IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/iuk/wpaper/2013-03.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Physician Overtreatment and Undertreatment with Partial Delegation

Author

Listed:
  • Dmitry Lubensky

    (Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, Indiana University Kelley School of Business)

  • Eric Schmidbauer

    (Department of Business Economics and Public Policy, Indiana University Kelley School of Business)

Abstract

The physician induced demand literature finds that doctors tend to overtreat patients for financial gain. We analyze this phenomenon when patients are rationally skeptical of doctor's motives and can reject a proposed treatment. We find the classic physician induced demand approach understates patient's welfare loss: treatment on average is excessive but also less medically appropriate, and the latter effect may dominate. Inappropriate treatment arises from the doctor's strategic misdiagnosis to forestall rejection, but this problem can be attenuated by insurance which better aligns incentives and improves communication. We resolve an open question in the partial delegation literature by showing that a generalization of the Krishna and Morgan (2001) equilibrium is the most informative equilibrium that survives the intuitive criterion in a setting that nests both our and their model.

Suggested Citation

  • Dmitry Lubensky & Eric Schmidbauer, 2013. "Physician Overtreatment and Undertreatment with Partial Delegation," Working Papers 2013-03, Indiana University, Kelley School of Business, Department of Business Economics and Public Policy.
    • Handle: RePEc:iuk:wpaper:2013-03
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://kelley.iu.edu/riharbau/RePEc/iuk/wpaper/bepp2013-03-lubensky-schmidbauer.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Carolyn Pitchik & Andrew Schotter, 1993. "Information Transmission in Regulated Markets," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 26(4), pages 815-829, November.
    2. Christel E. van Dijk & Bernard van den Berg & Robert A. Verheij & Peter Spreeuwenberg & Peter P. Groenewegen & Dinny H. de Bakker, 2013. "Moral Hazard And Supplier‐Induced Demand: Empirical Evidence In General Practice," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 22(3), pages 340-352, March.
    3. Robert G. Evans, 1974. "Supplier-Induced Demand: Some Empirical Evidence and Implications," International Economic Association Series, in: Mark Perlman (ed.), The Economics of Health and Medical Care, chapter 10, pages 162-173, Palgrave Macmillan.
    4. Toshiaki Iizuka, 2007. "Experts' agency problems: evidence from the prescription drug market in Japan," RAND Journal of Economics, RAND Corporation, vol. 38(3), pages 844-862, September.
    5. Diamond, Peter A., 1971. "A model of price adjustment," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 3(2), pages 156-168, June.
    6. Kris De Jaegher & Marc Jegers, 2001. "The physician–patient relationship as a game of strategic information transmission," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 10(7), pages 651-668, October.
    7. Rochaix, Lise, 1989. "Information asymmetry and search in the market for physicians' services," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 53-84, March.
    8. Gilligan, Thomas W & Krehbiel, Keith, 1987. "Collective Decisionmaking and Standing Committees: An Informational Rationale for Restrictive Amendment Procedures," The Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 3(2), pages 287-335, Fall.
    9. Krishna, Vijay, 2001. "Asymmetric Information and Legislative Rules: Some Amendments," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(2), pages 435-452, June.
    10. Gruber, Jon & Kim, John & Mayzlin, Dina, 1999. "Physician fees and procedure intensity: the case of cesarean delivery," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(4), pages 473-490, August.
    11. Dranove, David, 1988. "Demand Inducement and the Physician/Patient Relationship," Economic Inquiry, Western Economic Association International, vol. 26(2), pages 281-298, April.
    12. Anthony M. Marino, 2007. "Delegation versus Veto in Organizational Games of Strategic Communication," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 9(6), pages 979-992, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lubensky, Dmitry & Schmidbauer, Eric, 2018. "Equilibrium informativeness in veto games," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 109(C), pages 104-125.
    2. Eric Schmidbauer & Dmitry Lubensky, 2016. "Equilibrium Informativeness in Veto-Based Delegation," Working Papers 2016-03, University of Central Florida, Department of Economics.
    3. Dominik Erharter, 2012. "Credence goods markets, distributional preferences and the role of institutions," Working Papers 2012-11, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, Universität Innsbruck.
    4. K.J.M. De Jaegher, 2012. "The value of private information in the physician-patient relationship: a gametheoretic account," Working Papers 12-23, Utrecht School of Economics.
    5. Blomqvist, Ake & Leger, Pierre Thomas, 2005. "Information asymmetry, insurance, and the decision to hospitalize," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(4), pages 775-793, July.
    6. Takashi Shimizu, 2017. "Cheap talk with an exit option: a model of exit and voice," International Journal of Game Theory, Springer;Game Theory Society, vol. 46(4), pages 1071-1088, November.
    7. Rosella LEVAGGI & Lise ROCHAIX, 2007. "Exit, Choice Or Loyalty: Patient Driven Competition In Primary Care," Annals of Public and Cooperative Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 78(4), pages 501-535, December.
    8. Ben Greiner & Le Zhang & Chengxiang Tang, 2017. "Separation of prescription and treatment in health care markets: A laboratory experiment," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(S3), pages 21-35, December.
    9. Schmidbauer, Eric, 2019. "Budget selection when agents compete," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 158(C), pages 255-268.
    10. Éric Delattre & Brigitte Dormont, 2000. "Induction de la demande de soins par les médecins libéraux français. Étude micro-économétrique sur données de panel," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 142(1), pages 137-161.
    11. Bin Xie & David M. Dilts & Mikhael Shor, 2006. "The physician–patient relationship: the impact of patient‐obtained medical information," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(8), pages 813-833, August.
    12. Barigozzi, Francesca & Levaggi, Rosella, 2008. "Emotions in physician agency," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 88(1), pages 1-14, October.
    13. Mylovanov, Tymofiy, 2008. "Veto-based delegation," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 138(1), pages 297-307, January.
    14. Lise Rochaix, 1997. "Asymétries d'information et incertitude en santé : les apports de la théorie des contrats," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 129(3), pages 11-24.
    15. De Jaegher, Kris & Jegers, Marc, 2000. "A model of physician behaviour with demand inducement," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(2), pages 231-258, March.
    16. Erin M. Johnson & M. Marit Rehavi, 2016. "Physicians Treating Physicians: Information and Incentives in Childbirth," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 8(1), pages 115-141, February.
    17. E. Delattre & B. Dormont, 2000. "Testing for supplier-induced demand behavior : A panel data study on French physicians," THEMA Working Papers 2000-42, THEMA (THéorie Economique, Modélisation et Applications), Université de Cergy-Pontoise.
    18. Lise Rochaix & Stéphane Jacobzone, 1997. "L'hypothèse de demande induite : un bilan économique," Économie et Prévision, Programme National Persée, vol. 129(3), pages 25-36.
    19. Kris De Jaegher, 2019. "Strategic framing to influence clients’ risky decisions," Theory and Decision, Springer, vol. 86(3), pages 437-462, May.
    20. F. Barigozzi & R. Levaggi, 2005. "New Developments in Physician Agency: the Role of Patient Information," Working Papers 550, Dipartimento Scienze Economiche, Universita' di Bologna.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    physician induced demand; over-utilization; non-compliance; partial delegation; cheap talk;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • L0 - Industrial Organization - - General
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:iuk:wpaper:2013-03. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with 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: Rick Harbaugh (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpiubus.html .

    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.