Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Bargaining and the provision of health services

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
The European Journal of Health Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We model and compare the bargaining process between a purchaser of health services, such as a health authority, and a provider (the hospital) in three plausible scenarios: (a) activity bargaining: the purchaser sets the price and activity (number of patients treated) is bargained between the purchaser and the provider; (b) price bargaining: the price is bargained between the purchaser and the provider, but activity is chosen unilaterally by the provider; (c) efficient bargaining: price and activity are simultaneously bargained between the purchaser and the provider. We show that: (1) if the bargaining power of the purchaser is high (low), efficient bargaining leads to higher (lower) activity and purchaser’s utility, and lower (higher) prices and provider’s utility compared to price bargaining. (2) In activity bargaining, prices are lowest, the purchaser’s utility is highest and the provider’s utility is lowest; activity is generally lowest, but higher than in price bargaining for high bargaining power of the purchaser. (3) If the purchaser has higher bargaining power, this reduces prices and activity in price bargaining, it reduces prices but increases activity in activity bargaining, and it reduces prices but has no effect on activity in efficient bargaining.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Dor and Watson [12] evaluate how different payment mechanisms affect the incentives in the relationship between hospitals and physicians.

  2. See also Wright [35] for a model of price regulation in the pharmaceutical sector where the regulator and the pharmaceutical company bargain over a subsidy.

  3. The Nash bargaining solution has been used extensively in labour economics to examine negotiations between trade unions and firms with respect to wages and employment. See, for example, Oswald [30] for a survey of the literature, and Manning [22], McDonald and Solow [23], Sampson [33] and Bulkley and Myles [7].

  4. A different interpretation is that the Department of Health fixes the price, then the Health Authority and provider bargain on activity. The implicit assumption is that the Department of Health and the Health Authority share the same objective function.

  5. This setup is analogous to the model of bargaining between a firm and a union over wage and employment [22, 23], where the firm sets the employment, but the wage is bargained with the union.

  6. The outcome achieved in price bargaining is not efficient. As remarked by Aronsson et al. [1], “there are unexplored profits and/or utility gains from bargaining”.

  7. This result is in line with the model of employment-wage bargaining analysed by Manning [22] in the context of firm-union negotiations. The level of employment does not depend on the payoffs of firm and union. Consequently, they “can agree on this level and then bargain about the distribution of the rents” ([22], p. 131).

  8. Similarly, the welfare (total surplus) loss from having price bargaining as opposed to efficient bargaining is equal to \(S^{e}-S^{p}={\frac{a^{2}}{8c}} \gamma^{2}\).

  9. We would like to thank an anonymous referee for suggesting this extension.

References

  1. Aronsson, T., Lofgren, K., Wikstrom, M.: Monopoly union versus efficient bargaining: wage and employment determination in the Swedish construction sector. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 9, 357–370 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Barros, P.P., Martinez-Giralt, X.: Models of negotiation and bargaining in health care. In: Jones, A. (ed.) The Elgar companion to health economics, chapter 21. Elgar, Cheltenham (2006)

  3. Barros, P.P., Martinez-Giralt, X.: Negotiation advantages of professional associations in health care. Int. J. Health Care Finance Econ. 5(2), 191–204 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Barros, P.P., Martinez-Giralt, X.: Bargaining and idle public sector capacity in health care. Econ. Bull. 9(5), 1–8 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Barros, P.P., Martinez-Giralt, X.: Selecting negotiation processes with health care providers. Mimeo (2000)

  6. Brooks, J., Dor, A., Wong, H.: Hospital-insurer bargaining: an empirical investigation of appendectomy pricing. J. Health Econ. 16, 417–434 (1997)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Bulkley, G., Myles, G.: Bargaining over effort. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 13, 375–384 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chalkley, M., Malcomson, J.: Contracting for health services when patient demand does not reflect quality. J. Health Econ. 17, 1–19 (1998)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Chalkley, M., Malcomson, J.: Contracting for health services with unmonitored quality. Econ. J. 108, 1093–1110 (1998)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Clark, D.: Priority setting in health care: an axiomatic bargaining approach. J. Health Econ. 14, 345–360 (1995)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. De Fraja, G.: Contracts for health care and asymmetric information. J. Health Econ. 19(5), 663–677 (2000)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Dor, A., Watson, H.: The hospital-physician interaction in US hospitals: evolving payment schemes and their incentives. Eur. Econ. Rev. 39, 795–802 (1995)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Ellis, R., McGuire, T.: Optimal payment systems for health services. J. Health Econ. 9, 375–396 (1990)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Farrar, S., Yi, D., Scott, T., Sutton, M., Sussex, J., Chalkley, M., Yuen, P.: National evaluation of payment by results interim report: quantitative and qualitative analysis, October, Report to the Department of Health; available at http://www.aberdeen.ac.uk/heru/research/bpoc/projects/performance/bpoc_ongo_po2.php (2006)

  15. Figueras, J., McKee, M., Mossialos, E., Saltman, R.B.: Purchasing to improve health systems performance. European observatory on health systems and policies series. Open University Press, UK (2005)

  16. Gal-Or, E.: Exclusionary equilibria in health care markets. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 6(1), 5–43 (1997)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Gal-Or, E.: The profitability of vertical mergers between hospitals and physician practices. J. Health Econ. 18(5), 621–652 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Gal-Or, E.: Mergers and exclusionary practices in health care markets. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 8(3), 315–350 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Kalai, E.: Nonsymmetric nash solutions and replications of 2-person bargaining. Int. J. Game Theory 6, 129–133 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Le Grand, J., Mossialos, E.: Health care and cost containment in the EU. Ashgate, Aldershot (1999)

    Google Scholar 

  21. Ma, A.: Health care payment systems: cost and quality incentives. J. Econ. Manag. Strategy 3(1), 93–112 (1994)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Manning, A.: An integration of trade union models in a sequential bargaining framework. Econ. J. 97, 121–139 (1987)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. McDonald, I., Solow, R.: Wage bargaining and employment. Am. Econ. Rev. 71(5), 896–908 (1981)

    Google Scholar 

  24. Melnick, G.A., Zwanziger, J., Bamezai, A., Pattison, R.: The effects of market structure and bargaining position on hospital prices. J. Health Econ. 11(3), 217–233 (1992)

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Montefiori, M.: Spatial competition for quality in the market for hospital care. Eur. J. Health Econ. 6, 131–135 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Mougeot, M., Naegelen, F.: Hospital price regulation and expenditure cap policy. J. Health Econ. 24, 55–72 (2005)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Nash, J.: The bargaining problem. Econometrica 18, 155–162 (1950)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Nash, J.: Two-person cooperative games. Econometrica 21, 128–140 (1953)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Osborne, M., Rubinstein, A.: Bargaining and markets, 1st edn. Academic, San Diego (1990)

    Google Scholar 

  30. Oswald, A.: The economic theory of trade unions: an introductory survey Scandinavian. J. Econ. 87(2), 160–193 (1985)

    Google Scholar 

  31. Pecorino, P.: Should the US allow prescription drug reimports from Canada? J. Health Econ. 21, 699–708 (2002)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Propper, C.: Market structure and prices: the responses of hospitals in the UK national health service to competition. J. Public Econ. 61, 307–335 (1996)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Sampson, A.: Bargaining over effort and the monitoring role of unions. Eur. J. Polit. Econ. 9, 371–381 (1993)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Sanjo, Y.: Quality choice in a health care market: a mixed duopoly approach. Eur. J. Health Econ. 10(2), 207–215 (2009)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Wright, D.J.: The drug bargaining game: pharmaceutical regulation in Australia. J. Health Econ. 23(4), 785–813 (2004)

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Anderson Stanciole.

