Healthcare systems and motivation

Despite the fact that most American physicians, at least until around the 1970s, stood in the way of developing a universal healthcare system, most are generally not happy with the current state of healthcare--or its lack thereof--today. The primary reasons for this general unhappiness are that insurance companies and managed care have successfully conspired to remove much of the physician's autonomy (via imposed time constraints, burdensome paperwork, the time-consuming chore of having to defend going against stringent treatment algorithms that are often inappropriate for some patients) and the satisfaction of knowing their patients. Few physicians in managed care organizations (MCOs) are able to practice without constant and blindly algorithmic interference concerning the diagnostic tests and therapeutic interventions they order. As copayments have increased, they often find that patients, even though "covered," cannot afford the therapy they deem necessary. While physicians expect to earn sufficient to pay back their not insignificant educational debts, provide their children with help through college, and assure retirements sufficient for themselves and their spouses, these should not be considered unreasonable expectations. Most physicians today do favor universal healthcare -- to the point of having included such language in their various professional codes of ethics (which, perversely enough, bioethicists as a group have failed to do). Contrary to the claims of our colleagues, Altom and Churchill, physicians seem to be genuinely frustrated as to what else they can do to change the current inequitable system.