« "Social determinants of health" are macroeconomic, not micro | Main | Why are hospital prices so confusing? »



Daniel Metrick

See also: Goodheart's Law- by measuring and rewarding one thing, you cause neglect of another thing to free up resources for the thing being measured.

Amin S

I enjoy reading your articles.
True, from a mathematical perspective not every subset is measurable. Also even if a subset is measurable, understanding the measure can be extremely complex. We can easily understand and feel one dimensional measures, but beyond 1 dimension, things become a lot harder to grasp and make sense of what the measure is telling us...even worse, a 2 dimentional space or higher is not a well order space, for example: let’s assume that diabetes is a 2 dimentional problem (only 2 factors to consider) and we have 2 treatments that resulted in (2,1) and (1,2). Which treatment is better is the same as asking: which is bigger (1,2) or (2,1)? We can not compare!
So is not having a measure at all better than developing a non perfect measure? ( like reducing many dimensions of the problem to 1 dimension or 1 number) I don’t think so. But as you said thinking is indispensable.

Bob Ludwig

Another idea to remember is that the phrase, "If you can't measure it, you can't manage it," is when stated baldly, false.

Anytime the term 'measure' springs up, pause. Frequently what you want to be able to do is, 'assess'. Using 'assess' implies examining the situation rather than assuming you've got something unequivocally 'the same' and 'discrete' - over time.

The comments to this entry are closed.