The RAND method distinguishes between appropriateness of a procedure and its necessity: Necessity means that withholding a procedure would be deleterious to a patient's health. Whereas it is acceptable to provide appropriate care, it would be unacceptable not to provide necessary care. This paper presents data on the development of necessity ratings for six procedures using the RAND panel appropriateness method. Comparisons of appropriateness and necessity ratings indicate that necessity ratings are different from, but related to, appropriateness ratings and that the proportion of indications for which a procedure is judged necessary varies in clinically consistent ways both among and within procedures. The article concludes that necessity ratings can be used to address the underuse of care.
This report is part of the RAND Corporation External publication series. Many RAND studies are published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, as chapters in commercial books, or as documents published by other organizations.
Our mission to help improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis is enabled through our core values of quality and objectivity and our unwavering commitment to the highest level of integrity and ethical behavior. To help ensure our research and analysis are rigorous, objective, and nonpartisan, we subject our research publications to a robust and exacting quality-assurance process; avoid both the appearance and reality of financial and other conflicts of interest through staff training, project screening, and a policy of mandatory disclosure; and pursue transparency in our research engagements through our commitment to the open publication of our research findings and recommendations, disclosure of the source of funding of published research, and policies to ensure intellectual independence. For more information, visit www.rand.org/about/principles.
The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.