On the Association between Insurance Deductibles and Prevention Behaviour: Evidence from the Swiss Health System

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The draft is well written and well referenced. The arguments are clearly presented, and conclusions are supported by research findings. The size of the sample is representative, and the methodology is adequate. The conclusions contain tacit recommendations for the insurance companies, which is a plus. A minor suggestion: to remove opinionated words (important, etc.) and specify what does "more educated individuals" (390-391) refer to. 

Author Response

We thank the referee for these comments. We removed opiniated words and explained in Table A the meaning of "more educated individuals".

Reviewer 2 Report

Authors aim to investigate the association between deductible and prevention behaviour based on the evidence from the Swiss health system. The paper presents several developed models, but it lacks to elaborate on the theoretical and practical contributions convincingly. A literature review is also underdeveloped, and in terms of methodology, the validity of the statistical analysis is not sufficiently demonstrated. However, I believe that the paper could be improved. Therefore, here are my suggestions.

MAIN COMMENTS:

1. SCIENTIFIC CONTRIBUTION - Authors should add the section about the scientific contribution in the introduction, as well as in the conclusion part of the paper, with the structured comparison of the current research with previous research. The text can be one paragraph long, but it should contain the most important studies. It is not sufficient to analyze the new settings (Swiss health care system), but authors should elaborate on how their methodology contributes and builds on other research, and how it could be useful in practice.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW – New chapter should be added in which authors should present other approaches that investigate the same or similar topic.
3. METHODOLOGY
1. The paper would be much easier to follow if Table with the variables that are currently in the Appendix is moved to the methodology section.
2. The paper present numerous regression analysis. Therefore, the section that elaborates statistical analysis should be expanded. A good approach would be to present the statistical analysis in steps: e.g. Step 1, Step 2, and so on. After that, it would be good to refer to these steps in the title of subchapters. Therefore, it would be easier to follow the elaborate analysis that has been conducted.
3. The validity of the models should be elaborated in new subchapter in the methodology chapter.
4. DISCUSSION - The paper must be fully developed - includes discussion, contribution, implication and limitations. I would like to see a well-developed discussion (minimum two pages) comparing and contrasting solution/results presented in the work with existing work and then a subsection of it presenting contributions to theory/knowledge/literature (at least one to two paragraphs) and followed by a subsection on Implications for practice (at least one page). In these paragraphs, authors should compare their research approach with previous research, citing references of others' research. 
5. CONCLUSION - Please, form the conclusion in the following manner: (i) First paragraph - summary of research and conclusion - e.g. In this paper... ; (ii) Second paragraph - comparison with previous research; (iii) Third paragraph - short description of practical implications; (iv) Fourth paragraph - summary of paper limitations and further implications.

MINOR COMMENTS:

1. The abstract should be rewritten. Please, form the abstract in the following manner. First, describe the background of the research (1-2 sentences). Second, describe the goals of the research (1-2 sentences). Third, describe briefly (1-2 sentences) the methodology used. Fourth, describe results and the conclusion of the research in 3-4 sentences.
2. A conclusion section must have a subsection on limitations and future research directions (one to two pages).
3. The overall document should be checked for grammar, syntax and typos errors. Based on the above comments, I strongly believe that the authors will improve the quality of their manuscript given that they will make a detailed revision of the manuscript based on the provided comments.

Author Response

Please see attachment

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Dear authors, congratulations on your work, your paper has been substantially improved. 

However, the scientific and practical contributions in the conclusion and introduction are still underdeveloped. Please, expand your elaboration to at least half a page, and support it with the other references, and clearly elaborate on how you build your work on previous research. 

Besides, future research directions should be better elaborated, in a new paragraph of at least 10 lines. 

Author Response

We thank the reviewer for these additional comments. We have reworked both the introduction and conclusion so as to better explain the scientific and practical contributions of our work, and how it builds on previous research. Future research directions have been further discussed in the conclusion. The main changes in the introduction and conclusion have been highlighted in red.