Monetary incentives for vaccination: effectiveness and unintended consequences

Pol Campos-Mercade,Florian H. Schneider

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2024.03.033

IF: 13.31

2024-03-31

Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract:Conceptualization: PC-M, FS. Writing—original draft: PC-M, FS. Writing—review and editing: PC-M, FS.

infectious diseases,microbiology

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Would Monetary Incentives to COVID-19 vaccination reduce motivation?

Eiji Yamamura,Yoshiro Tsutsui,Fumio Ohtake

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2311.11828

2023-11-20

Abstract:Some people did not get the COVID-19 vaccine even though it was offered at no cost. A monetary incentive might lead people to vaccinate, although existing studies have provided different findings about this effect. We investigate how monetary incentives differ according to individual characteristics. Using panel data with online experiments, we found that (1) subsidies reduced vaccine intention but increased it after controlling heterogeneity; (2) the stronger the social image against the vaccination, the lower the monetary incentive; and (3) persistently unvaccinated people would intend to be vaccinated only if a large subsidy was provided.

General Economics
Incorporating Game Theory Into Voluntary Vaccination

Xinyu Wang,Peican Zhu,Zhen Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1109/cyber.2018.8688199

2018-01-01

Abstract:Aiming to achieve widespread immunity to infectious diseases, voluntary vaccination becomes a challenge for people because of the existence of the temptation of free-ride which brings the vaccination coverage below the social optimum. In this manuscript, we integrate a game-theoretic framework into the SIR epidemiological process, while we also try to investigate the effects of varying different factors on the voluntary vaccination coverage. In our model, individuals are assumed to possess adequate information about their circumstance and then they are able to estimate the costs and benefits of vaccination. To maximize the benefits, various factors are considered, such as the cost of the vaccine, the effectiveness of the vaccine, the likelihood of being infected and etc. In this wok, we mainly focus on studying the effects of varying four parameters. As indicated by the results, the Nash equilibrium can hardly achieve a high level if the vaccination cost is higher than the infectious risk; nevertheless, widespread immunity can be achieved by appropriately adjusting the vaccine price and the risk of infection. Our work sheds light on how benefits affect individuals' choices regarding to vaccination and finally influence the herd immunity coverage in a well-mixed population.
Policy makers believe money motivates more than it does

Sebastian Jilke,Florian Keppeler,John Ternovski,Dominik Vogel,Erez Yoeli

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-024-51590-x

IF: 4.6

2024-01-24

Scientific Reports

Abstract:To motivate contributions to public goods, should policy makers employ financial incentives like taxes, fines, subsidies, and rewards? While these are widely considered as the classic policy approach, a substantial academic literature suggests the impact of financial incentives is not always positive; they can sometimes fail or even backfire. To test whether policy makers are overly bullish about financial incentives, we asked county heads, mayors, and municipal government representatives of medium-to-large towns in Germany to predict the effects of a financial incentive on COVID-19 vaccination, and tested the exact same incentive in a field experiment involving all 41,548 inhabitants (clustered in 10,032 addresses) of the German town of Ravensburg. Whereas policy makers overwhelmingly predict that the financial incentive will increase vaccination—by 15.3 percentage points on average—the same financial incentive yielded a precisely estimated null effect on vaccination. We discuss when financial incentives are most likely to fail, and conclude that it is critical to educate policy makers on the potential pitfalls of employing financial incentives to promote contributions to public goods.

multidisciplinary sciences
Incentives can spur COVID-19 vaccination uptake

Heike Klüver,Felix Hartmann,Macartan Humphreys,Ferdinand Geissler,Johannes Giesecke

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2109543118

IF: 11.1

2021-08-19

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract:Recent evidence suggests that vaccination hesitancy is too high in many countries to sustainably contain COVID-19. Using a factorial survey experiment administered to 20,500 online respondents in Germany, we assess the effectiveness of three strategies to increase vaccine uptake, namely, providing freedoms, financial remuneration, and vaccination at local doctors. Our results suggest that all three strategies can increase vaccination uptake on the order of two to three percentage points (PP) overall and five PP among the undecided. The combined effects could be as high as 13 PP for this group. The returns from different strategies vary across age groups, however, with older cohorts more responsive to local access and younger cohorts most responsive to enhanced freedoms for vaccinated citizens.
Incentives and Defaults Can Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Test Demand

Marta Serra-Garcia,Nora Szech

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2022.4405

IF: 5.4

2022-05-08

Management Science

Abstract:Willingness to vaccinate and test are critical in the COVID-19 pandemic. We study the effects of two measures to increase the support of vaccination and testing: defaults and monetary compensations. Some organizations, such as restaurants, fire departments, hospitals, or governments in some countries, have used these measures. Yet there is the concern that compensations could erode intrinsic motivation and decrease vaccination intentions. We show that, in the early stages of the pandemic, both approaches, compensations and defaults, significantly increased COVID-19 test demand and vaccine intentions. Compensations for vaccines, however, need to be large enough because low compensations can backfire. We estimate heterogeneous treatment effects to document which groups are more likely to respond to these measures. The results show that defaults and avoidance of small compensations are especially important for individuals who are more skeptical of the vaccine, measured by their trust in the vaccine and their political views. Hence, both measures could be used in a targeted manner to achieve stronger results. This paper was accepted by Yan Chen, behavioral economics and decision analysis.

management,operations research & management science
Comparative effectiveness of mandates and financial policies targeting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A randomized, controlled survey experiment

Jessica Fishman,Mandy K Salmon,Daniel Scheitrum,K Aleks Schaefer,Christopher T Robertson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.073

IF: 4.169

2022-12-05

Vaccine

Abstract:Experts debate whether COVID-19 vaccine mandates or financial incentives will reduce, rather than increase, interest in vaccination. Among 3,698 unvaccinated U.S. residents, we conducted a randomized, controlled survey-embedded experiment to estimate the absolute and relative psychological effects of vaccine policies specifying: mandates by employers or airlines, bars, and restaurants; lotteries for $1 million, $200,000, or $100,000; guaranteed cash for $1000, $200, or $100; and $1,000 as either a tax credit or penalty. Vaccine intention -the study outcome- predicts uptake and provides insight into the psychological mechanism that is most proximal to behavior (i.e., vaccination). Compared to controls, those who learned about the $1,000 cash reward policy were 17.1 (±5.3)% more likely to want vaccination. Employer mandates are more promising than other mandate policies (8.6 [+/- 7.4]% vs. 1.4 [+/- 6.0]%). The full results suggest that neither mandates nor financial incentives are likely to have counterproductive psychological effects. These policies are not mutually exclusive and, if implemented well, they may increase vaccine uptake.
Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices

Jonathan B. VanGeest,Timothy P. Johnson,Evgenia Kapousouz

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/01632787241295794

2024-10-26

Evaluation & the Health Professions

Abstract:Evaluation &the Health Professions, Ahead of Print. Surveys involving health care providers continue to be characterized by low and declining response rates (RRs), and researchers have utilized various strategies to increase survey participation. An important approach is to employ monetary incentives to improve survey response. Using a systematic review and analyses of 100 randomized comparisons (published in 48 papers) between monetary incentives and a non-incentive condition, this paper seeks to advance the understanding of best practices for using monetary incentives in clinician surveys. These analyses show even small incentives (≤ 25, at which point there is an appreciable improvement, supporting the use of higher incentives in this population. Cash and direct cash equivalents (e.g., cash cards and checks) produced greater odds of survey participation compared to vouchers, lotteries and charitable contributions, with lotteries and charities being the least effective forms of monetary incentive. Survey mode, timing and ethical considerations are also addressed. Noting the challenges associated with surveying clinicians, researchers must make every effort to improve access to this difficult-to-reach population by implementing appropriate incentive-based strategies designed to improve participation rates.

health care sciences & services,health policy & services
Simple economics of vaccination: public policies and incentives

Jesús Villota-Miranda,R Rodríguez-Ibeas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10754-024-09367-2

Abstract:This paper focuses on the economics of vaccination and, more specifically, analyzes the vaccination decision of individuals using a game-theoretic model combined with an epidemiological SIR model that reproduces the infection dynamics of a generic disease. We characterize the equilibrium individual vaccination rate, and we show that it is below the rate compatible with herd immunity due to the existence of externalities that individuals do not internalize when they decide on vaccination. In addition, we analyze three public policies consisting of informational campaigns to reduce the disutility of vaccination, monetary payments to vaccinated individuals and measures to increase the disutility of non-vaccination. If the public authority uses only one type of policy, herd immunity is not necessarily achieved unless monetary incentives are used. When the public authority is not limited to use only one policy, we find that the optimal public policy should consist only of informational campaigns if they are sufficiently effective, or a combination of informational campaigns and monetary incentives otherwise. Surprisingly, the requirement of vaccine passports or other restrictions on the non-vaccinated are not desirable.
Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination

Bita Fayaz-Farkhad,Haesung Jung

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231178708

Abstract:Faced with the challenges of motivating people to vaccinate, many countries have introduced policy-level interventions to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. For example, mandates were widely imposed requiring individuals to vaccinate to work and attend school, and vaccination passports required individuals to show proof of vaccination to travel and access public spaces and events. Furthermore, some countries also began offering financial incentives for getting vaccinated. One major criticism of these policies was the possibility that they would produce reactance and thus undermine voluntary vaccination. This article therefore reviews relevant empirical evidence to examine whether this is indeed the case. Specifically, we devote separate sections to reviewing and discussing the impacts of three major policies that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccination mandates, vaccination passports, and the provision of financial incentives. A careful analysis of the evidence provides little support that these policies backfire but instead can effectively promote vaccination at the population level. The policies are not without limitations, however, such as their inability to mobilize those that are strongly hesitant to vaccines. Finally, we discuss how policy-level interventions should be designed and implemented to address future epidemics and pandemics.
Individual decisions to vaccinate one's child or oneself: A discrete choice experiment rejecting free-riding motives

Frederik Verelst,Lander Willem,Roselinde Kessels,Philippe Beutels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2018.04.038

Abstract:It is essential for public health to understand what drives people's hesitance towards vaccination. Theoretical models of vaccination decisions are ubiquitous, often incorporating herd immunity, perceptions of vaccine-related side-effects (VRSE) and of vaccine-preventable burden of disease, but with little to no empirical exploration. Herd immunity is a (usually) positive externality where vaccinated individuals influence others' risks by their reduced capability to transmit an infectious disease to them. It is often assumed that (rational) individuals incorporate this externality in their strategic vaccination decision, from which free-riding behavior arises. We performed a Bayesian D-efficient discrete choice experiment in February-March 2017 to study vaccination behavior in 1919 Belgian respondents. Choice sets with vaccine profiles were constructed using six attributes: vaccine effectiveness, VRSE, accessibility (in terms of convenience and reimbursement), vaccine-preventable burden of disease, local (respondents' network of contacts) vaccination coverage, and population (the population at large) vaccination coverage. VRSE and accessibility are the most influential attributes, followed by vaccine effectiveness and burden of disease. Both population and local coverage are less important than the other attributes, but show a significant direct linear relationship with vaccine utility. This supports the existence of peer influence (more incentivized as more and more vaccinate), rather than free-riding on herd immunity. These findings were independent of whether respondents made vaccine choices for themselves or for their child. Around 40% of the respondents indicated accepting vaccination with little or no questioning. These 'acceptors' were less sensitive to changes in the vaccine-preventable burden of disease for their child's vaccination choices (but not for themselves). Public health institutions are critical in stimulating vaccine uptake by making vaccines conveniently available at an affordable price and by communicating pro-actively on perceived VRSEs. The free-riding assumption as a driver of individual vaccine decisions, seems inappropriate, but this observation needs confirming in other populations.
Inviting free-riders or appealing to prosocial behavior? Game-theoretical reflections on communicating herd immunity in vaccine advocacy.

Cornelia Betsch,Robert Böhm,Lars Korn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1037/a0031590

2013-01-01

Health Psychology

Abstract:OBJECTIVE: Vaccination yields a direct effect by reducing infection, but also has the indirect effect of herd immunity: If many individuals are vaccinated, the immune population will protect unvaccinated individuals (social benefit). However, due to a vaccination's costs and risks, individual incentives to free-ride on others' protection also increase with the number of individuals who are already vaccinated (individual benefit). The objective was to assess the consequences of communicating the social and/or individual benefits of herd immunity on vaccination intentions. We assume that if social benefits are salient, vaccination intentions increase (prosocial behavior), whereas salience of individual benefits might decrease vaccination intentions (free-riding).METHODS: In an online-experiment (N = 342) the definition of herd immunity was provided with one sentence summarizing the gist of the message, either making the individual or social benefit salient or both. A control group received no information about herd immunity. As a moderator, we tested the costs of vaccination (effort in obtaining the vaccine). The dependent measure was intention to vaccinate.RESULTS: When a message emphasized individual benefit, vaccination intentions decreased (free-riding). Communication of social benefit reduced free-riding and increased vaccination intentions when costs to vaccinate were low.CONCLUSIONS: Communicating the social benefit of vaccination may prevent free-riding and should thus be explicitly communicated if individual decisions are meant to consider public health benefits. Especially when vaccination is not the individually (but instead collectively) optimal solution, vaccinations should be easily accessible in order to reach high coverage.

psychology, clinical
Persistent Effects of Temporary Incentives: Evidence from a Nationwide Health Insurance Experiment

Aurelien Baillon,Joseph J. Capuno,Owen O'Donnell,Carlos R. Tan,Kim van Wilgenburg,Jr. Carlos R. Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3488632

2019-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Temporary incentives are offered in anticipation of persistent effects that are seldom estimated. We use a nationwide randomized experiment in the Philippines to estimate effects of two incentives for health insurance three years after their withdrawal. We find that both temporary incentives had persistent effects on enrollment. A premium subsidy had a small but highly persistent effect. Application assistance offered to those initially unresponsive to the subsidy had a much larger but less persistent effect. The subsidy persuaded those with higher initial stated willingness to pay to enroll and keep enrolling. The offer of application assistance to initial non-compliers with the subsidy achieved a larger immediate effect by drawing in those who stated they valued insurance less and were less likely to re-enroll when the incentives were withdrawn.
The Impacts of Subsidy Policies on Vaccination Decisions in Contact Networks

Hai-Feng Zhang,Zhi-Xi Wu,Xiao-Ke Xu,Michael Small,Bing-Hong Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1207.4553

2012-07-19

Physics and Society

Abstract:Often, vaccination programs are carried out based on self-interest rather than being mandatory. Owing to the perceptions about risks associated with vaccines and the `herd immunity' effect, it may provide suboptimal vaccination coverage for the population as a whole. In this case, some subsidy policies may be offered by the government to promote vaccination coverage. But, not all subsidy policies are effective in controlling the transmission of infectious diseases. We address the question of which subsidy policy is best, and how to appropriately distribute the limited subsidies to maximize vaccine coverage. To answer these questions, we establish a model based on evolutionary game theory, where individuals try to maximize their personal payoffs when considering the voluntary vaccination mechanism. Our model shows that voluntary vaccination alone is insufficient to control an epidemic. Hence, two subsidy policies are systematically studied: (1) in the free subsidy policy the total amount of subsidies is distributed to some individuals and all the donees may vaccinate at no cost, and (2) in the part-offset subsidy policy each vaccinated person is offset by a certain proportion of the vaccination cost. Simulations suggest that, since the part-offset subsidy policy can encourage more individuals to be vaccinated, the performance of this policy is significantly better than that of the free subsidy policy.
Inclusion of Additional Unintended Consequences in Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Immunization and Tuberculosis Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

