Insurance cost sharing

None for public insurance, but varies in the case of private insurance Cost sharing, with a maximum annual contribution for all services as a whole Cost sharing... 

Determining the value of potential benefits from risk reduction is relatively straightforward for tangible losses such as property damage, business interruption, and increased insurance costs. However, intangibles such as loss of reputation are difficult to estimate and must be considered on a case-by-case basis. In addition to increased staff costs associated with public relations, items such as possible employee attrition due to low morale and possible loss of market share must be considered. 

None for hospital stays. Combination of co-payment and percentage rate of cost sharing for specialist care and out-patient visits. Co-payment in diagnostic services. A maximum is set for the financial participation of the user None for category I in public hospitals. For the rest, co-payments are applied for the fust out-patient visit per episode, and there is a per diem co-payment for the first 10 days of hospitalization per year. Insurers buy free care for both public and private hospitals... 

Switzerland Combination of annual deductibles and percentage cost-sharing rates Per diem co-payments for hospitalization User sharing in drug consumption costs, which varies between different health insurance schemes. Negative lists of medicines exclude consumption from public coverage... 

Currently, physicians and patients determine the demand for pharmaceuticals and employers and insurers assume the risk and cost. As the price of new health care technologies escalates, payers will design and implement strategies to share risk and cost. Defined employer contributions, increased patient cost sharing, and benefit exclusions will be used to help control utilization and cost. In this environment, value-based assessments will be crucial to the adoption of any technological innovation. It is reasonable to expect public and private coverage for new therapies if evidence is provided regarding the costs and consequences of treatment. However, social and ethical dilemmas will certainly arise as therapies whose costs exceed their benefits are debated in the public arena. 

Secondly, customer-specific variable selling cost shares r sc, V e A" are applied as a percentage to net turnover and comprise customer-specific sales costs like insurances, bank charges or import tariff costs for the customer or the related country. Regional transportation costs c c, / a,k eIsl reflect costs differences between articles and/or customers for transportation within the sales location. Finally, article-specific packaging costs c p°, / a.k e Is 1 in the sales location currency on a currency per ton basis are considered. 

Insurance plans around the world that had traditionally covered the full cost of prescription drugs have begun, in the last decade or so, to impose either deductibles or various forms of tiered cost sharing on patients. 

Cost sharing with patients should be seen only as a transitional measure towards long term aims, such as universal health insurance. User charges or co-payment for medicines in public health services do not always lead to increased supply of medicines and may result in decreased utilization of public health services. In addition they can further impoverish already disadvantaged populations. User s charges should complement rather than replace government allocations for curative health services and essential medicines provision. 

Copayment In health insurance, a form of cost sharing whereby the insured person pays a specified amount for the service or pharmaceutical. The copayment can be a fixed amount or a percentage of the bill. 

Newhouse, J. P., Manning, W. G., Morris, C. N., et al., Some Interim Results From a Controlled Trial of Cost Sharing in Health Insurance, New England Journal of Medicine 305 1501,1981. 

Moral hazard may also be a problem with the firm e5q)erience rating of the firm s insurance premiums (where a firm s future premiums depend on the current claims, so that higher-than-expected claims raise premiums) may induce firms to deny more claims than they would in the absence of experience rating, in order to reduce their insurance costs and increase their profitability. Sharing those profits with the employees through financial participation rights lowers the incentive for firms to engage in such moral hazard behavior as well. 

When it is time to develop a written budget, it is important to identify operating cost, potential benefits such as direct benefits (e.g., reduced labor cost, lower accidents, reduced insurance cost, or productivity gains). Indirect benefits should also be considered in light of quality improvanents— reduced scrap less rework reduced product liability, exposure, or produa recall expenses improved corporate image or inaeased market share. At times, indirect benefits are improved anployee morale, which reduces absenteeism and turnover or increases teamwork and ownership. The potential reduction in the numbers of compliance penalties can be a benefit. 

More recently, large databases have been used to estimate the effect of drug co-payment in the USA under different insurance schemes.10 The conclusion reached is that there is a significant interaction effect between the behaviour of demand and prescriber incentives. Thus, larger prescription drug copayments are associated with lower expenditure when the doctor does not share the financial risk of the cost of the drugs (that is, practises in an independent practice association) but this effect is barely perceived in managed care models in which the doctor has incentives for cost containment. 

---