The Validity of “ Cheap , Fast , Good : Pick Any Two ” in Evaluating Healthcare Systems
Figure 1 . Model logic and interactions during a simulation .
the provider has sufficient capacity that day ), then the consumer purchases the product . If not , then the consumer tries to find a suitable provider . If a consumer is unable to find a suitable provider for five consecutive days , the consumer exits the market . After all the consumers have had their chance to find a provider , each provider compares its costs and profit . At this point , if a provider is completely out of money , it leaves the marketplace . This concludes the daily cycle , which then repeats until the user notices that either consumers or providers are dropping out of the market , or that there is equilibrium between them . With the model operating as intended and free of bugs , it is at this point that the model can be said to be verified .
Although this paper is concerned with healthcare , the model is applicable and valid to any non-specific marketplace where consumers and providers interact and make decisions based on cheap , fast , and good , because it accurately describes these markets . While the value for “ good ” as relates to healthcare is taken from the GBD study ( GBD 2016 Healthcare Access and Quality Collaborators , 2018 ), it would come down to the consumer ’ s own preferences in a generic marketplace . For instance , in the case of food in a restaurant , “ good ” could mean “ tastes good ”, “ is healthy ”, “ is ethically raised ”, “ is spicy , like I like it ”, “ is not spicy , like I like it ”, or any number of other meanings . The precise meaning of “ good ” is not of significance , only that the consumer has a means of evaluating it .
Just as the computer model compares consumers and providers based
87