Rédaction Africa Links 24 with Michael P.H. Stanley
Published on 2024-03-06 09:30:34
In the realm of digital communication between patients and physicians, a new trend has emerged where hospital systems are starting to charge patients for messaging their doctors through electronic medical records. This practice involves either a flat rate fee similar to a copay or a sliding scale based on the time or complexity of the physician’s response. The costs associated with these messages can range from less than $10 to $100 per message, billed either through insurance or directly to the patient.
As this practice has been adopted by at least 22 hospital systems, a debate within the medical profession has arisen regarding whether charging patients for sending a note to a doctor is a reasonable measure or an unjust burden. Looking back on historical practices, it is interesting to note that in the past, doctors used to charge for phone calls, as exemplified by a personal anecdote about a family dog’s health scare that resulted in a bill from the family doctor.
However, the current landscape of healthcare, dominated by large hospital systems and corporate entities, raises concerns about the true beneficiaries of charging for electronic messages. While the intention may be to reduce physician inbox burden or compensate them fairly for after-hours work, the reality may be that these policies primarily benefit the institutions rather than the healthcare providers themselves.
The shift towards digital communication between doctors and patients was incentivized by government programs like “meaningful use,” aimed at promoting efficiency and accessibility in healthcare. However, the implementation of these digital systems has raised concerns about the commodification of medical services and the impact on physician-patient relationships. The pressure on doctors to handle increasing volumes of messages without proper compensation has contributed to burnout and dissatisfaction within the medical community.
The trend of charging for messaging services may not effectively address the root causes of physician burnout or improve the quality of care for patients. Instead, it may serve as a way for hospital systems to capture additional revenue streams and reposition physicians as mere service providers within a profit-driven healthcare system. Ultimately, the moral implications of charging patients for electronic messages raise questions about access to care and the true motivations behind these policies.
In conclusion, the practice of charging patients for digital messages to their doctors reflects a broader shift towards a more corporate and profit-driven healthcare system. While the intention may be to improve efficiency and communication, the unintended consequences on physician well-being and patient care warrant further consideration and reflection within the medical community.
