Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It was pretty obvious to me that when they used the term "good doctor" they meant better by some objective criteria that many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients". But those doctors aren't better by those objective criteria [1]; that's the whole point. Their patients do worse, on average, by objective criteria. So they aren't "good doctors" in the sense that patients care about. They ar…
The objective criteria that the study uses to separate doctors into "good"(as it is used in the title) and bad was "goes to cardiologist conferences". The good doctor the title refers to is one that attends a cardiologist conference.
And this is supposed to be the "objective criteria" that, in your words, many people use as a proxy for "doctor whose actions benefit patients"? That makes no sense to me; I doubt most people even know what conferences, if any, their cardiologist (or any other doctor) goes to. Nor do I see the article claiming that "attending conferences" is an objective criterion that patients use.