After it ranked University of Utah Health Care No. 1 in the nation, could anyone,
anywhere, take its program seriously?
The
U. essentially reverse-engineered the super-secret Consortium
algorithm, so it could focus on those criteria that were going to be
measured. It was a brilliant strategy, but ethically dubious, and UHC
abandoned its ranking program when this article revealed the flaw in its
system.
Instead of conducting its own assessments, UHC began making use of established ranking programs, such as U.S. News and World Report and the Thompson-Reuters survey. Now it has developed a "Quality and Accountability Study" that uses "scorecards" "to provide comparative ranking information for academic
medical centers in each of six domain areas, an overall star rating, and
a listing of the top performing organizations in rank order."
In July 2014, the University of Utah was ranked 35th in primary care and 52nd in research by U.S. News and World Report.
It did not appear in the lists of top 10 medical school programs in
primary care, internal medicine or pediatrics. As one might expect, the
school did not publicize these data, unlike its exuberant advertising in
2011.
UHC is representative of the very tiresome Brave New Breed of web-based consulting firms that revels in massive quantification and dazzling jargon. These outfits,
gain clients by using a sort of stun-gun approach. They portray their
data-driven services in such overwhelmingly glorious, domineering,
all-encompassing terms that one doesn't dare proceed in today's
cutthroat world without their assistance. The Consortium promises to provide
“interoperable workflow solutions“ in its “robust array of resources and
tools.” Everything, it seems, is part of a “suite” that is
comprehensive, exclusive, benchmarked, trademarked, high-impact and
integrated. It promises a sheen of order, ease and rationality to
institutions that are “at the crest of the wave,” facing “The Threat of
Incrementalism.”