Additional information

Anderson Stanciole: Work undertaken while at the University of York.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

PDF (83 KB)

Appendix

Appendix

The model

Proof of Eq. 2. Activity bargaining

The result is obtained by differentiating \(\gamma \log [B(y)-py-\overline{V}] +(1-\gamma) \log [py-C(y)-\overline{U}]\) with respect to y. The second order condition (SOC) is \(\Upgamma=\gamma {\frac{B_{yy}V-( B_{y}-p) ^{2}}{\widetilde{V}^{2}}}-(1-\gamma) {\frac{C_{yy}\widetilde{U}+(p-C_{y})^{2}}{\widetilde{U}^{2}}}<0\), which is always satisfied. \(\square\)

Proof of Eq. 8. Price bargaining

By taking the log and differentiating with respect to p we obtain \(\gamma {\frac{B_{y}y_{p}-y(p)-py_{p}}{\widetilde{V}}} +(1-\gamma) {\frac{y(p)+py_{p}-C_{y}y_{p}}{\widetilde{U}}}=0\). From the FOC of the provider we know that p = C y. By simplifying, we obtain: \(\gamma {\frac{B_{y}y_{p}-y(p)-py_{p}}{\widetilde{V}}}+(1-\gamma) {\frac{y(p)}{\widetilde{U}}}=0\). The SOC is \(-{\frac{\gamma \widetilde{U}^{2}((B_{y}-p) y_{p}-y)^{2}+(1-\gamma) \widetilde{V}^{2}y^{2}}{\widetilde{V}^{2}\widetilde{U}^{2}}} -{\frac{\gamma(2-{\frac{B_{yy}}{C_{yy}}}) \widetilde{U}-(1-\gamma) \widetilde{V}}{\widetilde{V}\widetilde{U}}}y_{p}\). \(\square\)

Proof of Eq. 11. Efficient bargaining

Define

$$ \Upomega=\left[B(y)-py-\overline{V}\right]^{\gamma} \left[py-C(y)-\overline {U}\right]^{1-\gamma} $$

Then: \({\frac{\partial \log \Upomega}{\partial p}}=-{\frac{\gamma y}{B(y)-py-\overline{V}}}+{\frac{(1-\gamma) y}{py-C(y)-\overline{U}}}=0\) and \({\frac{\partial \log \Upomega}{\partial y}}={\frac{\gamma (B_{y}-p) }{B(y)-py-\overline{V}}}+{\frac{(1-\gamma) (p-C_{y})}{py-C(y)-\overline{U}}}=0\). From the first equation we obtain \(p={\frac{\gamma [C(y)+\overline{U}]+(1-\gamma) [B(y)-\overline{V}]}{y}}\), which, substituted into the second one, yields: B y = C y. The SOCs are: \({\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial p^{2}}}=-y^{2}( {\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}^{2}}}+{\frac{1-\gamma }{\tilde{U}^{2}}})<0\), \({\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial y^{2}}}=\gamma {\frac{B_{yy}\tilde{V}-(B_{y}-p) ^{2}}{\tilde{V}^{2}}}-(1-\gamma) {\frac{C_{yy}\tilde{U} +(p-C_{y})^{2}}{\tilde{U}^{2}}}<0\), and \({\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial p^{2}}}{\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial y^{2}}}>({\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial p\partial y}})^{2}\). \({\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial p\partial y}}=-{\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}}}+{\frac{1-\gamma}{\tilde{U}}} +y(B_{y}-p)({\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}^{2}}} +{\frac{1-\gamma}{\tilde{U}^{2}}})={\frac{(1-\gamma) B+\gamma C-py}{\tilde{V}\tilde{U}}}+y(B_{y}-p) ({\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}^{2}}}+{\frac{1-\gamma}{\tilde{U}^{2}}}) =y(B_{y}-p)({\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}^{2}}}+{\frac{1-\gamma}{\tilde {U}^{2}}})\), where the last simplification follows from the FOC for price. \({\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial p^{2}}}{\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial y^{2}}}> ({\frac{\partial^{2}\log \Upomega}{\partial p\partial y}}) ^{2}=-y^{2}({\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}^{2}}} +{\frac{1-\gamma}{\tilde{U}^{2}}}) [\gamma {\frac{B_{yy}\tilde{V}}{\tilde{V}^{2}}}-(1-\gamma) {\frac{C_{yy}\tilde{U}}{\tilde{U}^{2}}}-(B_{y}-p)^{2} ({\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}^{2}}}+{\frac{1-\gamma}{\tilde{U}^{2}}})] -y^{2}(B_{y}-p)^{2}({\frac{\gamma}{\tilde{V}^{2}}} +{\frac{1-\gamma}{\tilde{U}^{2}}}) ^{2}=-\gamma {\frac{B_{yy}\tilde{V}}{\tilde{V}^{2}}}+(1-\gamma) {\frac{C_{yy}\tilde{U}}{\tilde{U}^{2}}}>0\). All three SOCs are always satisfied, since B yy ≤ 0. \(\square\)

