# GoodDoctorBadDoctor.com

Simplicity in finding care is our mission. 

- Canonical URL: https://wefunder.com/good.doctor.bad.doctor
- Entity ID: wefunder:company:123544
- Last updated: 2026-06-22T05:03:39Z
- Generated at: 2026-06-22T15:40:21Z

## Quick facts
- ✅ Finally, your chance to help change healthcare for the better (20% of our nation's GDP!)
- ✅ Co-Founders have 35 years of combined healthcare experience leading multi-million dollar companies
- ✅ Founders participated in an Accelerator/Incubator for digital start-ups, GAN members
- ✅ Founders have the contacts and network to scale quickly
- ✅ There is no clear market leader in this $11.7B space

## Active fundraises
- wefunder:fundraise:70627: 4(a)(6) successful (USD)
- wefunder:fundraise:70645: 4(a)(6) successful (USD)

## FAQ
1. **Everyone wants a good doctor to address the medical needs of people**
   - Thank you George! We believe every life deserves quality care, and our platforms help simplify that. We are taking what we have learned over almost 40 years in healthcare, and are automating what would take us 25 min. to do in 5 clicks.
2. **As so many in this space have discovered, accuracy and reliability of ratings is poor. Often the best physicians have a less than 5 star rating because of several factors: i) referral/selection bias: the best doctors often see the most complicated cases that other doctors in t...**
   - We wanted to take the time to address this fully for Raj, but feel free to skip to the end if you just want the actionable bits. We included the original question in the quotes. “As so many in this space have discovered, accuracy and reliability of ratings is poor.” We agree. Dr. Levine’s examples and the paper he wrote for JAMA exemplify the problem and we feel has only gotten worse. “Often the best physicians have a less than 5-star rating because of several factors:” We agree because we ha...

