This essay describes how longstanding conceptions of professionalism in American medical care came under attack in the decades since the enactment of Medicare in 1965 and how the reform strategy and core provisions of the 2010 Affordable Care Act (ACA) illustrate the weakening of those ideas and the institutional practices embodying them.

The opening identifies the dominant role of physicians in American medical care in the two decades after World War II. By the time Medicare was enacted in 1965, associations of American physicians were almost completely in charge of medical education, specialist certification, and the enforcement of professional norms on their members. Who could be a doctor, what education and training would be required, and what collegial oversight was operative was first a professional matter and only secondly implicated the state through malpractice or major corporations via the employment of physicians.

Many observers claim that business has become a powerful force in medicine and that the future of health care cannot escape that reality, even though some scholars lament it. The U.S. recently experienced the most devastating recession since the Great Depression. As health care costs rise, we face additional pressure to rein in health care spending. We also have important new legislation that could well mark a significant shift in how health care is provided and who has access to care, namely the Affordable Care Act (ACA). These changes underscore the need to bring new thinking to the conversation about health care and to move beyond conceptual and practical obstacles that inhibit our progress.

In this paper we do not to claim to have solutions. Rather, our aim is to try to identify some obstacles to fostering a better conversation about the future of health care and to envisioning a better health care system.

The American health care system long has been distinctive in its embrace of market forces. For-profit private insurers play a major role in providing coverage, though they operate alongside public insurance programs that cover over one-third of the population. Historically, federal and state governments’ regulation of insurance markets was limited, leaving insurers to set premiums and coverage rules largely as they saw fit.

Government’s role in controlling health care spending has been even more circumscribed. Purchasing power is fragmented, with each insurer negotiating its own rates with physicians and hospitals. A formidable medical-industrial complex of for-profit providers, from hospitals to home-health care agencies, dialysis facilities, pharmaceutical companies and much more, has arisen to sell services.

Hospice care in the United States has undergone a remarkable transformation since it assumed its modern form in the late 1960s. It began as a movement driven by small organizations staffed with many volunteer providers focusing on comprehensive spiritual, palliative, and mental health services for a relatively small number of terminally ill patients, typically suffering from cancer. The idea behind hospice during its early days was that a terminally patient and his or her family made a decision to focus on easing a patient’s pain and anxiety, making him or her more comfortable, rather than pursuing additional curative treatment. Because these objectives required a wide range of professional and non-professional skills, hospice care involved not only physicians and nurses, but clergy, social workers, volunteer caretakers, homemakers, and, of course, family members. The process of decision-making by the patient and his or her family was never uniform and never systematically studied.

Two narratives have emerged to describe recent health care reforms in the United States of America (US) and the United Kingdom (UK). One narrative speaks of revolution, that the adoptions of the Affordable Care Act 2010 (ACA) in the US, and the Health and Social Care Act 2012 (HSCA) in the UK, have resulted in fundamental, large-scale philosophical, political and legal change in the jurisdictions’ respective health care systems. The other narrative evokes evolution, identifying each new legislative scheme as a natural development of existing governance structures. Policymakers in both the US and UK face the problem of a health care system which, as traditionally envisaged, cannot offer universal access to health care at a reasonable, or politically acceptable, price

Financial relationships and business transactions between physicians and the health care industry are common. These relationships take a variety of forms, including payments to physicians in exchange for consulting services, reimbursement of physician travel expenses when attending medical device and pharmaceutical educational conferences, physician ownership in life science company stocks, and the provision of free drug samples. Such practices are not intrinsic to medical practice, but as the Institute of Medicine described in its 2009 report, these relationships have the potential to produce positive collaborations that improve patient care and public health, and most physicians view it as “ethically proper to accept items ranging from drug samples to a lucrative consultantship.”

However, financial relationships between physicians and pharmaceutical, medical device and biotechnology companies can also create negative influences on physician judgment that compromise patient care and jeopardize the public’s trust.

About a week after Maran Wolston was prescribed Copaxone, a drug for multiple sclerosis (MS), she got a phone call from a nurse at an organization called Shared Solutions. The organization was familiar to Wolston; when her neurologist had asked permission to share her health information with Shared Solutions, Wolston had agreed, assuming it was connected to her health insurance.

The nurse who called Wolston was checking in to see how the treatment was going. It was not going well. While Copaxone is not typically associated with some of the unpleasant side effects of other MS drugs, it does have at least one serious drawback: the drug must be injected every day. The injections can be brutally painful. “No matter where I injected the drug each day, the injection site swelled up into a huge welt and felt like a gigantic bee sting,” Wolston writes.

Pay-for-performance (P4P) represents an effort to improve the quality of health care by paying physicians more if they meet specified target measures. There are both empirical and theoretical reasons to be deeply suspicious of P4P schemes applied at the level of the individual physician or health provider. Most P4P programs were implemented before there were any good data to demonstrate that they achieved the desired results. Once such schemes were in use, the available data are far from reassuring. Common findings are that providers may do more of the specific procedure that is being measured, but in the process may neglect to do other things that equally affect quality of care. Payers often find that the cost of implementing a P4P program far exceeds the value of the very modest resulting improvements; and payments may unfairly benefit providers who are already meeting quality targets while disadvantaging those who make the most strenuous efforts to improve.

The AHP Code of Ethics requires members to serve the best interests of their clients, be clear and honest with them, and keep their secrets confidential. Members pledge to represent their skills and qualifications honestly and to make appropriate referrals to others more qualified when out of their depth.

AHP stands for “Associated Hair Professionals,” or hair stylists, but their Code of Ethics looks a lot like the Hippocratic Oath and the current Principles of Medical Ethics of the American Medical Association. All of these ethics statements emphasize honesty, confidentiality, competence, serving patients’ (or clients’) best interests, and willingness to refer to other qualified professionals. But it’s not just doctors and hair professionals who have Codes of Ethics. The SPCP — Society of Permanent Cosmetic Professionals —requires its members to “maintain high professional standards consistent with sound practices,” “conduct business relationships in a manner that is fair to all,” and avoid false or misleading statements to the effect that the application of permanent makeup is not tattooing, not permanent, and not painful. (Physicians might consider that last point — I’m grateful for the time my doctor once warned me, “This is really going to hurt.”)

Commercialization of medicine is a growing trend that threatens to undermine physicians’ commitments to patient care in favor of personal financial interests. Bemoaned by Arnold Relman as early as 1980, growing for-profit sectors of health care have been reshaping medicine from a profession into a business, forming the foundation of what he terms a “medical-industrial complex” that threatens to undermine professional identity and reshape health care funding. Commercialization poses new ethical challenges for health care providers who have a financial stake in their health care decisions and may undermine their fiduciary duties to patients.

Certainly, commercialization has brought about new trends in medicine — one need only to look as far as the rise in for-profit hospitals, diagnostic laboratories, and proprietary nursing homes to see how opportunities for financial gain reposition physicians’ orientations vis-à-vis patients.

Medicine and health are surprisingly separate. In the introduction to his 1963 master work on medical economics, Kenneth Arrow acknowledged that “the subject is the medical-care industry, not health.” In the 50 years that followed, researchers, policymakers, and public health professionals generated valuable and varied insights into health, impacting both behaviors and environments while addressing social determinants and demographic trends. Yet medical care has followed an even steeper upward trajectory, growing rapidly in scientific precision, public esteem, and technical sophistication.

As a result, the economic gap between the two domains has widened. The U.S. health care system spends almost $3 trillion annually. Preventive screening and early intervention bridge medical care and health, as do nutrition, behavioral health, aging, and a few other fields. But the money is overwhelmingly in medical care, particularly rescue care for those with acute illnesses or serious (and typically preventable) complications of chronic disease.

Global health is by definition and necessity a collaborative field; one that requires diverse professionals to address the clinical, biological, social, and political factors that contribute to the health of communities, regions, and nations. For universities with global health programs, the interprofessional nature of global health presents both vast opportunities and distinct challenges. In addition to helping students develop mastery within their chosen fields, universities must also ensure that students learn to collaborate with other professionals to address complex global health needs. While much work has been done in recent years to define the field of global health and set forth discipline-specific competencies, less has been done in the area of interdisciplinary or interprofessional global health education. This gap in scholarship is troubling given the clear and well-acknowledged need for professionals across a broad spectrum of disciplines to take part in global health initiatives.

The discovery and development of new therapeutics has always been central to improving health worldwide. However, there is ongoing concern regarding the current state of medical innovation. Output from the pharmaceutical industry has been criticized for not being “transformative,” that is, offering substantial improvements in patient outcomes over existing therapeutics. While the cost of drug development continues to rise, breakthrough therapies remain elusive and one half of Phase 3 studies fail. Venture capital, a traditional source of funding for new breakthrough biomedical innovations, has decreased investment by 30% in the biotechnology and medical device sectors from 2007 to 2013. Stakeholders question whether the new drugs approved each year by the FDA —many criticized as marginal improvements over existing therapies — justify the enormous investment.

In the United States the delivery of health care traditionally has been hierarchical and strictly controlled by physicians. Physicians typically provided patients with little information about their diagnosis, prognosis, and treatment plan; patients were expected to follow their physicians’ orders and ask no questions. Beginning in the 1970s, with the widespread adoption of the doctrine of informed consent to treatment, the physician-patient relationship began to be more collaborative, although the extent of the change has been subject to debate. At a minimum, physicians began to give patients more information and asked them to consent to recommended treatment, the therapeutic privilege to withhold information from patients lost support and eventually was repudiated, and physicians embraced — at least in theory — a more patient-centered conception of health care.

More recently, health care and health promotion activities have moved beyond clinical encounters and the strict confines of physician-patient interactions.

From their relative obscurity over the past three decades, varied strains of Ebola disease have emerged as a substantial global biothreat. The current outbreak of Ebola, beginning in March 2014 in Guinea, is projected to infect tens of thousands of people before being brought under control. Some estimate the outbreak could exceed 100,000 cases and extend another 12-18 months. Ebola’s spread has the potential to extend across the globe, but is concentrated in several African countries (e.g., Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea, Nigeria, and Senegal). Collectively, these countries are home to nearly 290 million people. Among Liberia’s population of 4.1 million, over 1,100 people have already died from Ebola in less than 6 months; by comparison, if this same outbreak and death rate occurred in the United States, over 88,000 Americans would perish.