Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


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


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 1997 22(2):533-556; DOI:10.1215/03616878-22-2-533
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Stone, D. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

The Doctor as Businessman: The Changing Politics of a Cultural Icon

Deborah A. Stone
Brandeis University

From just after the Civil War, when medicine began to professionalize, until the late 1970s, doctors and policy makers believed that clinical judgment should not be influenced by the financial interests of doctors. Physicians were highly entrepreneurial, and organized medicine fought to preserve their entrepreneurial interests, but the moral norm that justified their autonomy from state regulation was a strict separation of clinical judgment and pecuniary interests.

Under managed care, the old norm is reversed. A good doctor takes financial considerations into account in making clinical decisions. Theoretically, doctors should consider measures of cost to society, but in practice, the payment systems of managed care plans induce doctors to consider the impact of each clinical decision on their own income. Because doctors share the risks of insuring patients with managed care plans, they have the same incentives as insurers to avoid patients who are expensively sick. The new cultural image of doctors as entrepreneurs masks their considerable loss of clinical autonomy under managed care. It also serves to persuade doctors to accept managed care arrangements and to persuade insurance consumers and patients to accept reduced benefits from employers and the government.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
J. R. Matthews
Practice Guidelines and Tort Reform: The Legal System Confronts the Technocratic Wish
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1999; 24(2): 275 - 304.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
E. M. Melhado
Economists, Public Provision, and the Market: Changing Values in Policy Debate
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1998; 23(2): 215 - 263.
[Abstract] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
T. R. Marmor
Forecasting American Health Care: How We Got Here and Where We Might Be Going
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, January 1, 1998; 23(3): 551 - 571.
[Abstract] [PDF]




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


Copyright 1997 by Duke University Press