It's a creative twist.
I wouldn't reject such programs outright, but there are some potential problems:
Adverse selection. If you are a patient with preoperative risks or technical reasons why a procedure might be more prone to complications than average, might you be steered toward non-surgical options, or perhaps be delayed, etc.?
Years ago one of the large carriers decided to score cardiac surgeons on their outcomes from coronary bypass surgery. One of the best known surgeons in town (a national figure) rated very low, to everyone's surprise. The results were widely publicized and he became very upset. Turns out that he was the "go to" guy for patients that other surgeons could not, would not, or refused to do. He did them with results that were decent, though of course well below the mean. I could see where "warranty care" could drive some to stick to the easy or favorable prognosis populations if the rewards and penalties were great enough.
Or the doctor who has more noncompliant patients whose follow-up care is poor (this sometimes happens as a function of the practice's location).
The idea is not without merit, but this is a tricky business.
