If it's known that a provider has a sliding scale, what do you think about some people (who have the means) paying extra above the sliding scale. In essence to subsidize the lower cost offerings to ensure the provider is compensated and the most amount of people can benefit. Curious on your thoughts about that.
Hi, David! This is interesting. So part of what I got from that article is the idea that if you set your high end higher than you have been, the people who have the means and want to help in the way you're describing will choose the highest number. It's also incumbent on the provider to calculate what's going to work for them being able to stay in business and support themselves / their family, and to set the different levels of the scale accordingly with the knowledge that putting the choice in the hands of the consumer will still result in a range of possible income that will be manageable for them.
That said, some of my thinking about this was sparked by my own therapist, who offers a sliding scale, but also has a "standard rate." It seems like for her, the standard rate is the high end, and the sliding scale is put forward as an option when folks need it. I still prefer offering all comers the sliding scale, but I want to define it more clearly and allow clients to do that self-assessment of their resources without judgment. I think "without judgment" is the really tricky part, here.
To your original point, I also think that if some people feel moved to pay above and beyond the highest rate, that that's generous and I would appreciate it. I would need to take care, however, with issues of dual relationship, or questions of favortism, or what I'd call the tipping problem with service providers, i.e. the way that restaurant servers and others in the service industry rely on tips in the US and must therefore abase themselves in order to make a living. I'm not suggesting that having some people of means voluntarily offer more than my rate would be tantamount to being reliant on tips to survive, but there's risk there of a dynamic where a client might expect more out of me for offering that extra, or conversely, where I might unconsciously shift my behavior and policies toward that client because of their perceived largesse.
Does that make sense? Thanks for starting in on this topic!
If it's known that a provider has a sliding scale, what do you think about some people (who have the means) paying extra above the sliding scale. In essence to subsidize the lower cost offerings to ensure the provider is compensated and the most amount of people can benefit. Curious on your thoughts about that.
Hi, David! This is interesting. So part of what I got from that article is the idea that if you set your high end higher than you have been, the people who have the means and want to help in the way you're describing will choose the highest number. It's also incumbent on the provider to calculate what's going to work for them being able to stay in business and support themselves / their family, and to set the different levels of the scale accordingly with the knowledge that putting the choice in the hands of the consumer will still result in a range of possible income that will be manageable for them.
That said, some of my thinking about this was sparked by my own therapist, who offers a sliding scale, but also has a "standard rate." It seems like for her, the standard rate is the high end, and the sliding scale is put forward as an option when folks need it. I still prefer offering all comers the sliding scale, but I want to define it more clearly and allow clients to do that self-assessment of their resources without judgment. I think "without judgment" is the really tricky part, here.
To your original point, I also think that if some people feel moved to pay above and beyond the highest rate, that that's generous and I would appreciate it. I would need to take care, however, with issues of dual relationship, or questions of favortism, or what I'd call the tipping problem with service providers, i.e. the way that restaurant servers and others in the service industry rely on tips in the US and must therefore abase themselves in order to make a living. I'm not suggesting that having some people of means voluntarily offer more than my rate would be tantamount to being reliant on tips to survive, but there's risk there of a dynamic where a client might expect more out of me for offering that extra, or conversely, where I might unconsciously shift my behavior and policies toward that client because of their perceived largesse.
Does that make sense? Thanks for starting in on this topic!