Is collective bargaining positive for doctors and patients?
Union membership, which has been steadily declining in the manufacturing sector of the U.S. economy, might be poised to gain some new ground in the health care industry.
Proposed legislation in Pennsylvania and Texas as well as existing laws in Washington state give independent physicians the ability to bargain collectively with HMOs, free of federal antitrust limitations. And neither the Justice Department nor the HMOs -- nor even some doctors -- are happy about this.
One internist in a small general hospital in New York state (who wished not to be named) sees the need for reform. "I know from personal experience that being a physician no longer carries with it the intellectual and financial rewards that it perhaps once did. By improving working conditions and reimbursement, we would once again be able to attract more ... people into the field."
Due to the increasing control that HMOs wield over health care, more and more independent doctors want the right to negotiate collectively with the people who are paying for their services. Historically, this meant the patients themselves. For that reason, the American Medical Association (AMA) has traditionally maintained that doctors, who are supposed to have the patient's best interests in mind, had no business joining unions.
The History of Physician Unions
The idea of physicians joining a professional trade union is not a new one. In her book "When Physicians Join Unions," Grace Budrys, Ph.D., looks at the factors that led to the original surge of physician unions in the early 1970s.
Budrys found that a few fledgling physician unions were formed at that time as a response to increased government intervention in medical decision making. However, almost all those unions had folded by 1990. In 1997, only 6% of doctors belonged to the few medical unions in existence.
Because of consolidations that have left most health care in the hands of six major insurance carriers, many doctors are again feeling frustrated. They claim HMOs are preventing them from pursuing necessary treatments. Meanwhile, HMOs assert that they need to oversee treatments to keep costs from rising out of control.