Supplier-Induced Demand

Reconsidering the Theories and New Australian Evidence
  • Jeffrey R. J. RichardsonEmail author
  • Stuart J. Peacock
Review Article


This paper reconsiders the evidence and several of the key arguments associated with the theory of supplier-induced demand (SID). It proposes a new theory to explain how ethical behaviour is consistent with SID.

The purpose of a theory of demand and one criterion for the evaluation of a theory is the provision of a plausible explanation for the observed variability in service use. We argue that Australian data are not easily explained by orthodox possible explanation. We also argue that, having revisited the theory of SID, the agency relationship between doctors and patients arises not simply because of asymmetrical information but from an asymmetrical ability and willingness to exercise judgement in the face of uncertainty. It is also argued that the incomplete demand shift that must occur following an increase in the doctor supply is readily explained by the dynamics of market adjustment when market information is incomplete and there is non-collusive professional (and ethical) behaviour by doctors. Empirical evidence of SID from six Australian data sets is presented and discussed. It is argued that these are more easily explained by SID than by conventional demand side variables. We conclude that once the uncertainty of medical decision making and the complexity of medical judgements are taken into account, SID is a more plausible theory of patient and doctor behaviour than the orthodox model of demand and supply. More importantly, SID provides a satisfactory explanation of the observed pattern and change in the demand for Australian medical services, which are not easily explained in the absence of SID.


Unethical Behaviour Demand Equation Australian Data Medical Market Geographic Availability 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.



The authors would like to thank the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing and the Victorian Department of Human Services for the data used in the empirical studies, and two anonymous referees for their comments on an earlier draft of the paper. The research was supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and not the funding agency.

This paper is a revised version of a working paper (Richardson J, Peacock S. Supplier induced demand reconsidered. Working paper no. 81. Melbourne (VIC): Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, 1999).


  1. 1.
    Dranove D. Demand inducement and the physician/patient relationship. Econ Inq 1988; 26(2): 281–98PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Folland S, Goodman AC, Stano M. The economics of health and health care. New York: MacMillan, 1993Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rice T, Labelle RJ. Do physicians induce demand for medical services? J Health Polit Policy Law 1989; 14(3): 587–600PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donaldson C, Gerrard K. Paying general practitioners: shedding light on the review of health services. J R Coll Gen Pract 1989; 39: 114–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fuchs V. The supply of surgeons and the demand for operations. J Hum Resour 1978; 13 Suppl.: 35–56Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Fuchs VR, Kramer MJ. Determinants of expenditures for physicians’ services in the United States, 1948–68. National Bureau of Economic Research Occasional Paper no. 117, DHEW Publication (HSM), National Center for Health Services Research and Development. New York: National Bureau of Economic Research, 1972Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Richardson J. The inducement hypothesis: that doctors generate demand for their own services. In: van der Gaag J, Perlman M, editors. Health, economics and health economics. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co., 1981: 189–214Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cromwell J, Mitchell JB. Physician-induced demand for surgery. J Health Econ 1986; 5: 293–313PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Phelps C. Induced demand: can we ever know its extent? J Health Econ 1986; 5: 355–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Evans RG. Supplier-induced demand: some empirical evidence and implications. In: Perlman M, editor. The economics of health and medical care. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1974Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Auster R, Oaxaca R. Identification of supplier induced demand in health care sector. J Hum Resour 1981; 16: 327–42PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    McGuire TG. Physician agency. In: Culyer AJ, Newhouse JP, editors. Handbook of health economics. Vol. la. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 2000: 461–536CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedson E. Patients’ views of medical practice. New York: Sage, 1961Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siminoff LA, Step MM. A communication model of shared decision making: accounting for cancer treatment decisions. Health Psychol 2005; 24(4): S99–S105PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kahneman D, Tversky A. The framing of decisions and the psychology of choice. Science 1981; 211: 453–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Feldman-Stewart D, Brundage MD, McConnell BA, et al. Practical issues in assisting shared decision-making. Health Expect 2000; 3: 46–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ravdin PM, Siminoff LA, Harvey JA. Survey of breast cancer patients concerning their knowledge and expectations of adjuvant therapy. J Clin Oncol 1998; 16: 515–21PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Maynard A, Bloor K. Our certain fate: rationing in health care. London: Office of Health Economics, 1998Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mooney G, Russell E, Weir R. Choices for health care: a practical introduction to the economics of health provision. London: Macmillan, 1986Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hurley J, Birch S, Stoddart G, et al. Medical necessity, benefit and resource allocation in health care. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997; 2: 223–30PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Wennberg J. Improving the medical decision making process. Health Aff 1988; 7: 99–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Oxley H, MacFarlan M. Health care reform: controlling spending and increasing efficiency. Economics Department working paper no. 149. Paris: OECD, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Richardson J, Peacock S. Supplier induced demand reconsidered. Working paper no. 81. Melbourne (VIC): Centre for Health Program Evaluation, Monash University, 1999Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Richardson J. The health care financing debate. In: Mooney G, Scotton RB, editors. Economics and Australian health policy. Sydney (NSW): Allen & Unwin, 1998: 192–213Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Richardson J, Deeble J. Statistics of private medical services in Australia 1976. Canberra (ACT): Australian National University Printing Service, 1982. Health Research Project, Technical paper no. 1Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Richardson J. Supply and demand for medical care: or, is the health care market perverse? Aust Econ Rev 2001; 34(3): 336–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services. Medicare statistics: 1984/85 to March quarter 1998. Canberra (ACT): Commonwealth Department of Health and Family Services, 1998Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Australian Government Productivity Commission. Australia’s health workforce: Productivity Commission research report. Canberra: Australian Government Productivity Commission, 2005 Dec 22 [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2006 May 9]Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Scotton R. The doctor business. In: Mooney G, Scotton RB, editors. Economics and Australian health policy. Sydney (NSW): Allen & Unwin, 1998: 72–92Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Doessel DP. Is an increased medical workforce a “problem” in the health sector? Theory and evidence. In: Harris A, editor. Economics and Health 1997: proceedings of the Nineteenth Australian Conference of Health Economists. Kensington (NSW): School of Health Services Management, University of New South Wales, 1998: 99–130. Australian Studies in Health Services Administration Series no. 85Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ramsey JB, Wassow B. Supplier induced demand for physician services: theoretical anomaly or statistical artefact? An econometric evaluation of some important models in physician service markets. In: Basmann R, Rhodes G, editors. Advances in econometrics. Greenwich: JAI Press, 1986: 49–77Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Robertson I, Richardson J. The effect of funding upon hospital treatment: the case of coronary angiography and coronary artery revascularisation procedures following acute myocardial infarction. Med J Aust 2000; 173: 291–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS). Australian Standard Geographical Classification (ASGC) 1999. Canberra (ACT): Australian Bureau of Statistics, 1999Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeffrey R. J. Richardson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Stuart J. Peacock
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.Centre for Health EconomicsMonash UniversityClaytonAustralia
  2. 2.British Columbia Cancer AgencyVancouverCanada
  3. 3.Department of Health Care and EpidemiologyUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations