The futures of physicians: Agency and autonomy reconsidered

The corporatization of U.S. health care has directed cost containment efforts toward scrutinizing the clinical decisions of physicians. This stimulated a variety of new utilization management interventions, particularly in hospital and managed care settings. Recent changes in fee-for-service medicine and physicians' traditional agency relationships with patients, purchasers, and insurers are examined here. New information systems monitoring of physician ordering behavior has already begun to impact on physician autonomy and the relationship of physicians to provider organizations in both for-profit and ‘not-for-profit’ sectors. As managed care practice settings proliferate, serious ethical questions will be raised about agency relationships with patients. This article examines health system dynamics altering the historical agency relationship between the physician and patient and eroding the traditional autonomy of the medical profession in the United States. The corporatization of medicine and the accompanying information systems monitoring of physician productivity is seen to account of such change, now posing serious ethical dilemmas.     

Cost containment: Issues of moral conflict and justice for physicians

In response to rapidly rising health care costs in the United States, federal and state governments and private industry are instituting numerous and diverse cost-containment plans. As devices for coping with a scarcity of resources, such plans present serious challenges to physicians' traditional single-minded devotion to patient welfare. Those which contain costs by directly limiting medical options or by controlling physicians' daily clinical decisions can threaten the quality of medical care by allowing economic authorities to make essentially medical judgments. In contrast, other plans coax compliance by arranging incentives, e.g., offering financial rewards for successful cost containment. While they allow for clinical freedom, these plans create conflicts between physicians' fiduciary obligations to their patients and the competing interests of the payers. Such conflicts arise as physicians try to work within governmental or corporate cost containment policies, and also as they attempt to “streamline” clinical efficiency. Throughout, issues of justice emerge as physicians seek to reconcile their own patients' claims upon limited common resources with others' equally legitimate claims.     

It’s NOT FAIR! Or is it? The promise and the tyranny of evidence-based performance assessment

Evidence-based medicine (EBM), by its ability to decrease irrational variations in health care, was expected to improve healthcare quality and outcomes. The utility of EBM principles evolved from individual clinical decision-making to wider foundational clinical practice guideline applications, cost containment measures, and clinical quality performance measures. At this evolutionary juncture one can ask the following questions. Given the time-limited exigencies of daily clinical practice, is it tenable for clinicians to follow guidelines? Whose or what interests are served by applying performance assessments? Does such application improve medical care quality? What happens when the best interests of vested parties conflict? Mindful of the constellation of socially and clinically relevant variables influencing health outcomes, is it fair to apply evidence-based performance assessment tools to judge the merits of clinical decision-making? Finally, is it fair and just to incentivize clinicians in ways that might sway clinical judgment? To address these questions, we consider various clinical applications of performance assessment strategies, examining what performance measures purport to measure, how they are measured and whether such applications demonstrably improve quality. With attention to the merits and frailties associated with such applications, we devise and defend criteria that distinguish between justice-sustaining and justice-threatening performance-based clinical protocols.     

Cost containment forces physicians into ethical and quality of care compromises

Contemporary cost containment measures ignore patients' need for privacy, destroy long-term doctor-patient relationships, and demand ethical and standard of care compromises.Economic considerations have distracted the physician and he/she no longer focuses primarily on the patient's welfare. The superficiality of the doctor-patient relationship and the cost-cutting efforts have jointly contributed to the deterioration of the quality of medical care.     

Eavesdropping on the 50-minute hour: managed mental health care and confidentiality

This article discusses managed care, recent case law developments, and the legal basis of confidentiality in the patient-therapist relationship. It discusses how managed care intrudes into the confidential treatment relationship with prospective and retrospective utilization reviews. Some of the areas adversely impacted include public policy, the patient-therapist relationship, and informed consent. In order to be a program in the interest of patients and not simply cost containment, managed care must accommodate patients' reasonable expectations of confidentiality. Suggestions are delineated for the protection of confidentiality by managed care, including expanding the duty of confidentiality to managed care, obligating managed care to secure patients' informational privacy, obtaining informed consent to disclose as little information as necessary, and involving the patient in the cost containment and quality assurance process.     

Computerized encounter registers in primary care research: Is there a gold standard?

Computer technology as well as the need to conduct research in primary care settings, has stimulated the creation in the U.S. of information networks linking private physicians' offices and other primary care practice sights. These networks give rise to several problems which have philosophic interest. One is a “numerator problem” created by the difficulty in primary care of using the more complicated or invasive diagnostic technologies commonly employed in tertiary care research. Another is a “denominator problem” arising from the difficulties in determining which and how many patients constitute the population from which a practice is drawn. Finally, this mode of research raises questions about the social construction of medical reality and how “objective” medical truth is actually based on carefully selected patient experience. All these questions combine to challenge the “gold standard” view on medical research: the idea that some sorts of medical knowledge are epistemologically privileged and can serve as a bench-mark to determine whether new data are valid.     

