[sidrajaram]

Their model was not logistic regression (the networks may have had a few logistic units in it, but it's hard to call that a logistic model). The logistic models they compared against were published models from the academic literature. I'm not enough of an expert in this specific subdomain to comment on whether these were the benchmark papers or not.

I don't know if you're trying to imply that the authors of this paper didn't know/know of survival analysis, or if it was a general rant. Looking at the names I know on the paper and the affiliations/backgrounds of the others, it's safe to say they are aware of proportional hazards models.

Survival analysis is not called for when predicting the outcome variables of interest in this study, and that seems to be your primary beef - that they chose the wrong outcomes to model in order to "make hospitals money". I would think that being able to predict outcomes help hospitals plan and manage their resources effectively. From your high horse this may appear to be a wasteful endeavor, but controlling costs will do much more to save lives by making healthcare accessible, rather than building survival analysis models for rare diseases that affect some trivially small portion of the population.

The truth is outside of tech, statisticials (or data scientists) are way underpaid relative to the training and specialization demanded of them. This is true for non-profits and academia. Note that administrators in both these fields are not underpaid to the same degree. Instead of money, they are expected to pay their bills with warm fuzzy feelings of doing good for the world, because of attitudes like the ones expressed in your comment.

Also, fun fact: survival analysis was developed for actuarial use to make ugh money, not bio/medical statistics.