Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, United States; Department of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, United States.
Department of Sociology & Anthropology, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA, 02115, United States.
Soc Sci Med. 2017 Aug;186:113-121. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.06.007. Epub 2017 Jun 3.
Advances in genetic testing and the aggressive marketing of genetic tests by commercial diagnostic laboratories have driven both consumer demand and the need for unbiased information about how tests should guide healthcare delivery. This paper uses the countervailing powers framework to explore the role of state public health agencies as arbiters of quality and safety, specifically through their efforts to encourage physicians to follow evidence-based recommendations for screening for hereditary cancers. Social scientists have often viewed actions by the state to regulate cost, quality, or safety as a threat to physician autonomy. This paper draws on case studies from two US states-Michigan and Connecticut-to better understand the specific role of state public health agencies, and especially whether their activities to encourage adherence to evidence-based recommendations bolster or subvert the interests of other parties in the healthcare arena. We find that lacking authority to compel provider to follow evidence-based recommendations, they improvised ways to foster compliance voluntarily, for example, by emphasizing the role of the physician as gatekeeper, thus affirming the importance of physician autonomy and clinical judgment. Both states also used public health surveillance data to make rare diseases visible and illustrate gaps between recommendations and practice. Finally, they both showed that following evidence-based recommendations could align the professional and market interests of healthcare stakeholders. Both states employed similar strategies with similar effects, despite substantial differences in the regulatory climate and organizational capacity. Taken as a whole, their activities orchestrated a countervailing response that checked the profit-seeking motives of commercial laboratories. Our findings demonstrate that rather than eroding physician autonomy, state action to monitor healthcare quality and encourage adherence to evidence-based recommendations can actually reinforce physician authority.
遗传检测的进步和商业诊断实验室对遗传检测的积极营销,既推动了消费者的需求,也需要关于检测如何指导医疗保健服务的公正信息。本文利用制衡力量框架探讨了州公共卫生机构作为质量和安全仲裁者的作用,特别是通过鼓励医生遵循基于证据的遗传性癌症筛查建议。社会科学家通常将国家为控制成本、质量或安全而采取的行动视为对医生自主权的威胁。本文借鉴了美国两个州——密歇根州和康涅狄格州的案例研究,以更好地理解州公共卫生机构的具体作用,特别是它们为鼓励遵守基于证据的建议而开展的活动是增强还是破坏医疗保健领域其他各方的利益。我们发现,由于缺乏迫使提供者遵循基于证据的建议的权力,他们通过强调医生作为把关人的角色等方式,即兴自愿地制定促进合规的方法,从而肯定了医生自主权和临床判断的重要性。两个州还利用公共卫生监测数据使罕见病可见,并说明建议与实践之间的差距。最后,他们都表明,遵循基于证据的建议可以使医疗保健利益相关者的专业和市场利益保持一致。尽管监管环境和组织能力存在巨大差异,但两个州都采用了类似的策略,产生了类似的效果。总的来说,他们的活动协调了一种制衡反应,抑制了商业实验室的逐利动机。我们的研究结果表明,州政府采取行动来监测医疗保健质量并鼓励遵守基于证据的建议,实际上可以增强医生的权威,而不是侵蚀医生自主权。