Support for Physician Deception of Insurance Companies among a Sample of Philadelphia Residents

George Caleb Alexander, Rachel M. Werner, Angela Fagerlin, Peter A. Ubel

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Background: Some physicians seem to be willing to sanction deception of insurance companies. Little is known about public attitudes regarding this practice. Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding physician deception of insurance companies. Design: Cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes. Setting: Philadelphia County Courthouse, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Participants: Convenience sample of 700 prospective jurors. Measurements: Participants were asked whether, in response to restriction of health care, a physician should 1) accept restriction, 2) appeal restriction, or 3) misrepresent a patient's condition to obtain the desired service. The proportion of respondents reporting that the physician should misrepresent a patient's condition was determined. Results: 26% of respondents sanctioned deception, 70% supported appealing, and 4% supported accepting the insurance company decision. Among the 27% of respondents believing physicians have inadequate time to appeal coverage decisions, 50% sanctioned deception. Conclusions: Sanctioning of deception was substantial in this sample of prospective jurors. Preferences regarding insurance company deception are related to perceptions of physician workload and may further pressure physicians struggling to balance advocacy with honesty.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)472-475+I62
JournalAnnals of Internal Medicine
Volume138
Issue number6
StatePublished - Mar 18 2003
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Deception
Insurance
Physicians
Workload
Cross-Sectional Studies
Delivery of Health Care
Pressure
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine(all)

Cite this

Support for Physician Deception of Insurance Companies among a Sample of Philadelphia Residents. / Alexander, George Caleb; Werner, Rachel M.; Fagerlin, Angela; Ubel, Peter A.

In: Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 138, No. 6, 18.03.2003, p. 472-475+I62.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Alexander, George Caleb ; Werner, Rachel M. ; Fagerlin, Angela ; Ubel, Peter A. / Support for Physician Deception of Insurance Companies among a Sample of Philadelphia Residents. In: Annals of Internal Medicine. 2003 ; Vol. 138, No. 6. pp. 472-475+I62.
@article{59b541c1968645e8ade9f79021672561,
title = "Support for Physician Deception of Insurance Companies among a Sample of Philadelphia Residents",
abstract = "Background: Some physicians seem to be willing to sanction deception of insurance companies. Little is known about public attitudes regarding this practice. Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding physician deception of insurance companies. Design: Cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes. Setting: Philadelphia County Courthouse, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Participants: Convenience sample of 700 prospective jurors. Measurements: Participants were asked whether, in response to restriction of health care, a physician should 1) accept restriction, 2) appeal restriction, or 3) misrepresent a patient's condition to obtain the desired service. The proportion of respondents reporting that the physician should misrepresent a patient's condition was determined. Results: 26{\%} of respondents sanctioned deception, 70{\%} supported appealing, and 4{\%} supported accepting the insurance company decision. Among the 27{\%} of respondents believing physicians have inadequate time to appeal coverage decisions, 50{\%} sanctioned deception. Conclusions: Sanctioning of deception was substantial in this sample of prospective jurors. Preferences regarding insurance company deception are related to perceptions of physician workload and may further pressure physicians struggling to balance advocacy with honesty.",
author = "Alexander, {George Caleb} and Werner, {Rachel M.} and Angela Fagerlin and Ubel, {Peter A.}",
year = "2003",
month = "3",
day = "18",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "138",
pages = "472--475+I62",
journal = "Annals of Internal Medicine",
issn = "0003-4819",
publisher = "American College of Physicians",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Support for Physician Deception of Insurance Companies among a Sample of Philadelphia Residents

AU - Alexander, George Caleb

AU - Werner, Rachel M.

AU - Fagerlin, Angela

AU - Ubel, Peter A.

PY - 2003/3/18

Y1 - 2003/3/18

N2 - Background: Some physicians seem to be willing to sanction deception of insurance companies. Little is known about public attitudes regarding this practice. Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding physician deception of insurance companies. Design: Cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes. Setting: Philadelphia County Courthouse, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Participants: Convenience sample of 700 prospective jurors. Measurements: Participants were asked whether, in response to restriction of health care, a physician should 1) accept restriction, 2) appeal restriction, or 3) misrepresent a patient's condition to obtain the desired service. The proportion of respondents reporting that the physician should misrepresent a patient's condition was determined. Results: 26% of respondents sanctioned deception, 70% supported appealing, and 4% supported accepting the insurance company decision. Among the 27% of respondents believing physicians have inadequate time to appeal coverage decisions, 50% sanctioned deception. Conclusions: Sanctioning of deception was substantial in this sample of prospective jurors. Preferences regarding insurance company deception are related to perceptions of physician workload and may further pressure physicians struggling to balance advocacy with honesty.

AB - Background: Some physicians seem to be willing to sanction deception of insurance companies. Little is known about public attitudes regarding this practice. Objective: To assess public attitudes regarding physician deception of insurance companies. Design: Cross-sectional survey using clinical vignettes. Setting: Philadelphia County Courthouse, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Participants: Convenience sample of 700 prospective jurors. Measurements: Participants were asked whether, in response to restriction of health care, a physician should 1) accept restriction, 2) appeal restriction, or 3) misrepresent a patient's condition to obtain the desired service. The proportion of respondents reporting that the physician should misrepresent a patient's condition was determined. Results: 26% of respondents sanctioned deception, 70% supported appealing, and 4% supported accepting the insurance company decision. Among the 27% of respondents believing physicians have inadequate time to appeal coverage decisions, 50% sanctioned deception. Conclusions: Sanctioning of deception was substantial in this sample of prospective jurors. Preferences regarding insurance company deception are related to perceptions of physician workload and may further pressure physicians struggling to balance advocacy with honesty.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=0037453120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=0037453120&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

C2 - 12639080

AN - SCOPUS:0037453120

VL - 138

SP - 472-475+I62

JO - Annals of Internal Medicine

JF - Annals of Internal Medicine

SN - 0003-4819

IS - 6

ER -