Simple version: Payments is contingent on patient being alive. It's a life-time contract for the doctor, which aligns the incentives... Provided being in the h

Simple version: Payments is contingent on patient being alive. It's a life-time contract for the doctor, which aligns the incentives... Provided being in the highly quantized state of "alive" is all we care about, i think this is pretty bulletproof. The only place it will fall down is in the moral grey areas where euthanasia usually enters the ring, in which case a more specific criteria of alive may be necessary to prevent prolonged suffering. However If this is applied to the multidimensional continuum of "health" it gets tricky again. Verifying you are "alive" can be done by your dog; verifying you are "healthy" would require at least as much independent expertise as the greedy doctor, and is an opinionated subject. Interestingly though, this is kinda, roughly, sortof how public healthcare is supposed to work: everyone who is alive and in working health is capable of contributing economically and paying taxes... which fund the healthcare system, but since it's so indirect this alignment in incentives can only be appreciated at the organisational level trying to increase efficiency. e.g in theory it should encourage preventative healthcare which minimises long term cost while keeping their income stream alive, literally.