...... past prominence is no guarantee of future eminence
Dr
Constantine Constantinides from healthCare cybernetics proposes that when it comes to medical tourism destinations and their
future, past prominence is no guarantee of
future eminence.
“Survivorship bias” is the bias which is created by
concentrating on the businesses/products/services that "survive"
within an industry sector – and are thus considered “successes” – whilst
overlooking those that didn't survive - because we are often not told about
them – and thus, do not enter the equation.
This can sometimes lead to false conclusions.
In the case of Medical Tourism / Travel Destinations, the
survivors are those who have made it
past some selection process and are still prominent (highly visible) enough to
be regarded as “exemplars” and “models to emulate”.
Media coverage, advertorial, and PR activity in general are
responsible for shaping these “biases”.
Survivorship bias can lead to overly optimistic beliefs
because failures are ignored.
Survivorship bias, which is a form of selection bias, can
lead to the false belief.
For example, that the, "top three medical tourism
destinations" have some special attributes and knew how to do the right
thing rather than just being "lucky" or just happening to do the right
thing at the right time in the right place.
If three of the five top medical tourism destinations implemented the same approach to development, it can lead one to
believe that this approach is “the best and only approach” ...and is the approach
to emulate.
This could be true, but the question cannot be answered
without looking at the outcome and current status of the other destinations
which adopted the same approach and strategy but which did not make the top 3 or even the top 20.
Rephrasing Nassim Nicholas Taleb (Fooled by Randomness), we
are trained (or brainwashed) to base decisions on the information that is in
front of our eyes which often means on the Internet and ignoring or being oblivious to the information that we do not see.
In the case of medical tourism destinations, the information
in front of our eyes usually refers to stories of successful destinations, suggesting that they are the ones whose model and approach to development we
should all emulate.
But the question that should be asked is: how many emulated
the model and adopted this approach but failed?
This is something we do not get to read about.
No doubt, we can blame this “failure to report failures” on
the media (“how to succeed” stories, press releases, advertorials and the work
of paid bloggers).
No doubt, "gurus", several of whom opportunistically, address the medical tourism sector, likewise contribute to the phenomenon of
survivorship bias and to the shaping our selection bias.
But as, once again, Taleb points out: Gurus will fall into
the trap and be shown to be wrong, since most have not had any proper training
in inference (and the relationship between cause and effect).
When it comes to medical tourism destinations and their
future, I have come to the conclusion that past prominence is no guarantee of
future eminence.
Which also brings to mind my caveat referring to “Medical Tourism and the West’sRevenge”.
Dr Constantine Constantinides runs healthCare cybernetics, a “think and do tank” with a recognized competency in Health Tourism Integration and Development. His home base is on the island of Samos in Greece.
Comments provided below do not represent the views of IMTJ. Comments will be published "as is" and will not be edited by IMTJ staff. IMTJ is hosting these comments, and is not undertaking an editorial role in the content of these comments. However, it is editorial policy not to publish comments which have been submitted anonymously.
