IDEAS home Printed from
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Are patient-regarding preferences stable?


  • Wang, Jian

    (Department of Health Management and Health Economics)

  • Iversen , Tor

    (Department of Health Management and Health Economics)

  • Hennig-Schmidt , Heike

    (Department of Economics, University of Bonn)

  • Godager , Geir

    (Department of Health Management and Health Economics)


We quantify patient-regarding preferences by fitting a bounded rationality model to data from an incentivized laboratory experiment, where Chinese medical doctors, German medical students and Chinese medical students decide under different payment schemes. We find a remarkable stability in patient-regarding preferences when comparing subject pools and we cannot reject the hypothesis of equal patient-regarding preferences in the three groups. The results suggest that a health economic experiment can provide knowledge that reach beyond the student subject pool, and that the preferences of decision-makers in one cultural context can be of relevance in a very different cultural context.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Jian & Iversen , Tor & Hennig-Schmidt , Heike & Godager , Geir, 2019. "Are patient-regarding preferences stable?," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2020:2, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme, revised 02 Mar 2020.
  • Handle: RePEc:hhs:oslohe:2020_002

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL:
    File Function: Full text
    Download Restriction: no


    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.

    Cited by:

    1. Wettstein, Dominik J. & Boes, Stefan, 2022. "How value-based policy interventions influence price negotiations for new medicines: An experimental approach and initial evidence," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 126(2), pages 112-121.
    2. Silvia Angerer & Daniela Glätzle-Rützler & Christian Waibel, 2021. "Trust in health care credence goods: Experimental evidence on framing and subject pool effects," Working Papers 2021-13, Faculty of Economics and Statistics, University of Innsbruck.
    3. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo & Guccio, Calogero & Romeo, Domenica, 2022. "A systematic literature review of 10 years of behavioral research on health services," EconStor Preprints 266248, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics.
    4. Godager, Geir & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Li, Jing Jing & Wang, Jian & Yang, Fan, 2021. "Does gender affect medical decisions? Results from a behavioral experiment with physicians and medical students," HERO Online Working Paper Series 2021:1, University of Oslo, Health Economics Research Programme.
    5. Oxholm, Anne Sophie & Di Guida, Sibilla & Gyrd-Hansen, Dorte, 2021. "Allocation of health care under pay for performance: Winners and losers," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 278(C).
    6. Brosig-Koch, Jeannette & Groß, Mona & Hennig-Schmidt, Heike & Kairies-Schwarz, Nadja & Wiesen, Daniel, 2021. "Physicians' incentives, patients' characteristics, and quality of care: A systematic experimental comparison of fee-for-service, capitation, and pay for performance," Ruhr Economic Papers 923, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    7. Simon Reif & Lucas Hafner & Michael Seebauer, 2020. "Physician Behavior under Prospective Payment Schemes—Evidence from Artefactual Field and Lab Experiments," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(15), pages 1-37, July.
    8. Ge, Ge & Godager, Geir, 2021. "Predicting strategic medical choices: An application of a quantal response equilibrium choice model," Journal of choice modelling, Elsevier, vol. 39(C).
    9. Waibel, Christian & Wiesen, Daniel, 2021. "An experiment on referrals in health care," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 131(C).
    10. Georganas, Sotiris & Laliotis, Ioannis & Velias, Alina, 2022. "The best is yet to come: The impact of retirement on prosocial behavior," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 196(C), pages 589-615.
    11. Roland Cheo & Ge Ge & Geir Godager & Rugang Liu & Jian Wang & Qiqi Wang, 2020. "The effect of a mystery shopper scheme on prescribing behavior in primary care: Results from a field experiment," Health Economics Review, Springer, vol. 10(1), pages 1-19, December.

    More about this item


    Laboratory experiment; Bounded rationality; Payment mechanism; Physician behavio;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • C92 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Design of Experiments - - - Laboratory, Group Behavior
    • D82 - Microeconomics - - Information, Knowledge, and Uncertainty - - - Asymmetric and Private Information; Mechanism Design
    • H40 - Public Economics - - Publicly Provided Goods - - - General
    • I11 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Analysis of Health Care Markets
    • J33 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Wages, Compensation, and Labor Costs - - - Compensation Packages; Payment Methods

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:


    Access and download statistics


    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:hhs:oslohe:2020_002. 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: . General contact details of provider: .

    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: Kristi Brinkmann Lenander (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.