Labeling a physician and all other non-physician medical professionals as a “provider” is inaccurate, degrades, demeans, and devalues their medical education and should be aggressively opposed in all communication media.
Just as the clerics are not recognized as “prayer providers,” physicians should not be referred to as “health care providers.” They are physicians and surgeons, proud graduates of a medical school, just as their predecessors have been for centuries. Physicians and surgeons are a member of an honored profession earned at great personal sacrifice. They have accepted the ethical and legal responsibility to provide medical care to those in need.
Most historians consider the University of Montpellier, Faculty of Medicine, the world's oldest medical school still in operation today. In the United States, the first medical school was opened in 1765 at the College of Philadelphia by John Morgan and William Shippen. There is yet to be an approved “provider” school anywhere in the world. The hijacking by corporate officers of the sacred credentials of 8 centuries of physicians is unconscionable and should be opposed in every global communication media.
The term “provider” has slipped into our professional vocabulary during this decade as a popular term coined by corporate health systems, insurance companies, journalists, and hospitals as an attempt to de-professionalize the medical doctor from their ethical responsibilities as a physician. The term “provider,” as it relates to a health care service, first appeared in the physical therapy literature circa 1971 and did not actually relate to physician services (PubMed title “Home Care, new provider approaches-physical therapy”). On the other hand, the term “physician” has traditionally been used to refer to a medical doctor or surgeon; someone who enters the profession and practices the art and science of patient care. The term “provider” of any service, whether it is cable, fast food, or legal does not identify what that service is nor does it refer to any specific professional value or education.
The corporatization of the term provider is an attempt to present health care services into one offering, interchangeably at a discounted cost. The physician–patient relationship, the patient trust of a hands-on physical examination and the sharing of learned scientific data with a patient in the decision-making process cannot be allowed to convert into a relative value unit-business transaction. Granted, the English language changes for many different reasons such as incorporation of new technologies, new experiences, new products, and even the globalization of electronic communication; however, it is of critical importance that the term “doctor” as used in society for more than 2000 years and earned at great personal time and sacrifice not be allowed to assume a conflicted meaning.
In a commentary in the J Family Medicine 2013, this issue became so continuous that Dr John Hickner of the Cleveland Clinic suggested that as the Department Chair, he did not “allow the term ‘provider’ to be used in any department discussions.” Large health care systems have been artful in replacing the term “physician” with “provider.” Frequently, under the auspicious of updated contract negotiations, busy physicians and surgeons miss the fact that the language has been changed. Once the contract language refers to the physician as provider the de-professionalizing has begun.
In the orthopaedic trauma community, the generic, liberal use of the term “provider” can create misunderstandings of each professional's role in the team care of patients. Many traditional orthopaedic surgeon responsibilities, such as hospital rounding, initial emergency department evaluation of the injured patient, staffing of orthopaedic urgent care centers, surgical follow-up examinations, and even the triaged non-operative clinic patient, are now being cared for by non-surgeon professionals. Many non-physicians play an integral role in the care of the orthopaedic patient, including physician assistants, nurse practitioners medical assistants, scribes, and technicians. This has allowed the expansion of orthopaedic care to rural communities and streamlined care in urban practices for increased, more efficient access. Unfortunately, this has also led to patient confusion regarding who actually is caring for them.
The American Medical Association has taken a lead role in clearly outlining the ethics of patient–physician relationships, consent, communication, decision making, and privacy with the medical record. Patients should be empowered to ask, “Are you a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, medical assistant, or scribe?” Patients deserve to know. With advanced degrees now available in several non-physician professions, health care systems including orthopaedic practices have a legal and moral responsibility to acknowledge who the patient will actually be seeing and what they do. Every member of the health care team offers a professional service; however, it should be perfectly clear what the training and responsibilities of each specific team member are.
Generational differences also play a significant role in the acceptance, or not, of the term “provider.” Baby Boomers (1946–1964) and the Generation X (1965–1980) are the most prevalent members of our active orthopaedic community. Most Generation X surgeons were trained and influenced professionally by their “boomer” counterparts and were too busy with work and training responsibilities to care about this gradual change to a “provider” status. In fact, with a high percentage of newer physicians taking employed positions, the term provider seems to be the least of their worries in the contract negotiations. Their generational interest in a balanced work–life career, work to live philosophy, and their technological acuity seems to have taken a priority in career development. In turn, this generational change has allowed the corporate icons to thrust this provider status on the physician with little or no resistance.
Just as the clerics are not recognized as “prayer providers,” physicians should not be referred to as “health care providers.” They are physicians and surgeons, proud graduates of a medical school, just as their predecessors have been for 8 centuries. Physicians and surgeons are a member of an honored profession earned at great personal sacrifice. They have accepted the ethical and legal responsibility to provide medical care to those in need. Labeling a physician and all other nonphysician medical professionals as a “provider” is inaccurate, degrades, demeans, and devalues their medical education and should be aggressively opposed in all communication media.
