Literature DB >> 28622609

The strategic defense of physician autonomy: State public health agencies as countervailing powers.

Laura Senier1, Rachael Lee2, Lauren Nicoll2.   

Abstract

Advances in genetic testing and the aggressive marketing of genetic tests by commercial diagnostic laboratories have driven both consumer demand and the need for unbiased information about how tests should guide healthcare delivery. This paper uses the countervailing powers framework to explore the role of state public health agencies as arbiters of quality and safety, specifically through their efforts to encourage physicians to follow evidence-based recommendations for screening for hereditary cancers. Social scientists have often viewed actions by the state to regulate cost, quality, or safety as a threat to physician autonomy. This paper draws on case studies from two US states-Michigan and Connecticut-to better understand the specific role of state public health agencies, and especially whether their activities to encourage adherence to evidence-based recommendations bolster or subvert the interests of other parties in the healthcare arena. We find that lacking authority to compel provider to follow evidence-based recommendations, they improvised ways to foster compliance voluntarily, for example, by emphasizing the role of the physician as gatekeeper, thus affirming the importance of physician autonomy and clinical judgment. Both states also used public health surveillance data to make rare diseases visible and illustrate gaps between recommendations and practice. Finally, they both showed that following evidence-based recommendations could align the professional and market interests of healthcare stakeholders. Both states employed similar strategies with similar effects, despite substantial differences in the regulatory climate and organizational capacity. Taken as a whole, their activities orchestrated a countervailing response that checked the profit-seeking motives of commercial laboratories. Our findings demonstrate that rather than eroding physician autonomy, state action to monitor healthcare quality and encourage adherence to evidence-based recommendations can actually reinforce physician authority.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Countervailing powers; Evidence-based medicine; Genetic testing; Health care quality; Professional autonomy; Public health organizations; Public health policy; United States

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28622609      PMCID: PMC5531602          DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.007

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Soc Sci Med        ISSN: 0277-9536            Impact factor:   4.634


  30 in total

1.  Factors associated with decisions about clinical BRCA1/2 testing.

Authors:  K Armstrong; K Calzone; J Stopfer; G Fitzgerald; J Coyne; B Weber
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2000-11       Impact factor: 4.254

2.  Using core public health functions to promote BRCA best practices among health plans.

Authors:  D Duquette; K Lewis; J McLosky; J Bach
Journal:  Public Health Genomics       Date:  2011-12-20       Impact factor: 2.000

3.  Physician autonomy and informed decision making: finding the balance for patient safety and quality.

Authors:  Simon C Mathews; Peter J Pronovost
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2008-12-24       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  'A pill for every ill': explaining the expansion in medicine use.

Authors:  Joan Busfield
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2010-01-22       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 5.  The current landscape for direct-to-consumer genetic testing: legal, ethical, and policy issues.

Authors:  Stuart Hogarth; Gail Javitt; David Melzer
Journal:  Annu Rev Genomics Hum Genet       Date:  2008       Impact factor: 8.929

6.  Payers move slowly on test coverage decisions.

Authors:  Bob Carlson
Journal:  Biotechnol Healthc       Date:  2005-08

7.  Large, Prospective Analysis of the Reasons Patients Do Not Pursue BRCA Genetic Testing Following Genetic Counseling.

Authors:  Sommer Hayden; Sarah Mange; Debra Duquette; Nancie Petrucelli; Victoria M Raymond
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2017-01-16       Impact factor: 2.537

8.  Changing medical organization and the erosion of trust.

Authors:  D Mechanic
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.911

9.  Barriers to the use of personalized medicine in breast cancer.

Authors:  Christine B Weldon; Julia R Trosman; William J Gradishar; Al B Benson; Julian C Schink
Journal:  J Oncol Pract       Date:  2012-05-22       Impact factor: 3.840

10.  Evidence based medicine: a movement in crisis?

Authors:  Trisha Greenhalgh; Jeremy Howick; Neal Maskrey
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2014-06-13
View more
  3 in total

1.  Navigating the evidentiary turn in public health: Sensemaking strategies to integrate genomics into state-level chronic disease prevention programs.

Authors:  Laura Senier; Leandra Smollin; Rachael Lee; Lauren Nicoll; Michael Shields; Catherine Tan
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  2018-06-23       Impact factor: 4.634

Review 2.  Evaluating the role of public health in implementation of genomics-related recommendations: a case study of hereditary cancers using the CDC Science Impact Framework.

Authors:  Ridgely Fisk Green; Mary Ari; Katherine Kolor; W David Dotson; Scott Bowen; Nancy Habarta; Juan L Rodriguez; Lisa C Richardson; Muin J Khoury
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2018-06-15       Impact factor: 8.822

3.  Physicians' perceptions of autonomy support during transition to value-based reimbursement: A multi-center psychometric evaluation of six-item and three-item measures.

Authors:  Anthony C Waddimba; David C Mohr; Howard B Beckman; Mark M Meterko
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.