The influence of European Union (EU) law on private health insurance has not received as much attention as its impact on other parts of the health system (Hervey, 2007). Now is a good time to redress this relative neglect, as growing interest in private health insurance – in particular, its potential to relieve pressure on public budgets and enhance choice – raises questions about how best to create or expand and shape markets to achieve specific aims. There are no easy answers to these questions, but one thing seems clear: if policy makers intend to use private health insurance to achieve a particular objective, they must be able to direct market behaviour appropriately. Otherwise, the type of market most likely to emerge is one that simply provides access to acute care in the private sector for wealthier people. However, in newer markets lack of regulatory capacity often presents a barrier to effective policy direction (Thomson et al., 2007 forthcoming). In the established markets of the EU, many of the constraints facing policy makers come from single market legislation. Here we use the case of the Third Non-Life Insurance Directive to illustrate some of these constraints and to show how they can undermine the achievement of health policy goals such as financial protection, equity of access to health care and quality or efficiency in the organization, administration, and delivery of health services.

This article is a comparative study of three Scandinavian countries – Norway, Denmark, and Sweden – all of which have provided the individual patient with extensive rights to choose the hospital where he/she wishes to receive treatment. In the paper, we present an analysis of the utilization of the opportunity to choose between hospitals in these three countries. The analysis addresses two questions: (i) How many patients are exercising the right to choose between hospitals in these countries and who is making use of this opportunity? (ii) How can we explain the observed utilization pattern? The results of the study reveal clear similarities between the three countries and suggest that few patients have actually chosen their hospital. However, a gradual increase can be observed over the years. Few formal, legislative, or economic barriers exist for patients. Instead, limited knowledge amongst patients regarding reforms, combined with insufficient support from GPs and limited information, can explain why few patients choose to receive care outside of their local region.

This paper aims to describe the priority-setting procedure for new original pharmaceuticals practiced by the Swedish Pharmaceutical Benefits Board (LFN), to analyse the outcome of the procedure in terms of decisions and the relative importance of ethical principles, and to examine the reactions of stakeholders. All the ‘principally important’ decisions made by the LFN during its first 33 months of operation were analysed. The study is theoretically anchored in the theory of fair and legitimate priority-setting procedures by Daniels and Sabin, and is based on public documents, media articles, and semi-structured interviews. Only nine cases resulted in a rejection of a subsidy by the LFN and 15 in a limited or conditional subsidy. Total rejections rather than limitations gave rise to actions by stakeholders. Primarily, the principle of cost-effectiveness was used when limiting/conditioning or totally rejecting a subsidy. This study suggests that implementing a priority-setting process that fulfils the conditions of accountability for reasonableness can result in a priority-setting process which is generally perceived as fair and legitimate by the major stakeholders and may increase social learning in terms of accepting the necessity of priority setting in health care. The principle of cost-effectiveness increased in importance when the demand for openness and transparency increased.

As the share of supplementary health insurance (SI) in health care finance is likely to grow, SI may become an increasingly attractive tool for risk-selection in basic health insurance (BI). In this paper, we develop a conceptual framework to assess the probability that insurers will use SI for favourable risk-selection in BI. We apply our framework to five countries in which risk-selection via SI is feasible: Belgium, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, and Switzerland. For each country, we review the available evidence of SI being used as selection device. We find that the probability that SI is and will be used for risk-selection substantially varies across countries. Finally, we discuss several strategies for policy makers to reduce the chance that SI will be used for risk-selection in BI markets.

Recent policy developments in public health care systems lead to a greater diversity in health care. Decentralization, either geographically or at an institutional level, is the key force, because it encourages innovation and local initiatives in health care provision. The devolution of responsibilities allows for a sort of ‘deconstruction’ of the status quo by changing both organizational forms and service provision. The new organizations enjoy greater freedom in the way they pay their staff, and are judged according to the results. These organizations may retain financial surpluses, develop ‘spin-off’ companies, and commission a range of specialized services (such as Diagnostic and Treatment Centres in UK) from providers outside the institutional setting in order to have more access to capital markets. However, this diversity may generate a feeling of a lack of commitment to a national health service and ultimately a loss of social cohesion. Through fiscal decentralization to regional authorities or planned delegation of financial agreements to providers, financial incentives are more explicit and may seem to place profit making above a commitment to better health care. An evaluation of the ‘myths and realities’ of the decentralization process is needed. Here, I offer an assessment of the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ of the health care decentralization process in Spain, drawing on the experience of regional reforms from the pioneering organizational innovations implemented in Catalonia in 1981, up to the currently observed dispersion of health care spending per capita across the regions.

Right-wing health policy is alive and well in the United States. Pro-business and libertarian health policy advocacy groups, generously funded by right-wing foundations (and, in some instances, by the health care industry), produce a continuous stream of press releases, policy-statements, books, articles, and symposia, as well as testimony before legislative and administrative bodies. Their positions are taken very seriously by the American media, who make certain that right-wing policy experts are represented in any discussion of current health policy issues.