Constant marginal benefit

Activity bargaining. \(p^{a}={\frac{a}{2}}\), \(y^{a}={\frac{a}{c( 2-\gamma)}}\), \(V^{a}={\frac{a^{2}}{2c( 2-\gamma)}}\), \(U^{a}={\frac{a^{2}(1-\gamma)}{2c(2-\gamma)^{2}}}\).

Proof

The rule determining activity is, for a given price: \(\gamma {\frac{a-p}{(a-p) y}}+(1-\gamma){\frac{p-cy}{( p-{\frac{c}{2}}y) y}}=0\), from which \(y={\frac{2p}{c( 2-\gamma)}}\). The FOC for price is: \({\frac{2a}{c(2-\gamma)}}-{\frac{4p}{c( 2-\gamma)}}=0\), from which: \(p^{a}={\frac{a}{2}}\) (the SOC is \(-{\frac{4p}{c(2-\gamma)}}<0\)). The bargained activity is therefore: \(y^{a}={\frac{a}{c(2-\gamma)}}\). The utility of the purchaser and the provider are: \(V^{a}=( a-p) y={\frac{a^{2}}{2c( 2-\gamma )}}\) and \(U^{a}=(p-{\frac{c}{2}}y) y={ \frac{a^{2}(1-\gamma)}{2c(2-\gamma)^{2}}}\). \(\square\)

Price bargaining. \(p^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{2}}\), \(y^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{2c}}\), \(V^{p}={\frac{\gamma a^{2}(2-\gamma)}{4c}}\), \(U^{p}={\frac{a^{2}(2-\gamma)^{2}}{8c}}\).

Proof

Since \(y={\frac{p}{c}}\) with \(y_{p}={\frac{1}{c}}\), the FOC for the bargained price is: \(\gamma {\frac{(a-p) {\frac{1}{c}}-{\frac{p}{c}}} {{\frac{ap}{c}}-{\frac{p^{2}}{c}}}}+(1-\gamma) {\frac{{\frac{p}{c}}}{{\frac{p^{2}}{c}}-{\frac{p^{2}}{2c}}}}=0\), which gives: \(p^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma )}{2}}\) (the SOC is \(-{\frac{1}{(a-p)^{2}p^{2}}}((a-p) ^{2}+p^{2})-{\frac{2}{p^{2}}}(1-\gamma)<0\)). Hence \(y^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{2c}}\), \(V^{p}=(a-p) y=\gamma {\frac{a^{2}(2-\gamma)}{4c}}\) and \(U^{p}=(p-{\frac{c}{2}}y) y={\frac{a^{2}(2-\gamma)^{2}}{8c}}\). \(\square\)

Efficient bargaining. \(p^{e}={\frac{a(2-\gamma) }{2}}\), \(y^{e}={\frac{a}{c}}\), \(V^{e}={\frac{\gamma a^{2}}{2c}}\), \(U^{e}={ \frac{a^{2}(1-\gamma)}{2c}}\).

