Why doctors are such easy targets:
They are disorganized, individualistic, and political when necessary, and very competitive with each other. In fact, most of the competition has been directed toward and against each other in their local communities. When they perceived that their medical organizations did not represent their interests they walked with their feet and dues, weakening major organizations, that potentially could have aborted the mess our healthcare system is in.It was very easy for the insurance industry to dominate the practice of medicine.
Related posts:
- My take: Physician salaries, the Massachusetts trap
- Physician salaries
- Physician salaries: The health pundits are out of touch
- Before you think about cutting physician salaries
- If physician salaries were lowered, would people still want to become doctors?
- Primary care physician salaries
- Doctor salaries: The free-market experiment
KevinMD.com on Facebook
{ 7 comments }
My understanding of the history of organized medicine is that it began losing the support of docs when it lost the fight against medicare, followed soon by the antitrust rulings that prevented it from playing a real role in mediating complaints against docs by patients and protecting quality of care.
Everything that plagues healthcare today was predicted by the opponents of Medicare as eventual consequences. They were right, and if that is so, then nothing that has happened since could have substantially been different. In other words, once organized medicine lost that fight, the rest was inevitable.
Obviously this is a very complex subject.
By ‘Organized medicine’ I assume that you are referring to “doctors organized by a single organization” – essentially a union.
By “antitrust rulings that prevented it from playing a real role in mediating complaints against docs by patients and protecting quality of care” – I assume you are referring to the fact that Anti-trust laws prohibit most doctors from joining unions.
However, “unions” are not the only way to influence policy, regulations and predatory behavior. ReginaE. Herzlinger’s recent letter to the editor of the Washington Post makes this point nicely.(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/24/AR2007072401850.html)
Kevin’s point stands. Doctors need to unite, align with their patients and fight for a common good – a healthcare industry focused on care first and shareholder satisfaction second.
Let’s all join hands, sing kumbaya together and heal Gaia!
The “common good” for the providers and patients are not one in the same. Providers have shown this repeatedly with patient abandonment for purely financial reasons, collusive control of the healthcare system with their paid politicians, an inability to accept responsibility for their actions, etc. Each group has their own set of objectives, goals and desired outcomes. Patients have served as a captive audience for much too long when it comes to parroting the demands of the providers.
locornacchia:
No. “Organized medicine” is traditionally used to refer to the national, state and county medical societies which are professional associations that once almost had Union like power with regard to thier members.
They share some interests in common. The professional independence of doctors is necessary to prevent the subjugation of patients needs to the interests of the bureaurocrats and MBA’s. It is in the interest of patients that thier professionalism be protected, and that means their independence.
“They” (not a homogeneous group) share about the same interests with the providers as they do with the bean counters and MBAs. One wants the most care at the cheapest rate for oneself while not being forced to pay for the same for others.
In the respect of fees, yes they have opposed interests, but what the patients want is “care” which means dealing with professionals, not labor who are subject to the goals of management, who in turn worships solely at the feet of Mammon. The professional wants a good return for his efforts, but what makes him a professional is a commitment, in return for the the agreed fee, of putting the patients interest first in all that he recommends. In short, to recommend what is best for the patient rather than selling the services that are best for him.
In protecting that professionalism, doctors and patients share common interests.
Comments on this entry are closed.