Decision science for healthcare
Care should be there when people need it.
We help providers, health plans, and public agencies understand who can get care—and compare what could change when services, networks, or resources change.
Expert analysis, supported by our own analytical system.
If the place you rely on for treatment closes, what options would remain?
Who can use this work
Bring the question your organization needs to answer.
Providers and operators
Should we retain this treatment site or expand capacity elsewhere?
Compare patient access, travel, receiving-site capacity, and the resources each option requires.
Discuss service options →Health plans
If this site leaves the network, which care options remain for our members?
Examine service and coverage requirements, receiving-site capacity, and where members may face gaps.
Discuss member access →Public agencies and independent reviewers
Which communities could lose options after a service change, and what responses should we examine?
Compare affected populations, possible responses, and the evidence needed to assess service commitments.
Discuss a public-sector question →
Working on a related question at a foundation, employer, community organization, or advisory firm? We welcome a conversation about the analysis your work requires.
Illustrative analysis
See how we compare care options.
An illustrative analysis of access, capacity, and funding trade-offs.
Two options. Different trade-offs.
Illustrative analysis · Fictional dataRetain 12 local weekly slots
Above limit- Assigned
- 60 of 60 assigned
- Unassigned
- 0 unassigned
- Mean one-way travel
- 37 min among 60 assigned
- Additional organizational funding
- $45,000 / quarter
- Against the assumed $40,000 limit
- $5,000 above the limit
Add 12 regional weekly slots
Within limit- Assigned
- 60 of 60 assigned
- Unassigned
- 0 unassigned
- Mean one-way travel
- 47 min among 60 assigned
- Additional organizational funding
- $30,000 / quarter
- Against the assumed $40,000 limit
- $10,000 below the limit
Additional organizational funding relative to closure. Assumed limit: $40,000 per quarter.
01
A nearby facility is not always an available care option.
In this example, the nearest site does not offer the required treatment. One receiving site accepts a single plan; the other has limited weekly slots.
02
Closure leaves a modeled gap.
After the local site closes, 48 of 60 people are assigned a weekly visit in this model; 12 of 60 are not.
03
Two options close the gap, with different trade-offs.
Retaining local slots means less travel but more funding. Expanding the regional site needs less funding but longer journeys.
04
A changed assumption changes the condition.
If an outside contribution falls, the expansion's additional funding rises from $30,000 to $50,000 per quarter and exceeds the assumed $40,000 limit. The modeled visits stay the same.
How a follow-up review works →
Analysis workspace — in development A shared workspace to keep the baseline, options, evidence, and review history together. Ongoing reviews are specified separately.
The same access question can arise in emergency care. Explore the emergency-care scope →
Deliverables
What you receive
Access findings, an options comparison, and the evidence behind the results—prepared for your team to use and review.
Access findings
Which care options meet the defined service, coverage, and capacity requirements, and where gaps remain.
Options comparison
How each option changes access, travel, capacity, and additional funding requirements.
Evidence and review record
The sources, assumptions, findings, and conditions for a later review, kept together.
For a scoped options analysis, these come together as a written analysis pack and a review with your team; the proposal confirms the exact contents and format. Ongoing updates and workspace access are specified separately when available.
Why access
A nearby provider is only the starting point.
An access analysis connects the options people can use, how they may use them, and the resources needed to support them.
01
Establish the usable options
Define the services, coverage, capacity, and travel conditions that apply to the population.
02
Examine how people may respond
Where the evidence supports it, use patient-choice models to examine how people use the alternatives.
Explore the patient-choice research →03
Compare resource choices
Connect the findings to service and capacity options, with funding requirements and constraints explicit.
Lina’s doctoral research linked patient hospital choice, distance, and care quality to funding decisions under a budget constraint.
Research
Research behind care access and resource decisions.
Our work draws on research in patient choice, healthcare organization, resource allocation, and policy evaluation. We select methods to fit the question and the evidence available.
Founded by Lina Song, PhD, a researcher in healthcare organization, patient choice, and resource allocation.
Her doctoral research at Harvard was supported by an AHRQ R36 Health Services Research Dissertation Award.
Getting started
Start with one defined care-access question.
Bring a service, population, or area and the decision you need to inform. We assess the available evidence and propose the analysis, outputs, and review with your team.
- Example scope
- One service, a defined population and area, a baseline, and a small set of alternatives.
- What you receive
- An analysis pack with access findings, an options comparison, supporting evidence and assumptions, and a review with your team.
Scope, fee and timing
Before work begins, your proposal confirms the inputs, deliverables, project fee, and schedule. You decide whether to proceed after reviewing the scope.
Discuss your questionBring us the care question you need to examine.
Tell us the service or population, the change or concern, and when the analysis would be useful.
Share the question. Review a proposed scope, fee, and schedule. Decide whether to proceed.
Prefer email? ceo@doogooda.com