- Harald Schmidt, research associate1,
- Andreas Gerber, senior researcher2,
- Stephanie Stock, senior researcher2
- 1LSE Health, London School of Economics and Political Science, London WC2A 2AE
- 2Institute of Health Economics and Clinical Epidemiology of the University of Cologne, 50935 Cologne, Germany
- Correspondence to: Harald Schmidt h.t.schmidt{at}lse.ac.uk
- Accepted 16 August 2009
Germany first introduced incentives aimed at individuals into its statutory health insurance scheme in 1989, offering reduced copayments for dental treatment to people who attended regular check-ups. Since then, many other incentive schemes have been launched. Some welcome these, but others question their rationale and effectiveness and worry that a focus on individual behaviour detracts from taking action at the social level. Despite these concerns, other countries, including the United Kingdom, have shown interest in incentive programmes.1 2 3 We look at the lessons to be learnt from Germany’s experience.
Rationale for incentive systems
German incentive schemes have three main goals:
Improve population health—As elsewhere, chronic diseases are on the rise in Germany. Although evidence on the role of the social determinants of health is becoming increasingly irrefutable,4 even the most health conducive environments do not, by themselves, make people healthy. Targeting individual behaviour is therefore viewed as a complementary way of improving population health.
Maximise efficiency of services—Individual behaviour also has implications for the efficient operation of a healthcare system. Many incentive schemes seek to encourage responsible use of resources—for example, by rewarding compliance with treatment or minimising use.
Enhance competition between sickness funds—Germany’s social health insurance system has around 200 sickness funds, and citizens have free choice of fund.5 Incentive programmes serve as tools for attracting and retaining clients, in much the same way airlines or supermarkets use loyalty schemes.6
Some incentive schemes seek to satisfy all three of these goals, whereas others may focus on one or two of them.
Incentive systems in practice
Sickness funds offering incentive programmes are bound by the provisions set out in …
Sign in
Article access
Article access for 1 day
Purchase this article for £20 $30 €32*
The PDF version can be downloaded as your personal record







CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Mendeley
Reddit
Technorati
Twitter
Stumbleupon
Rapid responses
Latest Responses
Re: Ventilator associated pneumonia
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Restless legs syndrome
Published 30 May 2012
Author's reply
Published 30 May 2012
Re: Full access to trial data holds many benefits and a few pitfalls, conference hears
Published 30 May 2012
Restless Legs Syndrome: Fact or Fiction
Published 30 May 2012
Most responses
Venous thrombosis in users of non-oral hormonal contraception: follow-up study, Denmark 2001-10 (12 responses)
Published 10 May 2012 - 23:32
The psychiatric oligarchs who medicalise normality (9 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 15:42
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? No (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
Are doctors justified in taking industrial action in defence of their pensions? Yes (8 responses)
Published 8 May 2012 - 12:21
The hardest thing: admitting error (7 responses)
Published 2 May 2012 - 12:27