Attitudes and weight bias in Dutch health care professionals

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. Camfferman ◽  

2005 ◽  
Vol 15 (4) ◽  
pp. 591-605 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan A. Steenstra ◽  
Fieke S. Koopman ◽  
Dirk L. Knol ◽  
Eric Kat ◽  
Paulien M. Bongers ◽  
...  


2018 ◽  
Vol 27 (2) ◽  
pp. 601-607 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Th. C. M. de Kruif ◽  
M. B. Scholtens ◽  
J. van der Rijt ◽  
M. R. de Boer ◽  
M. M. G. A. van den Berg ◽  
...  


2013 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Lieke GM Raaijmakers ◽  
Marloes K Martens ◽  
Charlotte Bagchus ◽  
Nanne K de Vries ◽  
Stef PJ Kremers


2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 405-424 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. HOLLAND ◽  
N.J.A. VAN EXEL ◽  
F.T. SCHUT ◽  
W.B.F. BROUWER

AbstractTo contain expenditures in an increasingly demand driven health care system, in 2005 a no-claim rebate was introduced in the Dutch health insurance system. Since demand-side cost sharing is a very controversial issue, the no-claim rebate was launched as a consumer friendly bonus system to reward prudent utilization of health services. Internationally, the introduction of a mandatory no-claim rebate in a social health insurance scheme is unprecedented. Consumers were entitled to an annual rebate of ₠ 255 if no claims were made. During the year, all health care expenses except for GP visits and maternity care were deducted from the rebate until the rebate became zero. In this article, we discuss the rationale of the no-claim rebate and the available evidence of its effect. Using a questionnaire in a convenience sample, we examined people’s knowledge, attitudes, and sensitivity to the incentive scheme. We find that only 4% of respondents stated that they would reduce consumption because of the no-claim rebate. Respondents also indicated that they were willing to accept a high loss of rebate in order to use a medical treatment. However, during the last month of the year many respondents seemed willing to postpone consumption until the next year in order to keep the rebate of the current year intact. A small majority of respondents considered the no-claim rebate to be unfair. Finally, we briefly discuss why in 2008 the no-claim rebate was replaced by a mandatory deductible.



2013 ◽  
Vol 22 (3) ◽  
pp. 236-247 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. A. M. Maarse ◽  
D. Ruwaard ◽  
C. Spreeuwenberg


2016 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wike Seekles ◽  
Guy Widdershoven ◽  
Paul Robben ◽  
Gonny van Dalfsen ◽  
Bert Molewijk




2004 ◽  
Vol 20 (4) ◽  
pp. 564-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marc Berg ◽  
Tom van der Grinten ◽  
Niek Klazinga

References 8, 29, and 32 are incorrect as they appear in the article entitled “Technology assessment, priority setting, and appropriate care in Dutch health care,” by Marc Berg, Tom van der Grinten, and Niek Klazinga (Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20[1]:35-43). They should appear as follows: 8. Burgers JS, Bailey JV, Klazinga NS, et al. Inside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care 2002;11:1933-1939.29. Zwart-van Rijkom JE, Leufkens HG, Busschbach JJ, et al. Differences in attitudes, knowledge and use of economic evaluations in decision-making in The Netherlands. The Dutch results from the EUROMET Project. Pharmacoeconomics 2000;2:149-160.32. Van der Grinten TED. Hervorming van de gezondheidszorg. Zal het deze keer wel lukken? Beleid & Maatschappij 2002;3:172-176.





Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document