Right from the start of the Covid-19 crisis, GEREP set out to study changes in consumption and the behaviour of its insured persons during this health and economic crisis which seems to be never-ending.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
As from 23 April 2020, GEREP began to monitor the consumption of medical services in a panel of around 60,000 of its programme beneficiaries. A second and then a third study followed in May and June 2020.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
The first three studies had already revealed a drop of almost 90 % in the consumption of medical services at the peak of the lockdown period (confinement) and then a slight upturn. At the time, GEREP had thought that a post-lockdown upturn would look like a \u201cNike\u201d logo but by section #3 we could see this was not to be the case.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Now, in October, we can view things with sufficient hindsight as our observation period now extends to 34 weeks.<\/strong> This fourth study should confirm whether consumption post-lockdown has picked up and is back to normal, or not.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n As in previous editions our observations were directed principally at consultations, optical frames, dentures and finally across-the-board medical treatment as a whole.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n A net drop in healthcare benefits: -19% over the period studied (20 January to 12 September 2020) compared to 2019.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Although we saw an immediate uptake in consumption of medical services post-lockdown, services that could not be carried out during lockdown have been lost for 2020.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In the end, at portfolio level, if we look at all treatment categories, it is evident that the fall in consumption during lockdown has not been made up and consumption will likely not reach 2019 levels.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n An initial drop, linked directly to introduction of the so-called \u201c100% Healthcare\u201d reform, was seen at first (-35 % on average) before the very sharp drop of 85 % in consumption during confinement. The start of the year for the optical sector was marked by the introduction of price capping on optical appliances following the \u201c100% Healthcare\u201d reform.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n The study shows that consumption definitely picked up but was \u201cmasked\u201d by the impact of the \u20ac100 price ceiling ( 13% over the period). Finally, taking the case of optical frames, a high \u201cunderwriting surplus\u201d is expected for 2020 compared to expenses seen in 2019.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Forecast: we can expect a surplus for the year of 20% to 25% in this category compared to 2019.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n As early as January and contrary to optical frames, implementation of the \u201c100 % Healthcare\u201d reform, which takes into account the position of the tooth and the material used for a denture, has in fact tended to increase reimbursement volumes this year. Before lockdown, we were seeing an increase of 2%. The confinement period, with dental practices closed, had reduced consumption to practically zero. Here also, consumption has definitely picked up, contrary to the trend in optical frames, even though not back to normal. We can reasonably expect that this will be one of the rare categories where pick-up is practically total.<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n Doctor consultations are worth looking at because, contrary to the other two categories, optical and dental, a comparison for this category between 2020 payouts and 2019 will not have been impacted by \u201c100% healthcare\u201d.<\/strong><\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n In addition to the effects of lockdown on the consumption of medical services, there are other factors that could have an impact on systems in 2021:<\/p>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n (20 January to 12 September 2020) Right from the start of the Covid-19 crisis, GEREP set out to study changes in consumption and the behaviour of its insured persons during this health and economic crisis which seems to be never-ending. As from 23 April 2020, GEREP began to monitor the consumption of medical services in…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":5,"featured_media":10932,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"content-type":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[249],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5296","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-health"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nMain conclusions as to the \u201cconsumption\u201d impact on complementary \u201csecond tier\u201d health insurance<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
Situation varies depending on expense type<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
1. Optical sector: -39% over the period studied (20 January to 12 September 2020) compared to 2019<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
2.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 Dental: -12 % over the period studied (20 January to 12 September 2020) compared to 2019.<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
3. Consultations (GPs and specialists): -18 % over the period studied (20 January to 12 September 2020) compared to 2019.<\/h3>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
Other impacts<\/h2>\r\n\r\n\r\n\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n
\r\n