[skadamou]

> "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.

[tinokid]

Right, it's not easy and there are adverse selection issues when you start incentivizing doctors to avoid complex cases that are more likely to involve complications. And the scientific basis for a given procedure is likely more important than minor variations in doctors' technical competence levels.

That said, insurers have better insight into this than almost anyone else. If they see a young person with almost no medical claims go in for an elective foot surgery with Doctor Lexus, and then all of a sudden that person is attending physical therapy and filling opioid prescriptions every month, that's a bad sign. If it happens more than once, insurers should feel empowered to go ahead and shut the good doctor down. But this does not happen.