The demand for effectiveness,efficiency and equity of health care

Effectiveness, efficiency and equity in health care are discussed in this article against the background of concerns that ‘cost containment’ may lead to reductions in quality of care. It is suggested that effectiveness is best seen from the patient's point of view and that it relates to more than simply improved health status. Efficiency and equity are better viewed from a societal stance. The paper discusses the role of the medical profession in effectiveness, efficiency and equity and argues that the role of medical doctors needs to be constrained.     

The Difficulty of Making Psychology Research and Clinical Practice Relevant to Medicine: Experiences and Observations

Psychology and medicine research and practice have demonstrated substantial and unique bodies of knowledge designed to both improve patient care and respond to contemporary health care needs for use of evidence and cost consciousness. At their full potential they represent a significant paradigm shift in healthcare. Despite impressive successes, it is clear that we are just on the cusp of such a change. These findings have had limited impact and penetration into medical practice, particularly outside of academic medicine and large, organized systems of health care, and there are multiple examples of such limitations in various arenas of health care. There also appear to be common themes to such examples which provide us opportunities to consider how psychologists might move things ahead. They also suggest how our unique position in academic medicine can both limit our impact and provide ways of creating continued shifts in the healthcare paradigm. This paper is based in part on the author’s presentation at the Association of Psychologists in Academic Health Centers 3rd National Conference in Minneapolis, Minnesota, May 2007.     

Patient Perspectives on the Learning Health System: The Importance of Trust and Shared Decision Making

We conducted focus groups to assess patient attitudes toward research on medical practices in the context of usual care. We found that patients focus on the implications of this research for their relationship with and trust in their physicians. Patients view research on medical practices as separate from usual care, demanding dissemination of information and in most cases, individual consent. Patients expect information about this research to come through their physician, whom they rely on to identify and filter associated risks. In general, patients support this research, but worry that participation in research involving randomization may undermine individualized care that acknowledges their unique medical histories. These findings suggest the need for public education on variation in practice among physicians and the need for a collaborative approach to the governance of research on medical practices that addresses core values of trust, transparency, and partnership.     

Health services and health care economics: the health psychology marketplace.

In an effort toward cost containment, the health care system in the United States has undergone radical changes in the last decade. These changes have influenced the delivery of clinical health psychology services. This article reviews several economic and marketing factors salient to the clinical health psychology marketplace. For example, these economic changes have placed greater emphasis on the need for cost-effectiveness and accountability in the health psychology field. Implications for education and training, collaboration with other health care specialties, new practice initiatives, and public relations are reviewed. Future challenges and opportunities for clinical health psychology are discussed.     

Aging and mental health in the decade ahead: what psychologists need to know

Until relatively recently, most psychologists have had limited professional involvement with older adults. With the baby boomers starting to turn 65 years old in 2011, sheer numbers of older adults will continue to increase. About 1 in 5 older adults has a mental disorder, such as dementia. Their needs for mental and behavioral health services are not now adequately met, and the decade ahead will require an approximate doubling of the current level of psychologists' time with older adults. Public policy in the coming decade will face tensions between cost containment and facilitation of integrated models of care. Most older adults who access mental health services do so in primary care settings, where interdisciplinary, collaborative models of care have been found to be quite effective. To meet the needs of the aging population, psychologists need to increase awareness of competencies for geropsychology practice and knowledge regarding dementia diagnosis, screening, and services. Opportunities for psychological practice are anticipated to grow in primary care, dementia and family caregiving services, decision-making-capacity evaluation, and end-of-life care. Aging is an aspect of diversity that can be integrated into psychology education across levels of training. Policy advocacy for geropsychology clinical services, education, and research remains critical. Psychologists have much to offer an aging society.     

Three Conceptual Models of Patient and Public Involvement in Standard-setting: From Abstract Principles to Complex Practice

Clinical practice guidelines have been critiqued for prescribing standardized care that neglects patients’ personal circumstances and knowledge in health care decisions. To make care more patient centred, standard-setters are urged to involve patients and the public in guideline development and use. Despite widespread principled support for such Patient and Public Involvement (PPI), the underlying principles guiding PPI in standardization of care are mired on confusion and contradiction. Based on the PPI literature in general, and informed by empirical research on guideline development, it is possible to identify three rationales that justify PPI in clinical standard setting. Each rationale gives rise to a conceptual model which outlines a distinct purpose of participation, who is to be included, and what they are expected to contribute. The Consumer Choice model aims to involve autonomous consumers to personalize clinical care. The Democratic Voice model aims for health care recommendations to better reflect collective values of citizens. The Lay Expertise model aims to re-contextualize universal evidence by including experiential patient knowledge. However, these models can and should not function as ‘Gold Standards’ to be consistently followed in practice. First, the models rely on two distinct types of representation, resulting in contradictory notions of how to be a good representative. Second, imposing models on practice requires a top-down control that is practically and politically problematic. Not only is control difficult to achieve, it may compromise the participatory ideal of participants co-determine practice, and may result in excluding the values and views of ‘real’ patients and public entirely.     