## Team
- Barry Howell (Cofounder )
- Chad Erickson (Cofounder)

## Q&A
- Q: Everyone wants a good doctor to address the medical needs of people
  - A: Thank you George! We believe every life deserves quality care, and our platforms help simplify that. We are taking what we have learned over almost 40 years in healthcare, and are automating what would take us 25 min. to do in 5 clicks.
- Q: As so many in this space have discovered, accuracy and reliability of ratings is poor. Often the best physicians have a less than 5 star rating because of several factors: i) referral/selection bias: the best doctors often see the most complicated cases that other doctors in the same specialty do not handle. For instance, if you have a hard to control diabetic with multiple medical issues and complications, they get referred to the creme-de-la-creme endocrinologist. This creates a selection bias because the inputs (referred cases) are the worse of the worse so the outputs/outcomes will never be ideal. These are the doctors that other doctors send their own family member to but, per a review website ratings, the general public would erroneously infer this is a poor doctor. ii) other doctors game the system. Doctors know they will be "dinged" for taking on challenging cases so, they refuse to see more complicated cases or refer those out to other doctors (as per aforementioned). iii) good, smart doctors are not uncommonly curmudgeons. They don't create the warm and fuzzies that patients will score well but they are damned good. Other local doctors will know their reputation as an excellent doctor but the public at large will not. iv) heterogeneity of expertise: many specialists are multi-specialty certified so, a rating in one area (good or bad) may not extrapolate to their other areas of specialization. I may be a great intensivist but an awful pulmonologist. But, my labeled to the public does not segment as such. Plus, many have difficulty reconciling seemingly dissonant information. How can this doctor who is a bad pulmonologist be a great intensivist. How can I trust her with my mom in one area and not another? The public desires desires dichotomous decision-making (as the name of your website so alludes), but this is not truth in the universe.
  - A: We wanted to take the time to address this fully for Raj, but feel free to skip to the end if you just want the actionable bits. We included the original question in the quotes. “As so many in this space have discovered, accuracy and reliability of ratings is poor.” We agree. Dr. Levine’s examples and the paper he wrote for JAMA exemplify the problem and we feel has only gotten worse. “Often the best physicians have a less than 5-star rating because of several factors:” We agree because we have lived this. We have worked at practices where the leadership of our competitors would ask for their families to get in with our doctors, even when their doctors had 5 stars. “i) referral/selection bias: the best doctors often see the most complicated cases that other doctors in the same specialty do not handle. For instance, if you have a hard to control diabetic with multiple medical issues and complications, they get referred to the creme-de-la-creme endocrinologist. This creates a selection bias because the inputs (referred cases) are the worse of the worse so the outputs/outcomes will never be ideal. These are the doctors that other doctors send their own family member to but, per a review website rating, the general public would erroneously infer this is a poor doctor.” You are correct. One of the best neurosurgeons I have known (this is also confirmed by two years of empirically reviewed data that showed his complication/ surgical site infection rate was nearly nonexistent) was rated average by most listing sites. On top of that, more than half of his cases were Medicare patients (older and not as resilient typically) and had comorbidities, which makes his statistics far more impressive than someone just operating on healthy 20- and 30-year-olds. So ideally in a case like this, you would want him scoring higher than someone doing the same cases but with less complication. We are working on this, but it will not be ready right out of the gate for a series of logistical reasons. “ii) other doctors game the system. Doctors know they will be "dinged" for taking on challenging cases so, they refuse to see more complicated cases or refer those out to other doctors (as per aforementioned).” It is actually worse than you allude to. Often times the most difficult cases are the older patients. As a doctor, you are less likely to get a good review from an 80-year-old patient regardless of the outcome, because they don’t know how to post reviews. We know personally doctors who are outstanding with an average social media score, and doctors we would not send anyone to under any circumstances who have 4.5+ google ratings. It is why we are motivated to do what we are doing. “iii) good, smart doctors are not uncommonly curmudgeons. They don't create the warm and fuzzies that patients will score well but they are damned good. Other local doctors will know their reputation as an excellent doctor but the public at large will not.” Oh, I love this one, because it lends itself to specialists. It is a little more nuanced than you allude to, but the premise for medicine in general has merit. Primary care, OBGYN, and other non-referral direct care physicians are more likely to develop interpersonal communication skills because they spend more time interreacting with patients. Procedure-based specialists place more value on their skills than on communication. It is also true of the people drawn to the different specialties. “iv) heterogeneity of expertise: many specialists are multi-specialty certified so, a rating in one area (good or bad) may not extrapolate to their other areas of specialization. I may be a great intensivist but an awful pulmonologist. But my labeled to the public does not segment as such. Plus, many have difficulty reconciling seemingly dissonant information. How can this doctor who is a bad pulmonologist be a great intensivist. How can I trust her with my mom in one area and not another? The public desires desires dichotomous decision-making (as the name of your website so alludes), but this is not truth in the universe.” Now we get to the crux of the discussion. There is no perfect way (yet) to evaluate a doctor because there is no such thing as a standard patient and there is no such thing as a standard physician. As someone who has spent thousands of hours evaluating doctors, what we are providing you is an automated platform for doing all the things we would do manually. On average it takes about 20-30 min. for us to evaluate doctors depending on the specialty and the number of states they have practiced in. Mind you this is different than credentialing a doctor which is standardized for most facilities with access to data only hospitals can see. What we are doing is giving you the patient or caregiver 20-30 min. of work in 5 clicks or less. On top of that, you are also getting the ability to be proactive and get an alert if something has changed for your doctor. With this information, you as a healthcare consumer get to make the final decision on who is good for you and your family and who is bad. We chose the name because, on top of working with doctors for the last almost combined 40 years, we have also worked with far more patients. It is how we speak to each other. ‘Hey, I need someone to look at my knee. Do you know a Good Doctor?’ No matter how helpful, how powerful, or how comprehensive our platform is, if no one can remember the site, it doesn’t matter. GoodDoctorBadDoctor.com is memorable. In addition, as we prove our value we will continue to expand, building on the earned trust of the Good__Bad__.com name as we expand into dentistry, imaging, and more. There may not be a perfect platform, but this platform will continue to evolve and grow to become the most trusted platform in the industry.
  - A: Please see our answer below.