Impacts of chronic disease prevention programs implemented by private health insurers: a systematic review

Background Chronic diseases contribute to a significant proportion (71%) of all deaths each year worldwide. Governments and other stakeholders worldwide have taken various actions to tackle the key risk factors contributing to the prevalence and impact of chronic diseases. Private health insurers (PHI) are one key stakeholders, particularly in Australian health system, and their engagement in chronic disease prevention is growing. Therefore, we investigated the impacts of chronic disease prevention interventions implemented by PHI both in Australia and internationally. Method We searched multiple databases (Business Source Complete, CINAHL, Global Health, Health Business Elite, Medline, PsycINFO, and Scopus) and grey literature for studies/reports published in English until September 2020 using search terms on the impacts of chronic disease prevention interventions delivered by PHIs. Two reviewers assessed the risk of bias using a quality assessment tool developed by Effective Public Healthcare Panacea Project. After data extraction, the literature was synthesised thematically based on the types of the interventions reported across studies. The study protocol was registered in PROSPERO, CRD42020145644. Results Of 7789 records, 29 studies were eligible for inclusion. There were predominantly four types of interventions implemented by PHIs: Financial incentives, health coaching, wellness programs, and group medical appointments. Outcome measures across studies were varied, making it challenging to compare the difference between the effectiveness of different intervention types. Most studies reported that the impacts of interventions, such as increase in healthy eating, physical activity, and lower hospital admissions, last for a shorter term if the length of the intervention is shorter. Interpretation Although it is challenging to conclude which intervention type was the most effective, it appeared that, regardless of the intervention types, PHI interventions of longer duration (at least 2 years) were more beneficial and outcomes were more sustained than those PHI interventions that lasted for a shorter period. Funding Primary source of funding was Geelong Medical and Hospital Benefits Association (GMHBA), an Australian private health insurer.

HPV vaccination of girls in the German model region Saarland: Insurance data-based analysis and identification of starting points for improving vaccination rates

In Germany, the incidence of cervical cancer, a disease caused by human papillomaviruses (HPV), is higher than in neighboring European countries. HPV vaccination has been recommended for girls since 2007. However, it continues to be significantly less well received than other childhood vaccines, so its potential for cancer prevention is not fully realized. To find new starting points for improving vaccination rates, we analyzed pseudonymized routine billing data from statutory health insurers in the PRAEZIS study in the federal state Saarland serving as a model region. We show that lowering the HPV vaccination age to 9 years led to more completed HPV vaccinations already in 2015. Since then, HPV vaccination rates and the proportion of 9- to 11-year-old girls among HPV-vaccinated females have steadily increased. However, HPV vaccination rates among 15-year-old girls in Saarland remained well below 50% in 2019. Pediatricians vaccinated the most girls overall, with a particularly high proportion at the recommended vaccination age of 9-14 years, while gynecologists provided more HPV catch-up vaccinations among 15-17-year-old girls, and general practitioners compensated for HPV vaccination in Saarland communities with fewer pediatricians or gynecologists. We also provide evidence for a significant association between attendance at the U11 or J1 medical check-ups and HPV vaccination. In particular, participation in HPV vaccination is high on the day of U11. However, obstacles are that U11 is currently not funded by all statutory health insurers and there is a lack of invitation procedures for both U11 and J1, resulting in significantly lower participation rates than for the earlier U8 or U9 screenings, which are conducted exclusively with invitations and reminders. Based on our data, we propose to restructure U11 and J1 screening in Germany, with mandatory funding for U11 and organized invitations for HPV vaccination at U11 or J1 for both boys and girls.

