ISSN: 2327-4972
Family Medicine & Medical Science Research
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700+ peer reviewed, Open Access Journals that operates with the help of 50,000+ Editorial Board Members and esteemed reviewers and 1000+ Scientific associations in Medical, Clinical, Pharmaceutical, Engineering, Technology and Management Fields.
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Conferenceseries Events with over 600+ Conferences, 1200+ Symposiums and 1200+ Workshops on
Medical, Pharma, Engineering, Science, Technology and Business
 

Creating Better Doctors or Merely Finding Better Patients?

Aryeh L. Goldberg1* and Ayden Jacob2
1Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, USA
2Gray Institute for Radiation Oncology and Radiobiology, Medical Physics Radiotherapy, University of Oxford, UK
Corresponding Author : Aryeh L. Goldberg
Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University
The Graduate School, Northwestern University, 544 W Melrose Street
Apt. 470, Chicago, IL, 60657, USA
Tel: (347)346-3370
E-mail: aryeh.goldberg@northwestern.edu
Received July 31, 2013; Accepted August 02, 2013; Published August 04, 2013
Citation: Goldberg AL, Jacob A (2013) Creating Better Doctors or Merely Finding Better Patients? Family Med Medical Sci Res 2:e108. doi:10.4172/2327-4972.1000e108
Copyright: © 2013 Goldberg AL, et al. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Visit for more related articles at Family Medicine & Medical Science Research

Current literature is replete with discussions of implicit and explicit discrimination against patients and, as of late, with studies regarding the benefits and drawbacks of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS). This article investigates an area of overlap between these two topics that deserves more attention in the public discourse. The article sheds light on the current PQRS quality metrics with regard to HbA1c, blood pressure and LDL measurements and suggests that they encourage discrimination based on weight. The article outlines the clinical and moral drawbacks of the quality metrics as they stand and suggests that the current wording be reconsidered.
In this critical historical period in American medicine in which few assumptions about healthcare seem to go unchallenged, many providers and patients still cling to a basic premise that they hope will remain unscathed: healthcare is a fundamentally humanitarian profession and its providers are caregivers for society as a whole.
Although this assumption enjoys relative immunity in the literature, the field has seen considerable shifts that fundamentally undermine it in practice. In a recent article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled, “Discrimination at the Doctor‘s Office,” Holly Fernandez Lynch responded to a growing trend by which physicians deny care to patients on “questionable grounds, including the patient‘s sexual orientation, parents‘ unwillingness to vaccinate… and most recently, the patient‘s weight” [1]. Lynch argues appropriately that such practices are legally prohibited and should not be deemed acceptable within medicine. She argues further that “we should condemn all types of invidious discrimination,” and that “we should be particularly vigilant” against its subtle forms. While true, these words of advice don‘t begin to address the problem. Discrimination surfaces when societal and institutional norms allow it and when the healthcare system is designed to encourage it.
Of particular interest to the medical ethics community is the discrimination against patients based on their weight. The potential for a physician to act in a biased manner towards patients based on their individual weight exist both implicitly and explicitly within medical practice. Sabin et al. [2] demonstrate the strong implicit and explicit “anti-fat” bias expressed by physicians based on a statistical analysis of the Project Implicit® Weight Implicit Association Test (IAT). Physicians‘ performance on the Weight IAT demonstrated a strong implicit anti-fat bias on par with the general public. A similarly evident explicit bias was indicated in their self-reported preference for people who are thin versus overweight or obese [2].
Unfortunately, this problem is deepened considerably by the recent implementation of the Physician Quality Reporting System (PQRS) [3].
The very first measure listed in the 2013 PQRS Measures List is titled, “Diabetes Mellitus: Hemoglobin A1c Poor Control.” The accompanying description reads as follows: “Percentage of patients aged 18 through 75 years with diabetes mellitus who had most recent hemoglobin A1c greater than 9.0%” [4]. Similar phrasing is used for measures regarding controlled low-density lipoprotein as well as hypertension. Although most measures in the 2013 Measures List focus on physician interventions (such as administration of aspirin to patients with CAD), the ones previously mentioned focus on the health statuses of their patients. The significant impact of this particular system is that physicians‘ bonuses and deductions are not based on their efforts to control diabetes and hypertension, but on the actual degree to which they and their patients succeed in doing so. It is certainly true that appropriate medical care bears considerable responsibility for controlled hypertension and Hb-A1c, but the patient‘s unique condition, attitude and ability to comply is an undeniable ingredient in producing the best prognosis. These quality measures do not encourage good doctoring; they incentivize doctors to choose “good” patients.
Studies continue to suggest that PQRS raises the quality of reporting, but does not necessarily increase the quality of care. Federman and Keyhani [5] demonstrates that not more than 1 in 5 primary care physicians found PQRS to significantly improve their quality of care with half of the study‘s participants (including other specialties as well) believing it had no impact on quality at all [5].
An earlier national opinion-survey, conducted in 2007 [6], predicted much of what is being suggested here. According to the survey, 88% of internists believed that quality measures are not accurately adjusted for patients‘ medical conditions and 85% believed that such measures do not adequately account for patients‘ socioeconomic statuses. Not surprisingly, 82% of respondents expressed concern that quality measures of this sort would push physicians to deny care to high-risk patients or those of low compliance. To quote one respondent directly:
“If my pay depended on A1c values, I have 10-15 patients whom I would have to fire. The poor, unmotivated, obese and noncompliant would all have to find new physicians” [7].
These concerns, it seems, may be well on their way to becoming a reality. The reasons to avoid such an outcome are numerous. First, it would undermine the purpose of the Physician Quality Reporting System (which is to provide better care to those who need it most) by encouraging physicians to deny much-needed care to that very population. Second, it forces physicians into a position that is ethically and professionally troublesome, making the moral risks equally threatening.
One might defend this practice of discrimination by appealing to the American Medical Association‘s (AMA) Principles of Medical Ethics, which states that a physician (in non-emergent instances), “shall be free to choose whom to serve, with whom to associate, and the environment in which to provide medical care” [8]. Based on this alone, it would seem that discriminatory practice is in fact within the bounds of the medical profession.
However, the remainder of the AMA‘s code provides justifiable means to argue otherwise. It charges physicians to, “recognize a responsibility to participate in activities contributing to the improvement of the community and the betterment of public health” [9]. Further, it demands that physicians, “support access to medical care for all people” [10]. The practice of denying care on the basis of existing conditions such as obesity is a breach of a physician‘s responsibility to the betterment of public health and certainly fails to support access to care for all people. Further, even if weight-discrimination should be deemed a morally acceptable practice for individual physicians, the institution of quality metrics that encourage and motivate this practice certainly is not. These metrics discriminate against those who need care the most and fly in the face of the fundamental mission of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services: to make quality care accessible to all people, and precisely not to discriminate.
References
Select your language of interest to view the total content in your interested language
 
