By Erin Blakemore
How will your doctor help you deal with issues like
pregnancy, drug use or safety? A new study suggests that instead of
looking at their résumés or diplomas, you might want to check their
voting record. Apparently, Democratic and Republican doctors don't just
vote differently. When faced with hypothetical scenarios involving
politically charged issues, they make different treatment decisions,
too.
In a new study published in the journal of the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, a group of Yale
researchers linked publicly available information on more than 42,000
practicing physicians to a list of party affiliations that's regularly
used by political campaigns to target communications. After winnowing
down their data to correct for unaffiliated and unreachable physicians,
they mailed out a survey to a sample of the doctors.
The
233 physicians who responded did not know that the survey was about
their politics. Rather, they thought it was about how they administer
the "social" survey, the interview that primary-care doctors give
patients before they first treat them. These conversations can be
lengthy and cover everything from employment to health risks, so
researchers hoped they would be a good place to glean information about
how doctors deal with politically charged issues with their patients.
Participants were asked to evaluate nine
hypothetical scenarios they might face with patients. With each
vignette, they were asked to evaluate how concerned they'd be about the
issue and how likely they'd be to engage in a list of potential
treatment options. The scenarios covered everything from a patient who
had regular sexual contact with sex workers to one who commutes to work
by motorcycle but doesn't wear a helmet.
The responses
showed clear differences between providers identified independently as
Democrats or Republicans when it came to politically charged issues. For
example, Republicans were most concerned about scenarios that included
multiple prior abortions and marijuana use. Democrats were most
concerned about firearm access and patients who had sexual relationships
with sex workers.
The treatment plans doctors said they
would probably pursue also differed by party affiliation.
Democratic
doctors were less likely to discuss the health risks of marijuana,
highlight its legal risks or encourage the patient to cut down use.
Republican doctors were twice as likely as Democrats to discourage
patients from having more abortions in the future and 35 percent more
likely to discuss mental health in connection with abortions.
Overall,
Republican physicians were more likely than their Democratic
counterparts to say that they would engage in "active treatment" options
such as encouraging a patient to stop seeing sex workers or urge a
patient to cut down on marijuana use. But when it came to less
politicized issues such as consuming alcohol or smoking cigarettes, that
difference diminished.
"We found that Democrats, not
surprisingly, are more concerned about a scenario where a patient who
had young kids is storing a firearm," said Eitan Hersh, an assistant
professor of political science at Yale University and the paper's first
author. Democratic respondents were 66 percent more likely to urge the
patient not to store firearms at home, he says, "but were less likely
than the Republican physicians to discuss storage practices." Perhaps
this demonstrates a knowledge gap, he says, that goes along with
political sentiment.
Hersh says that strong partisan
differences were immediately apparent despite the study's small sample
size. The researchers controlled for variables such as the demographic
composition of a physician's patient population and the gender, age and
religious attendance of doctors. But since the study deals with
hypothetical situations, it's impossible to know whether party
affiliation could affect outcomes for patients in real life.
Although
the researchers acknowledge that the cause of the partisan differences
could be some factor aside from political affiliation, the study offers
no evidence of what that cause might be. But, Hersh says "Nothing
predicts the outcome the way that partisanship does. I feel very
confident that the results are real."
It was hard for
Hersh to get funding for what he calls "this controversial issue," so he
funded this project from his own research account. Now, he hopes it
will serve as proof of concept for more work on how party affiliation
affects patients in real life, from end-of-life decisions to LGBT health
care.
Hersh hopes the study will open up a dialogue
about how political bias affects medical decision-making and make
practitioners more aware of ways in which their personal beliefs might
affect the care they give patients. Depending on the study's response,
he says, he may even consider making his data on physician names and
party affiliations public. Until political data can be linked to actual
outcomes, though, it won't be clear to what extent politics affect
physicians' decisions.
He is likely to encounter
resistance among doctors who don't think that their political views
inform their practice decisions. "I never once treated a Republican or
Democrat cancer in my life," says Rep. Phil Roe
(R-Tenn.), a retired obstetrician-gynecologist who co-chairs the GOP
Doctors Caucus, an 18-member group of congressional medical providers
devoted to health-care policy. "When a patient walked into my office, I
didn't know if they were a Republican or a Democrat, and I honestly
didn't care."
Roe said in an emailed response to
questions that he hopes patients will seek out the best care available
regardless of their doctor's political affiliation. "Party affiliation
should have nothing to do with patient care."
That may be
true, but, Hersh says, there are good reasons to check out your
doctor's party affiliation before heading into the office. "Patients in a
medical examination room are in a fairly vulnerable position," he says.
"They've put a lot of trust in their doctor. It's important for all of
us to understand how a doctor's ideological biases might affect their
judgment."
No comments:
Post a Comment