Many third-party payers are now basing reimbursement on evidence-based medicine. Do you agree this is the best way to practice?
This is a trick question. The cliche that medicine is an art will always apply when judgement is necessary, not to mention the impact of a particular skill of a diagnostician or the technical prowess of someone doing procedures. But it is true that 'evidence-based medicine' is probably here to stay. Unfortunately, it is Gaussian and doesn't take into account the outliers of the bell curve, for which thinking outside of the curve is indicated--the 'zebras' in medicine. You need to include something about that in your answer.
"Evidence-based medicine is supported by the literature, and being current with the literature should be your expectation of me. However, for the outliers under the bell curve, any thinking physician must not be afraid of considering other legitimate indications for atypical diagnostic or procedural protocols, if that is what's best for the patient. Luckily, in cardiology, the status quo of what is recommended is usually very well established. As someone who closely follows the literature in my specialty, I am confident that I am following the evidence-based protocols."
