 |
|
Publicly Reporting Quality Information—Reply
|
|
| Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings. |
|
|
|
In Reply: Drs Hannan and Chassin raise an important concern: the evidence regarding the role of publicly reporting quality information is unclear. It was that uncertainty that led us to write our report, and it is the same uncertainty that leads us to view this evidence in a different light. For example, while they criticize the method used by Dranove et al1 to assess patient severity (using prior year’s inpatient expenditures or prior year’s inpatient days), we find that method to be a clever way to measure illness severity using information available to the surgeon, but not used in the severity adjustment method of the report card. And what they describe as "a mere increase" of 35 patients transferred from New York to the Cleveland Clinic in the study by Omoigui et al2 can instead be described as a 57% increase, given that the base number of referrals was 61. . . . [Full Text of this Article]
Rachel M. Werner, MD, PhD
rwerner@wharton.upenn.edu
David A. Asch, MD
Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center
Philadelphia, Pa
RELATED ARTICLES
Publicly Reporting Quality Information
Edward L. Hannan and Mark R. Chassin
JAMA. 2005;293(24):2999-3000.
EXTRACT
| FULL TEXT
The Unintended Consequences of Publicly Reporting Quality Information
Rachel M. Werner and David A. Asch
JAMA. 2005;293(10):1239-1244.
ABSTRACT
| FULL TEXT
THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES
Do cardiac surgery report cards reduce mortality? Assessing the evidence.
Epstein
Med Care Res Rev 2006;63:403-426.
ABSTRACT
|
