I’d wager that’s more to do with raising finance than organisational productivity, but I’m not aware of any actual research on something of that scale or even how to accurately study those effects without it turning into more of a qualitative theory.
Still, it’s quite an interesting possibility worth pursuing in my opinion. (Full disclosure, I work for a small nominally employee-owned company, and have mixed thoughts about how it works in practice).
> Math is an epistemological tool to abstract the causality of existence into a simplified structure
The mathematics to accurately predict or relay reality is still complex enough that it’s often beyond us. You’re right in that it’s a tool to understand, but if we’re using simplified math for simplified reality, is it really epistemological?
As you suggest, math isn’t outside the boundary of philosophic investigation. It never was in the past, and I don’t think better approximations change that calculation.
> broadly the analysis results in better outcomes or else there would be no economic incentive to facilitate medical research
This is true to a degree, but outcomes for real healthcare rely on much more than research, as you’ve indicated.
Documentation is part of that research, of course, and whether they have short-term or long-term effects for researchers’ ability to work out better treatment is relatively lossy.
Actual treatment also includes the rest of healthcare (training, hell, even their housing costs), and rules-based or centralised administrative systems backed by insurance don’t necessarily create the right environment for that information to be propagated more widely.
People training to be health workers don’t use the frequency or quality of medical research papers to decide whether to become a doctor.
I think there’s a view you can take on the information topology here that’s a little odd in how it’s currently set up — documentation for front-line workers and information wealth for researchers feels like it’s relatively polarised.
Both can be true, and greater systems of medical research and analysis don’t necessarily lead to greater on-the-ground treatment.
As you’ve pointed out, access to those information systems is critical. I’d add the distribution of that information as well as the right economic incentives to participate in using that information.
I’m not sure we’ve really got any one of those things right.
Edit: adding a bit of humanity to the system, as the OP is hinting at, could very much be a part of the fix.
Still, it’s quite an interesting possibility worth pursuing in my opinion. (Full disclosure, I work for a small nominally employee-owned company, and have mixed thoughts about how it works in practice).