首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Canadian Medical Association Journal >Why not private health insurance? 2. Actuarial principles meet provider dreams
【2h】

Why not private health insurance? 2. Actuarial principles meet provider dreams

机译:为什么不提供私人健康保险? 2.精算原则满足提供者的梦想

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

What do insurers and employers feel about proposals to expand Canadian health care financing through private insurance, in either a parallel stream or a supplementary tier? The authors conducted 10 semistructured, open-ended interviews in the autumn and early winter of 1996 with representatives of the insurance industry and benefits managers working with large employers; respondents were identified using a snowball sampling technique. The respondents felt that proposals for parallel private plans within a competitive market are incompatible with insurance principles, as long as a well-functioning and relatively comprehensive public system continues to exist; the maintenance of a strong public system was both socially and economically desirable. With the exception of serving the niche market for the private management of return-to-work strategies, respondents showed little interest in providing parallel coverage. They were receptive to a larger role for supplementary insurance but cautioned that they are not willing to cover all delisted services. As business executives they stated that they are willing to insure only services and clients that will be profitable.
机译:保险公司和雇主对通过私人保险以并行方式或补充方式扩大加拿大医疗保健筹资的提议有何看法?作者在1996年秋季和初冬进行了10次半结构化,开放式访谈,访谈对象是保险业的代表和与大型雇主合作的福利经理;使用雪球采样技术确定了受访者。受访者认为,只要功能完善且相对全面的公共体系继续存在,在竞争性市场中制定平行私人计划的建议就不符合保险原则。维持强大的公共体系在社会和经济上都是可取的。除了为利基市场服务以私人管理重返工作岗位的策略外,受访者对提供平行报道的兴趣不大。他们乐于接受补充保险的更大职责,但警告说,他们不愿意承担所有退市服务。作为业务主管,他们表示,他们只愿意为获利的服务和客户提供保险。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号