This document discusses quality in healthcare and physician-rendered care. It notes that while quality aims to be discernible and reproducible, studies have shown variances in treatment recommendations and outcomes across patient groups. Specifically, a 1999 study found that a patient's race and sex independently influenced physicians' likelihood of recommending cardiac catheterization, indicating potential bias. This raises questions about how physician training and professionalism can allow for differences in care quality among groups. More research is needed to understand what systematic variances in health status are maintained over time for disparate patient populations.

1. Professionalism Under Pressure in Law and Medicine
An Examination of Healthcare Quality—
With a focus on physician-rendered care
Teri Abel
1999
Copyright © 1999. All rights reserved. No other uses without express author permission.

2. Note: Following is the original contents page. Subsequent pages represent
selected excerpts written exclusively by Teri Abel from the original co-authored
forty-two paged document, assembled and edited to present adequate context for
purposes of public viewing.
1

3. Contents
1 The definition of quality in the health care sector: the need for clarification
1.1 Perspectives on quality in the health care sector
1.2 Benefits and limits of each approach and the need for integration
2 The introduction of quality measures to improve health care performance
3 Physician autonomy and physician-delivered care: problems with the medical perspective
3.1 Physicians’ education
3.2 The impact of group distrust for healthcare systems on physician-rendered care
3.2.1 The biology of sociology—American-style: race as a demarcation line for
differentials in health status
3.2.2 The sociology of the biology: The Under-representation of Groups in
Clinical Trials and Clinical Training
3.3 Bias in the medical perspective: Variances in treatment across patient groups
2

4. …
3.2.2 The Under-representation of Groups in Clinical Trials and Clinical Training
…
General medical recommendations and treatment standards are generated in great part
from clinical training and clinical trials. If a given set of standards is biologically and
statistically less relevant to African American disease progression vs. Caucasian American
disease progression, for example, then either African Americans are not adequately represented
in clinical training and trials, or if they are adequately represented, their health status is not
charted in a way that is attentive to systematic variations across race.
For different reasons, patient populations can be alienated from the healthcare system.
For example, to the degree that there is distrust by a group for the healthcare system, that group
stands to be less available to and represented in clinical training and trials. Consequently, the
clinical training and trials can be expected to return conclusions and recommendations that may
not be maximally applicable to the underrepresented group. Even if an underrepresented group
abides by the scientific conclusions of certain clinical training and trials, health benefits may not
be perceptible in them. Whatever the reason for under-representation by groups in clinical
training and trials, potential differences in the physician’s perception of beneficial treatment
outcomes during the physician-patient encounter can effect an impression upon the physician of
a disconnect from or disregard for medical advice by the underrepresented group. Such can
potentially alter the advocacy which physicians do for these patients’ improved health status, and
can undermine their energetic care-rendering, thereby promoting a differential in the quality of
care rendered across patient groups. After all, the scientific method that encourages and rewards
the physician’s confident care-rendering to the represented group, is the same scientific method
by which she perceives the underrepresented group’s systematic failure to reap the benefits of
clinical training and trials. In this event, the working assumption on the physician’s part is that
3

5. variances in beneficial outcomes for the underrepresented group are due to perhaps sociological
rather than biological factors.
This issue is illuminated by a long-standing puzzle and set of assumptions confronted by
researchers at the George Washington University Hospital, who were investigating differences in
breast cancer survival rates between African American and Caucasian American women.
According to Dr. Robert Siegel, director of the university’s cancer center, statistics show black
women are less likely than whites to get breast cancer; but five-year survival rates are 63 percent
for black women compared with 76 percent for whites. Researchers had long believed that the
discrepancy was due to socioeconomic factors and the quality of delivered care, or to black
women’s “delay” to go to the doctor. In his study of six years of breast cancer data, Siegel found
that even when black women's breast cancer is discovered at the same stage as whites -- and even
when the treatment is the same -- the cancer in African-American women shows "more
aggressive behavior."1
"The bottom line is black women are getting more aggressive cancers at an earlier
age."2
According to Siegel, there were "clear biological differences" between the cancers found
in whites and blacks. Regardless of the tumor size or whether the cancer had spread, black
women were more likely to have breast cancers that grew faster, contained more malignant cells
and did not respond to hormone treatments:
"For some reason -- and I have no idea what the explanation is -- black women
have cancers that look worse under the microscope."3
1
Detroit News, Washington Bureau, “Investigating a medical mystery: Why do African-American women with
breast cancer have much lower survival rates than whites?”,1995.
2
Ibid., Siegel, R.
3
Ibid.
4

