As discussed above, systems based on social insurance provide better user choice and responsiveness than public-integrated systems, but have more difficulty in containing costs. Co-payments would presumably need to be set at a fairly high level to contain demand, with potential adverse effects on equity. Administrative costs might rise, as they are usually higher in insurance-based systems than in public-integrated models, even if KELA has so far been able to contain them to a reasonable level of 3% of total expenditure.