Future DevelopmentsWhat could be effective strategies of the Dutch government to increase switching behavior, increasing market competition among insurance providers? First, and in line with Roos and Schut [2], the government could remove the links between basic and supplementary insurance packages. Since there is a mandatory acceptance for basic insurance, this would stimulate consumers to consider switching their basic insurance alone. Second, the Dutch government could re-introduce a mandatory acceptance for the supplementary insurance. Roos and Schut [2] suggest to better communicate underwriting practices and policy acceptance. However, since there seems to be a low rejection rate anyway, the best solution in our view is to have mandatory acceptance for both the basic insurance and supplementary insurance, which would strongly improve the potential mobility of Dutch consumers. Finally, communication could be improved. As our surveys show, even the highly educated people in the Netherlands have problems finding the right information to compare insurance packages. A “virtual guardian angel” model as suggested by Poiesz & Van Raaij [22] might help consumers in improving their decision making.This study, naturally, is subject to several limitations. First, our samples are relatively small. Second, our data is biased towards highly educated people. As mentioned before, however, we expect results to be even worse among lower educated people. Finally, there might have been an influence of the global credit crunch, which we did not include in our measurement. It will be interesting to follow the future developments of the insurance market. Furthermore, in-depth exploration is necessary of the possibility of a “virtual guardian angel” model as well as of the effects of a mandatory acceptance for supplementary insurances on switching behavior