We have long questioned the validity of physician rating systems. Not just one, or some, but all MD rating systems. Even if you put two doctors in an identical circumstance, notions that the comparison between them is significant is questionable. 5280 Magazine, a publication for the Mile High city, may seem to be the exception. In reality, they prove the point for us.
Seeing the cover, though it seems quite charming. Smiling physician, complete with lab coat. A critical mind might expect a negative, though. After all, naming the top 2oo+ doctors within a city of 8000 practitioners is certain to be exclusionary. When one delves in and reads the story, though, it seems the rare exception. They’re not taking patient critiques. Quite the opposite, they’ve asked physicians to rate each other, and even gone so far as to do so in a positive fashion. They ask area physicians which doctor THEY would most trust, within a given specialty. Certainly that’s a fair appraisal, right? After all, it’s physicians performing the ratings, looking for the best. What could possibly be more fair than that?
Their methodology may seem entirely free of malevolence, without bias. Thinking it through, though, reveals the flaws. It’s still a popularity contest, even though qualified physicians are performing the “appraisals”. When you ask someone who THEY trust the most, that’s still a subjective opinion, perhaps based on many irrelevant factors. Most certainly, though, the result will come from within those physicians the individual comes into contact with, and therein lies the fatal flaw. A physician who is a social butterfly is going to be known by more people. If his reputation is that of an expert of great renown, if he speaks or educates often within the field, that will make it seem all the more certain that he’s the one to trust most, the best. The contest continues to ignore the fact that there may be several better practitioners within the field who are simply less celebrated. Perhaps they’re simply too busy treating patients with their excellence to be giving lectures or blowing their own horn. Regardless of the reason, they’re less known than the social butterfly, and yet the well-known figure is the one likely to gain the most votes.
Other fatal flaws include direct results comparisons. For example, Doctor A may have exponentially more patients expire during surgery than Doctor B, who is a fellow specialist within a field. That makes it clear enough, right? Not at all. Doctor A may simply have the fortitude and compassion to take on risky cases, giving the patient that one last hope, while Doctor B only takes cases that are a sure success. Which was the better surgeon? There’s still no way to know. What we do know is that Doctor B may shine in the comparison, but if one went by that, many patients would be denied Doctor A’s excellence, and that one last chance he had to offer.
When an A:B comparison fails, and a physician-to-physician rating is inherently flawed, there can be no possibility that any physician rating system is valid. This amounts to a form of defamation, albeit inversely. Those 283 doctors named in 5280’s study may be beaming, but it is an inherent slight to the other 7500 physicians who didn’t make the popularity contest. The magazine does provide disclaimer, stating that just because a patient’s doctor didn’t make the list doesn’t mean the patient has a bad doctor. Like any allegation though, the damage is already done. The sad part is, there is nothing to be done. One can’t even blame the publication for not having appraised every physician. It’s simply inherent; any rating system is flawed.
Medical Justice remains a physician’s best defense against Internet defamation. Medical Justice is by and for physicians. Our methods provide proven results. We may not be able to get you on the 5280’s list of best physicians, but our Internet monitoring system can provide you with rapid knowledge of a posting about you, and the rest of our system will supply the means to protect you from any future damage to your reputation. Fight back against frivolous lawsuits, Internet Defamation, unwarranted demands for refund and other attacks against your reputation and livelihood. Contact Medical Justice today.
We hardworking doctors appreciate the above appraisal of why such doctor rating system is faulty and should be discouraged.
Unfortunately most magazine/publications are out there to SELL their publication and found HEALTH an easy target to increase sales. A local publication tried the same stunt 4 times in a year as a Special Issue when there are certainly many other subjects can qualify as Special Issues. The medical providers buy advertising space in those issues to
both support the publication as well for self promotion. Health Providers were deemed “cash cow” for this publication.
Furthermore, many publications solicit advertising from rating selected MDs to boost their own revenue as well as incentive for those named MDs to buy advertising to promote their own practice. Inclusion in some of these “Rating list” maybe “bought” with purchased advertising, so there you are for the unbiased “rating” system. This is a perpetual cycle based on greed of publishers and need to be controlled somehow.
The other aspect to these “peer ratings” is the built-in network, i.e., those in large groups are going to poll numbers from partners that won’t show up for small group/solo practitioners. Especially when multi-specialty groups are involved, “you vote for me and I’ll vote for you!”