Economist Challenges McKinsey Study on Health Care

June 13th, 2011
in econ_news

stonewalling Econintersect:  Last week GEI News reported on a McKinsey study which included survey results indicating that 30% of employers would terminate health care plans under the 2010 Health Care Law.  This report has generated severe criticism from Austin Frakt of the Department of Health Policy and Management at Boston University’s (BU’s) School of Public Health and Health Care Financing & Economics (HCFE) at the Boston VA Healthcare System, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.  Frakt discussed his conserns about the McKinsey report in an essay at The Incidental Economist.  Frakt called the McKinsey study "faux research."  He says that McKinsey is guilty of "making things up" and then "stonewalling" against inquiries.

Follow up:

Frakt wrote at The Incidental Economist:

By now you’ve probably heard that McKinsey has refused to release details of its survey methodology that backs the finding that 30% of employers intend to drop coverage as a result of the ACA. By now you know that 30% is a dramatically higher figure than any other credible organization has suggested. It’s not what we’ve seen in Massachusetts. (On all this, see Aaron, Volsky, or Krugman).

As someone who does research, this really bothers me. It should bother you too. Look, anybody can say what they like on a topic. They can put out a glossy report. They can claim they did a “survey” to make it sound scientifically rigorous. They can talk to the media all about it. They can stand behind their good name and reputation, if they have one. But when what they’re saying runs counter to previous experience and other credible estimates, they’d better have a good explanation.

But, McKinsey has no explanation. None. They’re stonewalling. You know what would happen to me if I tried that? Suppose I sent my new results to a journal, results that were very different from that of others, and said, “Trust me. They’re good.” Well, my paper would be laughed out of the editorial office.

And that’s as it should be. That would not be research. That would be the opposite of research. That would be indistinguishable from making things up. Well, anybody can make things up. The difference between making things up and actually doing some sound, rigorous work is the difference between fiction and reality.

Sources:  The Incidental Economist and GEI News 

Hat tip to Naked Capitalism.









Make a Comment

Econintersect wants your comments, data and opinion on the articles posted.  As the internet is a "war zone" of trolls, hackers and spammers - Econintersect must balance its defences against ease of commenting.  We have joined with Livefyre to manage our comment streams.

To comment, just click the "Sign In" button at the top-left corner of the comment box below. You can create a commenting account using your favorite social network such as Twitter, Facebook, Google+, LinkedIn or Open ID - or open a Livefyre account using your email address.















 navigate econintersect.com

Blogs

Analysis Blog
News Blog
Investing Blog
Opinion Blog
Precious Metals Blog
Markets Blog
Video of the Day
Weather

Newspapers

Asia / Pacific
Europe
Middle East / Africa
Americas
USA Government
     

RSS Feeds / Social Media

Combined Econintersect Feed
Google+
Facebook
Twitter
Digg

Free Newsletter

Marketplace - Books & More

Economic Forecast

Content Contribution

Contact

About

  Top Economics Site

Investing.com Contributor TalkMarkets Contributor Finance Blogs Free PageRank Checker Active Search Results Google+

This Web Page by Steven Hansen ---- Copyright 2010 - 2016 Econintersect LLC - all rights reserved