Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     
  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1977 2(2):212-226; DOI:10.1215/03616878-2-2-212
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Strosberg, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Mauet, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Technology and the Governance of the Health Care Industry: The Dilemma of Reform

Martin A. Strosberg, Charles Levine and Alfred Mauet
New York University
University of Maryland
Syracuse University

With increasing public expenditures for health care services, the accountability of the health care industry has become a major political issue. Concomitant issues concern the structures and processes through which the public as patients, customers, and citizens can directly influence the delivery of health care services. These issues, which are currently part of the national health policy debate, are indicative of the larger question concerning the relationship of the individual to his increasingly complex society.

This paper presents three arguments. (1) The medical profession, through its control of technology and its monopolistic hold on legitimate claims of expertise, is the primary determiner of the way health services are structured and resources are allocated. (2) Domination of doctor-patient relationships, medical care delivery organizations, and the national health care policy process, enables physicians to remain unaccountable to democratic institutions and insulated from public participation in decision-making. (3) Lack of accountability, disproportionate professional power and the failure of governmental regulation raise questions about the role and impact of the medical profession as a quasi-institutional political actor in terms of (a) the return on the investment of $135 billion spent annually for medical care, (b) claims of expertise and self-regulation, and (c) overarching democratic values.







  Home | Help | Feedback | Subscriptions | Archive | Search | Table of Contents


Copyright 1977 by Duke University Press