↓ Skip to main content

Buying best value health care: Evolution of purchasing among Australian private health insurers

Overview of attention for article published in Australian Health Review, March 2005
Altmetric Badge

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
22 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Buying best value health care: Evolution of purchasing among Australian private health insurers
Published in
Australian Health Review, March 2005
DOI 10.1186/1743-8462-2-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Sharon Willcox

Abstract

Since 1995 Australian health insurers have been able to purchase health services pro-actively through negotiating contracts with hospitals, but little is known about their experience of purchasing. This paper examines the current status of purchasing through interviews with senior managers representing all Australian private health insurers. Many of the traditional tools used to generate competition and enhance efficiency (such as selective contracting and co-payments) have had limited use due to public and political opposition. Adoption of bundled case payment models using diagnosis related groups (DRGs) has been slow. Insurers cite multiple reasons including poor understanding of private hospital costs, unfamiliarity with DRGs, resistance from the medical profession and concerns about premature discharge. Innovation in payment models has been limited, although some insurers are considering introduction of volume-outcome purchasing and pay for performance incentives. Private health insurers also face a complex web of regulation, some of which appears to impede moves towards more efficient purchasing.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 22 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 22 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 23%
Student > Master 3 14%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 9%
Other 1 5%
Other 3 14%
Unknown 6 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 4 18%
Social Sciences 4 18%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 3 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 5%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 6 27%