Discussion Papers, Policy Papers, Books & Reports, Bulletin, Newsletter, Economic Policy Lunchtime Meetings, Workshops & Conferences, Events Diary, Previous Events Programme Areas, Current Research Projects, Networks, Vacancies Programme Directors, Researchers Lists, Noticeboard Press Releases, Coverage, Request a Press Release Data?, Resources for Economists, Data on Other sites Membership information Login, Create a Profile, Profile Benefits, Your Profile Settings, Forgot Your Password? Site Map, How to find us, How to Order Publications, Privacy Policy, Feedback How to find us, Frequently Asked Questions, ESRC Site Guide, Frequently Asked Questions, Vacancies, How to Search Site Map, How to find us, How to Order Publications, Privacy Policy, Feedback CEPR Home Page You have items in your shopping cart.  Click to view your cart
Google


DP6261 Performance Indicators for Quality with Adverse Selection, Gaming and Inequality Aversion

Author(s): Michael Kuhn , Luigi Siciliani
Publication Date: April 2007
Keyword(s): adverse selection , falsification , inequality aversion , moral hazard , performance , quality
JEL(s): D82 , I11 , I18 , L51
Programme Areas: Industrial Organization
Link to this Page: www.cepr.org/pubs/dps/DP6261.asp.asp


Performance indicators are increasingly used to regulate quality in health care and other areas of the public sector. We develop a model of contracting between a purchaser (principal) and a provider (agent) under the following scenarios: a) higher ability increases quality directly and indirectly (through a lower marginal cost of quality); b) the provider can game the system (or misreport); c) the purchaser is averse to inequality. The main results are: 1) if ability has a direct impact on quality, quality effort is lower and distortions from informational rents are higher; under some conditions more able providers exert lower quality effort; 2) gaming or misreporting reduces the optimal level of quality effort but generally increases the level of quality targets (and measured quality). Pooling may be optimal for high types (or all types) if the benefit function is sufficiently concave and the cost of manipulation is at intermediate levels; 3) If patients receive a low benefit from health care because quality is low then higher inequality aversion increases the optimal level of quality and the associated transfer, and reduces quality dispersion.


Full text Search:
Enter a DP Number:

Access other features of the site by loging in with your personal profile. Purchase a copy of the paper in PDF format. How to subscribe to the CEPR Discussion Paper series Send an email to a colleague with details of the paper. Obtain Plain Text details of this paper which you can copy in to a word document or email allowing you to easily cite this paper! Help in purchasing and downloading papers. CEPR RSS feeds information page.

Your current location: Publications > Discussion Papers
Top CEPR, 53-56 Great Sutton Street, London EC1V 0DG
United Kingdom.
Tel: +44 (0)20 7183 8801     Fax: +44 (0)20 7183 8820
Email: cepr@cepr.org     Webmaster: webmaster@cepr.org
Home
With the support of the European Union: Support for bodies active at European level in the field of active European citizenship