IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/aph/ajpbhl/10.2105-ajph.2008.153759_1.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Measuring quality for public reporting of health provider quality: Making it meaningful to patients

Author

Listed:
  • Mukamel, D.B.
  • Glance, L.G.
  • Dick, A.W.
  • Osler, T.M.

Abstract

Public quality reports of hospitals, health plans, and physicians are being used to promote efficiency and quality in the health care system. Shrinkage estimators have been proposed as superior measures of quality to be used in these reports because they offer more conservative and stable quality ranking of providers than traditional, nonshrinkage estimators. Adopting the perspective of a patient faced with choosing a local provider on the basis of publicly provided information, we examine the advantages and disadvantages of shrinkage and nonshrinkage estimators and contrast the information made available by them. We demonstrate that 2 properties of shrinkage estimators make them less useful than nonshrinkage estimators for patients making choices in their area of residence.

Suggested Citation

  • Mukamel, D.B. & Glance, L.G. & Dick, A.W. & Osler, T.M., 2010. "Measuring quality for public reporting of health provider quality: Making it meaningful to patients," American Journal of Public Health, American Public Health Association, vol. 100(2), pages 264-269.
    • Handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2008.153759_1
    DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.153759
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2105/AJPH.2008.153759
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.2105/AJPH.2008.153759?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. David L. Weimer, 2015. "The Thin Reed: Accommodating Weak Evidence for Critical Parameters in Cost‐Benefit Analysis," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 35(6), pages 1101-1113, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:aph:ajpbhl:10.2105/ajph.2008.153759_1. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.apha.org .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.