The thing is, many of us have been around the block on more than one occasion with poorly thought out metrics which lead to unintended and down right bad consequences. A few years ago I was rallying against a system used to rate and rank relative risk of software systems based on a score. Many times I was told: "at least it's better than nothing." Ultimately it was discovered that there was nearly an inverse relationship to the scoring. Those bits of software which ranked as the most secure ended up being the least, with the least secure being the most. This happened because developers unaware of security concepts assumed security was happening elsewhere rather than taking the initiative to practice secure coding. Interestingly enough this entirely invalidated the argument that doing something was better than nothing as the system drove misplaced focus and overall reduced the security of the overall environment as the number of bad bits of software out numbered the good, thus leading to poor hiring practices. Management saw the score and figured everything was getting better and the environment needed fewer security resources rather than the reality which was that many more were needed.

Complex systems are challenging & one study isn't going to provide the miracle solution. Surgery is not a refrigerator and to think every problem can immediately be solved by a trivial metric can be a dangerous game, especially when it comes to lives. When it comes to health care I tend to look at the macro, rather than the micro. Which hospitals have higher ratings, lower insurance claims and rates, etc., however, I understand that information can be gamed as well and take it with a grain of salt. At the end of the day I hedge my bets in this space by eating well, working out daily, and otherwise trying to avoid the medical industry at all costs.