Authors' reply to getting more for their dollar: Kaiser v the NHS

doi:10.1136/bmj.324.7353.1583

BMJ 2002;324:1583 ( 29 June )

Letters

Authors' reply to getting more for their dollar: Kaiser v the NHS

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ Our paper comparing the NHS with Kaiser Permanente has generated lively interest and, on the whole, a constructivedebate. ¹ ² Discerning commentators have noted that furtherrefinement of the data and the analysis (which we strongly advocate)is unlikely to change the basic conclusions. These are that KaiserPermanente offers improved performance at roughly the same costand that, therefore, there are probably lessons to be learnt thatwould benefit the future performance of the NHS. We have furthernoted from the extensive debate that has followed the publicationof our paper, that those without a political axe to grind andhaving a good working knowledge of both systems agree with thisoverallfinding.

In light of this, we were amazed that the BMJ chose to publish such a distorted sample of the responses to our paper and didnot even reference our extensive response to the comments raised. . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

StumbleUpon Add to Technorati

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Shooting the messenger
BMJ 2002 324: i. [Full Text] [PDF]

Getting more for their dollar: a comparison of the NHS with California's Kaiser Permanente • Commentary: Funding is not the only factor • Commentary: Same price, better care • Commentary: Competition made them do it: Richard G A Feachem, Neelam K Sekhri, Karen L White, Jennifer Dixon, Donald M Berwick, and Alain C Enthoven
BMJ 2002 324: 135-143. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]