Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42067738›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care2026

Differentiation of morbidity measurement in Germany's morbidity-based risk adjustment depending on general practitioner and specialist treatment.

Christian Keutel, Florian Renker, Marco Papatrifon, Dennis Häckl

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Christian KeutelSBK Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse, Munich, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0002-6283-3254
Florian RenkerSBK Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse, Munich, Germany. Florian.Renker@SBK.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-3866-1320
Marco PapatrifonSBK Siemens-Betriebskrankenkasse, Munich, Germany.
Dennis HäcklFaculty of Economics and Management Science, University of Leipzig, Leipzig, Germany.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8542-693X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Morbidity-based risk adjustment schemes are of central importance to prevent incentives for risk selection and to ensure fair competition in health insurance systems with regulated competition, including in Germany. However, systematic under- and overcompensation for certain insured groups persists. This study is based on the hypothesis that individuals treated by specialists tend to be undercompensated, whereas those treated by general practitioners tend to be overcompensated. Using routine data from a nationwide sickness fund, we show that this is true and model an approach that extends the classification model of the German risk adjustment scheme by a differentiation criterion depending on general practitioner/specialist treatment. We demonstrate on the basis of three selected morbidity groups, that the introduction of such a split eliminates the misallocation and improves slightly model performance at the individual level. However, and more important, the effects at the group level vary depending on the type of morbidity group included. The findings suggest that in some cases a general practitioner/specialist differentiation can enhance the model performance by reducing risk selection incentives but raises questions regarding administrative complexity, neutrality of care and policy feasibility.

Indexed as

Classification modelHealth insuranceRisk adjustment

Identifiers

PMID42067738

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.