Does quality of care systematically differ among government-owned, private not-for-profit, and for-profit hospitals? A large empirical literature provides conflicting evidence. Through quantitative review of 46 studies since 1990, we find that several study features that can explain divergent results: analytic methods, disease studied, and data sources. For unprofitable care, how studies handle market competition and regional differences account for substantial variation. Policymakers should be aware that differences in results appear to arise predominantly from differences between studies' analytic methods. Moreover, conventional methods of meta-analytic synthesis should be applied with great caution given the considerable overlap among studied hospitals.

This issue of CHP/PCOR's quarterly newsletter, which covers news from the winter 2006 quarter, includes articles about:

• a comprehensive review of worldwide anthrax cases from 1900 to 2005, conducted by CHP/PCOR researchers, which found that timely diagnosis and antibiotic treatment, along with pleural fluid drainage, are key to anthrax patients' survival;
• an early-stage research project in which CHP/PCOR core faculty member Grant Miller is collaborating with an NGO in Bangladesh to study whether villagers' traditional cooking practices are contributing to life-threatening respiratory infections;
• assertions by two CHP/PCOR health policy experts that health-savings accounts -- the cornerstone of President Bush's healthcare agenda -- won't save much money and won't address the fundamental problems of the U.S. healthcare system;
• the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's release of the Pediatric Quality Indicators, developed by CHP/PCOR researchers and collaborators. This is the first set of data-analysis tools specifically designed to help hospitals monitor their quality of care for hospitalized children; and
• a roundup of CHP/PCOR's 7th annual retreat, which featured panel discussions on improving healthcare quality, conducting health services research in developing countries, and health systems comparisons across industrialized nations.

This issue of CHP/PCOR's quarterly newsletter, which covers news from the fall 2005 quarter, includes articles about:

• a study concluding that the implantable cardioverter defibrillator -- one of the most expensive medical devices on the market -- is worth its high cost, in appropriate patients, because it prevents sudden cardiac deaths;
• the evolution and broad application of the Quality Indicators, a set of practical tools developed by CHP/PCOR researchers that are used by hundreds of U.S. hospitals, medical groups, health insurers, state health agencies and business coalitions to screen for quality problems;
• a study finding that the Internet can be a valuable tool to help patients with stigmatized illnesses (such as mental illness) find information about and seek treatment for their illness;
• CHP/PCOR-hosted seminars on global health themes, given by Jack Chow of the World Health Organization -- who discussed combating malaria, TB and HIV/AIDS -- and Dean Jamison of the NIH's Fogarty International Center, who discussed evaluating countries' performance on health; and
• a prestigious national award won by two CHP/PCOR trainees at the annual meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

This paper compares the relative efficiency of health care providers in managing patients with severe chronic illnesses over fixed periods of time. To minimize the contribution of differences in severity of illness to differences in care management, we evaluate performance over fixed intervals prior to death for patients who died during a five-year period, 1999-2003. Medicare spending, hospital bed and full-time equivalent (FTE) physician inputs, and utilization varied extensively between regions, among hospitals located within a given region, and among hospitals belonging to a given hospital system. The data point to important opportunities to improve efficiency.

Dissatisfaction with the U.S. health care system is widespread, but no consensus has emerged as to how to reform it. The principal methods of finance -- employer-based insurance, means-tested insurance, and Medicare -- are deeply and irreparably flawed. Policymakers confront two fundamental questions: Should reform be incremental or comprehensive? And should priority be given to reforming the financing system or to improving organization and delivery? We consider here several proposals for incremental reform and three for comprehensive reform: individual mandates with subsidies, single payer, and universal vouchers. Over the long term, reform is likely to come in response to a major war, depression, or large-scale civil unrest.