The beyond excellent, good, fair, and poor Manning, Willard G. creator author. Newhouse, Joseph P. author. Ware, John E. author. Rand Corporation United States Department of Health and Human Services. text bibliography cau 1981 monographic eng

print

xi, 62 pages ; 28 cm This study addresses two issues. (1) What can one gain by using more comprehensive measures of health status in demand estimation than a common single item measure? Would you rate your health as excellent, good, fair, or poor? The authors find that by using multidimensional and less-coarse health status measures they achieve an increase in precision approximately equivalent to a 10 percent increase in sample size. (2) What is the consequence of employing postdiction (i.e., predicting utilization from health status measured after the fact) rather than prediction? Using a simple, but plausible, model, the authors show that such measures cause the estimates to be inconsistent; the direction of the inconsistency generally cannot be signed a priori. Empirically the direction is generally away from zero. Willard G. Manning, Joseph P. Newhouse, John E. Ware, Jr. "August 1981." Includes bibliographical references (p. 59-62). Also available on the internet via WWW in PDF format. Health status indicators Health surveys Medical care Utilization RA408.5 .M3 1981 0833002929 81000331 http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2696-1/ http://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2696-1/ CstmoR 920212 rnd000000000048670