: Two basic criticisms of managed care are that it erodes patient trust in physicians and subjects physicians to incentives and pressures that compromise the physician's fiduciary obligation to the patient. In this article, I first distinguish between status trust and merit trust, and then argue (1) that the value of status trust in physicians is probably over-rated and certainly underdocumented; (2) that erosion of status trust may not be detrimental if accompanied by an increase in well-founded merit trust; and (...) (3) that under conditions of managed care the physician's commitment to traditional medical ethics cannot serve as an adequate basis for merit trust. Next, drawing on an analogy between managed care organizations and polities, I argue that (4) the most appropriate basis for merit trust in managed care is a conception of organizational legitimacy that includes procedural justice, empowerment of constructive criticism within the organization, and organizational accommodation of the noninstrumental commitment to patient well-being that is distinctive of medical professionalism. I then explore the conditions necessary for robust competition for merit trust among managed care organizations and indicate the kinds of public policies needed to facilitate such competition. Finally, I show how the account of organization-based merit trust can accommodate the special fiduciary obligation of medical professionals, without indulging in the delusion that it is the physician's fiduciary obligation always to provide all care that is expected to be of any net benefit to the patient. (shrink)

In recent years a number of commentators have discussed the importance of measuring quality of life in health care. We want to know whether an intervention will help people to live better, not just longer, and whether some treatments cause more trouble than they are worth. New technologies promise wondrous benefits. But when millions of people have no insured access to health care, and when many others face increasingly stringent limits on care, technologies’ high costs require us to choose what (...) we should do from the broader universe of what we can do.The challenges to measuring QL are formidable. Researchers debate whether to measure general QL or disease-specific QL; whether to focus on functional status such as the patient's ability to walk and dress himself, or on the value people ascribe to that functional status; whether to seek the values of the general public, or to concentrate on people actually affected by a given disease or disability. (shrink)

Managed care employs two business tools of managed practice that raise important ethical issues: paying physicians in ways that impose conflicts of interest on them; and regulating physicians' clinical judgment, decision making, and behavior. The literature on the clinical ethics of managed care has begun to develop rapidly in the past several years. Professional organizations of physicians have made important contributions to this literature. The statements on ethical issues in managed care of four such organizations are considered here, the American (...) Medical Association, the American College of Physicians, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, and the American Academy of Pediatrics. Three themes common to these statements are identified and critically assessed: the primacy of meeting the medical needs of each individual patient; disclosure of conflicts of interest in how physicians are paid; and opposition to gag orders. The paper concludes with an argument for a basic concept in the clinical ethics of managed care: physicians and institutions as economically disciplined moral co-fiduciaries of populations of patients. (shrink)

In recent years a number of commentators have discussed the importance of measuring quality of life in health care. We want to know whether an intervention will help people to live better, not just longer, and whether some treatments cause more trouble than they are worth. New technologies promise wondrous benefits. But when millions of people have no insured access to health care, and when many others face increasingly stringent limits on care, technologies’ high costs require us to choose what (...) we should do from the broader universe of what we can do.The challenges to measuring QL are formidable. Researchers debate whether to measure general QL or disease-specific QL; whether to focus on functional status such as the patient's ability to walk and dress himself, or on the value people ascribe to that functional status; whether to seek the values of the general public, or to concentrate on people actually affected by a given disease or disability. (shrink)

In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal 11.2 (2001) 115-116 [Access article in PDF] The Ethics of Medical Mistakes: Historical, Legal, and Institutional Perspectives Introduction In late 1999, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) released its report on medical errors, To Err is Human: Building a Safer Health System. The report estimated almost 50,000 deaths per year nationally due to medical mistakes, making it a leading cause of death. IOM speculated that (...) more than half of the deaths related to medical error are preventable. The IOM report shocked the public and medical professionals alike, sparking a national discussion of how to make the health care system safer. This multifaceted issue has profound implications for all aspects of health care, from the very personal--e.g., the relationship of caregiver and patient--to the societal--e.g., a nation's responsibility to its citizens.On 15 May 2000, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center hosted an ethics conference devoted to the topic of medical mistakes. The goal was to bring together experts from various disciplines, before an audience of both providers and patients, to discuss medical mistakes and their implications. In this issue of the Kennedy Institute of Ethics Journal, we present selected papers resulting from that conference. These papers reflect not only the original oral presentations, but also much of the discussion those presentations generated. Three key perspectives on the ethics of medical mistakes are offered: historical, legal, and institutional.Rosa Lynn Pinkus offers a revealing historical perspective on the ethics of medical mistakes. In analyzing the history of mistake reporting in neurosurgery, she shows how the notion of a mistake developed only as the notion of a standard of practice emerged. Although much of managed care is directed toward systematically fostering a standard of care, this pursuit is relatively new in health care. One might speculate that as more standards are created, mistakes--defined as deviations from standard practice--must increase. If deviation from standard practice is overly castigated, however, then needed innovation in practice may be stifled. Interestingly, as Pinkus discusses, medical malpractice suits quickly followed the emergence of practice standards, driving the initial open reporting of mistakes underground. [End Page 115]Taking up the issue of medical malpractice, Thomas May and Mark Aulisio consider the ramifications of the current malpractice system for mistake prevention. The current system, they argue, while failing to adequately achieve its purported goals of deterring medical mistakes and compensating victims, itself creates a climate that deters the open reporting of mistakes by engendering fear and shame in clinicians. According to May and Aulisio, this failure to report medical mistakes openly has serious ramifications. Chief among these is the inability to do root cause analysis of mistakes, and then, where possible, to implement safeguards to minimize the occurrence of future mistakes. Ultimately, both the prevention of medical mistakes and the goals of malpractice litigation itself will be better served if substantial malpractice reform is undertaken.Andy Thurman argues that even in the current climate institutions ought to have a policy (and practice) of admitting to and openly reporting medical mistakes. Thurman argues that doing so not only is the right thing to do, but is also in the interest of institutions. Interestingly, he contends that failing to admit and openly report mistakes is both at odds with the mission of health care institutions and puts them at higher risk of litigation, and liability. In light of this, Thurman then suggests an institutional process for handling medical mistakes.Michael DeVita concedes that disclosing mistakes is widely supported by the health professionals' principles of ethics, but argues that there are a number of factors that conspire to make doing so a very difficult task. In analyzing an index case, DeVita contends that platitudes about being honest are not nearly enough to foster honest behavior and that policies that offer specific guidance on handling unfavorable events are needed in health care institutions.Finally, we conclude with the policy on disclosure of unfavorable events (this terminology is chosen because it includes both iatrogenic and natural diseases and conditions) that resulted from... (shrink)