Part,  Chapter, Paragraph

  1    I,     2.  6        |         countries but Denmark and the Netherlands, and the strongest expected
  2    I,     2. 10.  4    |       Ziekenhuizen in Maastricht, the Netherlands, resulted in a reduction
  3    I,     3.  1        |           Cyprus, Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal and the Slovak
  4    I,     3.  1        |               and 1994 (1.85), in the Netherlands between 1964 (3.17) and
  5    I,     3.  1        |               rise. An example is the Netherlands, where in the 1970s the
  6    I,     3.  1        |              decades, at least in the Netherlands (Beets et al, 2001).~ ~The
  7    I,     3.  1        |               12-13% in Italy and the Netherlands; in Ireland and Portugal
  8    I,     3.  1        |             about 18% in Finland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,
  9    I,     3.  2        |                Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, the Slovak
 10    I,     3.  2        |               10 and 15%, France, the Netherlands and the UK between 5 and
 11    I,     3.  2        |               Finland, France and the Netherlands the rates of natural population
 12    I,     3.  2        |           Ireland, Luxembourg and the Netherlands (still) have a high natural
 13    I,     3.  2        |          Poland ( 5%), Italy (3%) and Netherlands (10%) all have more than
 14    I,     3.  3        |          Luxembourg, Germany, and the Netherlands, while Cyprus, Ireland,
 15   II,     4.  1        |       disability, whilst Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom
 16   II,     4.  1        |          whilst Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal experienced
 17   II,     4.  1        |             for men and women and the Netherlands and Portugal showing expansion
 18   II,     4.  1        |              trends in Norway and the Netherlands diverged from the mid-1980s
 19   II,     5.  2.  2    |              Germany, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia) and
 20   II,     5.  2.  3(5) |         Belgium, Germany, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Austria, Slovenia.~
 21   II,     5.  3.  2    |          Catalunia), Switzerland, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
 22   II,     5.  3.  3    |              Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Switzerland).~- The basic
 23   II,     5.  3.  6    |         Austria, France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Switzerland and
 24   II,     5.  3.  6    |               Italy, Switzerland, the Netherlands and Spain); but was lower -
 25   II,     5.  3.  7    |              Yes~MALTA~Planning stage~NETHERLANDS~Yes (2004)~AUSTRIA~Yes (
 26   II,     5.  4.  1    |           France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, Sweden and the UK (
 27   II,     5.  4.  1    |               ranged from 1.6% in the Netherlands to 6.6 % in Italy. Hospitalisations
 28   II,     5.  4.  3    |        between 45% (Ireland) and 99% (Netherlands), with a median value of
 29   II,     5.  4.  3    |              of 59%, corresponding to Netherlands and France. Apart from children
 30   II,     5.  4.  3    |        between 44% (Ireland) and 99% (Netherlands), with a median value of
 31   II,     5.  4.  3    |        between 45% (Ireland) and 99% (Netherlands), with a median value of
 32   II,     5.  4.  3    |            from 25% (Finland) to 97% (Netherlands), with a median of 64.5%.
 33   II,     5.  4.  3    |        between 12% (Ireland) and 84% (Netherlands). The median is 57%. Only
 34   II,     5.  4.  3    |        between 42% (Finland) and 99% (Netherlands), with a median of 92%,
 35   II,     5.  4.  3    |            with figures between 0.1% (Netherlands, Sweden) and 4% (Cyprus).
 36   II,     5.  4.  4    |            Europe ranges between 12% (Netherlands) and 25% (UK), with a median
 37   II,     5.  5.  1    |           France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Spain.~ ~Lifetime prevalence
 38   II,     5.  5.  1    |           Portugal, Rumania, Austria, Netherlands and Poland) young people
 39   II,     5.  5.  1    |           Denmark, Great Britain, and Netherlands), the oldest age range (
 40   II,     5.  5.  2    |           Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden
 41   II,     5.  5.  2    |               2007). Switzerland, the Netherlands and France have signed but
 42   II,     5.  5.  3    |               and Wales, Switzerland, Netherlands) emphasise the upward trend
 43   II,     5.  5.  3    |              Ireland, USA, Macedonia, Netherlands, Italy, Croatia, Malta,
 44   II,     5.  5.  3    |            Luxembourg, Macedonia, The Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Romania,
 45   II,     5.  5.  3    |               X~ ~Macedonia~ ~X~ ~The Netherlands~ ~X~Several centres and
 46   II,     5.  5.  3    |               and Wales, Switzerland, Netherlands) emphasise the upward trend
 47   II,     5.  5.  3    |      available only from Finland, the Netherlands and the UK. The prevalence
 48   II,     5.  5.  3    |          survey Finland 14.3%~NEMESIS Netherlands 53.3%~ONS United Kingdom
 49   II,     5.  5.  3    |           France, Germany, Italy, The Netherlands, Spain and Ukraine (WHO,
 50   II,     5.  5.  3    |              from Italy, Denmark, the Netherlands, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
 51   II,     5.  5.  3    |        countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands, and Denmark) and the implementation
 52   II,     5.  5.  3    |           five countries: Sweden, The Netherlands, England, France and Denmark.
 53   II,     5.  5.  3    |            1996/Bronson, 1970 (*)~The Netherlands~Adults and elderly~Door-to-door
 54   II,     5.  5.  3    |             months -~ II - Prohibited~Netherlands I 12 months First unprovoked
 55   II,     5.  5.  3    |               rates were found in the Netherlands, Belgium, Slovenia, Switzerland
 56   II,     5.  5.  3    |            RR-MS ranged from 24% (The Netherlands) to 88% (Greece) of prevalent
 57   II,     5.  5.  3    |              4% (Austria) to 35% (The Netherlands).~ ~Table 5.5.3.5.5. Proportion
 58   II,     5.  5.  3    |                 Austria) and 39% (The Netherlands) for severe MS (EDSS 7-9.
 59   II,     5.  5.  3    |            for Denmark, Scotland, The Netherlands, Switzerland, Germany, Austria
 60   II,     5.  5.  3    |            province of Groningen, The Netherlands. In: Firnhaber W, Lauer
 61   II,     5.  6.  3    |         diseases per age group in the Netherlands~ ~Figure 5.6.2.b Prevalence
 62   II,     5.  6.  3    |         diseases per age group in the Netherlands (different group of diseases)~ ~
 63   II,     5.  6.  3    |         Medical Care, 2001).~ ~In the Netherlands, musculoskeletal conditions
 64   II,     5.  6.  3    |            but a large study from the Netherlands reported an incidence of
 65   II,     5.  6.  4    |               healthcare costs in the Netherlands (Meerding, 1998). The total
 66   II,     5.  6.  6    |   determinants of healthcare costs in Netherlands: cost of illness study.
 67   II,     5.  7.  2    |                Greece, Sweden and The Netherlands) were able to provide complete
 68   II,     5.  7.  2    |            Greece, Spain, Sweden, The Netherlands, UK) plus Iceland and Norway.~ ~ ~ ~
 69   II,     5.  7.  3    |             based studies in Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Iceland,
 70   II,     5.  7.  3    |               7..1 and 5.7..2) in The Netherlands (De Zeeuw et al, 2005) and
 71   II,     5.  7.  3    |             based studies in Belgium, Netherlands, Spain, Italy, Iceland,
 72   II,     5.  7.  5    |       investigators in Groningen (The Netherlands) and a cost-effectiveness
 73   II,     5.  7.  5    |              defined limits.~· In The Netherlands, quality assurance is a
 74   II,     5.  7.  7    |           Informatics, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, June 2007.~Esbjorner E,