Proof

The FOC with respect to price implies: \(p=(1-\gamma) a+\gamma {\frac{c}{2}}y\). The FOC with respect to activity implies: \(y^{e}={\frac{a}{c}}\). Therefore \(p^{e}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{2}}\) and \(V^{e}=(a-p) y=\gamma {\frac{a^{2}}{2c}}\) and \(U^{e}=(p-{\frac{c}{2}}y) y=(1-\gamma) {\frac{a^{2}}{2c}}\). \(\square\)

Proof of Proposition 1

(a) \(p^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{2}}\geq {\frac{a}{2}}=p^{a}\) if γ ≤ 1. (b) \(y^{a}={\frac{a}{c (2-\gamma)}}\leq y^{e}={\frac{a}{c}}\) if \({\frac{a}{c(2-\gamma)}}\leq {\frac{a}{c}}\) or γ ≤ 1; \(y^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{2c}}\leq y^{e}={\frac{a}{c}}\) if γ ≥ 0; \(y^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{2c}}\geq y^{a}={\frac{a}{c(2-\gamma)}}\) if (2 − γ)2 ≥ 2 or γ ≤ 0.59. (c) \(V^{a}={\frac{a^{2}}{2c(2-\gamma)}}\geq V^{e}={\frac{\gamma a^{2}}{2c}}\) if 2γ − γ2 − 1 ≤ 0 or −(γ − 1)2 ≤ 0; \(V^{e}={\frac{\gamma a^{2}}{2c}}\geq V^{p}={\frac{\gamma a^{2}(2-\gamma)}{4c}}\) if γ ≥ 0. (d) \(U^{p}={\frac{a^{2}(2-\gamma)^{2}}{8c}}\geq U^{e}={\frac{a^{2}}{2c}}(1-\gamma) \) if \({\frac{(2-\gamma)^{2}}{4}}\geq (1-\gamma) \) or 4 + γ2 − 4γ ≥ 4 − 4γ, or if γ2 > 0; \(U^{e}={\frac{a^{2}}{2c}}(1-\gamma) \geq U^{a}={\frac{a^{2}}{2c}}{\frac{1-\gamma}{(2-\gamma)^{2}}}\) if (2 − γ)2 ≥ 1, which is always the case, since 0 ≤ γ ≤ 1. \(\square\)

Decreasing marginal benefit

Price bargaining. \(p^{p}={\frac{ac(2-\gamma)}{b+2c}}\), \(y^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{b+2c}}\), \(V^{p}={\frac{\gamma a^{2}(2-\gamma)}{2(b+2c)}}\), \(U^{p}={\frac{a^{2}c(2-\gamma)^{2}} {2(b+2c)^{2}}}\).

Proof

Since \(y={\frac{p}{c}}\) with \(y_{p}={\frac{1}{c}}\), the FOC for the bargained price is: \(\gamma {\frac{(a-b{\frac{p}{c}}-p) {\frac{1}{c}}-{ \frac{p}{c}}}{(a{\frac{p}{c}}-{\frac{b}{2}} {\frac{p^{2}}{c^{2}}}-{\frac{p^{2}}{c}}) }}+(1-\gamma) {\frac{{\frac{p}{c}}}{{\frac{p^{2}}{c}}-{\frac{p^{2}}{2c}}}}=0\), which simplifies to \(\gamma {\frac{(a-b{ \frac{p}{c}}-p) -p}{(a-{\frac{b}{2}}{\frac{p}{c}}-p)}}+2(1-\gamma) =0\) or \(\gamma (a-b{\frac{p}{c}}-p)-\gamma p+2(1-\gamma) (a-{\frac{b}{2c}}p-p)=0\), giving: \(p^{p}={\frac{ac(2-\gamma)}{b+2c}}\). Hence \(y^{p}={\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{b+2c}}\), \(V^{p}=(a-{\frac{b}{2}}y-p) y={\frac{\gamma a^{2}(2-\gamma )}{2(b+2c)}}\) and \(U^{p}=(p-{\frac{c}{2}}y) y={\frac{a^{2}c(2-\gamma)^{2}}{2(b+2c)^{2}}}\). \(\square\)

