, and qualitative interviews with policy makers. The first lesson for the United States is that the new Dutch health insurance model may not control costs. To date, consumer premiums are increasing, and insurance companies report large losses on the basic policies. Second, regulated competition is unlikely to make voters/citizens happy; public satisfaction is not high, and perceived quality is down. Third, consumers may not behave as economic models predict, remaining responsive to price incentives. Finally, policy makers should not underestimate the opposition from health care providers who define their profession as more than simply a job. If regulated competition with individual mandates performs poorly in auspicious circumstances such as the Netherlands, how will this model fare in the United States, where access, quality, and cost challenges are even greater? Might the assumptions of economic theory not apply in the health sector?

Managing medical technology: lessons for the United States from Quebec and France

Important modifications to technology assessment, diffusion, adoption, and utilization must take place if the United States is to better employ medical technology and save resources so as to assure access for the uninsured and underinsured. The United States can learn from other health systems that are more successful in achieving these goals. The author selects for comparison the health systems of France and Quebec. The discussion focuses on the differences between the three systems in the management of medical technology on a range of policy-relevant dimensions, including health system structure, attitudes about planning versus market competition, government regulation, the balance between decentralization and centralization, the needs of the individual and those of the society, linkages between technology assessment and policy-making, and the importance of medical technology assessment for medical practice. Seven specific recommendations are made for better managing medical technology in the United States, drawing on what can be observed from the experiences of Quebec and France.