Liv Solvår Nymark,Alex Miller,Anna Vassall

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s41669-021-00269-4

2021-05-04

Abstract:ObjectiveOur objective was to review economic evaluations of immunization and tuberculosis to determine the extent to which additional unintended consequences were taken into account in the analysis and to describe the methodological approaches used to estimate these, where possible.MethodsWe sourced the vaccine economic evaluations from a previous systematic review by Nymark et al. (2009–2015) and searched PubMed/MEDLINE and Embase from 2015 to 2019 using the same search strategy. For tuberculosis economic evaluations, we extracted studies from 2009 to 2019 that were published in a previous review by Siapka et al. We followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidance. Studies were classified according to the categories and subcategories (e.g., herd immunity, non-specific effects, and labor productivity) defined in a framework identifying additional unintended consequences by Nymark and Vassall. Where possible, methods for estimating the additional unintended consequences categories and subcategories were described. We evaluated the reporting quality of included studies according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) extraction guideline.ResultsWe identified 177 vaccine cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) between 2009 and 2019 that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 98 included unintended consequences. Of the total 98 CEAs, overall health consequence categories were included 73 times; biological categories: herd immunity 43 times; pathogen response: resistance 15 times; and cross-protection 15 times. For health consequences pertaining to the supply-side (health systems) categories, side effects were included five times. On the nonhealth demand side (intrahousehold), labor productivity was included 60 times. We identified 29 tuberculosis CEAs from 2009 to 2019 that met the inclusion criteria. Of these, six articles included labor productivity, four included indirect transmission effects, and one included resistance. Between 2009 and 2019, only 34% of tuberculosis CEAs included additional unintended consequences, compared with 55% of vaccine CEAs.ConclusionsThe inclusion of additional unintended consequences in economic evaluations of immunization and tuberculosis continues to be limited. Additional unintended consequences of economic benefits, such as those examined in this review and especially those that occur outside the health system, offer valuable information to analysts. Further work on appropriate ways to value these additional unintended consequences is still warranted.

English Else
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: A comprehensive study of vaccination-subsidizing policies with multi-agent simulations and mean-field modeling

Kazuki Kuga,Jun Tanimoto,Marko Jusup

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2019.02.013

2019-05-21

Abstract:We combined the elements of evolutionary game theory and mathematical epidemiology to comprehensively evaluate the performance of vaccination-subsidizing policies in the face of a seasonal epidemic. We conducted multi-agent simulations to, among others, find out how the topology of the underlying social networks affects the results. We also devised a mean-field approximation to confirm the simulation results and to better understand the influences of an imperfect vaccine. The main measure of a subsidy' performance was the total social payoff as a sum of vaccination costs, infection costs, and tax burdens due to the subsidy. We find two types of situations in which vaccination-subsidizing policies act counterproductively. The first type arises when the subsidy attempts to increase vaccination among past non-vaccinators, which inadvertently creates a negative incentive for voluntary vaccinators to abstain from vaccination in hope of getting subsidized. The second type is a consequence of overspending at which point the marginal cost of further increasing vaccination coverage is higher than the corresponding marginal cost of infections avoided by this increased coverage. The topology of the underlying social networks considerably worsens the subsidy's performance if connections become random and heterogeneous, as is often the case in human social networks. An imperfect vaccine also worsens the subsidy's performance, thus narrowing or completely closing the window for vaccination-subsidizing policies to beat the no-subsidy policy. These results imply that subsidies should be aimed at voluntary vaccinators while avoiding overspending. Once this is achieved, it makes little difference whether the subsidy fully or partly offsets the vaccination cost.
Why High Incentives Cause Repugnance: A Framed Field Experiment