Efficient bargaining. \(p^{e}={\frac{a((1-\gamma)b +(2-\gamma) c)}{2(b+c)}}\), \(y^{e}={\frac{a}{b+c}}\), \(V^{e}={\frac{\gamma a^{2}}{2(b+c)}}\), \(U^{e}={\frac{a^{2}(1-\gamma)}{2(b+c)}}\).

Proof

The FOC with respect to price implies: \(p^{e}=(1-\gamma) (a-{\frac{b}{2}}y)+\gamma {\frac{cy}{2}}\). The FOC with respect to activity implies: \(y^{e}={\frac{a}{b+c}}\). Therefore \(p^{e}={\frac{a((1-\gamma)b+(2-\gamma) c)}{2(b+c)}}\) and \(V^{e}=(a-{\frac{b}{2}}y-p) y={\frac{\gamma a^{2}}{2(b+c)}}\) and \(U^{e}=(p-{\frac{c}{2}}y) y={\frac{a^{2}(1-\gamma)}{2(b+c)}}\). \(\square\)

Proof of Proposition 2

(a) p p > p e if \({ \frac{ac(2-\gamma)}{b+2c}}>{\frac{a((1-\gamma) b+( 2-\gamma) c)}{2(b+c)}}\) or b(cγ + bγ − b) > 0 or \(\gamma>{\frac{b}{b+c}}\). (b) y e > y p if \({\frac{a}{b+c}}>{\frac{a(2-\gamma)}{b+2c}}\) or b + 2c − (2 − γ) (b + c) > 0 or \(\gamma>{\frac{b}{b+c}}\). (c) U p > U e if \({\frac{a^{2}c(2-\gamma)^{2}}{2(b+2c)^{2}}}> {\frac{(1-\gamma)a^{2}}{2(b+c)}}\) or b 2γ + bcγ2 + c 2γ2 − b 2 > 0 or \(\gamma= \{-{\frac{b}{c}},{\frac{b}{b+c}}\}\). (d) V e > V p if \({\frac{\gamma a^{2}}{2(b+c)}}>{\frac{\gamma a^{2}(2-\gamma)}{2(b+2c)}}\) or (b + 2c) − (b + c) (2 − γ) > 0 or \(\gamma>{\frac{b}{b+c}}\). \(\square\)

Decreasing marginal benefit and activity bargaining

Proof

From FOC with respect to y we have \(\gamma {\frac{(a-by)-p}{ay-{\frac{b}{2}}y^{2}-py}}=-(1-\gamma) {\frac{p-cy}{py-{\frac{c}{2}}y^{2}}}\) or \(\gamma (a-by-p)(p-{\frac{c}{2}}y)+(1-\gamma) (p-cy)(a-{\frac{b}{2}}y-p)=0\). Upon expanding, we obtain \({\frac{bc}{2}}y^{2}-y(c{\frac{2-\gamma}{2}}(a-p) +bp{\frac{1+\gamma}{2}})+p(a-p)=0\), with solution \(y={\frac{(c{\frac{2-\gamma}{2}}(a-p) +bp{\frac{1+\gamma}{2}})-\sqrt{(c{\frac{2-\gamma}{2}} (a-p)+bp{\frac{1+\gamma}{2}})^{2}-4{\frac{bc}{2}}p (a-p)}}{bc}}\). \(\square\)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Siciliani, L., Stanciole, A. Bargaining and the provision of health services. Eur J Health Econ 14, 391–406 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-012-0383-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10198-012-0383-x

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation