PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10169876

Standards--setting rules in the game.

Abstract

In negotiations for managed care contracts, payors have the stronger position; care providers need their business and often make promises that may later cause them problems. Payors don't known the minimum needs or maximum limits for care--if providers don't establish these baseline standards for care, and all agree to abide by them, some providers will continue to try to provide more with less and may compromise quality of care as a result.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

S F Hoss. 1997. Standards--setting rules in the game.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10169876/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Validation and acceptance of new and revised tests: a flexible but transparent process.

Scientific validation is a necessary prerequisite for the regulatory acceptance of new toxicological tests, and for acceptance as Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development Test Guidelines. Validation is defined as the determination of the reliability and relevance of a test method for a particular purpose. Reliability refers to the reproducibility of the test within and among laboratories. The relevance of a test addresses how well it measures or predicts what it is supposed to measure or predict. There are no fixed values for how reliable or relevant a test should be. Acceptable values depend on the type of test, the inherent variability in the biological systems used, and what regulatory decisions the test will be asked to support. The validation of in vitro and in vivo tests should follow the same general principles. The validation process should be flexible, according to the type of test being evaluated and its proposed uses. If a test is designed to replace a test currently in use, its reliability and relevance should be measured against that reference test or against the effect that the test is designed to predict. For the evaluation of health effects where adequate human data are available, the performance of the new test should be measured against the relevant effect in humans, rather than a surrogate species. All proceedings from the validation process and the subsequent peer-review of the method should be transparent, i.e., publicly available. It is also recommended that the peer-review of the validation study be accessible to the interested public.

Guidelines as Topic↗