Share This Article
   
 
   
 
Relevant Topics
Disc A Healthcare Advertising
Disc Addiction
Disc Adolescence
Disc Advances in health care
Disc Biomedical Research
Disc Body Mass Index
Disc Cardiac Diseases
Disc Child Health Education
Disc Child Healthcare
Disc Children Care
Disc Chronic Disease
Disc Clinical Pediatric Emergency Medicine
Disc Clinical Procedures in Emergency Medicine
Disc Communicable Diseases
Disc Community Health
Disc Community Healthcare
Disc Community Medicine
Disc Community Occupational Medicine
Disc Construction Safety
Disc Contraceptive Choice
Disc Critical Care
Disc Critical Decisions in Emergency Medicine
Disc Cross-Sectional Study
Disc Dental Health Education
Disc Disorders and Treatments
Disc Education
Disc Emergency Care Nursing
Disc Emergency Care Practice
Disc Emergency Care and Medicine
Disc Emergency Critical Care
Disc Emergency Drugs
Disc Emergency Internal Medicine
Disc Emergency Medical Services
Disc Emergency Medical Services Market Analysis
Disc Emergency Medicine
Disc Emergency Medicine Primary Care
Disc Emergency Medicine Reports
Disc Ethical issues in Health care
Disc Evidence Based Cardiovascular Treatment
Disc Evidence Based Clinical Practice
Disc Evidence Based Decision Making
Disc Evidence Based Dentistry
Disc Evidence Based Diabetic Treatment
Disc Evidence Based Emergency Medicine
Disc Evidence Based Health Care
Disc Evidence Based Interventions and Therapy
Disc Evidence Based Medicine
Disc Evidence Based Medicine and Practice
Disc Evidence Based Nursing Practice
Disc Evidence Based Policy
Disc Evidence Based Practice
Disc Evidence Based Pyschology
Disc Evidence Based Research
Disc Evidence Based Surgery
Disc Evidence Based Therapy
Disc Evidence Based Treatment
Disc Evidence Based Vaccination
Disc Evidence-Based Public Health
Disc Family Care Nurse Practitioner
Disc Family Healthcare
Disc Family Medicine
Disc Family Physician
Disc Family Planning
Disc Family Planning Methods
Disc Family Practice
Disc First Aid Emergency Medicine
Disc Future of health care
Disc Gastrointestinal Cancer
Disc Gastrointestinal and Liver Diseases
Disc Genotyping
Disc Germ cell tumours
Disc Health Insurances like
Disc Health Policy
Disc Health administration
Disc Health care communications
Disc Health care databases
Disc Health care economics
Disc Health care equipment
Disc Health care finance
Disc Health care innovation
Disc Health care insurance
Disc Health care insurance business
Disc Health care legislation
Disc Health care market analysis
Disc Health care products and market analysis
Disc Health care software’s
Disc Health care statistics
Disc Healthcare
Disc Hepatology
Disc Holistic Health Education
Disc Hypertension
Disc Immuno Therapies
Disc Immunology
Disc Industrial Hygiene
Disc Infections
Disc Infectious Diseases
Disc Maternal Health
Disc Mental Health Education
Disc Microbial Pathology
Disc Molecular Signaling and Apoptosis
Disc Molecular Targeted Therapies
Disc Mortality Rate
Disc Neurourology
Disc Nurse Practitioner
Disc Nursing Health Education
Disc Nutrition Education
Disc Occupational Dermatitis
Disc Occupational Disorders
Disc Occupational Exposures
Disc Occupational Medicine
Disc Occupational Physical Therapy
Disc Occupational Rehabilitation
Disc Occupational Standards
Disc Occupational Therapist Practice
Disc Occupational Therapy
Disc Occupational Therapy Devices & Market Analysis
Disc Occupational Therapy Education
Disc Occupational and Environmental Medicine
Disc Oral Health Education
Disc Paediatric Occupational Therapy
Disc Population Health
Disc Pregnant Women Diabetes
Disc Prehospital Emergency Care
Disc Prevalence
Disc Preventive Care
Disc Primary Care
Disc Primary Care Physician
Disc Primary Care Sports Medicines
Disc Primary Care internal Medicine
Disc Primary Health Care
Disc Pulmonary Diseases
Disc Recreation Therapy
Disc Risk Factors
Disc Rural Emergency Medicine
Disc Rural Healthcare
Disc Sensory Integration Therapy
Disc Sexual Health
Disc Sexual Violence
Disc Social & Preventive Medicine
Disc Social Service
Disc Translation Research in Pharmacogenomics
Disc Translational Regenerative Medicine
Disc Translational Research
Disc Translational Research for Cancer
Disc Translational Research for Cardiovascular Diseases
Disc Trauma
Disc Tumours
Disc Urgent Care
Disc Women's Healthcare
 
