Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2021 May;30(5):951-971.
doi: 10.1002/hec.4232. Epub 2021 Feb 15.

Monitoring institutions in healthcare markets: Experimental evidence

Affiliations

Monitoring institutions in healthcare markets: Experimental evidence

Silvia Angerer et al. Health Econ. 2021 May.

Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of monitoring institutions on market outcomes in health care. Healthcare markets are characterized by asymmetric information. Physicians have an information advantage over patients with respect to appropriate treatments, which they may exploit through over- or under-provision or by overcharging. We introduce two types of costly monitoring: endogenous and exogenous monitoring. When monitoring detects misbehavior, physicians have to pay a fine. Endogenous monitoring can be requested by patients, while exogenous monitoring is performed randomly by a third party. We present a toy model that enables us to derive hypotheses and test them in a laboratory experiment. Our results show that introducing endogenous monitoring reduces the level of undertreatment and overcharging. Even under high monitoring costs, the threat of patient monitoring is sufficient to discipline physicians. Exogenous monitoring also reduces undertreatment and overcharging when performed sufficiently frequently. Market efficiency increases when endogenous monitoring is introduced and when exogenous monitoring is implemented with sufficient frequency. Our results suggest that monitoring may be a feasible instrument to improve outcomes in healthcare markets.

Keywords: credence goods; laboratory experiment; monitoring; overcharging; overtreatment; physician behavior; undertreatment.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

REFERENCES
    1. Akerlof, G. A. (1970). The market for "Lemons": Quality uncertainty and the market mechanism. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 84(3), 488-500. https://doi.org/10.2307/1879431
    1. Angerer, S. , Glätzle-Rüetzler, D. , & Waibel, C. (2020). Health care as a credence good: Experimental evidence on framing and subject pool effects. Unpublished Manuscript.
    1. Balafoutas, L. , Beck, A. , Kerschbamer, R. , & Sutter, M. (2013). What drives taxi drivers? A field experiment on fraud in a market for credence goods. The Review of Economic Studies, 80(3), 876-891. https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rds049
    1. Balafoutas, L. , Kerschbamer, R. , & Sutter, M. (2017). Second-degree moral hazard in A real-world credence goods market. Economic Journal, 127(599), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecoj.12260
    1. Belot, M. , & Schröder, M. (2016). The spillover effects of monitoring: A field experiment. Management Science, 62(1), 37-45. https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2014.2089

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources