Pricing information asymmetry in healthcare: stakeholder analysis and research insights

Abstract

Purpose This study aims to map and analyze health-care pricing information research. This work highlights current gap in pricing information research in health care and proposes future research avenues to academia and industry professionals. Design/methodology/approach A bibliometric method was adopted to analyze extant literature on pricing information asymmetry. Semistructured interviews were conducted with key stakeholders in health care to triangulate the findings. Findings Pricing information is crucial for all stakeholders including health-care consumers, providers and regulators. The popular research areas were the rising health-care cost, cost-saving, outcome-based pricing, price based on service supply and demand, insurance and out-of-pocket spending. Cost–quality perceived linkages, cost–demand correlation in health-care service and cost–price interlinked drivers were the dominant themes in extant literature. The study highlighted that pricing information asymmetry pushed patients from weaker sections into a debt trap due to unplanned out-of-pocket health-care expenses. The study suggests areas of research to minimize this pricing information asymmetry. Practical implications The emerging themes in health pricing asymmetry will help key stakeholders to identify areas for improvement and take remedial actions in the health-care domain. Originality/value This study is a pioneering effort to summarize extant literature published in the health-care information pricing domain and analyze it from a bibliometric perspective. The study also triangulates the finding with primary data from key stakeholders and highlights emerging research areas.

Synthetic Biology and Its Potential in U.S. Medical Therapeutics: A Comprehensive Review: Exploring the Cutting-Edge Intersections of Biology and Engineering in Drug Development and Treatments

“…This research underscores the need for healthcare providers and industry stakeholders to adapt to technological advancements, ensuring that they are integrated effectively and ethically into healthcare practices (Radic, Vosen, & Graf, 2019). Mishra and Pandey (2023) discuss pricing information asymmetry in healthcare, emphasizing its impact on stakeholders, including healthcare consumers, providers, and regulators. The study highlights the importance of pricing information in decision-making and the challenges posed by information asymmetry.…”

“…This asymmetry can lead to patients from weaker sections falling into debt traps due to unplanned out-of-pocket healthcare expenses. The research suggests areas for improvement to minimize this asymmetry, which is crucial for healthcare providers and industry stakeholders in developing fair and transparent pricing strategies (Mishra & Pandey, 2023). Lieneck et al (2023) review the impact of the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA) of 2022 on pharmaceutical drugs in the United States.…”

Achieving sustainable medical tourism: unpacking privacy concerns through a tripartite game theoretic lens

“…The dynamic interplay among these stakeholders can be likened to a three-party game, where each party’s strategy is influenced not only by their individual payoffs but also by the actions and expected responses of the other players. This interdependence, often non-linear, is governed by trust, information asymmetry, and the changing privacy regulations landscape ( 49 ).…”

Free apps and paid apps: monetization strategies for health apps in the Portuguese market

“…The viability of health apps is dependent on patients’ adherence to the platform, so it is justified to promote their involvement based on a cheap or free value proposition. In parallel, an alternative value proposition should be formulated to attract the business side, so that business customers subsidize the installed base of end users (Clark et al , 2013; Ehret et al , 2013; Garg and Telang, 2013; Mishra and Pandey, 2023; Muzellec et al , 2015; Nykänen, 2017; OECD, 2018; Osterwalder and Pigneur, 2011; Tidhar and Eisenhardt, 2020; Vimarlund and Mettler, 2017).…”