Just as the clerics are not recognized as “prayer providers,” physicians should not be referred to as “health care providers.” They are physicians and surgeons, proud graduates of a medical school, just as their predecessors have been for centuries. Physicians and surgeons are a member of an honored profession earned at great personal sacrifice. They have accepted the ethical and legal responsibility to provide medical care to those in need.
Most historians consider the University of Montpellier, Faculty of Medicine, the world's oldest medical school still in operation today. In the United States, the first medical school was opened in 1765 at the College of Philadelphia by John Morgan and William Shippen. There is yet to be an approved “provider” school anywhere in the world. The hijacking by corporate officers of the sacred credentials of 8 centuries of physicians is unconscionable and should be opposed in every global communication media.
The term “provider” has slipped into our professional vocabulary during this decade as a popular term coined by corporate health systems, insurance companies, journalists, and hospitals as an attempt to de-professionalize the medical doctor from their ethical responsibilities as a physician. The term “provider,” as it relates to a health care service, first appeared in the physical therapy literature circa 1971 and did not actually relate to physician services (PubMed title “Home Care, new provider approaches-physical therapy”). On the other hand, the term “physician” has traditionally been used to refer to a medical doctor or surgeon; someone who enters the profession and practices the art and science of patient care. The term “provider” of any service, whether it is cable, fast food, or legal does not identify what that service is nor does it refer to any specific professional value or education.
The corporatization of the term provider is an attempt to present health care services into one offering, interchangeably at a discounted cost. The physician–patient relationship, the patient trust of a hands-on physical examination and the sharing of learned scientific data with a patient in the decision-making process cannot be allowed to convert into a relative value unit-business transaction. Granted, the English language changes for many different reasons such as incorporation of new technologies, new experiences, new products, and even the globalization of electronic communication; however, it is of critical importance that the term “doctor” as used in society for more than 2000 years and earned at great personal time and sacrifice not be allowed to assume a conflicted meaning.
In a commentary in the J Family Medicine 2013, this issue became so continuous that Dr John Hickner of the Cleveland Clinic suggested that as the Department Chair, he did not “allow the term ‘provider’ to be used in any department discussions.” Large health care systems have been artful in replacing the term “physician” with “provider.” Frequently, under the auspicious of updated contract negotiations, busy physicians and surgeons miss the fact that the language has been changed. Once the contract language refers to the physician as provider the de-professionalizing has begun.
In the orthopaedic trauma community, the generic, liberal use of the term “provider” can create misunderstandings of each professional's role in the team care of patients. Many traditional orthopaedic surgeon responsibilities, such as hospital rounding, initial emergency department evaluation of the injured patient, staffing of orthopaedic urgent care centers, surgical follow-up examinations, and even the triaged non-operative clinic patient, are now being cared for by non-surgeon professionals. Many non-physicians play an integral role in the care of the orthopaedic patient, including physician assistants, nurse practitioners medical assistants, scribes, and technicians. This has allowed the expansion of orthopaedic care to rural communities and streamlined care in urban practices for increased, more efficient access. Unfortunately, this has also led to patient confusion regarding who actually is caring for them.
The American Medical Association has taken a lead role in clearly outlining the ethics of patient–physician relationships, consent, communication, decision making, and privacy with the medical record. Patients should be empowered to ask, “Are you a physician, physician assistant, nurse practitioner, medical assistant, or scribe?” Patients deserve to know. With advanced degrees now available in several non-physician professions, health care systems including orthopaedic practices have a legal and moral responsibility to acknowledge who the patient will actually be seeing and what they do. Every member of the health care team offers a professional service; however, it should be perfectly clear what the training and responsibilities of each specific team member are.
Generational differences also play a significant role in the acceptance, or not, of the term “provider.” Baby Boomers (1946–1964) and the Generation X (1965–1980) are the most prevalent members of our active orthopaedic community. Most Generation X surgeons were trained and influenced professionally by their “boomer” counterparts and were too busy with work and training responsibilities to care about this gradual change to a “provider” status. In fact, with a high percentage of newer physicians taking employed positions, the term provider seems to be the least of their worries in the contract negotiations. Their generational interest in a balanced work–life career, work to live philosophy, and their technological acuity seems to have taken a priority in career development. In turn, this generational change has allowed the corporate icons to thrust this provider status on the physician with little or no resistance.
Just as the clerics are not recognized as “prayer providers,” physicians should not be referred to as “health care providers.” They are physicians and surgeons, proud graduates of a medical school, just as their predecessors have been for 8 centuries. Physicians and surgeons are a member of an honored profession earned at great personal sacrifice. They have accepted the ethical and legal responsibility to provide medical care to those in need. Labeling a physician and all other nonphysician medical professionals as a “provider” is inaccurate, degrades, demeans, and devalues their medical education and should be aggressively opposed in all communication media.