By Joseph Varon at Brownstone dot org.

In recent years, I have observed a concerning trend in clinical practice. Patients often present not at the beginning of their diagnostic journey, but after undergoing multiple procedures. Many have already experienced numerous tests, interventions, injections, ablations, endoscopies, and even surgeries, frequently within a brief timeframe and sometimes without a clearly defined, stepwise rationale.

In many of these cases, I find myself asking a simple but uncomfortable question: Why was all of this done?

Procedures are essential and life-saving. Interventional medicine has markedly improved outcomes in cardiology, oncology, critical care, trauma, and other specialties. With decades of experience in resuscitation medicine, I fully support decisive intervention when clinically indicated. However, the prevailing challenge is not under-treatment, but the normalization of reflexive intervention. Medicine has shifted from a discipline rooted in thoughtful clinical reasoning to one increasingly driven by algorithmic escalation, often to the detriment of patients.

The Procedural Cascade

There is a phenomenon in modern healthcare that is rarely discussed openly: the procedural cascade. A patient presents with symptoms of back pain, reflux, mild arrhythmia, knee discomfort, and fatigue. An imaging study is ordered early. An incidental finding appears. The incidental finding triggers a referral. The referral triggers a diagnostic procedure. The diagnostic procedure reveals a "borderline" abnormality. The borderline abnormality leads to intervention.

Each step in this process may appear justified when considered in isolation. The MRI revealed a finding. The specialist aimed to avoid missing a diagnosis. The procedure was technically indicated.

However, when we examine the entire sequence, it often becomes apparent that no one paused to assess whether the patient was improving, deteriorating, or genuinely required intervention. Each step in this cascade carries risk: infection, bleeding, anesthesia complications, nerve injury, medication side effects, psychological distress, financial strain, and, in some cases, permanent harm.

In the intensive care unit, clinicians are trained to evaluate the risk–benefit balance of every intervention. Each line placed, medication administered, or procedure performed must be justified by its potential benefits relative to its risks. Outside of critical care, however, this discipline of restraint often diminishes.

When "More" Becomes the Default

Modern healthcare systems reward activity. Activity generates revenue. Procedures are reimbursed at higher rates than conversations. Interventions are billable. Observation is not.

This is not a moral critique of individual physicians. Most enter the profession with a genuine desire to help. However, clinicians function within systems that shape behavior. When compensation models prioritize procedural throughput, hospital systems depend on service-line revenue, and time constraints limit nuanced discussion, the pressure to act intensifies. In many clinical environments, the most challenging decision is not which action to take, but whether to refrain from intervention.

Defensive medicine also contributes significantly. Fear of litigation often compels physicians to order additional tests. This approach is understandable, as it is generally easier to defend action than inaction in legal settings. However, defensive ordering introduces its own risks, including radiation exposure, false positives, unnecessary biopsies, and further invasive procedures.

It is essential to ask: when a procedure is performed, is it primarily driven by patient-centered benefit, or by systemic pressures unrelated to the individual patient?

The Training Question

Another concerning possibility is a decline in the art of clinical judgment. The older generation of physicians was trained in an era when diagnostic imaging was limited, and laboratory test...