Recommended Journals
Disc Preventive Medicine Journal
Disc Translational Medicine Journal
Disc Emergency Medicine Journal
Disc Medicine Journal
Disc Family Medicine Journal
Disc Community Medicine Journal
Disc Health Care Journal
Disc Occupational Medicine Journal
Disc Primary Health Care Journal
Disc Internal Medicine Journal
  View More»
 
Recommended Conferences
Disc  2nd Annual Congress and Medical Expo on Primary Care
September 19-21, 2016 Phoenix, USA
Disc International Conference and Exhibition on Medical-Surgical Nursing

 
October 10-12, 2016 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Disc Intensive Care and Critical Care Nursing Conference
Nov 21-23, 2016 Dubai, UAE
Disc 10th International Conference on Nursing and Healthcare
December 05-07, 2016 Dallas, USA
 
Article Tools
Disc Export citation
Disc Share/Blog this article
 
Article usage
  Total views: 11192
  [From(publication date):
October-2013 - Jun 28, 2016]
  Breakdown by view type
  HTML page views : 7462
  PDF downloads :3730
 
 

Post your comment

captcha   Reload  Can't read the image? click here to refresh

 
OMICS International Journals
 
Make the best use of Scientific Research and information from our 700 + peer reviewed, Open Access Journals
 
 
OMICS International Conferences 2016-17
 
Meet Inspiring Speakers and Experts at our 3000+ Global Annual Meetings
 
 

Contact Us

Agri, Food, Aqua and Veterinary Science Journals

Dr. Krish

agrifoodaquavet@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Clinical and Biochemistry Journals

Datta A

clinical_biochem@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9037

Business & Management Journals

Ronald

business@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Chemical Engineering and Chemistry Journals

Gabriel Shaw

chemicaleng_chemistry@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9040

Earth & Environmental Sciences

Katie Wilson

environmentalsci@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

Engineering Journals

James Franklin

engineering@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9042

General Science and Health care Journals

Andrea Jason

generalsci_healthcare@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9043

Genetics and Molecular Biology Journals

Anna Melissa

genetics_molbio@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9006

Immunology & Microbiology Journals

David Gorantl

immuno_microbio@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9014

Informatics Journals

Stephanie Skinner

omics@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Materials Science Journals

Rachle Green

materialsci@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9039

Mathematics and Physics Journals

Jim Willison

mathematics_physics@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

Medical Journals

Nimmi Anna

medical@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9038

Neuroscience & Psychology Journals

Nathan T

neuro_psychology@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9041

Pharmaceutical Sciences Journals

John Behannon

pharma@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001Extn: 9007

Social & Political Science Journals

Steve Harry

social_politicalsci@omicsinc.com

1-702-714-7001 Extn: 9042

 
© 2008-2016 OMICS International - Open Access Publisher. Best viewed in Mozilla Firefox | Google Chrome | Above IE 7.0 version