 75   II,     5.  7.  7    |        end-stage renal failure in The Netherlands: hope for the future? Kidney
 76   II,     5.  8.  3    |          population) reported for the Netherlands was 6.5. for mild, 13.3
 77   II,     5.  8.  3    |        patients) was performed in the Netherlands (Vermeeren et al, 2006).
 78   II,     5.  8.  3    |               Spain, USA, Sweden, The Netherlands, Italy) were compared (Chapman
 79   II,     5.  8.  4    |                involving US, Finland, Netherlands, Italy, Greece, Japan and
 80   II,     5.  8.  4    |             Italy, Norway, China, the Netherlands and Spain, it was concluded
 81   II,     5.  9.  3    |                Spain, United Kingdom, Netherlands and Germany). The epidemiological
 82   II,     5.  9.  3    |     decreasing over time, but for the Netherlands, no decrease in mortality
 83   II,     5.  9.  4    |          Italy, Norway, Spain, Swedem Netherlands, United Kingdom); The addition
 84   II,     5.  9.  4    |                 High~High~ND~–~ND~The Netherlands~ Bergen op Zoom~–~Low~Low~–~–~
 85   II,     5. 11.  7    |              atopic dermatitis in the Netherlands: an international comparison.
 86   II,     5. 12.  3    |         Ireland (3.4), Norway and the Netherlands (around 5.5). In the subsequent
 87   II,     5. 12.  3    |            2000-02, together with the Netherlands and Norway, whose rates
 88   II,     5. 14.  3    |              United Kingdom, 65.4% in Netherlands). These differences are
 89   II,     5. 14.  3    |                Finland (0.4%) and the Netherlands (0.3%) have the smallest
 90   II,     6.  3.  1    |           Also, a recent study in the Netherlands has estimated annual costs
 91   II,     6.  3.  1    |             study showed that for the Netherlands (population of 16 million)
 92   II,     6.  3.  2    |           Europe (Scandinavia and the Netherlands), and more serious in the
 93   II,     6.  3.  3    |             seen in the UK and in the Netherlands.~ ~ ~Figure 6.2. HIV cases
 94   II,     6.  3.  3    |         Germany, Greece, Hungary, the Netherlands, Slovenia), and IDU the
 95   II,     6.  3.  4    |           countries like Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and United Kingdom,
 96   II,     6.  3.  5    |          increase was observed in the Netherlands, Ireland and the UK. In
 97   II,     6.  3.  5    |      countries: Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. A dramatic
 98   II,     6.  3.  5    |               far was reported in the Netherlands (40.17 per 100 000), with
 99   II,     6.  3.  5    |           measles was observed in the Netherlands (19992000), Spain (2003),
100   II,     6.  3.  5    |               44 per 100 000) and the Netherlands (2.23 per 100 000) reporting
101   II,     6.  3.  5    |         unvaccinated community in the Netherlands. Polio eradication has implications
102   II,     6.  3.  6    |        countries, notably Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway had a very high
103   II,     6.  3.  6    |            each in Estonia and in the Netherlands make up the remainder of
104   II,     6.  3.  7    |            and 2003), one case in the Netherlands in 2000, also from Sierra
105   II,     7.  2.  6    |             regional), Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Malta, Portugal, Sweden
106   II,     7.  2.  6    |             Denmark, Ireland, Latvia, Netherlands, Malta, UK/Wales and Sweden –
107   II,     7.  3.  2    |              times higher than in the Netherlands, the country which has the
108   II,     7.  3.  2    |              the same level as in the Netherlands (Figure 7.1).~ ~Figure 7.
109   II,     8.  1.  2    |               apart from Germany, the Netherlands and the UK plus Estonia,
110   II,     8.  1.  3    |          exception of Belgium and the Netherlands, which provided support
111   II,     8.  2.  1    |              notable exception is the Netherlands, where GPs (primary care
112   II,     8.  2.  1    |               two universities in the Netherlands, for instance – have been
113   II,     8.  2.  1    |        primary care practices) in the Netherlands required more consultation
114   II,     8.  2.  2    |              Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Bulgaria,
115   II,     8.  2.  2    |              Finland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, United Kingdom, Bulgaria,
116   II,     9            |       especially high in Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,
117   II,     9            |           Ireland, and Lithuania. The Netherlands have the highest rates of
118   II,     9.  1.  1    |     prospective regional study in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod
119   II,     9.  1.  1    |     indigenous maternal deaths in The Netherlands. Bjog 2002;109(2):212-3.~ ~
120   II,     9.  1.  2    |          anomalies beyond this limit (Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Denmark).~ ~
121   II,     9.  1.  2    |              for example Germany, the Netherlands and Denmark had rates between
122   II,     9.  1.  2    |             level of education in the Netherlands. Community Genetics 2007;
123   II,     9.  2.  4    |       especially high in Denmark, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom,
124   II,     9.  2.  4    |           Ireland, and Lithuania. The Netherlands have the highest rates of
125   II,     9.  3.  1    |               also in Belgium and the Netherlands (Knapp, 2007).~ ~Women are
126   II,     9.  3.  1    |               of Denmark, Greece, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom are
127   II,     9.  3.  1    |       European Commission, 2003). The Netherlands report one of the lowest
128   II,     9.  3.  1    |                Hungary, Malta and the Netherlands, and a more significant
129   II,     9.  3.  2    |         Philibert et al, 2006) or the Netherlands (van Roosmalen et al, 2002).~ ~
130   II,     9.  3.  2    |        Denmark, Iceland, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Switzerland -
131   II,     9.  3.  2    |     prospective regional study in The Netherlands. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod
132   II,     9.  3.  2    |           into maternal deaths in The Netherlands 1983-1992. Eur J Obstet
133   II,     9.  3.  2    |     indigenous maternal deaths in The Netherlands. Bjog 2002;109(2):212-3.~ ~
134   II,     9.  3.  3    |             Great Britain, Italy, the Netherlands and Switzerland) have been
135   II,     9.  5.  3    |             highest prevalence in the Netherlands (33.5 per 100 000) and Latvia (
136   II,     9.  5.  3    |              in Poland (32.0) and the Netherlands (30.8 per 100.000). (WHO
137  III,    10.  2.  1    |             developed markets. In the Netherlands, for example, Euromonitor'
138  III,    10.  2.  1    |       Cosmetics and toiletries in the Netherlands. Oral hygiene in Netherlands.
139  III,    10.  2.  1    |          Netherlands. Oral hygiene in Netherlands. London, United Kingdom.~ ~
140  III,    10.  2.  1    |         Latvia, Lithuania, Malta, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,
141  III,    10.  2.  1    |            sufficiently active in the Netherlands and Germany to less than
142  III,    10.  2.  1    |             three countries (Belgium, Netherlands Sweden) (Bayingana et al,
143  III,    10.  2.  1    |   Enghardt-Barbieri, 2004; Statistics Netherlands, 2006). These three countries
144  III,    10.  2.  1    |          Kautiainen, 2005; Statistics Netherlands, 2006).~ ~The Pro Children
145  III,    10.  2.  1    |             Austria, 2007; Statistics Netherlands, 2007; Zaletel-Kragelj et
146  III,    10.  2.  1    |             not available~ ~ ~ ~ ~The Netherlands~Dutch National Food Consumption
147  III,    10.  2.  1    |             Italy, Spain, Greece, The Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Germany,
148  III,    10.  2.  1(24)|           Malta (Asciak et al, 2003), Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands,
