Managed Care - February 2008 - (Page 62) PLAN WATCH King wrote. “But medical care is not amenable to such a system, and patients would do well to use ratings — such as the new Zagat system to rate physicians for WellPoint — judiciously as one of many considerations in choosing a physician.” He further stated that the “patient-physician interaction is fraught with psychological nuances” and a patient’s reason for liking or disliking a doctor may have nothing to do with quality. That assessment has been backed up by survey after survey, including the one done by Regence. Of the information that Regence members want, data on cost and quality were fairly low on the list, Robertson says. In his USA Today op-ed, King pointed to one of the dangers of depending too much on what might be heard, to use Robertson’s metaphor, over the backyard fence. King wrote: “Choosing a physician only according to consumer ratings can deprive patients of high quality medical care, particularly if those ratings are based on unrecognized and unvoiced anger or unjustified allegiance.” That said, King thinks that Regence’s program is better equipped to filter out such bias. “In Regence, it appears as if all 3 million members can participate, and the percentages may work out pretty good,” says King. “It also appears as if physicians can go in and correct things and enter data themselves. That’s different from what WellPoint is doing. WellPoint actually is getting 10 patients to respond to you. It automatically goes on the list and then you’re listed. So, you can have a couple of bad experiences with a couple of patients and the physician can be painted inappropriately. Which means people won’t choose him.” Transparency King insists that the AAFP likes transparency and believes that patients should be given as much information about their physicians as possible. “We just want to make sure that the data are accurate,” he says. Rating sites are usually positive and wellmannered, Robertson argues. “Whether it’s for doctors or consumers, most people rate their experiences positively,” says Robertson. “I think doctors are concerned that only disenchanted people will provide ratings and that’s just not been the experience.” Robertson, who was in private practice 12 years before becoming an administrator, says that he would have welcomed such feedback. “Most physicians, apart from those associated with large organized groups, do not have a tool by which they can collect patient satisfaction data whereby they can improve — whether it’s the waiting time in their office or the amount of time they spend with them. Without feedback it’s really hard to improve and most doctors want to be the very best they can. Usually, says Robertson, when patients are dissatisfied with the service that they are receiving, they simply disappear. “The reason for their departure remains unknown by the physician. The Internet makes this process more open, and allows for a physician to respond if desired. This becomes a mutually beneficial process. “Physicians who are wary of online, realtime experience-sharing are largely unfamiliar with the new and vibrant world of social networking. People use phones, PDAs, and computers. It is noteworthy that the physicians who have the greatest apprehension are those that do not use the Internet to correspond with their patients and avoid electronic medical records.” In that sense, the Regence program says to those doctors: Welcome to modern times. MC ADVERTISING INDEX FOREST LABORATORIES Bystolic 9–16 Namenda 33–34 HEALTH DIALOG Health Plans 5 MERCK & COMPANY Gardasil 53–54 Januvia 43–44 SOLVAY PHARMACEUTICALS Corporate C2 WYETH PHARMACEUTICALS Corporate C4 62 MANAGED CARE / FEBRUARY 2008
For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.