Platforms trade liability and staffing to steer AI adoption: lower liability transfers plus sufficient staffing substitute for physician effort, pushing care toward AI under congestion or costly staffing, but high clinical risk nudges physicians back to independent diagnosis.

Main Finding

Liability sharing and staffing interact endogenously in AI-assisted online medical consultation: physicians choose between a fast-but-riskier AI-assisted mode (A) and a slower-but-safer independent mode (I) according to a simple threshold on the physician liability share θ. The platform (Stackelberg leader) jointly chooses θ and staffing N to minimize expected costs (risk borne by platform, congestion, staffing, compliance). Key structural results: (i) physician mode choice is threshold-based with θD = (kI − kA) / [L(h − q)]; (ii) the platform objective is convex in θ for fixed N and regime, yielding interior optima; (iii) liability sharing and staffing act as substitute safety mechanisms — the platform trades off transferring risk to physicians against higher compliance/induced effort costs and congestion effects; (iv) higher congestion or staffing costs push the platform toward AI-assisted operation, while larger loss severity L pushes toward independent diagnosis; and (v) the welfare gap between platform-optimal and social-optimal policies grows with L, implying stronger misalignment in high-stakes settings.

Key Points

• Model setting

  • Two-stage Stackelberg game: platform sets liability share θ ∈ [0,1] and number of physicians N ∈ Z+; physicians (homogeneous) then choose mode m ∈ {A, I}.
  • Service system: M/M/N queue with mode-dependent service rates µA > µI; arrivals Poisson(λ); Erlang-C used for delay/wait-time calculations.
  • Diagnostic error: mode A error probability PA = 1 − q; mode I error PI = 1 − h with h > q.
  • Physician utility: UD(m; θ) = w − km − θL Pm (w fixed pay, km mode disutility).
  • Platform cost per unit time: TC(θ, N, m) = λ(1 − θ) L Pm + λ cw Tm(λ, N) + cN N + κ θ^2 N (risk + congestion + staffing + compliance).

• Physician mode threshold

  • Physicians prefer A iff kI − kA ≥ θ L (h − q). Thus θD = (kI − kA)/(L (h − q)).
  • Comparative statics: θD decreases with larger L or a wider accuracy gap (h − q); θD increases with larger effort differential (kI − kA) and with higher q (worse AI accuracy lowers threshold).

• Platform optimization and regimes

  • Two regimes: Regime A (θ ≤ θD) → all physicians choose AI-assisted; Regime I (θ > θD) → all choose independent.
  • For fixed N and m, TC is strictly convex in θ (∂^2TC/∂θ^2 = 2 κ N), so a unique interior minimizer (subject to regime constraints).
  • Liability sharing and staffing are substitutes: the platform can lower θ (shift less liability) if it increases N, and vice versa, but congestion nonlinearity (Erlang-C) amplifies mode-switch effects.
  • Higher arrival rates, higher waiting cost cw, or higher staffing cost cN shift optimal policy toward inducing AI-assisted mode (favoring faster service), whereas higher loss L shifts toward independent mode.

• Welfare and regulation

  • The platform’s cost-minimizing (private) policy can diverge from the social optimum; the gap increases with L, indicating greater need for policy intervention/incentive alignment when errors are costly.
  • Regulatory constraints on allowable θ or required staffing alter regime boundaries and optimal choices; small contractual changes can have large operational effects because of queueing nonlinearity.

Data & Methods

• Analytical model

  • Formal Stackelberg game, closed-form physician best response (threshold) and platform first-order conditions for θ (projected interior solution).
  • Queueing analysis uses Erlang-C to compute delay probability C(N, ρ) and expected waiting time Wq, with total system time Tm = Wq + 1/µm.
  • Cost decomposition into risk (platform-borne fraction of error loss), congestion (λ cw Tm), staffing (cN N), and a quadratic compliance cost κ θ^2 N to ensure interiority.

• Comparative statics and regime mapping

  • Derived comparative statics analytically for θD with respect to key parameters (L, q, h, kI − kA).
  • Characterized regime partition (θ relative to θD) and solved platform optimization separately on each regime, then compared.

• Numerical calibration and enumeration

  • Provided a calibrated parameter table (example baseline: λ = 50/h, µA = 12/h, µI = 6/h, q = 0.90, h = 0.95, L = 2000, cw = 150, cN = 200, κ = 2500, kA = 50, kI = 110).
  • Computed θD = 0.60 and an example platform-optimal interior solution θ = 0.40 with N = 5 under Regime A; conducted sensitivity plots (θD vs L and vs effort differential) and regime cost decompositions.

• Assumptions and limitations (explicit)

  • Physician homogeneity; binary mode choice (no continuous effort); exponential service times; liability linear in θ; physicians risk-neutral; fixed per-time compensation w; compliance cost quadratic; full information; no patient-side strategic behavior or learning/adaptive AI accuracy.

Implications for AI Economics

• Liability design shapes human reliance on AI in operationally consequential ways. Simple linear shifts in θ can flip the entire workforce to or from AI-assisted workflows, with amplified effects on waiting times due to queueing nonlinearity.
• Liability sharing and capacity decisions are complementary levers: platforms should jointly optimize contracts and staffing rather than treating AI adoption and capacity independently. Treating them separately risks large inefficiencies.
• In lower-stakes settings (smaller L or small accuracy gap), platforms have stronger incentives to induce AI-assisted workflows to reduce congestion and staffing costs. In high-stakes settings (large L), platforms are pushed (or should be pushed by regulators) toward higher physician liability or higher staffing to favor independent diagnosis.
• Policy and regulation matter more when stakes are high. Because the platform’s private optimum can underinternalize social risk (and the welfare gap widens with L), regulators may need to mandate liability floors, staffing minima, or require insurance/compensation mechanisms to align platform incentives with social welfare.
• Operational countermeasures to expand safe AI use: improve AI accuracy q (raises attractiveness of A without raising error risk), reduce independent-mode effort cost (kI) via decision-support tools so θD rises (making A more robust), or subsidize staffing to lower congestion pressures. Conversely, increasing transparency (so patients know they interact with AI-assisted workflows) and clearer liability regimes could shift behavior and complaint incidence.
• Research directions for AI economics: extend to physician heterogeneity, risk-averse agents, dynamic learning (AI accuracy improving over time), non-Markovian service times, partial adoption (mixed modes), and endogenous patient choices — all important for richer prescriptive policy and contract design in real-world platforms.

Short takeaway: design of liability contracts is not a narrow legal question — it propagates through physicians’ reliance decisions into queueing dynamics and patient experience. Jointly calibrating liability and staffing is therefore essential when deploying AI in capacity-constrained service settings, especially when diagnostic errors have large social costs.