Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Measuring customer preferences in the German statutory health insurance

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper investigates consumer preferences in the German statutory health insurance market. It further aims to test whether preferences differ by age and health status. Evidence is provided by a discrete choice experiment conducted in 2014 using the six most important attributes in sickness fund competition and ten random generated choice sets per participant. Price is found to be the most important attribute followed by additional benefits, managed care programmes, and distance to nearest branch. Other positive attributes of sickness funds are found to balance out a higher price, which would allow a sickness fund to position itself as high quality. However, significant differences in preferences were found between age and health status group. In particular, compromised health is associated with higher preference for illness-related additional benefits and less distance to the lowest branch, but lower preference for a lower price. Based on these differences, a distinct sickness fund offer could be constructed that would allow passive risk selection.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Aspects of differentiation are further discussed in Sect. 2, where attributes for the experiment are selected.

  2. These selective contracts are mostly based on §140a and §§ 73a to 73c Social Code Book V.

  3. That is part-worth of the 10 Euro add-on premium level (−1.63) minus the part-worth of the no add-on premium level (62.42).

  4. Between 2012 and 2014, the period of the present study, no sickness fund had to charge an add-on premium.

References

  1. Enthoven, A.C.: The history and principles of managed competition. Health Aff. 12(Supplement 1), 24–48 (1993). doi:10.1377/hlthaff.12.suppl_1.24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Greß, S., Groenewegen, P., Kerssens, J.J., Braun, B., Wasem, J.: Free choice of sickness funds in regulated competition: evidence from Germany and the Netherlands. Health Policy 60(3), 235–254 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Buchner, F., Göpffarth, D., Wasem, J.: The new risk adjustment formula in Germany: implementation and first experiences. Health Policy 109(3), 253–262 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2012.12.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Andersen, H.H., Grabka, M.M., Schwarze, J.: Beitragssatz, Kassenwettbewerb und Gesundheitsreform, Eine empirische Analyse. J. Econ. Stat. (Jahrbuecher fuer Nationaloekonomie und Statistik) 227(5+6), 429–450 (2007)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Schmitz, H., Ziebarth, N.R.: In absolute or relative terms? How framing prices affects the consumer price sensitivity of health plan choice. Ruhr economic papers, vol. 304. RWI, Essen (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gaßner, M., Otto, F., Ludwig, E.: Analyse der Mitgliederentwicklung sowie weiterer Kennzahlen der bundesunmittelbaren Krankenkassen ohne und mit Zusatzbeitrag bzw. Prämie. Gesundheits- und Sozialpolitik 66(5), 52–56 (2012)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Pendzialek, J.B., Danner, M., Simic, D., Stock, S.: Price elasticities in the German statutory health insurance market before and after the health care reform of 2009. Health Policy 119(5), 654–663 (2015). doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2015.01.014

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Buchmueller, T.C.: Consumer-oriented health care reform strategies: a review of the evidence on managed competition and consumer-directed health insurance. Milbank Q. 87(4), 820–841 (2009). doi:10.2307/25593647

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Pendzialek, J.B., Simic, D., Stock, S.: Differences in price elasticities of demand for health insurance: a systematic review. Eur. J. Health Econ. 17(1), 5–21 (2016). doi:10.1007/s10198-014-0650-0

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Cunningham, P.J., Kohn, L.: Health plan switching: choice or circumstance? Health Aff. 19(3), 158–164 (2000). doi:10.1377/hlthaff.19.3.158

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hendriks, M., de Jong, J.D., van Den Brink-Muinen, A., Groenewegen, P.P.: The intention to switch health insurer and actual switching behaviour. Are there differences between groups of people? Health Expect. 13(2), 195–207 (2009). doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2009.00583.x

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Lako, C.J., Rosenau, P., Daw, C.: Switching health insurance plans. Results from a health survey. Health Care Anal. 19(4), 312–328 (2011). doi:10.1007/s10728-010-0154-8

