reference was made to the 1% and 2% rule
The 1% and 2% rules are curious. In referencing them, you would think that Avmed have defined a standard against which they should be measured. What is the actual rate of incapacitation? If it is e.g. 0.1%, then you could argue that the standards they are setting are much too high. If they don't actually know the actual number (which seems likely) it would be reasonable to ask how they determine that their standards are appropriate.
Also, 1% and 2% of what? 1% seems way too high to be a figure for in flight incapacitation. I assume it must be incapacitation at any time during the year. In which case the standard for private pilots seems unreasonably high in relative terms.
A commercial pilot probably flies 10x the hours of the average private pilot, flies under commercial pressures, and many fly multiple passenger commercial operations single pilot. So the relative risk to the public from an incapacitated commercial pilot is much higher than the 1% vs 2% numbers allow for. If the standards are objectively based on risk, the commercial pilot standards should be many times higher than the private pilot, not just 50% reduction in risk.