Hostname: page-component-857557d7f7-ktsnh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-11-22T10:44:09.134Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Decision Analysis: Balancing Quality and Cost

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 January 2015

Karen J. Brasel  and
John A. Weigelt
Karen J. Brasel*
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, St Paul-Ramsey Medical Center, St Paul, Minnesota
John A. Weigelt
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, St Paul-Ramsey Medical Center, St Paul, Minnesota
*
St Paul-Ramsey Medical Center, 640 Jackson St, St Paul, MN 55101-2595
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Healthcare reform is a topic consuming the time and energy of many healthcare professionals, administrators, and politicians. One goal of reform is to improve value—better quality health care for less cost. Unfortunately, much of the current debate proceeds without clear definitions of quality or cost. To have profitable discussion, we must have precise definitions. With these definitions in hand, the technique of decision analysis provides a unique opportunity to evaluate quality and costs of healthcare decisions simultaneously. We believe it is imperative for physicians to become familiar with this important and powerful tool.

Information

Type
Issues in Surgery
Information
Infection Control & Hospital Epidemiology , Volume 18 , Issue 2 , February 1997 , pp. 146 - 148
Copyright
Copyright © The Society for Healthcare Epidemiology of America 1997 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Gill, TM, Feinstein, AR. A critical appraisal of the quality of quality-of-life measurements. JAMA 1994;272:619–626.Google Scholar
2. Bergner, M, Bobbitt, RA, Carter, WB, Gilson, BS. The sickness impact profile: development and final revision of a health status measure. Med Care 1981;19:787–805.Google Scholar
3. Ware, JE, Sherbourne, CD. The MOS 36-item short-form health survey (SF-36), I: conceptual framework and item selection. Med Care 1992;30:473–483.Google Scholar
4. Kaplan, RM, Anderson, JP. A general health policy model: update and applications. Health Serv Res 1988;23:203–235.Google Scholar
5. Jennett, B, Snoek, J, Bond, MR, et al. Disability after severe head injury: observations on use of Glasgow Outcome Scale. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1981;44:285–293.Google Scholar
6. Keith, RA, Granger, CV, Hamilton, BB, Sherwin, FS. The functional independence measure: a new tool for rehabilitation. Adv Clin Rehab 1987;1:6–18.Google Scholar
7. Finkler, SA. The distinction between cost and charges. Ann Intern Med 1982;96:102–109.Google Scholar
8. Pauker, SG, Kassirer, JP. Decision analysis. N Engl J Med 1987;316:250–258.Google Scholar
9. Drummond, MF, Stoddart, GL, Torrance, GW. Methods for the Economic Evaluation of Health Care Programmes. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press; 1993.Google Scholar
10. Katz, DA, Cronenwett, JL. The cost-effectiveness of early surgery versus watchful waiting in the management of small abdominal aortic aneurysms. J Vasc Surg 1994;19:980–991.Google Scholar
11. Weinstein, MC, Stason, WB. Cost-effectiveness of coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation 1992;66(suppl III):56–65.Google Scholar
12. Etchason, J, Petz, L, Keeler, E, et al. The cost-effectiveness of preoperative autologous blood donations. N Engl J Med 1995;332:19–24.Google Scholar
13. Fahs, MC, Mandelblatt, J, Schechter, C, Muller, C. Cost-effectiveness of cervical cancer screening for the elderly. Ann Intern Med 1992;117:520–527.Google Scholar