Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Cost Containment in Oregon: As Simple as A×B?

Cost Containment in Oregon: As Simple as A×B? To the Editor. —In his review of Oregon's methods for cost containment, Dr Eddy1 argues with his usual clarity that the failure was due to errors in the data (specifically cost data errors and imprecision in Quality of Well-Being Scale state definitions), the omission of important value elements (eg, the Rule of Rescue or the vicarious utility), and the misapplication of one particular method, directed toward "egalitarian" goals, when another priority setting should have been adopted. His argument does not allow for inherent failures or shortcomings of cost analysis per se. But in his defense he should have, while in the process of allowing for multiple-weighting factors and cost or benefit scales, at least asked the question whether the numerical expressions of the different scales and weighting values form numbering systems that are isomorphic to each other. If they are not, accurate estimates of all the value systems http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png JAMA American Medical Association

Cost Containment in Oregon: As Simple as A×B?

Goris, Michael L.
JAMA , Volume 267 (13) – Apr 1, 1992
Download PDF
1 page

Cost Containment in Oregon: As Simple as A×B?

Abstract



To the Editor.
—In his review of Oregon's methods for cost containment, Dr Eddy1 argues with his usual clarity that the failure was due to errors in the data (specifically cost data errors and imprecision in Quality of Well-Being Scale state definitions), the omission of important value elements (eg, the Rule of Rescue or the vicarious utility), and the misapplication of one particular method, directed toward "egalitarian" goals, when another...
Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/cost-containment-in-oregon-as-simple-as-a-b-CkVlpqGm95

References (1)

Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved. Applicable FARS/DFARS Restrictions Apply to Government Use.
ISSN
0098-7484
eISSN
1538-3598
DOI
10.1001/jama.1992.03480130092028
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

To the Editor. —In his review of Oregon's methods for cost containment, Dr Eddy1 argues with his usual clarity that the failure was due to errors in the data (specifically cost data errors and imprecision in Quality of Well-Being Scale state definitions), the omission of important value elements (eg, the Rule of Rescue or the vicarious utility), and the misapplication of one particular method, directed toward "egalitarian" goals, when another priority setting should have been adopted. His argument does not allow for inherent failures or shortcomings of cost analysis per se. But in his defense he should have, while in the process of allowing for multiple-weighting factors and cost or benefit scales, at least asked the question whether the numerical expressions of the different scales and weighting values form numbering systems that are isomorphic to each other. If they are not, accurate estimates of all the value systems

Journal

JAMA – American Medical Association

Published: Apr 1, 1992

There are no references for this article.