Home Duke University Press
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


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


Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law 2000 25(2):343-376; DOI:10.1215/03616878-25-2-343
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 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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (7)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Rodwin, M. A.
Right arrow Articles by Okamoto, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Duke University Press

Physicians' Conflicts of Interest in Japan and the United States: Lessons for the United States

Marc A. Rodwin
Indiana University

AtoZ (Etsuji) Okamoto
Kindai University

Abstract.

Japanese health policy shows that even with physician ownership and the absence of for-profit, investor-owned health care, physicians' conflicts of interest thrive. Physician dispensing of drugs and ownership of hospitals and clinics were justified in Japan as ways to avoid commercialization of medicine. Instead, they create physicians' conflicts and fuel patient overuse of services. Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) has responded by introducing per-diem payment, thereby creating incentives to decrease services in ways similar to those of American managed care organizations, but with none of their benefits, such as coordination of care, oversight of physicians practices, and quality assurance.

Although the United States and Japanese health care systems are organized and financed differently there is convergence in the source of their physicians' conflicts and the way they are addressed. The United States is starting to integrate institutional and physician payment and align their incentives, in a traditional Japanese way. In so doing, the United States creates new physicians' conflicts and reduces the role of countervailing incentives and power, an advantage of previous policy. Japan, in turn, has combined incentives to increase and decrease services, thus moving closer to the U.S. policy.




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
Health Policy PlanHome page
Y.-C. Lee, K.-H. Huang, and Y.-T. Huang
Adverse pharmaceutical payment incentives and providers' behaviour: the emergence of GP-owned gateway pharmacies in Taiwan
Health Policy Plan., November 1, 2007; 22(6): 427 - 435.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
Journal of Health Politics, Policy and LawHome page
S. Kwon and M. R. Reich
The changing process and politics of health policy in Korea.
Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, December 1, 2005; 30(6): 1003 - 1026.
[Abstract] [PDF]




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


Copyright 2000 by Duke University Press