Table 2.

Basic conditions for a fair decision-making process concerning the implementation and regulation of physician rating sites

Condition	Implication
Transparency	Empirical information and normative arguments that were relevant for the decision-making process on more- or less-restrictive regulation of physician rating sites should be made available to the public.
Justification	Decisions should be based on a relevant rationale. Relevant reasons are especially those that explicitly and comprehensibly ascribe to the above-described ethical criteria: patient and physician welfare, autonomy, and justice.
Participation	Subjective evaluations that are part of the decision-making process are inevitable due to the complexity of the question. The legitimacy of such subjective evaluations increases when the affected populations (here patients, physicians, and insurance agents) have been given the opportunity to participate and to provide relevant empirical information and normative arguments [37,38].
Minimizing conflicts of interest	Decisions on the implementation or regulation of physician rating sites should be regulated in order to avoid as many conflicts of interest as possible [39]. Conflicts of interest exist, for example, if the decision maker him- or herself benefits from any financial advantages on decisions made for or against any particular forms of regulation of physician rating sites.
Openness for revision	Every decision should be open for revision provided that better normative arguments or better evidence on the effects of physician rating sites is available.