Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 1/2013

01-02-2013 | Original Research Article

Lessons from Game Theory about Healthcare System Price Inflation

Evidence from a Community-Level Case Study

Authors: Mark D. Agee, Zane Gates

Published in: Applied Health Economics and Health Policy | Issue 1/2013

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Game theory is useful for identifying conditions under which individual stakeholders in a collective action problem interact in ways that are more cooperative and in the best interest of the collective. The literature applying game theory to healthcare markets predicts that when providers set prices for services autonomously and in a noncooperative fashion, the market will be susceptible to ongoing price inflation.

Objectives

We compare the traditional fee-for-service pricing framework with an alternative framework involving modified doctor, hospital and insurer pricing and incentive strategies. While the fee-for-service framework generally allows providers to set prices autonomously, the alternative framework constrains providers to interact more cooperatively.

Methods

We use community-level provider and insurer data to compare provider and insurer costs and patient wellness under the traditional and modified pricing frameworks. The alternative pricing framework assumes (i) providers agree to manage all outpatient claims; (ii) the insurer agrees to manage all inpatient clams; and (iii) insurance premiums are tied to patients’ healthy behaviours.

Results and Conclusions

Consistent with game theory predictions, the more cooperative alternative pricing framework benefits all parties by producing substantially lower administrative costs along with higher profit margins for the providers and the insurer. With insurance premiums tied to consumers’ risk-reducing behaviours, the cost of insurance likewise decreases for both the consumer and the insurer.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Auerbach DI, Kellermann AL. A decade of healthcare cost growth has wiped out real income gains for an average U.S. family. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1630–6.CrossRef Auerbach DI, Kellermann AL. A decade of healthcare cost growth has wiped out real income gains for an average U.S. family. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1630–6.CrossRef
2.
go back to reference Gaynor M, Haas-Wilson D, Vogt W. Are invisible hands good hands? Moral hazard, competition, and the second-best in healthcare markets. J Polit Econ. 2000;108:992–1005.CrossRef Gaynor M, Haas-Wilson D, Vogt W. Are invisible hands good hands? Moral hazard, competition, and the second-best in healthcare markets. J Polit Econ. 2000;108:992–1005.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Zeckhauser R. Medical insurance: a case study of the tradeoff between risk spreading and appropriate incentives. J Econ Theory. 1970;2:10–26.CrossRef Zeckhauser R. Medical insurance: a case study of the tradeoff between risk spreading and appropriate incentives. J Econ Theory. 1970;2:10–26.CrossRef
4.
go back to reference Laugesen MJ, Glied SA. Higher fees paid to U.S. physicians drive higher spending for physician services compared to other countries. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1647–56.CrossRef Laugesen MJ, Glied SA. Higher fees paid to U.S. physicians drive higher spending for physician services compared to other countries. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1647–56.CrossRef
5.
go back to reference Gruber J. Covering the uninsured in the United States. J Econ Lit. 2008;46(3):571–606.CrossRef Gruber J. Covering the uninsured in the United States. J Econ Lit. 2008;46(3):571–606.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Thorpe KE, Yang Z. Enrolling people with prediabetes ages 60–64 in a proven weight loss program could save Medicare $7 billion or more. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1673–9.CrossRef Thorpe KE, Yang Z. Enrolling people with prediabetes ages 60–64 in a proven weight loss program could save Medicare $7 billion or more. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1673–9.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Roehrig CS, Rousseau DM. The growth in cost per case explains far more of U.S. health spending increases than rising disease prevalence. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1657–63.CrossRef Roehrig CS, Rousseau DM. The growth in cost per case explains far more of U.S. health spending increases than rising disease prevalence. Health Affair. 2011;30(9):1657–63.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Thomas LC. Games, theory and applications. New York (NY): Wiley; 1984. Thomas LC. Games, theory and applications. New York (NY): Wiley; 1984.
10.
