I agree with the "only have a hammer" problem but that already exists, and in a formal way vis-a-vis specialty boundaries. E.g., if you go see a neurologist, th

I agree with the "only have a hammer" problem but that already exists, and in a formal way vis-a-vis specialty boundaries. E.g., if you go see a neurologist, they're likely to see things through a neurology lens regardless of generalist training because of time in specialty and incentives. The legal consequences sort of keep it in check. I also think to some extent it exists in the other direction as well, in terms of generalists not always recognizing when something needs to be referred to a more specialized setting. It's largely addressed via training and consequences. And in any event, there's always the issue of "why not broaden training instead of assuming it always narrows?"