A recent NEJM article, Lessons from the Mammography Wars, opens with a quote from the 18th Century philosopher-economist Adam Smith:
People of the same trade seldom meet together . . . [without] the conversation end[ing] in a conspiracy against the public.
— The Wealth of Nations (1776)
The opinion piece, published on Sept. 8, considers the controversy that surrounded last year’s U.S. Preventive Service Task Force recommendations for screening mammography in the context of broader issues. It contains some serious accusations:
“Advocates of breast-cancer screening, particularly breast radiologists, immediately took action, denouncing the panel’s statements as government rationing, suggesting that the panel members had ignored the medical evidence…
Ultimately, what’s incriminated is the self-interest of doctors:
“…Although it is true that individual medical providers care deeply about their patients, the guild of health care professionals — including their specialty societies — has a primary responsibility to promote its members’ interests. Now, self-interest is not in itself a bad thing; indeed, it is a force for productivity and efficiency in a well-functioning market. But it is a fool’s dream to expect the guild…to compete on true value when the opportunity to inflate perceived value is readily available.
OK, readers, so how do I recommend we resolve this thorny issue?
Physicians should be on salaries, set in such a way that their earnings aren’t based on the procedures they order or perform. For example, I don’t think a surgeon should earn more money if he or she performs a greater number of biopsies or mastectomies, as opposed to spending time examining and speaking with patients who are contemplating those procedures. I don’t think an oncologist should earn more money by ordering or administering more infusions of chemotherapy, as opposed to recommending a “wait and watch” type approach, palliative care, or giving pills that are effective in some malignancies.
If physicians’ potential profit motive clouds the mammography debate, as the authors contend, that doesn’t mean that mammography is ineffective. Rather it signifies that doctors and scientists should analyze data and make clinical decisions in the absence of financial or other conflicts of interest.
If patients could know that their doctors don’t have a vested interest in mammograms, or any other test or procedure they might prescribe, they’d trust them more. It’s for this reason, above all, that we should disconnect doctors’ decisions from economic gain.