IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/socmed/v16y1982i7p811-824.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Professional uncertainty and the problem of supplier-induced demand

Author

Listed:
  • Wennberg, John E.
  • Barnes, Benjamin A.
  • Zubkoff, Michael

Abstract

This paper discusses the puzzling problem of large differences in per capita use of certain common surgical procedures among neighboring populations, which by all available measures are quite similar in need for and access to services. The evidence reviewed here supports the hypothesis that variations occur to a large extent because of differences among physicians in their evaluation of patients (diagnosis) or in their belief in the value of the procedures for meeting patient needs (therapy). This hypothesis, which we call the professional uncertainty hypothesis, is germane to current controversies concerning the nature and extent of supplier influence on the demand for medical services. It is also important because of its implications for health regulatory policy. Our plan is to (1) review the relevance of the hypotheses for the supplier-induced demand controversy; (2) review the epidemiologic evidence on the nature and causes of variation; (3) examine patterns of use of common surgical procedures to illustrate the importance of supplier influence on utilization; and (4) consider some of the implications of the professional uncertainty hypotheses for public policy.

Suggested Citation

  • Wennberg, John E. & Barnes, Benjamin A. & Zubkoff, Michael, 1982. "Professional uncertainty and the problem of supplier-induced demand," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 16(7), pages 811-824, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:7:p:811-824
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0277-9536(82)90234-9
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:socmed:v:16:y:1982:i:7:p:811-824. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/315/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.