The doctor vote: Interactions between political ideological preferences and healthcare reform strategies among U.S. physicians

IF 1.7 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Health Policy Open Pub Date : 2024-07-20 DOI:10.1016/j.hpopen.2024.100123
Maitri Patel , Genevieve Lyons , Kara Fitzgibbon , B. Cameron Webb
{"title":"The doctor vote: Interactions between political ideological preferences and healthcare reform strategies among U.S. physicians","authors":"Maitri Patel ,&nbsp;Genevieve Lyons ,&nbsp;Kara Fitzgibbon ,&nbsp;B. Cameron Webb","doi":"10.1016/j.hpopen.2024.100123","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Intro</h3><p>Improving the American healthcare system has consistently predominated the domestic policy agenda in the United States for decades. However, physicians have traditionally played a small role in the U.S. legislative process despite their direct observations of the obstacles that cost, access, and quality can have on their patients and their care. The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between physician political ideological preferences and health policy reform options.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 3,001 currently practicing U.S. physicians to predict how self-identification as liberal, moderate, or conservative impacted a physician’s policy preferences under the domains of cost, access, and quality.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>A total of 536 (18.8%) out of 3,001 physicians responded to the survey. Overall, 32% of physicians identified as liberal, 43% as moderate, and 22% as conservative.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><p>Liberal-identifying physicians favored traditionally liberal reform ideas (a national health plan or public option), while conservative physicians preferred conservative policies (free market optimization). However, variation within political groups and domains of healthcare suggest that no single reform policy will be unanimously supported by every physician within a political group. Nonetheless, physicians are unanimously dissatisfied with the state of our current system, and physician-supported healthcare reform should be a national priority.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":34527,"journal":{"name":"Health Policy Open","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259022962400008X/pdfft?md5=2448f279323a90a68152b2152924df5d&pid=1-s2.0-S259022962400008X-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Policy Open","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S259022962400008X","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Intro

Improving the American healthcare system has consistently predominated the domestic policy agenda in the United States for decades. However, physicians have traditionally played a small role in the U.S. legislative process despite their direct observations of the obstacles that cost, access, and quality can have on their patients and their care. The goal of this study was to examine the relationship between physician political ideological preferences and health policy reform options.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional survey of 3,001 currently practicing U.S. physicians to predict how self-identification as liberal, moderate, or conservative impacted a physician’s policy preferences under the domains of cost, access, and quality.

Results

A total of 536 (18.8%) out of 3,001 physicians responded to the survey. Overall, 32% of physicians identified as liberal, 43% as moderate, and 22% as conservative.

Conclusion

Liberal-identifying physicians favored traditionally liberal reform ideas (a national health plan or public option), while conservative physicians preferred conservative policies (free market optimization). However, variation within political groups and domains of healthcare suggest that no single reform policy will be unanimously supported by every physician within a political group. Nonetheless, physicians are unanimously dissatisfied with the state of our current system, and physician-supported healthcare reform should be a national priority.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
医生投票:美国医生的政治意识形态偏好与医疗改革策略之间的相互作用
引言几十年来,改善美国医疗保健系统一直是美国国内政策议程的主要内容。然而,尽管医生能直接观察到成本、就医途径和质量对患者及其护理的影响,但他们在美国立法过程中扮演的角色历来很小。本研究的目的是研究医生的政治意识形态偏好与医疗政策改革方案之间的关系。方法我们对目前正在执业的 3001 名美国医生进行了横断面调查,以预测自我认同为自由派、温和派或保守派对医生在成本、就医途径和质量领域的政策偏好有何影响。结果3001 名医生中共有 536 人(18.8%)对调查做出了回应。总体而言,32% 的医生认为自己是自由派,43% 的医生认为自己是温和派,22% 的医生认为自己是保守派。结论认为自己是自由派的医生倾向于传统的自由派改革理念(国家医疗计划或公共选择),而认为自己是保守派的医生则倾向于保守派政策(自由市场优化)。然而,政治团体和医疗保健领域内部的差异表明,在一个政治团体中,没有任何一项改革政策会得到每一位医生的一致支持。尽管如此,医生们还是一致对我们当前的制度现状表示不满,因此医生支持的医疗改革应该成为国家的优先事项。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Health Policy Open
Health Policy Open Medicine-Health Policy
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
审稿时长
40 weeks
期刊最新文献
Closing the equity gap: A call for policy and programmatic reforms to ensure inclusive and effective HIV prevention, treatment and care for persons with disabilities in Eastern and Southern Africa Patient’s willingness to pay for improved community health insurance in Tanzania Improving antibiotic prescribing – Recommendations for funding and pricing policies to enhance use of point-of-care tests From theory to practice: Harmonizing taxonomies of trustworthy AI How firearm legislation impacts firearm mortality internationally: A scoping review
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1