Physician Compare provides information about clinicians who provide care for Medicare patients (which is most US physicians). Most of this is objective information and provided by clinicians themselves, so it is generally accurate. The other rating systems that attempt to provide individual clinician complication rates have issues limiting the utility of the rating systems. First, there are typically delays of greater than 1 to 2 years in the clinical outcomes data appearing in the scoring system. Second, not all of the metrics used to assess clinicians are universally accepted as valid measures of a clinician’s outcomes. Both the Consumers’ Checkbook and ProPublica scoring systems rely on data collected from the system doctors and hospitals use for billing Medicare. Because the data are intended for billing and not measuring clinical outcomes, important information about a patient’s clinical condition may be missing, important complications may not be identified, and the data generally pertain only to patients older than 65 years. Third, Consumers’ Checkbook and ProPublica are private agencies and have no public accountability if they make mistakes. They are not required to validate their metrics prior to publication. Fourth, some of the reported complications may not be caused by the clinicians in the database. The complications may be caused by other clinicians or problems with the hospital itself but are assigned to the clinicians because of incomplete or inaccurate information. Fifth, the rating systems are not fully risk adjusted (a risk-adjusted score accounts for a clinician’s taking on high-risk patients, problems, or surgeries). Clinicians who take care of sicker patients will have more complications, so risk adjustment attempts to level the playing field. Unfortunately, because of limitations in the data source used for these scoring systems, the risk-adjustment calculations cannot completely account for all the risks involved in delivering clinical care.