Most malpractice is hidden by arbitration agreements. We see a tiny sliver in these civil suits because the government only cares about money, not regulating t

Most malpractice is hidden by arbitration agreements. We see a tiny sliver in these civil suits because the government only cares about money, not regulating the standard of care. Professions are those guilds that control their own standards and pace, and regulate their own members. The healing and legal professions are supposed to put their clients' interests first, and mostly do when they would otherwise lose business. But for those working at government piece rates, the only way to get ahead is to do more pieces, which can skew judgment. The bulk of private equity funding flowing into buying practices targets specialties where local monopolies are possible: anaethesia (great b/c no one chooses their anesthesiologist), dermatology (great b/c you can run through old folks' homes and clip every possible mole), etc. I'd guess the real rate of over-(and under-) treatment is much higher than reported. Even within a practice group not subject to adverse incentives, there are difference of opinion regarding best treatment. Only when the study sizes are very large can you make generalizations. So it's pretty much an unanswerable question.