It is intuitive to infer that when a quality measurement study is performed on a healthcare organization, it is for the purpose of using the conclusions that can be drawn from the study to improve the organization. However, whether or not the data and information on the quality of a healthcare organization which a study collected should be released to the public is a critical issue. As discussed by Dranove et al. (2003), some benefits of releasing quality measurement data to the public is that such information serve as report cards that inform the public how particular institutions are doing. In the case of public facilities, the release of information is an exercise in transparency that informs taxpayers on the appropriate handling of their contributions. In the area of private institutions, the release of such information may help the public make more informed decisions about where to seek medical attention for particular, specialized conditions.

Knowledge that such information will be released can keep organizations on their toes in terms of addressing quality issues within their operations. However, Loeb (2004) brought up that while there is evidence that quality measurement data have been put to effective use by organizations to improve their performance, there is far less conclusive proof that releasing such data to the public leads the public to make better decisions. As pointed out by Dranove et al. (2003), more information is not always better, especially for a public that may misinterpret the information released. This is compounded by social activist groups and marketing companies that are all too willing to make use of such data to further their own agendas, leaving the public ultimately more confused or misleading them into making invalid inferences about the relative quality of different healthcare organizations.