Supposing we do something that ties the rates doctors are paid to the amount of time they spend doing something. The next batch of things we become incensed and appalled about will be how they always take too long to do something. That is, if we pay more when things take longer.
Why shouldn't we pay the doctor the same amount for a procedure if they figure out a way to do it better or faster or with less side effects or a smaller possibility of significant damage? Perhaps its a little much to pay for 75 minutes, which it took 15 years ago, instead of the 15 minutes it takes now. But paying for just the 15 minutes is a recipe for disaster. People will maximize their own benefit. Things won't become better and faster and safer. That's just the way it works.
Additionally, there has got to be some range of effectiveness in medicine. Some doctors, surely, can do a good job on a particular patient in 10 minutes while another will take 20 to accomplish the same thing or 10 to do a crummy job. To some degree, those that do poor work will eventually be weeded out or see their practice decline to some degree. Word does get out. People talk.
The summary mentioned someone who got 26 hours worth of doctoring done in one day. Should we not reward him or her for efficiency. I see it as better when I get things done in less time than someone else provided I do a good job. Why would it be different for doctors?
I'm not making any attempt at being fair minded here. The arguments for the other side of this are plain and well enumerated so far. But there's more to it than that.
Be careful what you measure. Its true in software development and true in medicine.