This is a really good point about how we myopically understand the value stream of a process. Often, steps that we feel are bureaucratic waste provide a lot of value to someone else in the process.
With that said, I think most healthcare is correct to take a "patient centric" approach. What the OP seems to be making is a "doctor centric" take and, if one was to be overly cynical (I'm not), your post may skew to the side of a "researcher centric" or "societal centric" approach. Doctors should do what's best for their patient, not necessarily what's best for society, or themselves, or a lawyer, or a research lab. It's easy if you work in one of those tangential areas to take your eye off the ball.
I don't think documentation precludes doctors from caring for their patients, but it does limit the number of patients they can handle. This implies that healthcare is more expensive, which maybe seems like a bad thing for patients, but I think it's more of an indicator that we need to find a way as a society to pay for the societal good that is data collection and research--"medicare for all" is one conceivable incarnation.
>but it does limit the number of patients they can handle.
Or, by extension, it limits the amount of time with each patient if they have a throughput constraint to stay solvent.
Tbf, I’m not sure the data supports the claim that doctors spend less time with patients, but the increase in documentation does seem to correlate with doctor burnout.
With that said, I think most healthcare is correct to take a "patient centric" approach. What the OP seems to be making is a "doctor centric" take and, if one was to be overly cynical (I'm not), your post may skew to the side of a "researcher centric" or "societal centric" approach. Doctors should do what's best for their patient, not necessarily what's best for society, or themselves, or a lawyer, or a research lab. It's easy if you work in one of those tangential areas to take your eye off the ball.