6. If there are biological reasons explaining why certain diseases are more common or
aggressive in blacks, the medical system may be unfairly suspecting African Americans for
delaying prevention and treatment. Moreover, because certain diseases appear to behave
differently in blacks and whites, the medical system may actually be doing African Americans a
disservice by recommending prevention strategies, screening schedules and treatment options
developed from studies of ‘white’ disease progression.4
Siegel further thinks the medical community should consider revising its age
recommendations for screening mammographies -- based on a patient's race. The American
Cancer Society currently recommends women 40-49 years old have a mammogram every one to
two years, and women age 50 and over should have yearly mammograms:
"One potentially reasonable idea is that the guidelines for screening
mammographies should be earlier for black women."5
In a 1995 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association it was
found that prostate cancer may follow a different biological course in blacks and whites, too. The
study of 1,606 military men found that even when they all got the same screening, prostate
cancer was diagnosed in blacks at a younger age and at a more advanced stage. Moreover,
researchers found the disease grew faster in blacks, even when they underwent the same
treatments as whites. This study confirms the suspicions of Dr. Isaac Powell, a urologist at
Harper Hospital in Detroit, who was one of the early advocates of screening African-American
men for prostate cancer at an earlier age than white men:
"We think the biology of progression may be different in blacks.” 6
4
Ibid.
5
Ibid.
6
Ibid.
5

7. Until recently, the American Cancer Society recommended annual prostate-specific
antigen blood tests, or PSAs, to screen for prostate cancer in men beginning at age 50. But based
on research showing that blacks tend to get prostate cancer earlier than whites, the American
Cancer Society now suggests annual PSA testing for African-American men beginning at age 40.
According to the Detroit News story, Powell applied for a federal grant to study whether
doctors should use different standards to evaluate the PSAs of African Americans. Whereas most
doctors recommend further treatment for men whose PSAs measure four points and higher on a
10-point scale, Powell would like to see the treatment threshold lowered to two points for black
men.
Henry Ford Hospital cardiologist Fareed Khaja is one of eight researchers nationally
working on five-year grants awarded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute to
investigate possible biological causes for higher heart disease rates in blacks. Working with 23
Ford cardiologists, Khaja is investigating why African Americans are more likely to suffer from
a thickening of the heart muscle than whites, and whether the condition explains why blacks are
less likely to survive heart attacks.
Asthma is another disease that appears to more severely impact African Americans than
whites. In early 1995, researchers at the Henry Ford Health System began investigating why
African Americans had more emergency visits for asthma than whites. In previous studies,
researchers speculated that African Americans were forced to use emergency rooms because they
did not have the money or health care coverage to obtain regular medical care, or because of a
fundamental alienation from the health care system. But by comparing asthma patients enrolled
in health maintenance organizations, who had the same health coverage and access to medical
care, Henry Ford researchers found that African Americans may actually suffer from a more
6

8. severe form of the disease. Researchers at Henry Ford have received a grant from the National
Institutes of Health to study whether biological differences explain the increased severity of
asthma in African-American children. If biology is found to be the culprit, researchers may
recommend more aggressive treatment for African-American children with asthma.
Based on its research, Henry Ford's medical effectiveness center is one of four programs
nationally that has been awarded a grant to study the effectiveness of medical treatments in
minority populations. While all of these findings have obvious implications for the way doctors
treat breast and prostate cancer, and asthma in blacks, they also incline us to question long-held
assumptions about the reasons African Americans have higher death rates for a host of other
diseases.
A review of source integrity for the “original” medical recommendations in the above
cases seems warranted; for example we can inquire about the process and science that produced
a recommendation of PSA screening commencement at 50 years in age for all men before the
corrective of 40 years for black men specifically---a difference in age of 20%, which would be
well discernible in ideal studies or data sets that included African American men. It seems
debatable whether there has been a greater evolution of this process or of disease progression
across groups in the patient population.
3 Physician autonomy and physician-rendered care: problems with the medical
perspective
For all the variations in definitions of quality among American patients, physicians,
health management organizations, health policy experts, and public health agents, there is a
unifying concession worth recalling before engaging in a perspective-specific focus on quality.
7

9. In particular, quality is regarded as something fundamentally discernible, which lends itself to
not only outright description, but to calculable and systematic reproduction.
...
3.1 Physicians’ training
Toward the end of understanding certain disruptions in quality at the level of physician
autonomy, it is informative to consider a generic American model of physician training. Such
begins as a rigorous academic process culminating in clinical experience and training. Arguably,
few other disciplines have a breadth of intellectual uniformity and consensus comparable to that
found in the hard sciences which ground all medical training: students of hard science not only
establish allegiance with a singular modern cell theory, a singular fossil record and Darwinian
evolution, Mendelian genetics, or a singular atomic theory, as examples, but their references to
such lack the subjective inflection regularly harbored outside of science.
This is different from economics, for example, where theories and antagonistic counter
theories indefinitely reside quite credibly and seriously together: Keynesian economics vs.
Friedman economics. It is different from jurisprudence, where legal code interpretations can be
affirmed in one court only to be reversed within the same justice system in the appellate court. It
is different from fine arts, where two artistic movements may be contemporaneously celebrated
as each the superior aesthetic contribution.
The body of science hinges on a perpetual process of evidence-based consensus-making,
representing a culmination of repeatable and peer-reviewed experimental outcomes, explanations
that lack counterexamples, and a growing residual of intelligence from iterations of the scientific
method. Over the course of the physician’s professional development, a substantial piece of their
knowledge base and default mode of critical analysis, is indelibly imprinted by the scientific
8

10. method. While medical practice is assuredly part art, there remains significant similarity in
medical recommendations, given physician consensus about a particular obstruction to a
patient’s better health status, which permits medicine to yield a discernible quality.
For example, if it is accepted that a presenting patient is infected with the influenza virus
and is suffering from its symptoms, physicians will not prescribe antibiotics as a pharmaceutical
address or expectation to specifically eradicate the influenza virus from the body. This is a direct
consequence of an intellectual consensus attendant with the physicians’ academic and clinical
training: antibiotics do not eradicate viral diseases. While simplistic, this example can be
extended to a multitude of other health problems.
It is precisely because there exist streams of intellectual consensus in medicine, that
nonrandom departures from such are not only discernible and represent risks to the consistency
and quality with which medicine is practiced, but are departures worthy of analysis.
…
3.3 Bias in the medical perspective: Variances in treatment across patient groups
In the February 25, 1999 issue of The New England Journal of Medicine, the conclusions
of a study titled “The Effect of Race and Sex on Physicians’ Recommendations for Cardiac
Catheterization” [Schulman, et al.] read:
“Our findings suggest that the race and sex of a patient independently
influence how physicians manage chest pain.”7
This controlled experiment, using multivariable logistic-regression analyses, aimed to
assess physicians’ treatment recommendations to patients who presented with different types of
chest pain. Scientists who conducted the study hypothesized that patient race and sex
7
Schulman, K.A, The Effect of Race and Sex on Physicians’ Recommendations for Cardiac Catheterization, The
New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 340, p. 618.
9

11. independently influenced physicians’ recommendations regarding cardiac catheterization. The
degree to which physicians were responsible for variations in recommendations according to race
and sex had not been captured by previous studies. In the discussion of the study, researchers
reported:
“We found that the race and sex of the patient affected the physicians’ decisions
about whether to refer patients with chest pain for cardiac catheterization, even
after we adjusted for symptoms, the physicians’ estimates of the probability of
coronary disease, and clinical characteristics. Our findings are most striking for
black women…Our finding…may suggest bias on the part of the
physicians…Bias may represent overt prejudice on the part of physicians or, more
likely, …subconscious perceptions rather than deliberate actions or thoughts.
Subconscious bias occurs when a patient’s membership in a target group
automatically activates a cultural stereotype in the physician’s memory regardless
of the level of prejudice the physician has…[Our findings] suggest that decision
making by physicians may be an important factor in explaining differences in the
treatment of cardiovascular disease with respect to race and sex.”8
This study promotes contemplation on at least three critical issues in the care-rendering
process: it implies some complexities attendant with the arguably unique American challenge of
rendering quality care to a particularly heterogeneous American patient population by a
relatively homogeneous American physician population; it identifies one way that current
medical education, medical ethics, existing regulatory regimes, physician autonomy, and
personal aims for professional integrity leave care-rendering qualitatively different across
groups; and it introduces clear questions around the very nature of physician professionalism.
For American professionalism, the Schulman study renders some profound implications:
for it suggests that even in perhaps the oldest and most esteemed of our traditional professions
where the most critical goal of sustaining life and health resides; even given a training
methodology that incentivizes intellectual weddedness to the evidence-based, consensus-building
8
Ibid., p. 623-24.
10

12. process of the scientific method; even after the lengthiest apprenticeship program for any of our
professions; even given the regulatory apparatus of licensing requirements and board
certifications; even including the deterrent of an ever increasing personal tax in the
professional’s compensation profile in the form of a malpractice insurance premium; even amidst
the threat of lost reputation---expensively and doggedly won---from a failure to practice
evidence-based medicine; and even as the physician population itself credibly purports to
represent a subset of the population intrinsically interested in the welfare of others; the Schulman
study says that somehow, at the end of this dense array of preparedness and quality control and
professional surveillance----somehow, at the ultimate event of physician care-rendering, the
cloak of professionalism that distinguishes the medical profession can be systematically set
aside. Biology succumbs to sociology.
On the matter of health status for American populations, we can wonder what systematic
variances in health status are maintained over time for disparate patient populations who seek
physician-rendered care. On the matter of professionalism generally and other contracted
relationships residing outside of the traditional professions, an expanded concern is this: the
likelihood of similar disparities in other arenas of professional conduct for which the academic
and apprenticeship training is far less a function of intellectual consensus, less regulated, less
rigorous, and shorter. We can speculate about comparable professional lapses between attorney
and client; judge and defendant; teacher and pupil; police officer and citizen; and corporate
boards and consumers and workforces.
While a unique study, the results from the New England Journal study which suggests the
existence of independent racial and gender influences upon physician-rendered care are not in
isolation. In a 1993 study of the influence of ethnicity upon patient-controlled analgesia (PCA),
11

13. researchers concluded that narcotic prescriptions for post-operative pain were correlated with
patient ethnicity.9
According to a study reported in the 1994 Journal of the American Medical
Association, poor and black patients do appear to receive systematically different (inferior)
treatment. In the Journal of the American Medical Association the study reported that gravely ill
Medicare patients who are black and poor receive worse care than other equally sick Medicare
patients in every type of hospital in America. The finding suggests that the quality of medical
care may vary tremendously with a patient's race and not, as other studies have suggested, with
whether a person has insurance.10
On the one hand physician autonomy is a central component of high quality
physician-rendered care. It is also the arena in which data suggests that physicians face a curious
challenge. They must not abandon the scientific critical analysis that has enabled their role as an
informed professional for pressures from sociology, and must nonetheless, be attentive to the
sociology that is relevant to their act of rendering care.
…
9
“Using a retrospective record review, we examined data from all patients treated with PCA for post-operative pain
from January to June 1993. We excluded patients who did not have surgery prior to the prescription of PCA or were
not prescribed PCA in the immediate post-operative period….While there were no differences in the amount of
narcotic self-administered, there were significant differences in the amount of narcotic prescribed among Asians,
Blacks, Hispanics, and Whites…The ethnic differences in prescribed analgesic persisted after controlling for age,
gender, pre-operative use of narcotics, pain site, and insurance status. Patient's ethnicity has a greater impact on the
amount of narcotic prescribed by the physician than on the amount of narcotic self-administered by the patient.”--
Ng B., Dimsdale J.E., Rollnik J.D., Shapiro H, Department of Psychiatry, University of California at San Diego, La
Jolla. 92093-0804, USA. Pain. 66(1):9-12, 1996 Jul.
10
Blakeslee, S. reported in New York Times (Late New York Edition).Apr. 20 '94 p. B9
12

14. Bibliography
American Medical Association, Council of Medical Service (1986). Quality of Care. JAMA
1986:256.
Beckman, H.B. et al. (1994). The Doctor-Patient Relationship and Malpractice: Lessons from
Plaintiff Depositions. Archives of Internal Medicine 154.
Blumenthal, D. (1996). Quality of Health Care, Part 1: Quality of Care -What is It? The New
England Journal of Medicine, September 19.
Blakeslee, S., New York Times (Late New York Edition).Apr. 20 '94 p. B9
Blumenthal, D. (1996) Effects of Market Reforms on Doctors and Their Patients. Health Affairs,
Summer.
Brook, R. H., Avery A. Davis, S. Greenfield, et al. (1977). Assessing the quality of medical care
using outcome measures: an overview of the method. Medical Care, 1977:15.
Brook R. H., E. A. McGlynn, and P. D. Cleary (1996). Quality of Health Care, Part 2: Measuring
Quality of Care. The New England Journal of Medicine, September 19.
Campbell, N., Biology, 3rd Edition (1997).
Davidson, S. (1998). Competition and Quality among Managed Care Plans in the U.S. Paper
presented at the Yale School of Management Nov 2nd, 1998.
Dimsdale J.E., Rollnik J.D., Shapiro H, Department of Psychiatry, University of California at
San Diego, La Jolla. 92093-0804, USA. Pain. 66(1):9-12, 1996 Jul.
Donabedian (1980) Explorations in quality assessment and monitoring. Vol.1. The definition of
quality and approaches to its assessment. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Health Administration Press.
Eddy, D.E. Performance Measurement: Problems and Solutions, Health Affairs, July/August.
Etheredge, L. et al. (1996) What is Driving Health System Change? Health Affairs, Winter 1996.
Lohr, K N. (1990) ed. Medicare: a strategy for quality assurance. Washington DC: National
Academy Press.
Marmor, T. (1994). Understanding Health Care Reform. Yale University Press, New Haven and
London.
Marmor, T. (1998). Hope and hyperbole: the rhetoric and reality of managerial reform in health
care, Journal of Health Service Research and Policy 3:1.
Newhouse, J.P. (1992). Medical Care Costs: How Much Welfare Loss? Journal of Economic
Perspective 6:3 (Summer 1992 a & b)
Parasuraman, A., V. A. Zeithaml, and L. Berry (1985) A Conceptual Model of Service Quality
and Its Implications for Future Research, Journal of Marketing 49.
Rice, T. (1997). Can Markets give us the Health System we want? Journal of Health Politics,
Policy and Law. April, 22:2.
Roberts M. J., Clyde A. T. (1993). Your Money or Your Life: the Health Care Crisis Explained,
Doubleday.
13

15. Rosen, H. S. (1999). Social Insurance II: Health Care, Public Finance, McGraw Hill.
Rossi, P. H., and H. E. Freeman (1995), Evaluation: a Systematic Approach, SAGE.
Corbie-Smith G., The Continuing Legacy of the Tuskegee Syphilis Study: considerations for
clinical investigation, American Journal of the Medical Sciences, 317(1): p. 5-8, January, 1999.
Shulman, K.A, The Effect of Race and Sex on Physicians’ Recommendations for Cardiac
Catheterization, The New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 340, p. 618.
Wyckoff, D. D. (1985) New Tools for Achieving Service Quality, The Search for Service
Quality.
14