Dr. Roy Poses has tirelessly written about the loss of professionalism in the medical profession.Here is the link for a recent commentary by Dr. Poses about the rise and likely consequences of the corporate physician.
There was a time when the AMA vigorously opposed the corporate practice of medicine and a number of states outlawed it.But now times have changed and few states have strong statutes limiting it.
Texas still has a residual- but significantly watered down- corporate practice of Medicine statute. See here for a history of the corporate practice of medicine idea with emphasis on the exceptions even in Texas which has one of the strongest prohibitions against the corporate practice.In Texas the most widely used exception is the situation in which a "non-profit health corporation"-so certified according to defined statutory criteria-can hire physicians.See here for a discussion of what is referred to as a 501(a) entity.The rational of the original opposition to corporate practice was simply that the business entity would control the doctor's practice and profit-not the patients best interest would be controlling.There is much to suggest that the same objection is valid today but few voices are heard in that regard.It should be noted that the "non-profit health corporations" included the "not for profit hospitals". As is obvious Non-profit as well as successful for profit hospitals annually have revenue greater than cost;otherwise they would not be able to keep expanding with more and more branch offices and purchasing physician practices let alone keep operating.
Recently, I attended a seminar sponsored by the local medical society labelled as eligible for CME credit under the ethics category of required annual CME credit in Texas.The topic was how to promote your medical practice and , of course, advertizing was one way recommended.
There are at least two negative consequences of physician being employed by hospitals or large medical aggregations ( that includes the latest incarnation, the highly touted ACO):
1)Increased costs to the patient
2)decreased quality of care
Poses give illustrative examples of how the same procedure can cost more when ordered by or performed by a physician working for the hospital versus a free standing doctor not compensated by the hospital. Read Dr. Poses's posting referenced above for details about these negative consequences.
People respond to incentives.Physicians employed by health care corporation inevitably will face the situation in which the incentives generated by corporate goals and targets with which the docs will be tasked will conflict with the primary directive ( or what used to be the prime directive ) of a physician namely doing what is right for the individual patient.I am afraid that the physician's role as a patient advocate in the corporate health care organization may go the way of the AMA's prohibition against physicians advertizing,a quaint historical artifact.Once the physician accepts the new ethics position that they are responsible for the health of the collective ( the ACO may be the collective ),then the greater good for the greatest number will just happen to coincide with the financial health of the organization.