Ugh, you're just wrong, and I can only conclude you didn't read the article. They mentioned who conducted it and linked the actual survey, which has all the information you mention.
From the article:
> "There is a perception among some surgeons that it is more difficult, and certainly some felt it was an added risk,” to operate on very obese people, Dr. Yates said. He was a member of a committee that reviewed[1] the risks and benefits of joint replacement in obese patients for the American Association of Hip and Knee Surgeons. The group concluded that heavy patients should first be counseled to lose weight because a lower weight reduces stress on the joints and can alleviate pain without surgery."
> But there should not be blanket refusals to operate on fat people, the committee wrote. Those with a body mass index over 40 — like a 5-foot-5-inch woman weighing 250 pounds or a 6-foot man weighing 300 — and who cannot lose weight should be informed that their risks are greater, but they should not be categorically dismissed, the group concluded.
Again, I think that it's reasonable to have BMI cutoffs as a requirement for surgery, but let's make that argument based on facts, please.
[1] https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278060582_Obesity_a...
> This survey doesn't confirm that surgeries are refused for the fear of lower ratings.
The articles says:
> And 42 percent who picked a body mass index cutoff said they had done so because they were worried about their performance score or that of their hospital.
The problem with this story isn't that it's facts are wrong or misrepresented, it's that they're only reporting one side of the debate in a situation which is very much not one-sided.