Noah sums it up nicely.
Clearly you don't have good understanding about how things are now, and what you could persuade doctors to do.
Setting aside personal injury attorneys and their lackeys in the legislative and executive branches, your idea does not have a solid basis in reality.
I apologize for the above.
Had just finished a procedure on a frail elderly gentleman with a very charming, very experienced tech, who probably had never done one of what we just did, found the family right about the time I get a call about this other non-compliant, tattooed, hepatitis infested pro bono patient, so I take the call. Give him my opinion, track the family down, give them the low down on the him. Go to the lounge to grab some ice tea, sit down, log on with you mugs and phone rings about tatted wonder again
his phone really did go out, expect him to call back on a land line anytime now
Case I just finished will illustrate one point. When you do a trans metatarsal amputation, you want to lengthen the Achilles tendon, as it is a strong plantarflexor and when you cut off someone's toes, you lose a lot of tendons that oppose the Achilles.
If you fail to do this, they will get an ulcer under the stump of the 5th metatarsal. I don't think I have ever been paid for doing this when I did the amp. I still do it every time, because it is the right way and will save me and my patient a great deal of grief. If you let the bean counter make the call, they get their leg off, the person has a much poorer quality of life and it costs a lot of money.
How about this, everybody pays for whatever care they need, and the gubmint, based on the person's income, subsidizes the fee. You could have panel of doctors deciding on what
needs to be done, treatment wise.
That way we can screw Hugh over coming and going. We tax the he11 out of him, then make him pay full boat for all the healthcare for him, his wife, and mother in law. Sorry about that Mr R.
Problem I see with any system you come up with is going to come from the bureaucracy that is going to be attached to it. I think whatever happens, the individual patients have to bear a significant portion of the expense, have skin in the game, so to speak. This will serve to push the utilization down, which will help rein in cost. People now are quite removed from what healthcare actually costs to provide. To accomplish what needs to be done, with the resources available, will require some unpalatable choices in the not too distant future.