Analysis of second opinion programs provided by German statutory and private health insurance – a survey of statutory and private health insurers

Background Second medical opinions can give patients confidence when choosing among treatment options and help them understand their diagnosis. Health insurers in several countries, including Germany, offer formal second opinion programs (SecOPs). We systematically collected and analyzed information on German health insurers’ approach to SecOPs, how the SecOPs are structured, and to what extent they are evaluated. Methods In April 2019, we sent a questionnaire by post to all German statutory (n = 109) and private health insurers (n = 52). In September 2019, we contacted the nonresponders by email. The results were analyzed descriptively. They are presented overall and grouped by type of insurance (statutory/private health insurer). Results Thirty one of One hundred sixty one health insurers (response rate 19%) agreed to participate. The participating insurers covered approximately 40% of the statutory and 34% of the private health insured people. A total of 44 SecOPs were identified with a median of 1 SecOP (interquartile range (IQR) 1–2) offered by a health insurer. SecOPs were in place mainly for orthopedic (21/28 insurers with SecOPs; 75%) and oncologic indications (20/28; 71%). Indications were chosen principally based on their potential impact on a patient (22/28; 79%). The key qualification criterion for second opinion providers was their expertise (30/44 SecOPs; 68%). Second opinions were usually provided based on submitted documents only (21/44; 48%) or on direct contact between a patient and a doctor (20/44; 45%). They were delivered after a median of 9 days (IQR 5–15). A median of 31 (IQR 7–85) insured persons per year used SecOPs. Only 12 of 44 SecOPs were confirmed to have conducted a formal evaluation process (27%) or, if not, plan such a process in the future (10/22; 45%). Conclusion Health insurers’ SecOPs focus on orthopedic and oncologic indications and are based on submitted documents or on direct patient-physician contact. The formal evaluation of SecOPs needs to be expanded and the results should be published. This can allow the evaluation of the impact of SecOPs on insured persons’ health status and satisfaction, as well as on the number of interventions performed. Our results should be interpreted with caution due to the low participation rate.

THE CONTRIBUTION OF GOVERNMENT SPONSORED HEALTH INSURANCE SCHEMES TOWARDS INDIAN HEALTH SECTOR

Today, there are thirty four general insurance companies including the Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd (ECGC) and Agriculture Insurance Corporation (AIC) of India and 24 life insurance companies operating in the country. Barring the AIC and ECGC, all other 32 insurers transact health insurance business, of whom six are stand-alone health insurers. Although there are number of insurers and different types of health insurance products available in the market, three-fourth health-insured Indians still gets covered only by a government-sponsored health insurance scheme (GSHIS) like PMJAY. Of all the health insurance premiums underwritten in the year 2019-20, 10 per cent came only from the GSHIS. In terms of number of persons covered, 73 per cent health-insured people are governed by one or other GSHIS. Looking at the profitability of the health insurer also, the incurred claims ratio is just 97.22 per cent in GSHISs. Thus, the health insurance premium, penetration and profitability—all of these are significantly sponsored and subsidized by the government through GSHIS, incorporating the public–private partnership (PPP) mode. This article details the role of GSHIS in the health insurance segment, taking the performances of the Indian health insurance sector in the year 2019-20. KEYWORDS: Government sponsored health insurance schemes, health insurance, health premium, incurred claims ratio, insurance, insurance regulatory and development authority, standalone health insurers.

Do Health Insurers Manage Their Medical Loss Ratios? At What Cost?

We use plan-level data to examine a reporting incentive unique to health insurers—the federal Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) provisions—which require that health plans spend a specified percentage of premiums on claims or else pay policyholder rebates. While there are no penalties for noncompliance with the MLR provisions, incentives for insurers to comply include avoiding political and reputation costs, reducing administrative burdens, and eliminating rebate payments. We find that health plans with pre-managed MLRs— i.e., the MLRs that would be reported without reporting discretion—below the required MLR overstate claims, thereby increasing their MLRs and reducing or eliminating rebate payments. Overall, results suggest that overstating claims reduced rebate payments by approximately $190 million to $325 million for 20112013; i.e., about 10–17% of total rebates actually paid. We also find that plans with pre-managed MLRs significantly greater than the minimum required MLR understate claims, thereby improving plan earnings while still complying with the MLR provisions. These understatements average between 14–34% of plans’ pre-tax earnings.