Ethical evaluation of "retainer fee" medical practice

This article examines the reasons that some physicians have recently opted to reduce the size of their practice rosters to allow more time for each patient in exchange for a retainer fee from patients. These physicians also offer supplementary, nonmedical amenities to patients as part of their service. Because physicians have reduced the size of their practice rosters and have increased the price tag for their services, some patients have lost access to their care. We have tried to assess the ethical propriety of such a change in the design of medical practices by weighing plausible, ethically relevant arguments favoring and opposing RFMP. Physicians are ethically obligated first and foremost to promote and protect the health of their patients. RFMP fulfills this duty directly by ensuring prompt and ample professional time for the care of patients. It does so indirectly by allowing time for physicians' continuing education, which in turn should upgrade the quality of care. It also advances the ethical goals of autonomy as it allows patients to choose their own physicians and to spend their money as they please. On the other hand, these ethical positives are offset by the cost of retainer fees that may exclude access of patients to their physicians' care. Even if ethical tradition obligates physicians primarily to patients under their specific care, as professionals and as private citizens, they also have a responsibility to support the health of the entire community. RFMP does little to advance this cause, except that by optimizing the conditions under which their own private patients receive healthcare, they call attention to shortcomings in prevailing public healthcare policies, which by comparison fall short of that standard. An assumption that health is not properly a market commodity, and that all people should receive healthcare on equal terms, would expose RFMP to moral reproof. From an ethical perspective, we find sufficient cause for concern and caution in this innovative style of practice. Nevertheless, the weight of arguments presented here does not seem to justify unequivocal moral condemnation of RFMP. As neither pro nor con views seem to have settled the ethical question, definitive moral judgment on RFMP will probably depend on the outcome of future experience and ongoing evaluation. The implications of RFMP for any future healthcare system are not clear, at least to us.