149  III,    10.  2.  1(24)|               Netherlands (Statistics Netherlands, 2007), Romania (Statistical
150  III,    10.  2.  1    |             2004) and of 14.5% in the Netherlands (2-9 years old) (Statistics
151  III,    10.  2.  1    |              9 years old) (Statistics Netherlands, 2006) (Figure 10.2.1.7.
152  III,    10.  2.  1    |              9.4%: girls: 10.9%), the Netherlands (boys: 11.6%; girls: 8.6%)
153  III,    10.  2.  1    |          countries as for example the Netherlands, Belgium, Great Britain,
154  III,    10.  2.  1    |              and the Environment, The Netherlands, October 2006 [http://ec.
155  III,    10.  2.  1    |           October 2007).~ ~Statistics Netherlands (2006): Modulehealth and
156  III,    10.  2.  1    |       conditions. Heerlen, Statistics Netherlands.~ ~Statistics Netherlands (
157  III,    10.  2.  1    |             Netherlands.~ ~Statistics Netherlands (2007): Statline. Heerlen,
158  III,    10.  2.  1    |         Statline. Heerlen, Statistics Netherlands (in Dutch).~[h ] (database
159  III,    10.  2.  5    |             studies from Finland, the Netherlands and UK have linked low birth weight
160  III,    10.  3.  1    |             has estimated that in the Netherlands, exposure to radon in dwellings
161  III,    10.  3.  1    |   environmental disease burden in the Netherlands (based on Knol et al., 2005).
162  III,    10.  3.  1    |              burden of disease in the Netherlands, 1980-2020. Bilthoven: RIVM,
163  III,    10.  3.  2    |         Hungary to ca. 40 pg/g in the Netherlands. The decrease of concentrations
164  III,    10.  3.  2    |                Belgium, Norway or the Netherlands for the same period are
165  III,    10.  4.  2    |               2,900 samples~3.5% (the Netherlands) and~13% (import) involving~
166  III,    10.  4.  2    |         Current oral exposure in~ the Netherlands to PAHs, ~about 100-200
167  III,    10.  4.  2    |             of cancer per~year in the Netherlands~ ~ ~Research into conditions~
168  III,    10.  4.  2    |         intake of aflatoxin B1 in the~Netherlands is approx.~0.03 ng/kg body weight
169  III,    10.  4.  2    |                Episode in 2001 in the~Netherlands: star aniseed~species not
170  III,    10.  4.  2    |               en Waren Autoriteit~The Netherlands~Food Standards Agency~United
171  III,    10.  4.  2    |             diet and safe food in the Netherlands. [on-line publication available
172  III,    10.  5.  1    |             for below 10 percent (The Netherlands) to above 25% (Portugal,
173  III,    10.  5.  2    |              study showed that in the Netherlands, the urban population shows
174  III,    10.  5.  2    |             urbanization level in the Netherlands, which may result in much
175  III,    10.  5.  2    |               data available from the Netherlands compares the prevalence
176  III,    10.  5.  2    |             and rural citizens in the Netherlands~ ~For male residents, the
177  III,    10.  5.  2    |            rural male citizens in the Netherlands~ ~A rural health profile
178  III,    10.  5.  2    |                Italy, Luxembourg, The Netherlands, Sweden, United Kingdom~
179  III,    10.  5.  2    |          accessed on 12 April 2007)~ ~Netherlands Institute of Health Services
180  III,    10.  5.  2    |             Jouke van der Zee et al. (Netherlands Institute of Health Services
181  III,    10.  5.  2    |           variations in health in The Netherlands: does selective migration
182  III,    10.  5.  2    |            General Practitioner~NIVEL~Netherlands Institute of Health Services
183  III,    10.  5.  3    |              than 25% in Ireland, the Netherlands and the UK. Every second
184  III,    10.  5.  3    |              In Denmark, Estonia, the Netherlands, Austria, Portugal, Finland,
185  III,    10.  5.  3    |              Slovakia to 49.8% in the Netherlands.~· 164.8 million workers
186  III,    10.  5.  3    |             in Finland and 12% in the Netherlands to 3% in Cyprus, Estonia
187  III,    10.  5.  3    |          Germany, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium, the directives
188  III,    10.  5.  3    |         Sweden, Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, Germany and Belgium are
189  III,    10.  6.  1    |          Ireland, Spain, Denmark, the Netherlands and Sweden declared low
190  III,    10.  6.  1    |            girls, in Slovenia and the Netherlands, 92% of 13 year old girls,
191  III,    10.  6.  1    |               Nijhoff Publishers, the Netherlands, 1985.~ ~Kohb M, Künemund
192  III,    10.  6.  3    |             Denmark (1.9%) and in the Netherlands (1.4%). On average, 1.7%
193  III,    10.  6.  3    |              Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands reported higher than average
194   IV,    11.  1.  3    |            funds e.g. Germany and the Netherlands;~3) devolved tax funded
195   IV,    11.  1.  3    |       Cultural Planning Office of the Netherlands, 2004; The Conference Board
196   IV,    11.  1.  4    |          Finland, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and
197   IV,    11.  1.  4    |         Greece, Austria, Germany, the Netherlands for the probability of a
198   IV,    11.  1.  5    |               in Finland, Sweden, the Netherlands and Norway, with lowest
199   IV,    11.  1.  5    |           Finland, France, Spain, the Netherlands and the UK - others are
200   IV,    11.  1.  5    |               in prescriptions in the Netherlands, compared to 94.5% in Italy.
201   IV,    11.  1.  5    |             most significantly in the Netherlands (from 70% to 45%) and Denmark (
202   IV,    11.  1.  6    |              Salary.~Fee-for-service.~Netherlands~Fee-for-service if higher
203   IV,    11.  1.  6    |          Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain,
204   IV,    11.  1.  6    |          Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland and Spain) reveals
205   IV,    11.  1.  6    |               new system (e.g. in the Netherlands and Austria) (Schreyogg
206   IV,    11.  1.  6    |            costs (300 hospitals), the Netherlands chooses hospitals that are
207   IV,    11.  1.  6    |              Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands), with costs in Austria
208   IV,    11.  1.  6    |                 In spite of this, the Netherlands in 2006 generalized the
209   IV,    11.  1.  6    |              Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands and France are about 10%
210   IV,    11.  2.  1    |              seen in Malta (34%), the Netherlands (33%), Belgium (28%), Ireland (
211   IV,    11.  2.  1    |               Germany, Greece and the Netherlands, where a slight increase
212   IV,    11.  2.  2    |             and at local level in the Netherlands (Judge et al 2006). The
213   IV,    11.  2.  2    |               to 2% in 2005), and the Netherlands (from 3.5% to 4.7%) (OECD
214   IV,    11.  2.  2    |              in Italy, to 4.7% in the Netherlands and 3.9% in Finland. Spending
215   IV,    11.  3.  1    |            Slovakia, Slovenia and the Netherlands. A greater range of specialist
216   IV,    11.  3.  1    |             point of contact e.g. the Netherlands, while in others, patients
217   IV,    11.  3.  1    |             of nurses are seen in the Netherlands (1,454 nurses per 100,000
218   IV,    11.  3.  2    |          Finland, Iceland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland and Portugal (
219   IV,    11.  3.  2    | Czech Republic, Hungary, Iceland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal and Sweden (
220   IV,    11.  3.  2    |        effects (as in Germany and the Netherlands) or at a proportion lower
221   IV,    11.  3.  2    |              Switzerland, Sweden, the Netherlands, Italy, Portugal, Norway,
222   IV,    11.  3.  2    |        countries such as Belgium, the Netherlands and Sweden (Mossialos et
223   IV,    11.  3.  2    |       equivalent (e.g. in France, the Netherlands, Norway, Spain and the UK).
224   IV,    11.  3.  2    |                Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Portugal, the Uk and in
225   IV,    11.  5.  1    |        Germany, Austria, Belgium, The Netherlands, Luxembourg, Slovenia, and
226   IV,    11.  5.  2    |              Germany , Luxemburg, the Netherlands , Slovenia and Croatia : ~ ~
227   IV,    11.  6.  2    |              Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Macedonia, Poland, Romania,
