There's some reasonable stuff there, some I'd object to, but what strikes me is a fundamental contradiction.

The group makes much of spreading best practices and evidence-based cost-efficient treatment. They also say they are opposed to rationing or to any interfering with my doctor patient relationship.

Ok, then, let's say my doctor wants to handle my condition in a way that is *not* consistent with what has been defined as "best"? Or to give me a drug that has been found to not be cost-effective? Will someone tell him he can't? Or at least make me pay for it out of pocket? If there are no mechanisms to FORCE my doctor to follow the guidelines, then how does their plan actually solve anything? If it does force my doctor to do things, then how is that not regulation and centralized control?

Oh, and by the way, in their plan who is it who will determine what is "best"? Who will impose sanctions and rewards?

I guess I don't quite get it.

One line of their argument is this: there really is _A_ right answer, and if we could make all hospitals and doctors do it the right way we'd save a lot of money.

The other is: there shouldn't be centralized control, rationing, or interference in doctor-patient relationships

I don't see how you square the two. What am I missing?

That first line of argument is bog-standard for moderate liberal reform plans, it was a core component of the Hillary plan in 1993.