go back to reference Feldstein MS. The rising price of physicians’ services. Rev Econ Stat. 1970;52:121–33.CrossRef Feldstein MS. The rising price of physicians’ services. Rev Econ Stat. 1970;52:121–33.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Chiu WH. Health insurance and the welfare of healthcare consumers. J Public Econ. 1997;64:125–33.CrossRef Chiu WH. Health insurance and the welfare of healthcare consumers. J Public Econ. 1997;64:125–33.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Vaithianathan R. Will subsidizing private health insurance help the public health system? Econ Rec. 2002;78(242):277–83.CrossRef Vaithianathan R. Will subsidizing private health insurance help the public health system? Econ Rec. 2002;78(242):277–83.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Vaithianathan R. Health insurance and imperfect competition in the healthcare market. J Health Econ. 2006;25:1193–202.PubMedCrossRef Vaithianathan R. Health insurance and imperfect competition in the healthcare market. J Health Econ. 2006;25:1193–202.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Damianov DS, Pagan JA. Health insurance coverage, income distribution and healthcare quality in local healthcare markets [mimeo]. Edinburg (TX): University of Texas, Pan American, Department of Economics and Finance; 2010. Damianov DS, Pagan JA. Health insurance coverage, income distribution and healthcare quality in local healthcare markets [mimeo]. Edinburg (TX): University of Texas, Pan American, Department of Economics and Finance; 2010.
15.
go back to reference Wright DJ. Insurance and monopoly power in a mixed private/public hospital system. Econ Rec. 2006;82(259):460–8.CrossRef Wright DJ. Insurance and monopoly power in a mixed private/public hospital system. Econ Rec. 2006;82(259):460–8.CrossRef
16.
go back to reference Tirole J. The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1990. Tirole J. The theory of industrial organization. Cambridge (MA): MIT Press; 1990.
22.
go back to reference Hing E, Burt CW. Characteristics of office-based physicians and their practices: United States. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2007;13(164):1–34. Hing E, Burt CW. Characteristics of office-based physicians and their practices: United States. Hyattsville (MD): National Center for Health Statistics, 2007;13(164):1–34.
23.
go back to reference Hing E, Cherry DK, Woodwell DA. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2004 summary. Adv Data. 2006;374:1–33.PubMed Hing E, Cherry DK, Woodwell DA. National ambulatory medical care survey: 2004 summary. Adv Data. 2006;374:1–33.PubMed
25.
go back to reference Cox T. Legal and ethical implications of healthcare provider insurance risk assumption. JONAS Healthcare Law Ethics Regul. 2010;12(4):106–16.CrossRef Cox T. Legal and ethical implications of healthcare provider insurance risk assumption. JONAS Healthcare Law Ethics Regul. 2010;12(4):106–16.CrossRef
26.
go back to reference Cox T. Exposing the true risks of capitation financed healthcare. J Healthcare Risk Manag. 2011;30:34–41.CrossRef Cox T. Exposing the true risks of capitation financed healthcare. J Healthcare Risk Manag. 2011;30:34–41.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Miller HD. From volume to value: better ways to pay for healthcare. Health Affair. 2009;28(5):1418–28.CrossRef Miller HD. From volume to value: better ways to pay for healthcare. Health Affair. 2009;28(5):1418–28.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Jensen E, Mendonca L. Why America spends more on health care. Washington (DC): National Institute for Health Care Management, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://www.nihcm.org [Accessed 2012 May 25]. Jensen E, Mendonca L. Why America spends more on health care. Washington (DC): National Institute for Health Care Management, 2009 [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​nihcm.​org [Accessed 2012 May 25].
29.
go back to reference Terry K. Has capitation reached its high-water mark? Medical Econ. 2001;4:32. Terry K. Has capitation reached its high-water mark? Medical Econ. 2001;4:32.
30.
go back to reference Reeder G. Wellness-based healthcare: economic incentives and benefit design. Am Health Drug Benefits 2010; 3(2, Suppl 6):S98–S10. Reeder G. Wellness-based healthcare: economic incentives and benefit design. Am Health Drug Benefits 2010; 3(2, Suppl 6):S98–S10.
Metadata
Title
Lessons from Game Theory about Healthcare System Price Inflation
Evidence from a Community-Level Case Study
Authors
Mark D. Agee
Zane Gates
Publication date
01-02-2013
Publisher
Springer International Publishing AG
Published in
Applied Health Economics and Health Policy / Issue 1/2013
Print ISSN: 1175-5652
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1896
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-012-0003-z

Other articles of this Issue 1/2013

Applied Health Economics and Health Policy 1/2013 Go to the issue