Harlan Krumholz, M.D., writes in The Washington Post that, while better quantitative monitoring would greatly improve the experiences of both patients and doctors, such monitoring has yet to happen because of a lack of will and incentives. Krumholz, a cardiologist and professor at Yale, said that a well-conceived and executed system, while certainly difficult to create, would overcome most objects to such evaluation and go a long way to improving the system and cutting costs.
The paucity of information about medical performance not only makes it hard for patients to choose care. It also impairs our ability to improve care. If we in the medical profession could measure results, we could weed out bad practices and nurture the good ones — and save more money and lives than we could with virtually any breakthrough procedure or medication we are likely to see in the near future.
Krumholz provides a particularly accessible explanation of the issue of quantitative measurement by using anecdotes, specific and relevant examples and apt and illuminating analogies like a comparison to baseball’s statistical “Moneyball” revolution.
