© 2010 American Public Health Association DOI: 10.2105/AJPH.2008.153759
At the time of this study, Dana B. Mukamel was with the Health Policy Research Institute, University of California, Irvine; Laurent G. Glance was with the University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, Rochester, NY; Andrew W. Dick was with the RAND Corporation, Pittsburgh, PA; and Turner M. Osler was with the Department of Surgery, University of Vermont, Burlington. Correspondence: Correspondence can be sent to Dana Mukamel, PhD, Health Policy Research Institute, University of California-Irvine, 100 Theory, Suite 110, Irvine, CA 92697-5800 (e-mail: dmukamel{at}uci.edu). Reprints can be ordered at http://www.ajph.org by clicking the "Reprints/Eprints" link.
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.
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||