Skip to main content
Log in

Regulation and the provision of quality to heterogenous consumers: The case of prospective pricing of medical services

  • Published:
Journal of Regulatory Economics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper analyzes the welfare implications of fixed-price regulation of services in a model in which consumers are heterogenous and a firm can endogenously quality discriminate. We consider two different scenarios: The first scenario is when the consumer is also the payer. The second scenario is when the payer (usually the government) is not the consumer. Our major result is that fixed-price regulation causes a distributional welfare loss. We show that it is not possible for fixed-price regulation to induce providers to supply all consumer types with the first-best quality even under perfect information, under either pricing scenario. We show that high and low demand types may receive more than their respective first-best qualities, less than their first-best qualities, or one type may receive more and the other type less depending on the level of the regulated price. It is always true that when consumers are payers, quality is higher for both types than when consumers are not the payers. In this paper, we motivate and discuss the results in terms of price regulation of hospitals where consumers are patients and patient types vary by severity of illness.

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.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Berki, S., M. Ashcraft, and W. Newbrander. 1984. “Length of Stay Variations within ICDA-8 Diagnosis Related Groups.” Medical Care 22:126–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dranove, D. 1987. “Rate Setting by Diagnosis Related Groups.” The RAND Journal of Economics 18:417–427.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dranove, D. and M. Satterthwaite. 1990. “Monopolistic Competition Where Price and Quality Are Most Perfectly Observable,” Working Paper, Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University.

  • Ellis, R., and T. McGuire. 1986. “Provider Behavior under Prospective Payment: Cost Sharing and Supply.” Journal of Health Economics 5:129–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., and M. Pauly. 1981. “Cost Functions for a Service Firm with Variable Quantity and Stochastic Demand.” Review of Economics and Statistics, 53:620–624.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris, J. 1977. “The Internal Organization of Hospital.” The Bell Journal of Economics 8(2):467–482.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, S. et al. 1985. “Inter-hospital Differences in Severity of Illness.” New England Journal of Medicine 313:325–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horn, S. 1986. “Measuring Severity: How Sick is Sick? How Well is Well?” Healthcare Financial Management 40:21–31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newhouse, J. 1983. “Two Prospective Difficulties with Prospective Payment, or, Its Better to be a Resident than a Patient with a Complex Problem.” Journal of Health Economics 2:269–274.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prospective Payment Assessment Commission. 1987. Report and Recommendations to the Secretary. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schweiker, R. 1982. Report to Congress: Hospital Prospective Payment for Medicare. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shleifer, A. 1985. “A Theory of Yardstick Competition.” RAND Journal of Economics 16:319–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vladeck, B. 1984. “Medicare Payments to Diagnosis Related Groups.” Annals of Internal Medicine 100(4):576–590.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Allen, R., Gertler, P. Regulation and the provision of quality to heterogenous consumers: The case of prospective pricing of medical services. J Regul Econ 3, 361–375 (1991). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138477

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00138477

Keywords

Navigation