Against the iDoctor: why artificial intelligence should not replace physician judgment

Experts in medical informatics have argued for the incorporation of ever more machine-learning algorithms into medical care. As artificial intelligence (AI) research advances, such technologies raise the possibility of an “iDoctor,” a machine theoretically capable of replacing the judgment of primary care physicians. In this article, I draw on Martin Heidegger’s critique of technology to show how an algorithmic approach to medicine distorts the physician–patient relationship. Among other problems, AI cannot adapt guidelines according to the individual patient’s needs. In response to the objection that AI could develop this capacity, I use Hubert Dreyfus’s analysis of AI to argue that attention to the needs of each patient requires the physician to attune his or her perception to the patient’s history and physical exam, an ability that seems uniquely human. Human physician judgment will remain better suited to the practice of primary care despite anticipated advances in AI technology.     

Noncompliance in end-stage renal disease: A threat to quality of care and cost containment

Noncompliance to treatment regimen after kidney transplantation is a threat to health outcomes and cost containment. Although there are methodological challenges to obtaining reliable compliance data, the results of noncompliance are increased morbidity and mortality in posttransplant patients. In addition, recent research suggests that patients who incur repeated rejection episodes leading to graft failure have higher levels of medical utilization. Some psychosocial factors related to compliance and medical utilization are potentially modifiable through cognitive-behavioral intervention.     

Single-participant research design. Bringing science to managed care

The ongoing transition to managed health care continues to have repercussions for health care providers, perhaps the most important of which is an emphasis on accountability for demonstrating the usefulness of clinical interventions. This requirement places a premium on intervention research and highlights the historically strained relationship between psychological research and professional practice. In the midst of this challenge, researchers have increasingly criticized the logic and practice of traditional null hypothesis significance testing. This article describes the history, epistemology, and advantages of single-participant research designs for behavioral scientists and professionals in clinical settings. Although its lack of correspondence with the Fisherian tradition has precluded widespread adoption, the single-participant alternative features a design power and flexibility well suited to both basic science and applied research.     

美国与知情同意有关的一些问题

知情同意是医疗保健和医学研究的一个基本的伦理学要求。这两种情况中,当医学研究的知情同意标准比医疗保健要求更加严格时,知情同意包含了3种要素：（1）告知病人或受试者该研究的性质。包括益处,危险和其他有关内容;（2）确保病人受试者理解所提供的信息;（3）得到病人或受试者自愿的同意,没有能力参与知情同意的病人包括患痴呆和危重病等无决断 能力的病人,这些病人属弱势病人。如要获许对他们的疾病进行研究,我们必须制定保护弱势受试者有效的伦理政策,提出了关于对痴呆病人、危重病人,脑死亡病人研究的伦理学政策。     

Innovative Practice,Clinical Research,and the Ethical Advancement of Medicine

Innovative practice occurs when a clinician provides something new, untested, or nonstandard to a patient in the course of clinical care, rather than as part of a research study. Commentators have noted that patients engaged in innovative practice are at significant risk of suffering harm, exploitation, or autonomy violations. By creating a pathway for harmful or nonbeneficial interventions to spread within medical practice without being subjected to rigorous scientific evaluation, innovative practice poses similar risks to the wider community of patients and society as a whole. Given these concerns, how should we control and oversee innovative practice, and in particular, how should we coordinate innovative practice and clinical research? In this article, I argue that an ethical approach overseeing innovative practice must encourage the early transition to rigorous clinical research without delaying or deferring the development of beneficial innovations or violating the autonomy rights of clinicians and their patients.     

Consumers and choice: cost containment strategies for health care provision

Consumer responses to three cost containment strategies for providing health care are examined. The data come from a random sample of 365 Los Angeles adults interviewed by telephone. It is found that aggregate sample responses are negative toward two strategies (labelled preferred provider and health planning) and positive toward the third (labelled self care). Furthermore, it is found that demographic characteristics that predict approval of one strategy predict disapproval of other strategies. These findings, coupled with models assessing how and why segments of consumers respond as they do, suggest that no one strategy is likely to appeal to all consumers. Implications for the implementation of health care delivery systems inspired by containment strategies are discussed in the context of recent events in California.     

病人安全：概念与实例

病人安全是一个历史性、全球性的问题,各种各样的医疗错误威胁病人安全,至今在医疗保健背景下医疗错误以各种各样的形式在不断的出现。病人安全问题涉及广泛领域,如人力资源(人员培训、留住医疗专业人员)、提高工作绩效、环境安全和风险评估,具体有感染控制、安全使用药品、设备安全、安全的临床规范做法、安全保健环境和病人安全知识的构筑。这些都需要我们从系统论的角度,构建病人安全文化,加以综合治理。