228   IV,    11.  6.  2    |             e.g. France, Germany, the Netherlands) and also taxation (e.g.
229   IV,    11.  6.  2    |        financing was also seen in the Netherlands, which moved from a dual
230   IV,    11.  6.  2    |              Germany, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, and Switzerland (Saltman
231   IV,    11.  6.  2    |          Estonia, France, Latvia, the Netherlands, Poland and Romania, or
232   IV,    11.  6.  2    | Czech Republic, Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, and Slovakia risk adjustment
233   IV,    11.  6.  2    |           Health Insurance Law of the Netherlands also introduced significant
234   IV,    11.  6.  2    |                Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Spain and the UK) (Mossialos
235   IV,    11.  6.  2    |          available in Germany and the Netherlands (until 2006) for individuals
236   IV,    11.  6.  2    |             or, as in the case of the Netherlands, are excluded from) the
237   IV,    11.  6.  2    |              in Germany (40%) and the Netherlands (50%), mostly in the form
238   IV,    11.  6.  2    |               the 2006 reforms in the Netherlands), and France (57%) and Slovenia (
239   IV,    11.  6.  2    |                Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Sweden or the UK. In Austria,
240   IV,    11.  6.  3    |               in France, Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and the UK appears
241   IV,    11.  6.  3    |            private insurance like the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland and
242   IV,    11.  6.  3    |               not allowed - as in the Netherlands up to 2006 - or are not
243   IV,    11.  6.  3    |            systems in Germany and the Netherlands have been found to be regressive (
244   IV,    11.  6.  3    |          Denmark, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal and the UK (Wagstaff
245   IV,    11.  6.  4    |             Slovakia, Germany and the Netherlands). For example, redistribution
246   IV,    11.  6.  4    |               such as Germany and the Netherlands, and in systems with regional
247   IV,    11.  6.  4    |         Belgium, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands and Switzerland) in 2000
248   IV,    11.  6.  4    |        Finance~Ministry of Health~ ~ ~Netherlands~Ministry of Finance. Sickness
249   IV,    11.  6.  4    |                France in 2000 and the Netherlands in 2006 (Thomson, Foubister,
250   IV,    11.  6.  4    |             with the exception of the Netherlands (which uses a negative list
251   IV,    11.  6.  4    |              benefits package; in the Netherlands they also use negative list,
252   IV,    11.  6.  4    |             courts in Belgium and the Netherlands (Gibis et al, 2004). Unlike
253   IV,    11.  6.  4    |           some countries, such as the Netherlands and Denmark, require the
254   IV,    11.  6.  5    |               insurance reform in the Netherlands." Euro Health 12(2): 7-9.~ ~
255   IV,    11.  6.  5    |               Health Insurance in the Netherlands: the new health insurance
256   IV,    12.  1        |           referenda in France and the Netherlands put on hold any discussion
257   IV,    12.  5        |          disability, and Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden and the United Kingdom
258   IV,    12.  5        |          whilst Germany, Ireland, the Netherlands and Portugal experienced
259   IV,    12.  5        |             for men and women and the Netherlands and Portugal showing expansion
260   IV,    12.  8        |            Sweden (1995)~Spain (1986)~Netherlands (1957)~United Kingdom (1973)~ ~
261   IV,    13.Acr        |               to 2% in 2004), and the Netherlands (from 2.8% in 1990 to 5%
262   IV,    13.Acr        |              in Italy, to 4.9% in the Netherlands and 3.9% in Finland. However,
263   IV,    13.Acr        |         Austria, Finland, France, the Netherlands, Slovakia and Spain. It
264   IV,    13.  2.  3    |            for 4 % of DALYs.~ ~In the Netherlands, lost DALYs have been calculated
265   IV,    13.  2.  3    |           most common diseases in the Netherlands, including coronary heart
266   IV,    13.  2.  3    |             disease categories in the Netherlands.~ ~Source: Van Kreil et
267   IV,    13.  7.  2    |           followed by the UK, France, Netherlands, Belgium, Austria and Ireland,
268   IV,    13.  9        |             diet and safe food in the Netherlands. – RIVM-2006~ ~WHO (2003):
269  Key,   Ap5.  0.  0    |              nephropathy~nerve~nerves~Netherlands~neural~neuroblastoma~neurologists~