Incentives - Part 2

OK, so this one is at least explicitly about medicine. It's also about our local tempest in a teapot - the fact that certain high-falutin' institutions of higher medicine in the area (BIMDC, par example) get a whopping 15-40%! larger reimbursement for procedures.

Now part of this is due to a big negotiating advantage given the size of their ownership company, but it's also because a very large fraction of the place's staff is from a certain school that starts with "H" and ends with "arvard". The PATIENTS want to associate with the elite staff, too.

Overcoming Bias: What is Medical Quality?

So, "incentives - part 1" talks about the "fairness" of incentives, where if you're making money out of me cooperating with you, you'd better share. Otherwise I'm going to stick it to you, even at the cost of my own optimal outcome.

And "Incentives - part 2" talks about people WANTING to spend money, to associate themselves with elite institutions. They are actually willing to pay more themselves, too.

I think both are social status things.

The first could be read as "Yes, you're always going to make more than I do, but I need to show you that I'm in control of how much you make. It's important enough that I'll pay to demonstrate that I am not helpless."

And the second is a little easier: "I want to be able to tell my friends that I went to the GOOD hospital. With the nice Harvard docs."

Any patient incentives need to take these into consideration, I think.