Government regulation of doctor fees: arguments against price limits

Doctor's Fees

Health care is one of those fundamental rights we should be able to expect as citizens of a country that concerns itself with the well-being of its citizens. Sadly, however, this is the one area that sadly lacks in providing even half of citizens with an adequate basis of health throughout their lives. Many things have been blamed for this state of the situation. At the top of the list of reasons is funding. Government simply does not have sufficient funding to provide all citizens with the health care they need. However, when considering the government's interference in the health care field, critics have increasingly questioned the wisdom and effectiveness of such effectiveness. Doctor's fees, for example, are being regulated by the government. But what are the effects of such regulation on the quality of care received? It appears that doctors whose fees are regulated fail to provide a very high quality of care in terms of their advisory relationship to patients, the removal of competition from the market, and an emphasis on government and corporate agenda rather than health care.

One interesting point in this regard is made by McClintock Greenberg (2010), in terms of the motivation of doctors to cultivate a relationship with their patients and act as advisors rather than simply dispensers of medications, tests, and clinical care. With regulated fees, doctors are removed from the autonomy of decision making that they would otherwise have. In addition, the government requirements for care discourage cultivating a personal or even advisory role with patients. Hence, doctors are overwhelmed by patients with various conditions and are increasingly pressured to merely prescribe medicine rather than provide advice on healthier lifestyles. This is one of the primary reasons for the author's premise that the government should limit its interference in the health care process itself.

Levy (2010) mentions another substantial reason for removing government regulations on doctor's fees, which relates to market competition. The point the author makes in this regard is that regulation of fees removes any sense of competition from the market. This means that there is no differentiation in quality when distinguishing between doctors. Because fees are regulated, there is no indicator of either quality or overtraining in the market, which means further potential wastes in the funding allocated for training. The author mentions the example of the excellent doctor as opposed to a physician who is merely average. Both received the same amount of required training. There is nothing to distinguish them except patient experience. With this lack of indicator in terms of quality, it is difficult to monitor the effectiveness of the health care system or to determine areas where improvements are needed. Currently, individual doctors are expected to take responsibility for their own excellence. There are no market forces to encourage them to do so. This affects the quality of care received by patients as well as what doctors are able to give.