We evaluate practices, not people. See Methodology
First listed: Aug 17, 2025 • Last review: Aug 17, 2025
Why: Extends surveillance without evidence of benefit; raises cost and burden.
Evidence: Documented cases and expert commentary; see sources linked in individual entries.
What would change this: Clear, published criteria aligning monitoring duration to risk.
First listed: Aug 17, 2025 • Last review: Aug 17, 2025
Why: Conflicts with independent medical judgment and patient privacy.
What would change this: Firewalls between employer interests and evaluator decisions.
First listed: Aug 17, 2025 • Last review: Aug 17, 2025
Why: Balanced approach if milestones are evidence-based and transparent.
What would improve: Publish criteria and shorten default durations.
First listed: Aug 17, 2025 • Last review: Aug 17, 2025
Why: Aligns burden and oversight with clinical indicators and recovery stability.
Maintain: Keep criteria public; allow right-of-reply for corrections.
We verify patterns—not individual claims—and publish anonymously. No PHI, please.
We rate practices, not people. Our 36-month window focuses on recent, verifiable behavior. Providers receive notice and a right of reply before publication or tier changes.
Submitters must verify identity to P4HR (kept private). We redact names/PHI and standardize submissions before review.
We compute a simple score from verified inputs. Positive practices can offset points.
Tiers:
Legal note: This directory is a good-faith consumer resource. It is not medical or legal advice and should not be used to harass or defame any individual. See our Terms for submissions and verification policies.