Let me begin by thanking everyone who played along and cast their vote... and apologising for taking a few days beyond my own deadline of one week to post this entry :-)
You don't need to be a statistician to see that we have a clear winner, Scenario 3.
Ergo, if most of us had a serious illness and read a sign that advertised "relief from almost any ailment in 3 months, through ancient medical science, " we would feel most comfortable about stepping in to give it a shot, if it was based on 'voluntary contributions'.
To hazard a guess, I would say that most of us like to be "fair".
We don't like to be taken for a ride any more than we want to be seen expecting a free lunch.
While this seems quite reasonable as a social principle, real life has a funny way of queering the equation.
For one, I'm not sure most users are actually comfortable with setting the price of products or services. I suspect most of us would check with other patients, once we were outside the treatment center, to figure out the 'appropriate amount' :-)

For the institution too, there are challenges attached with the 'pay-as-you-wish' model.
There are restaurants and cafes around the world that have experimented with it, with mixed success. (The picture to the right is of one such cafe in Vienna)
In Delhi's Hauz Khas market, there's Kunzum, a "travel cafe" that let's people sit around, make plans, drink coffee and pay what they think is fair. Their economics seem to 'even out', for the most part, with only a few patrons short-changing the cafe blatantly, while most 'overpay'. (Now having felt 'obliged' to err on the generous side, the really telling statistic would be whether they return to the cafe a second time :-) If they don't, it may not be as disastrous for the cafe, as it is likely to be for our hypothetical treatment center :-)
Returning to my first point, as consumers, it is difficult enough for us to comfortably price tangiable, physical products (like muffins and cups of coffee). Pricing health services voluntarily can be even trickier. Let me explain.
Let's say this ancient medical science is such that you need to come to the treatment center twice a week, i.e., to have certain 'vital energy points' on your body stimulated physically. It takes 5 minutes each time and in 3 months after 24-odd sessions, you seem to be getting better. Would you credit the 'treatment' with doing it's work or would you suspect a placebo effect? Again, how would this affect your voluntary contribution?
I can think of many other small issues the treatment center would have to resolve, before adopting the 'pay-as-you-wish' model. Here are a couple:
- whether the voluntary contribution should be made 'publicly' i.e, (such as at the cashier's till at a cafe), so everyone knows how much you've paid or you can make your deposit in secret (anonymously, once a month, in an unmarked envelope),
- whether the 'pay-as-you-think-fair' model is likely to attract patients from poorer sections of society, with whom the middle and upper classes of the social strata would not be comfortable waiting for treatment, etc...
Of course, the most important issue will finally be whether the institution can meet its overheads in providing this service, with voluntary contributions. Rent, salaries of doctors, travel expenses, maintaining records, analysis of cases, and so on.
That's about as much as I have to say on the subject at the moment.
It only remains for me to let you know that the scenario I presented is not as hypothetical as I may have implied.
Here are the facts. The statement "Relief in 3 months from almost any ailment..." is not completely accurate. I had to simplify the facts, to frame a simple poll question.
Having said that, there is indeed an ancient medical science in India, that has been fixing pretty much everything, from diabetes to bad backs to high blood pressure, to cervical problems, to gynae problems to pretty much every kind of ailment, except skin and hair disorders. It is also proving to be exceptionally effective with special children - those affected by autism, cerebral palsy and so on.
There is an organisation promoting the scientific revival of this ancient medical science and here's the link to their website.
And yes, I must let you know that in each of their treatment centers, they have gone with a 'nominal price' policy, charging patients a minimum fixed sum of money each month, just enough to pay for overheads and still be within the reach of the poor.
The jury is, however, out on the Delhi center's fee-structure.
We're lucky to have a generous donor who is letting us keep treatment totally free for the patients right now. However, I don't think donations should be considered inexhaustible or used blindly, so I prefer to think that the donor has really gifted us the luxury of time, to take a carefully considered decision on the fee structure.
Sorry all this is being revealed in installments and thanks to everyone for their input. This has been a very interesting little poll for me, and I'm very keen to hear more from everyone.
Do you agree with my analysis of the poll? I'm sure I must be missing some aspects of the big picture beyond the poll...can you help me identify them? Do you have any questions/comments/suggestions about this medical science?
Do write in and many thanks again to all who voted. Even if you didn't, now you know what it's all about, so please do feel free to express your opinion. Cheers!




