Fatal distraction: finance versus vigilance in U.S. hospitals

Three decades ago, a now classic study on the sale of human blood defied conventional economic wisdom by demonstrating that a marketplace system for blood distribution was less efficient, less safe, and more costly. Emerging data, including the article by Thomas and colleagues in this issue, suggest the same may be true for hospitals. For-profit hospitals in Utah and Colorado had higher preventable adverse event rates than matched nonprofits. The author explores possible explanations, including the role of nursing care. While some claimed that a for-profit marketplace would stimulate efforts for improved quality, evidence is accumulating that report cards and profit-driven competition have failed to deliver on their promises. More promising is a series of not-for-profit initiatives to reduce errors that redirects our attention to patients and their need for better quality care. Rather than allowing competition to lower costs and avoid sick patients to distract us, our energies need to focus on better quality alternatives.