> "3) when provided by a doctor whose track record is demonstrably non-inferior to that of other practitioners"
This is interesting. I think there will always be a somewhat normal distribution of medical skill among doctors so how do we decide whose track record is good enough to preform which procedures? We probably don't need top preforming doctors to implement every procedure but then how do we decide which procedures warrant a top doctors time? And if there is a shortage of qualified specialists in a region or if something is particularly urgent isn’t an under achieving doc better than no doc at all? Maybe. Maybe not. I think there is a lot of gray area here. I guess ideally the hope would be that the distribution of skill among doctors is really narrow so the difference between top docs and bottom docs is not that pronounced. Even still, I think there are some interesting problems around ranking/rating doctors against one another.
This is interesting. I think there will always be a somewhat normal distribution of medical skill among doctors so how do we decide whose track record is good enough to preform which procedures? We probably don't need top preforming doctors to implement every procedure but then how do we decide which procedures warrant a top doctors time? And if there is a shortage of qualified specialists in a region or if something is particularly urgent isn’t an under achieving doc better than no doc at all? Maybe. Maybe not. I think there is a lot of gray area here. I guess ideally the hope would be that the distribution of skill among doctors is really narrow so the difference between top docs and bottom docs is not that pronounced. Even still, I think there are some interesting problems around ranking/rating doctors against one another.