Moral Hazard and Risk Spreading in Partnerships

Paul Gertler, Martin Gaynor

ResearchPublished 1996

Partnerships provide a classic example of the tradeoff between risk spreading and moral hazard. The degree to which firms choose to spread risk and sacrifice efficiency incentives depends upon risk preferences, for which data are typically unavailable. The authors use a unique dataset on medical group practice to investigate this tradeoff. Risk aversion leads to compensation arrangements, which spread more risk through greater sharing of revenues. The authors find that compensation arrangements with greater degrees of revenue sharing significantly reduce physician effort. The results imply that changing the method of physician payment from fee-for-service to capitation will dramatically reduce physician effort.

Document Details

  • Availability: Web Only
  • Year: 1996
  • Pages: 23
  • Document Number: RP-516

This publication is part of the RAND reprint series. The reprint series, a product of RAND from 1992 to 2011, included previously published journal articles, book chapters, and reports that were reproduced by RAND with the permission of the publisher. RAND reprints were formally reviewed in accordance with the publisher's editorial policy and compliant with RAND's rigorous quality assurance standards for quality and objectivity. For select current RAND journal articles, see external publications.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.