That is the line of thinking explored in Robin Hanson’s article, “Cut Medicine in Half.” https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-medicine-half

That is the line of thinking explored in Robin Hanson’s article, “Cut Medicine in Half.” https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-medicine-half https://www.cato-unbound.org/2007/09/10/robin-hanson/cut-med... Combined with research on how wealth, family status, social status, access to sex partners, etc. etc. correlate with health outcomes even after controlling for access to doctors, hospital care, etc., it raises a lot of questions. It seems most of the money we spend on medicine as a society is just a form of signalling. We “care” if we give X dollars worth of medical service, regardless of whether that led to a positive outcome or if the outcome could have been obtained more effectively through less “showy” ways or unglamorous things that don’t involve medical procedures or treatment. It goes along with the idea of “betting is a tax on bullshit.” If we paid medical entities based on successful outcomes, including at the population level, then it might incentivize creative, cost-effective solutions instead of providers shoveling more ineffective treatment and demanding high pay just based on administering it.