There is an economic principle exemplified in a model called “the ultimatum game”. Under its scenario, one person (the proposer) is given money by an experimenter. The proposer can then divide the money with a second person (the responder). The responder has quite the power. If he accepts any offer, he gets to keep what he accepts. On the other hand, if he rejects any offer, neither the responder or the proposer get anything. Typically, the proposer offer something in the range of 50% because anything less is more often than not rejected.
A recent study done on chimpanzees, showed that unlike humans, they will often settle for taking any non zero offer (e.g. way less than 50%) and this supports the theory of “selfish-economists” which has not been shown in humans.
After reading about this study in Science Daily, it occurred to me that PT practices need to act more like social reciprocators rather than like chimpanzees. Why do we accept contracts way below our cost? Why do we believe that “any” reimbursement is better than none? Why do we let the insurance “proposers” get the most when we hold significant power as responders?
Thoughts?