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Höppner, K., Buitkamp, M., Braun, B., Greß, S., Müller, R., Rothgang, H., Wasem, J.: Kassenwettbewerb: Motive für einen Kassenverbleib. In: Böcken, J., Braun, B., Schnee, M. (eds.) Gesundheitsmonitor 2004: Die ambulante Versorgung aus Sicht von Bevölkerung und Ärzteschaft, pp. 24–34. Verlag Bertelsmann Stiftung, Gütersloh (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  14. Moustafa, A.T., Hopkins, C.E., Klein, B.: Determinants of choice and change of health insurance plan. Med. Care 9(1), 32–41 (1971)

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Andersen, H.H., Schwarze, J.: GKV ‘97: Kommt Bewegung in die Landschaft? Eine empirische Analyse der Kassenwahlentscheidungen. Arbeit und Sozialpolitik 52(9/10), 11–23 (1998)

  16. Elbel, G.-K.: Das deutsche Gesundheitssystem aus Sicht der Patienten und Versicherten. Studienergebnisse 2011, 20–21 (2011)

  17. Töpfer, A., Opitz, F.: Benchmarking mit dem Versichertenbarometer. Kundenzufriedenheit und -bindung im deutschen Krankenkassenmarkt. In: Töpfer, A. (ed.) Handbuch Kundenmanagement—Anforderungen, Prozesse, Zufriedenheit, Bindung und Wert von Kunden, 3rd edn, pp. 541–553. Springer, Berlin (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  18. Trosky, A.: Die Marke BKK: bewährt sympathisch und servicestark. Die BKK 17, 56–62 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  19. Zok, K.: Reaktionen auf Zusatzbeiträge in der GKV. Ergebnisse einer Repräsentativ-Umfrage. WIdOmonitor 8(1), 1–8 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  20. Birkner, G.: Kundenkompass Patientenwünsche. Aktuelle Krankenversichertenbefragung. Frankfurter Allgemeine Buch, Frankfurt am Main (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Böcking, W., Pittrow, D., Kirch, W.: Die Bedeutung der Filialnetzstruktur der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherungen für eine kunden- und patientenorientierte Versorgung. J. Public Health 12(3), 210–217 (2004)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Heute und Morgen GmbH: Trends in der GKV-Mitgliedergewinnung. Heute und Morgen Finanzmarkttrends—August 2013. http://www.gesundheitsforen.net/portal/de/gfl/wissen/studien_und_umfragen/studie__trends_in_der_gkv_mitgliederentwicklung/studie__trends_in_der_gkv_mitgliederentwicklung_1.xhtml (2013). Accessed 31 Oct 2013

  23. Landmann, J.: Krankenkassenwettbewerb um Versicherte: Diesmal ohne Beitragssatz. In: Böcken, J., Braun, B., Landmann, J. (eds.) Gesundheitsmonitor 2009: Gesundheitsversorgung und Gestaltungsoptionen aus der Perspektive der Bevölkerung, pp. 203–220. Verlag Bertelsmann-Stiftung, Gütersloh (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  24. M+M Management + Marketing Consulting GmbH: Versichertenbefragung Handelskrankenkasse, Kassel. http://www.hkk.de/fileadmin/doc/unsere_leistungen/servicequalitaet/hkk_kundenbefragung_2006_kurzfassung.pdf (2006). Accessed 17 Dec 2013

  25. Töpfer, A., Opitz, F.: Servicequalität aus Sicht der GKV-Versicherten gestiegen. Ergebnisse des M+M Versichertenbarometer 2010. Die Krankenversicherung 7, 265–268 (2010)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Greß, S., Höppner, K., Marstedt, G., Rothgang, H., Tamm, M., Wasem, J.: Kassenwechsel als Mechanismus zur Durchsetzung von Versicherteninteressen. In: Braun, B., Greß, S., Rothgang, H., Wasem, J. (eds.) Einfluss nehmen oder aussteigen. Theorie und Praxis von Kassenwechsel und Selbstverwaltung in der Gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung, pp. 19–89. Edition sigma, Berlin (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  27. PwC: GKV im Wettbewerb. Was ist wirklich relevant? Frankfurt am Main (2011)

  28. Viney, R., Lancsar, E., Louviere, J.: Discrete choice experiments to measure consumer preferences for health and healthcare. Expert rev. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes res. 2(4), 319–326 (2002). doi:10.1586/14737167.2.4.319

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Mechanic, D.: Consumer choice among health insurance options. Health Aff. 8(1), 138–148 (1989)

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. de Bekker-Grob, E.: Discrete Choice Experiments in Health Care: Theory and Applications. Erasmus University, Rotterdam (2009)

  31. Ryan, M., Gerard, K.: Using discrete choice experiments to value health care programmes: current practice and future research reflections. Appl. Health Econ. Health Policy 2(1), 55–64 (2003)

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Bridges, J.F.P., Hauber, A.B., Marshall, D., Lloyd, A., Prosser, L.A., Regier, D.A., Johnson, F.R., Mauskopf, J.: Conjoint analysis applications in health—a checklist. A report of the ISPOR Good Research Practices for Conjoint Analysis Task Force. Value Health 14(4), 403–413 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2010.11.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Eislöffel, M.: Leistungspolitik der Kassen zwischen Evidenz und Kundenbindung. Welt der Krankenversicherung 2, 87–88 (2013)

    Google Scholar 

  34. Schaaf, M., Kade-Lamprecht, E.: Der Mensch im Mittelpunkt der GKV? Monitor Versorgungsforschung. 4, 26–31 (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Nelson, P.: Information and consumer behavior. J. Polit. Econ. 78(2), 311–329 (1970)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Kuhfeld, W.F.: Efficient experimental designs using computerized searches. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/design-of-conjoint-experiments/efficient-experimental-designs-using-computerized-searches-1997 (1997). Accessed 21 Feb 2014

  37. Sawtooth Software: The CBC system for choice-based conjoint analysis. Version 8. Sawtooth Software Research Paper Series. http://www.sawtoothsoftware.com/support/technical-papers/cbc-related-papers/cbc-technical-paper-2013 (2013). Accessed 28 April 2014

  38. Johnson, F.R., Lancsar, E., Marshall, D., Kilambi, V., Mühlbacher, A., Regier, D.A., Bresnahan, B.W., Kanninen, B., Bridges, J.F.P.: Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health j. Int. Soc. Pharmacoecon. Outcomes Res. 16(1), 3–13 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Allenby, G.M., Arora, N., Ginter, J.L.: Incorporating prior knowledge into the analysis of conjoint studies. J. Mark. Res. 32(2), 152 (1995). doi:10.2307/3152044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Lenk, P.J., DeSarbo, W.S., Green, P.E., Young, M.R.: Hierarchical Bayes conjoint analysis: recovery of partworth heterogeneity from reduced experimental designs. Mark. Sci. 15(2), 173–191 (1996). doi:10.1287/mksc.15.2.173

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Allenby, G.M., Rossi, P.E.: Marketing models of consumer heterogeneity. J. Econom. 89(1–2), 57–78 (1998). doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00055-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  42. Baruch, Y.: Response rate in academic studies—a comparative analysis. Hum. Relat. 52(4), 421–438 (1999). doi:10.1177/001872679905200401

    Google Scholar 

  43. Sheehan, K.B.: E-mail survey response rates: a review. J. Comp. Med. Commun. (2001). doi:10.1111/j.1083-6101.2001.tb00117.x

    Google Scholar 

  44. Kaplowitz, M.D., Hadlock, T.D., Levine, R.: A Comparison of web and mail survey response rates. Public Opin. Q. 68(1), 94–101 (2004). doi:10.1093/poq/nfh006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Edwards, P.: Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ 324(7347), 1183 (2002). doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Mitgliederstatistik KM6. Stichtag: 1. Juli 2008, Berlin. http://www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Downloads/Statistiken/GKV/Mitglieder_Versicherte/KM6-juli-08.xls. Accessed 7 Dec 2015

  47. van de Ven, W.P.M.M, Beck, K., Buchner, F., Chernichovsky, D., Gardiol, L., Holly, A., Lamers, L.M., Schokkaert, E., Shmueli, A., Spycher, S., van de Voorde, C., van Vliet, R.C.J.A., Wasem, J., Zmora, I.: Risk adjustment and risk selection on the sickness fund insurance market in five European countries. Health Policy 65(1), 75–98 (2003). doi:10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00118-5

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Drösler, S., Hasford, J., Kurth, B.-M., Schaefer, M., Wasem, J., Wille, E.: Evaluationsbericht zum Jahresausgleich 2009 im Risikostrukturausgleich. http://www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Publikationen/Gesundheit/Forschungsberichte/Evaluationsbericht_zum_Jahresausgleich.pdf (2011). Accessed 10 Jan 2014

  49. van de Ven, W.P.M.M., van Vliet, R.C.J.A.: How can we prevent cream skimming in a competitive health insurance market? In: Zweifel, P., Frech, H.E., Zweifel, P. (eds.) Health economics worldwide. Developments in health economics and public policy, vol. 1, pp. 23–46. Springer, Dordrecht (1992)

    Google Scholar 

  50. Höppner, K., Greß, S., Rothgang, H., Wasem, J.: Instrumente der Risikoselektion—Theorie und Empirie. In: Göpffarth, D., Greß, S., Jacobs, K., Wasem, J. (eds.) Risikostrukturausgleich 2006: Zehn Jahre Kassenwahlfreiheit, pp. 119–144. Asgard Verlag, St. Augustin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  51. Gelman, A.: Struggles with survey weighting and regression modeling. Stat. Sci. 22(2), 153–164 (2007). doi:10.1214/088342306000000691

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Hoffmann, F., Icks, A.: Do persons that changed health insurance differ from those who did not? The case of diabetes. Exp. Clin. Endocrinol. Diabetes 119(9), 569–572 (2011). doi:10.1055/s-0031-1275277

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Werner, A., Reitmeir, P., John, J.: Kassenwechsel und Risikostrukturausgleich in der gesetzlichen Krankenversicherung—empirische Befunde der Kooperativen Gesundheitsforschung in der Region Augsburg (KORA) [Switching sickness funds and risk compensation mechanisms in the statutory health insurance system in Germany–empirical results from the cooperative health research in the region of Augsburg (KORA)]. Gesundheitswesen 67(Suppl 1), 158–166 (2005). doi:10.1055/s-2005-858261

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Andersen, H.H., Grabka, M.M.: Kassenwechsel in der GKV 1997–2004. Profile—Trends—Perspektiven. In: Göpffarth, D., Greß, S., Jacobs, K., Wasem, J. (eds.) Risikostrukturausgleich 2006: Zehn Jahre Kassenwahlfreiheit, pp. 145–183. Asgard Verlag, St. Augustin (2006)

    Google Scholar 

  55. Vroomen, J.M., Zweifel, P.: Preferences for health insurance and health status: does it matter whether you are Dutch or German? Eur. J. Health Econ. 12, 87–95 (2011). doi:10.1007/s10198-010-0248-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Paquet, R., Stein, M.: GKV-Mitglieder: preissensibel und leistungsbewusst. Die BKK. 12, 274–280 (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  57. Mitglieder, mitversicherte Angehörige und Krankenstand. Jahresdurchschnitt 2014. Ergebnisse der GKV-Statistik KM1/13, Berlin. http://www.bmg.bund.de/fileadmin/dateien/Downloads/Statistiken/GKV/Mitglieder_Versicherte/KM1_JD_2014.pdf (2015). Accessed 7 Dec 2015

  58. Bildungsstand der Bevölkerung 2015, Wiesbaden. https://www.destatis.de/DE/Publikationen/Thematisch/BildungForschungKultur/Bildungsstand/BildungsstandBevoelkerung5210002157004.pdf?__blob=publicationFile (2015). Accessed 20 May 2016

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology, University of Cologne, Gleueler Straße 176-178, 50935, Cologne, Germany

    Jonas B. Pendzialek, Dusan Simic & Stephanie Stock

Authors
  1. Jonas B. Pendzialek
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Dusan Simic
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Stephanie Stock
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jonas B. Pendzialek.

Appendix

Appendix

See Table 8.

Table 8 Participants’ socio-demographic characteristics
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Pendzialek, J.B., Simic, D. & Stock, S. Measuring customer preferences in the German statutory health insurance. Eur J Health Econ 18, 831–845 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0829-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-016-0829-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation