Health-system AI with the biggest payoff is most likely to stall: a game-theoretic model shows hospitals become trapped in persistent partial adoption because clinicians cannot appropriate system-wide gains, distrust management commitments, or follow negative norms, and conventional incentive-only policies risk perpetuating this trap.

Main Finding

Ercole (2025) develops an evolutionary game‑theoretic model to explain why “system‑change” health AIs (tools that require coordinated workflow change to realise system‑level gains) commonly stall at pervasive partial adoption. The model predicts generic bistability: a stable “partial adoption trap” (populationwide partial use that yields private benefits but no systemic gains) coexists with a stable full genuine‑adoption equilibrium. Three compounding failure modes—coordination/threshold failure, organisational trust failure (reneging on sharing productivity gains), and cultural/peer‑coordination failure—expand the basin of attraction of the trap. Critically, these failures are worst for the technologies with the largest system value (the Value‑Adoption Paradox). Policy must therefore target trust, sequencing, and team‑level embedding (not just individual incentives) to escape the trap.

Key Points

• Strategy space and key distinction

  • Doctors choose among Genuine adoption (G: restructures workflow), Partial adoption (P: private use without restructuring), and Rejection (R).
  • Partial adoption is neither rejection nor genuine adoption; it yields private benefits but contributes only fraction γ (<1) toward the systemic adoption threshold.

• Effective adoption and threshold structure

  • Effective adoption e = xG + γ xP.
  • Systemic benefits Φ(e) ≈ B · σ(e − e): negligible below threshold e; approach B above it. This threshold/collective structure is central.

• Evolutionary dynamics and bistability

  • Replicator dynamics on the simplex produce bistability when parameters satisfy αB > (c0 − cP) + (bP − bG) (α = appropriability).
  • Two stable equilibria: (1) full genuine adoption and (2) full partial adoption (the partial adoption trap).
  • There is a separatrix (tipping point) x*G on the G–P edge: initial conditions below it converge to the trap.

• Three compounding failure modes

• Threshold/coordination failure: systemic benefits are non‑appropriable by individuals; no single agent can cross e* alone.
• Trust failure: the organisation may renege on promised sharing fraction ˆα → doctors update α downward; optimal reneging increases with V, making commitment harder for high‑value technologies.

• Cultural failure: negative coordination norms (peer imitation favouring P) create cultural lock‑in independent of payoffs.

• Value‑Adoption Paradox

  • Technologies with larger systemic value B are paradoxically more vulnerable: larger V both increases the required institutional reputational commitment and increases incentives to renege, widening the basin of the trap unless trust architecture is strong.

• Cost ratchet and path dependence

  • Genuine adoption has an environmental disruption cost c(e, t) that decays only if e > e* (embedding); decay is irreversible (cost ratchet).
  • Temporary excursions above e* permanently lower future barriers even if embedding ultimately fails; repeated temporary crossings can cumulatively enable later embedding.
  • But this benefit is offset if trust (belief α) erodes faster than cost declines.

• Trust game and sustainability condition

  • Organisation chooses actual sharing αactual ≤ ˆα to maximise its payoff minus convex reputational cost κ(∆) of reneging (∆ = ˆα − αactual).
  • First‑order condition implies optimal reneging increases with V.
  • Sustaining believable commitments in repeated interaction requires discount factor β ≥ V/(V + κ). Higher V makes credible commitment harder.

• Welfare and policy implications (brief)

  • There exist parameter regimes where sustained imperfect adoption pressure (repeated pilots) raises welfare by reducing future barriers (cost ratchet), but only if embedding speed relative to belief updating is favorable (δ/λ sufficiently large).
  • Standard policies that only subsidise individual uptake or offer uniform incentives typically address only the threshold problem and can systematically produce the partial adoption trap.

Data & Methods

• The paper is theoretical; no empirical data are used. Methods:

  • Evolutionary game theory (replicator dynamics) on a 3‑strategy simplex (G, P, R).
  • Payoffs:
    • fG(x, c, α) = −c(e, t) + αΦ(e) + bG
    • fP = −cP + bP
    • fR = 0 (normalised)
    • Assumed orderings: 0 = cR < cP < cG; bG < bP; bP > cP (partial adoption privately profitable).
  • Effective adoption e(x) = xG + γ xP, γ ∈ [0,1).
  • Systemic benefit Φ(e) = B · σ(e − e) with smooth sigmoid σ to approximate a step at threshold e.
  • Cost dynamics: c(e, t) = c0 if e ≤ e, and c0 exp(−δ t) once e > e (irreversible decay).
  • Trust model: organisation announces ˆα; after benefits realise if e > e*, organisation chooses αactual ≤ ˆα to maximise (1 − αactual)V − κ(ˆα − αactual). κ is convex; reputational cost generates reluctance to commit if V is large.
  • Analysis: local stability of corners, existence of separatrix, comparative statics (how xG moves with α, B, c0 − cP, bP − bG, γ), derivation of cost‑ratchet effects, and folk‑theorem style condition for trust sustainability β ≥ V/(V + κ). Also derives condition δ/λ > θ for when repeated failed attempts improve long‑run prospects (tradeoff between embedding speed δ and belief updating λ).

• Assumptions and simplifications noted by author:

  • Imitation dynamics are the behavioural updating mechanism (appropriate for clinical peer effects).
  • Binary/conditional cost decay (no meaningful individual learning below e* for many system‑change AIs like AVT).
  • Appropriability α is ex ante announced but can be endogenised through the trust game.
  • Partial adopters contribute only fraction γ toward threshold; γ’s effect on basin is non‑monotone.

Implications for AI Economics

• Market and policy design

  • Appropriability matters: when systemic gains are non‑appropriable, private incentives can favour partial adoption; policies that only subsidise individual uptake will often fail to deliver system gains.
  • For high‑value system‑change AIs (large B), stronger institutional commitment mechanisms are required (contractual sharing, long‑term reputational bonds, penalty/reward structures) because endogenous reneging incentives grow with value.
  • Targeted, time‑concentrated subsidies or mandates to seed clusters/teams so that local e crosses e* are more effective than uniform, shallow incentives across an entire organisation.

• Implementation strategy

  • Sequence matters: build trust architecture and cultural readiness before scaling mandates or incentives. Team‑level coordinated embedding (micro‑units that cross e*) is critical because embedding yields irreversible cost reductions (cost ratchet).
  • Pilot designs should aim for sustained crossings of e (duration T > T) rather than many short pilots; however, even failed pilots can lower future barriers—provided belief erosion is slow relative to embedding gains.
  • Invest in institutional reputational capital (increase κ) and mechanisms that raise the organisation’s effective discount factor β (longer‑term accountability) to make commitments credible.

• Evaluation and welfare

  • Welfare gains from repeated imperfect adoption depend on the relative speed of embedding vs. trust erosion (δ/λ). If belief updating (trust loss) is fast compared with embedding, repeated failed pilots may harm long‑term prospects.
  • Economists and policymakers should evaluate adoption policies not just by uptake rates but by whether genuine embedding (workflow change) and system‑level benefits are realised.

• Research priorities

  • Empirical work to estimate γ (partial adopters’ contribution), δ (embedding speed), λ (belief updating / trust erosion), κ (reputational cost slope), and the separatrix position would make the model operational for policy calibration.
  • Experimental and quasi‑experimental studies on team‑level embedding interventions and on institutional commitment devices (contracts, deferred bonuses, reputation mechanisms) are high‑value.

Limitations (concise) - The model is theoretical and stylised: it abstracts from heterogeneity across doctors, multiple organisational layers, patient responses, and dynamic strategic behaviour beyond imitation. - Binary cost decay and the specific functional forms (sigmoid, convex κ) are modelling choices; qualitative results are robust but quantitative thresholds will be context‑dependent.

Overall, the paper reframes failures of health AI rollout as a coordination and trust problem with path dependence and cultural dynamics, and it shows that policies must go beyond individual incentives to sequencing, credible organisational commitment, and team‑level embedding to avoid locking systems into low‑value partial adoption equilibria.