Robert Stüber

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/ej/ueae018

2024-03-09

The Economic Journal

Abstract:Abstract Why are high monetary payments prohibited for certain goods, thereby causing shortages in their supply? I conduct (i) a framed field experiment with a general population sample, and (ii) a survey experiment with this sample and with ethics committees. In the experiment, participants can prohibit others from being offered money to register as stem-cell donors. I document that, whereas the majority of participants do not respond to changes in the incentives (63%) or become more in favour of the offer with higher incentives (20%), a minority of 17% prohibit high incentives. I show that this minority wants to protect individuals who are persuaded by high incentives. I also show that a lottery scheme reduces their objections to high incentives. Finally, I document that the public is much more supportive of high incentives than are ethics committees.

economics
Effectiveness of financial incentives on influenza vaccination among older adults in China: A randomized clinical trial

Yang Shen,Jingyu Wang,Jian Wang,Stephen Nicholas,Elizabeth Maitland,Min Lv,Tao Yin,Dawei Zhu

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2024.02.004

IF: 13.31

2024-02-10

Clinical Microbiology and Infection

Abstract:Objectives To investigate the short-term and long-term effectiveness of different level of financial incentives on increasing the willingness to vaccinate and vaccine uptake. Methods A randomized controlled trial was conducted to investigate the effectiveness of financial incentives of three groups with monetary incentives (CNY20, CNY40, and CNY60; 1 CNY=0.13EUR) vs a control group - CNY0- on influenza vaccine uptake among 720 older adults (≥60 years) in Beijing, China. The primary outcome was vaccine uptake, and the secondary outcomes were intention to vaccinate and length of time to immunization. Results Financial incentive significantly promoted higher intention to influenza vaccinate 120/178, 67.42% vs. 442/542, 81.55%; RR 1.21, 95%CI 1.02-1.42) and higher vaccination participation (74/178, 41.57% vs. 316/542, 58.30%; RR 1.39, 95%CI 1.10-1.75). CNY60 had the largest impact on the intention to vaccinate (15.00% vs. 13.48% and 13.90%) and vaccination uptake (19.42% vs. 14.05% and 16.67%) compared to CNY20 and CNY40. Time to vaccination was significantly lower among participants receiving incentives than those without ([37.21 days, 95%CI 34.33-39.99] vs. [48.27 days, 95%CI 43.47-53.07]; HR1.57, 95%CI 1.22-2.03). We found no long-term influence of financial incentives on vaccination decisions in the following year (217/542, 40.04% vs. 65/178, 36.52%; RR 1.08, 95%CI 0.82-1.42). Conclusions Our study suggests modest financial incentives will boost short-term influenza vaccination rates and shorten the length of time to immunization in China. No one single time financial incentive had a long-term effect on future vaccination behaviours or helped establish regular vaccination behaviours.

infectious diseases,microbiology
An experimental test of whether financial incentives constitute undue inducement in decision-making

Sandro Ambuehl

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01817-8

IF: 24.252

2024-03-09

Nature Human Behaviour

Abstract:Around the world, laws limit the incentives that can be paid for transactions such as human research participation, egg donation or gestational surrogacy. A key reason is concerns about 'undue inducement'—the influential but empirically untested hypothesis that incentives can cause harm by distorting individual decision-making. Here I present two experiments ( n = 671 and n = 406), including one based on a highly visceral transaction (eating insects). Incentives caused biased information search—participants offered a higher incentive to comply more often sought encouragement to do so. However, I demonstrate theoretically that such behaviour does not prove that incentives have harmful effects; it is consistent with Bayesian rationality. Empirically, although a substantial minority of participants made bad decisions, incentives did not magnify them in a way that would suggest allowing a transaction but capping incentives. Under the conditions of this experiment, there was no evidence that higher incentives could undermine welfare for transactions that are permissible at low incentives.

psychology, experimental,neurosciences,multidisciplinary sciences
The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Physicians' Effort and Patient Satisfaction: Understanding the Links Between Monetary Incentives and Physicians' Effort.

Chenhao Yu,Xiaoyan Li,Huigang Liang,Zhiruo Zhang,Dong Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013075

2022-01-01

Abstract:How monetary incentives promote physicians' job performance in terms of patient satisfaction has been widely discussed. The incentive dilemma debate concerns whether monetary incentives reduce physicians' intrinsic motivation at work and even lead to moral hazard. This study investigated monetary incentive policies in a hospital and analyzed how monetary incentives affect performance and behavior. By means of income composition grouping, a treatment group and control group were established, and the identification of the effect on performance was implemented using the difference-in-difference (DiD) method. The mechanism analysis was implemented using the event-study approach (ESA) and path analysis. The study found that (1) monetary incentives promote physicians to improve patient satisfaction, and the average effect is a two-point increment (p < 0.0001); (2) the effects are short-term; and (3) in contrast to many criticisms, the improvement in patient satisfaction was mainly from the effort in working during the monetary incentive policy. The results of this study contribute empirical evidence regarding the effects of monetary incentives and their mechanism and can help hospital management formulate incentive plans.
Understanding the Links between Monetary Incentives and Physicians' Effort

Chenhao Yu,Xiaoyan Li,Huigang Liang,Zhiruo Zhang,Dong Fang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192013075

IF: 4.614

2022-10-12

International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health

Abstract:How monetary incentives promote physicians' job performance in terms of patient satisfaction has been widely discussed. The incentive dilemma debate concerns whether monetary incentives reduce physicians' intrinsic motivation at work and even lead to moral hazard. This study investigated monetary incentive policies in a hospital and analyzed how monetary incentives affect performance and behavior. By means of income composition grouping, a treatment group and control group were established, and the identification of the effect on performance was implemented using the difference-in-difference (DiD) method. The mechanism analysis was implemented using the event-study approach (ESA) and path analysis. The study found that (1) monetary incentives promote physicians to improve patient satisfaction, and the average effect is a two-point increment (p < 0.0001); (2) the effects are short-term; and (3) in contrast to many criticisms, the improvement in patient satisfaction was mainly from the effort in working during the monetary incentive policy. The results of this study contribute empirical evidence regarding the effects of monetary incentives and their mechanism and can help hospital management formulate incentive plans.

public, environmental & occupational health,environmental sciences

Monetary incentives for vaccination: effectiveness and unintended consequences

Would Monetary Incentives to COVID-19 vaccination reduce motivation?

Incorporating Game Theory Into Voluntary Vaccination

Policy makers believe money motivates more than it does

Incentives can spur COVID-19 vaccination uptake

Incentives and Defaults Can Increase COVID-19 Vaccine Intentions and Test Demand

Comparative effectiveness of mandates and financial policies targeting COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy: A randomized, controlled survey experiment

Monetary Incentives in Clinician Surveys: An Analysis and Systematic Review With a Focus on Establishing Best Practices

Simple economics of vaccination: public policies and incentives

Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination

Individual decisions to vaccinate one's child or oneself: A discrete choice experiment rejecting free-riding motives

Inviting free-riders or appealing to prosocial behavior? Game-theoretical reflections on communicating herd immunity in vaccine advocacy.

Persistent Effects of Temporary Incentives: Evidence from a Nationwide Health Insurance Experiment

The Impacts of Subsidy Policies on Vaccination Decisions in Contact Networks

Inclusion of Additional Unintended Consequences in Economic Evaluation: A Systematic Review of Immunization and Tuberculosis Cost-Effectiveness Analyses

To vaccinate or not to vaccinate: A comprehensive study of vaccination-subsidizing policies with multi-agent simulations and mean-field modeling

Why High Incentives Cause Repugnance: A Framed Field Experiment

Effectiveness of financial incentives on influenza vaccination among older adults in China: A randomized clinical trial

An experimental test of whether financial incentives constitute undue inducement in decision-making

The Effects of Monetary Incentives on Physicians' Effort and Patient Satisfaction: Understanding the Links Between Monetary Incentives and Physicians' Effort.

Understanding the Links between Monetary Incentives and Physicians' Effort