Editorial: A doctor’s responsibility should be to their patient, not a corporation
Published 5:00 am Thursday, February 22, 2024
- Money and healthcare
The owner of doctors’ offices can increasingly be a private equity firm. And it can mean increased prices for patients and questions about quality of care.
Most states actually have laws prohibiting corporations from controlling decisions doctors make. That’s because the responsibility of a doctor should be to their patient. And a corporation’s responsibility is to its shareholders. If a corporation is in charge of doctors, you can imagine how there might be conflicts.
The Oregon Legislature may also take action this session. State Rep. Ben Bowman, D-Tigard, introduced a bill, House Bill 4130, to limit corporate control. State Rep. Emerson Levy, D-Bend, is also a sponsor.
The bill basically “stops people in charge of companies that do medical work from running both the company and other business that does work that is not medical work. Stops the people in charge from hiring, firing or telling medical workers when and how to do their jobs…. Let’s the Secretary of State punish bad actors. Stops companies that give medical care from telling their workers that they cannot work for someone else,” the bill’s summary says. And there is more.
The bill passed out of committee with some opposition. For instance, legislators worried about existing businesses that would have to change to comply. The bill has a 7-year runway for businesses to come into compliance.
What the bill doesn’t address is why a doctors’ group would seek corporate investment. There are many reasons, including increased regulatory and insurance requirements that eat up more and more time. Legislators should also do what they can to examine those pressures.
By the way, Bowman has run a political podcast in Oregon that includes Reagan Knopp, the son of Republican state Sen. Tim Knopp of Bend. It is worth checking out: oregonbridgepodcast.podbean.com