IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/jeborg/v142y2017icp396-403.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Payment scheme self-selection in the credence goods market: An experimental study

Author

Listed:
  • Bejarano, Hernán
  • Green, Ellen P.
  • Rassenti, Stephen

Abstract

Given heterogeneity in expert behavior across payment schemes in credence goods markets, it is important to understand the consequences of payment scheme selection on market outcomes. To study the effect that expert payment selection has on customer well-being, we recruited subjects to participate in a real-effort credence goods laboratory game. Experts were either randomly assigned or faced with the choice of three payment schemes: fee-for-service, salary, and capitation. We found that when experts selected fee-for-service payment customers experience significantly worse outcomes than when experts were randomly assigned to fee-for-service. In contrast, whether experts selected or were randomly assigned to salary payment, customer outcomes did not change.

Suggested Citation

  • Bejarano, Hernán & Green, Ellen P. & Rassenti, Stephen, 2017. "Payment scheme self-selection in the credence goods market: An experimental study," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 142(C), pages 396-403.
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:jeborg:v:142:y:2017:i:c:p:396-403
    DOI: 10.1016/j.jebo.2017.08.004
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167268117302287
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Wiesen, Daniel, 2016. "Using artefactual field and lab experiments to investigate how fee-for-service and capitation affect medical service provision," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 131(PB), pages 17-23.
    2. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Selten, Reinhard & Wiesen, Daniel, 2011. "How payment systems affect physicians' provision behaviour--An experimental investigation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 637-646, July.
    3. Green, Ellen P., 2014. "Payment systems in the healthcare industry: An experimental study of physician incentives," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 106(C), pages 367-378.
    4. repec:zbw:rwirep:0413 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Brice Corgnet & Roberto Hernán-González & Eric Schniter, 2015. "Why real leisure really matters: incentive effects on real effort in the laboratory," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 18(2), pages 284-301, June.
    6. Winand Emons, 1997. "Credence Goods and Fraudelent Experts," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 28(1), pages 107-119, Spring.
    7. Matsaganis, Manos & Glennerster, Howard, 1994. "The threat of 'cream skimming' in the post-reform NHS," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 31-60, March.
    8. Thomas Dohmen & Armin Falk, 2011. "Performance Pay and Multidimensional Sorting: Productivity, Preferences, and Gender," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(2), pages 556-590, April.
    9. Sorensen, Rune J. & Grytten, Jostein, 2003. "Service production and contract choice in primary physician services," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 66(1), pages 73-93, October.
    10. Mimra, Wanda & Rasch, Alexander & Waibel, Christian, 2016. "Price competition and reputation in credence goods markets: Experimental evidence," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 337-352.
    11. Martin Gaynor & Paul Gertler, 1995. "Moral Hazard and Risk Spreading in Partnerships," RAND Journal of Economics, The RAND Corporation, vol. 26(4), pages 591-613, Winter.
    12. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies, Nadja & Wiesen, Daniel, 2013. "How Effective are Pay-for-Performance Incentives for Physicians? – A Laboratory Experiment," Ruhr Economic Papers 413, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    13. Edward P. Lazear, 2000. "Performance Pay and Productivity," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1346-1361, December.
    14. Devlin, Rose Anne & Sarma, Sisira, 2008. "Do physician remuneration schemes matter? The case of Canadian family physicians," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 1168-1181, September.
    15. Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Selten, Reinhard & Wiesen, Daniel, 2011. "How payment systems affect physicians' provision behaviour--An experimental investigation," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 637-646, July.
    16. Croxson, B. & Propper, C. & Perkins, A., 2001. "Do doctors respond to financial incentives? UK family doctors and the GP fundholder scheme," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(2), pages 375-398, February.
    17. Macpherson, David A. & Prasad, Kislaya & Salmon, Timothy C., 2014. "Deferred compensation vs. efficiency wages: An experimental test of effort provision and self-selection," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 102(C), pages 90-107.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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:jeborg:v:142:y:2017:i:c:p:396-403. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Dana Niculescu). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/jebo .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.