|
|
|
Jewish World Review July 11, 2008 / 8 Tamuz 5768 Recent survey deceptively claims doctors support national healthinsurance By Michael Arnold Glueck
Widely heralded in the press, a nonscientific survey showed that 59% of American physicians purportedly favor legislation to establish national health insurance (NHI), while only 32% are opposed. In fact most physicians do not favor NHI. "The debate over physician support of national health insurance is over," erroneously comments Don McCanne, M.D., on the website of Physicians for a National Health Program (PNHP). The survey was published as a letter to the editor in the April 1 issue of the Annals of Internal Medicine (2008;148:566-567). Authors are Aaron Carroll, a board member of PNHP, and Ronald T. Ackermann, M.D., M.P.H., associate director of the Center for Health Policy and Professionalism Research at Indiana University. A survey sent to 5,000 randomly selected names from the AMA Physician Masterfile asked two questions: 1) "In principle, do you support or oppose government legislation to establish national health insurance?" 2) "Do you support achieving universal coverage through more incremental reform?" Responses were received from 2,193 physicians, or 51% of the 4,294 eligible participants. (Responses from physicians no longer in active practice were discarded.) In answer to question #1, 38% "strongly" and 31% "generally" supported NHI; 9% were neutral; 17% "strongly" and 15% "generally" opposed it. In response to question #2, 14% "strongly" and 41% "generally" supported "incremental reform"; 21% were neutral; and 14% "strongly" and 10% "generally" opposed it. A PNHP press release claimed support for government health insurance has increased by 10% since the last survey in 2002. However, sampling methodology was quite different in the earlier survey, and question #2 was dramatically changed. In 2002, the question read: "Do you support or oppose a national insurance plan where all health care is paid for by the federal government?" Only 26% supported this option (only 9% "strongly"), while 60% opposed it (27% strongly). (Ann Intern Med 2003;139:795-801) The bias and self serving interests of the authors seemed apparent in the 2003 abstract. "Background:… National health insurance would remedy this situation [of 40 million uninsured], and many believe the success of reform efforts in this direction may depend on physician support…. Conclusions: A plurality of U.S. physicians supports government legislation to establish national health insurance. This support may be relevant to the success of future efforts to reform national health care." Even AMA Board of Trustees chairman Edward L. Langston, M.D., said it was difficult to draw conclusions from the 2007 survey because of "possible confusion over its terminology" (AM News 4/21/08). The survey was "pure propaganda," stated Greg Scandlen of Consumers for Health Care Choices, noting that the sample was self-selected, and the contents of the cover letter unknown. "It might have been calculated to infuriate physicians who believe in freedom, resulting in these doctors discarding the survey." He compared it with a Commonwealth Fund survey a few years ago, which purported to show that employers supported an employer mandate. Scandlen found that the survey permitted only two choices: an employer mandate or single payer (Consumer Power Report #122, 4/3/08). So in sum, "The answer you get depends on the questions you ask," and it's important to note how the survey was rigged. Support for socialized medicine can take several forms. One is ideological bent. Another is resignation — "It's gonna happen anyway, so let's just get it over with." Yet another could be fatigue and the belief that anything is better than the present mess — doctors worn out by the hassle and the threats. So while support for NHI may deceptively look a mile wide in the above 2008 publication — in reality, at best, it is only an an inch deep. The majority of physicians don't support NHI because it has failed medically and economically everywhere it has been tried. Editors Note: Phillip Gold, PhD., author and historian contributed to this commentary. Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., writes on medical, legal and allied social issues in numerous newspapers, magazines and journals locally, nationally and internationally. He is widely quoted in the media. Comment by clicking here. © 2007, |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
