How Good Are Those Hospital Rankings?

A quick look shows that these rankings are not all they’re cracked up to be. The methodology that U.S. News uses to rank hospitals yields a list that is flawed to the point of being nearly useless. It also may be counterproductive, since some of the so-called quality criteria U.S. News cites can encourage investments in higher-cost and lower-quality care. (Wall Street Journal)

Comments (10)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Randall says:

    Many of the top three hospitals are really no big surprise and have great reputations.

  2. Craig says:

    “It also may be counterproductive, since some of the so-called quality criteria U.S. News cites can encourage investments in higher-cost and lower-quality care.”

    I guess that’s why think tanks and academic journals do studies not news organizations…

    • Boswell says:

      Who exactly at U.S. news did the study? I don’t have a Wall Street Journal account, so I can’t look it up…

      • Don D. says:

        Well I would say that most of the time news organization have experts helping them out, so it isn’t just a group of journalist thinking they can conduct complex economic studies of healthcare institutions.

  3. Duveaux says:

    If you have any sort of reasoning skills, you realize that having something be lower quality and cost more money is a bad choice 100% of the time.

    • Niles says:

      Yes, exactly. I don’t understand how they could advocate that. I wish I could see the study, but sadly I too don’t have a WSJ subscription.

  4. Howard says:

    U.S. News really prides itself on its rankings. Maybe all of their rankings need a closer look.

  5. Jimmy says:

    So if I need to go to the doctor or to a hospital, which one is the best?

  6. Frugal Nurse says:

    I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m pretty sure my insurance wouldn’t cover treatment at Johns Hopkins, even if it is rated #1.