Since the time of Hippocrates, it has been assumed that a physician’s first obligation is to provide the best possible care to individual patients, without distortion by competing societal interests.1 This once near-sacrosanct principle is being tested by the high costs of the health care in the United States, which increasingly threaten the economy. Because physicians control much of the delivery of health care, they have a natural role in helping to control health care costs. But historically, our society has been uneasy about assigning this role to physicians. When people are sick and helpless, do they really want their physicians to be influenced by costs, or do they need to believe that their physicians want only to serve them according to their medical needs?
Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.
Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.
Err on the side of full disclosure.
If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.
Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.
Goitein L. The Argument Against Reimbursing Physicians for Value. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(6):845–846. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.1063
Customize your JAMA Network experience by selecting one or more topics from the list below.
Create a personal account or sign in to: