The Netherlands has a system with both not-for-profit and for-profit insurers, that works reasonably well.
- Transparent, identical rules for minimum coverage and strict rules on minimum and maximum deductible for all insurers and insurees.
- Mandatory coverage for everyone (just like liability insurance is mandatory for cars in the US)
- Insurers do not have the right to refuse any applicants based on pre-existing conditions
- Insurers directly negotiate with hospitals on rates. Emergency care has to be covered regardless of whether hospitals are in network or not.
The Dutch model is a useful counterexample to the argument that you need a single-payer structure to contain costs. Netherlands uses regulated private insurers with community rating and risk equalization, yet achieves per-capita spending well below the US (roughly $7,200 vs. $14,570 in 2023 OECD data). The direct insurer-hospital negotiation you describe is also how Germany's sickness funds operate.
The US equivalent would be all-payer rate setting. Maryland has run a statewide all-payer hospital rate system since 1977 with documented cost containment. Issue #3 of this series focuses on a lighter-weight near-term version: capping commercial hospital payments at 200% of Medicare (already used by Montana Medicaid and thousands of self-insured employers). The Dutch model shows a stronger structural fix is feasible. The question is political path, not technical feasibility.
The Netherlands has a system with both not-for-profit and for-profit insurers, that works reasonably well.
- Transparent, identical rules for minimum coverage and strict rules on minimum and maximum deductible for all insurers and insurees. - Mandatory coverage for everyone (just like liability insurance is mandatory for cars in the US) - Insurers do not have the right to refuse any applicants based on pre-existing conditions - Insurers directly negotiate with hospitals on rates. Emergency care has to be covered regardless of whether hospitals are in network or not.