Doctor's Orders: Don't Review Me Online
from the stifling dept
The local review site Yelp has been under fire lately from some businesses that aren't happy with reviews people have written about them, or how they're displayed on the site. Not that this is anything new: people have sued the site for defamation before, while others have tried to game the system to make their businesses look more popular. But now, some doctors are trying to get patients to sign waivers saying they won't post comments about their doctors online (via Information Week). A company has set up a service that provides doctors with the waivers, then monitors review sites for comments about them. If they find a comment on one of the subscribing doctors, they attempt to use the waivers to get the sites to remove it. Of course, most of the comments are anonymous, so it's not clear exactly how they link a particular comment to a particular patient who's signed a waiver, and at least one site has refused to comply.The founder of the service says the only thing that should matter to patients are a doctor's medical skills -- but that hardly seems true. Certainly they play a large role in determining a patient's happiness with their care, but there's the oft-referred-to "bedside manner" that also plays key part. Consumers have the right to as much information about their medical caregivers as they need to feel comfortable, but it can often be difficult to ascertain. That seems to play into doctors' hands, so it's hard to see these attempts to gag patients as little more than a further attempt to stifle anything that challenges the status quo in the world of medicine.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Truth: Binary v. Continuum
In other words, I think the doctors are coming from a perspective (and an era) that Truth (tm) is binary. ("If it's in print, it's true and if it's not true, we can sue.") But the more modern attitude is to view Truth on a continuum where, on one end, you have anonymous comments on web site you've never heard of and, on the other end, you have seeing something with your own two eyes.
People that have (even partially) grown up with the Internet just automatically gauge their level of trust in any source of information. It's second nature. Not to excuse the doctors here, but they're freaking out because they're applying the old (and outdated) binary model of Truth. In short, they just need to deal with the new reality that the responsibility for determining Truth (or how much trust you have in a source) is no longer in the hands of the few.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It is interesting that anyone would say that bedside manner is irrelevant.
Furthermore, as Mike already alluded to, there is something called informed consent, which gives patients the right to know everything they need to about their health care and their health care providers as it relates to providing health care. Doctor's acting to cover up these reviews are violating the principle of informed consent.
Lastly, doctor-patient confidentiality is for the benefit of the patient and not the doctor; it does not go both ways. Asking patients to sign an NDA goes against what it is to be a doctor, and furthermore if a patient refuses then what? Doctors have a responsibility to not frivolously drop/hand-off patients.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The other point that seems to be missed here is that doctor's are currently limited by doctor-patient privacy laws so it is often impossible/illegal for a doctor to rebut a false statement made by a patient. Perhaps a better situation would be for the waivers to state that if you provide a public review of a doctor then the doctor has the right to abrogate your medical privacy to rebut the claims being made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Ha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fail
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doctors provide a service
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So sign it, then ignore it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So much for...
Doctors are getting to be like lawyers... less about the helping and all about the money!
I had a broken tooth and a dentist wouldn't TOUCH me until after it had cleared through my insurance. Wow... FANTASTIC customer service. And this was my REGULAR dentist. =(
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: So much for...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"Well it looks like you have a spiral fracture extending the length of your distal tibia, i be sending you to the ER immediately, oh and would you mind signing this waiver saying you wont say bad things about me over the internet?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why do you think they say "the doctor will see you now"
Think about that. Most other "businesses" the customer is king. Here, we know the deal.
You think these doctors will accept the lower reimbursement from Medicare or universal coverage? Hahahaha. They won't. They will continue to only see those that can afford to pay and the rest of the "unwashed" that are on govt. payment systems will only have access to doctors that are not good enough to demand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That would be interesting if it were true, but it's not. In fact, Medicare typically pays doctors/hostpitals at a rate that is higher than most most insurance companies. If you are in the medical profession you WANT to accept medicare. Without it you're going to have to rely on your ability to negotiate favorable rates with the insurance carriers that you accept. Except that most insurance carriers will not allow you to bill them for services unless you're accredited by JCAHO, which incidentally is the same organization that has to accredit your organization to allow you to bill Medicare. See how that works?
I have no doubt that there are some doctors that only deal with "self-insured" patients. But there are so few "self-insured" patients that can actually afford services (in many cases "self-insured is a euphemism for "no insurance and no ability to pay") that it's probably fairly hard to make a living. Unless you're a cosmetic surgeon in Beverly Hills or something, of course. The problem with the "self-insured" is that they end up getting billed full list price for procedures, whereas insured and Medicare patients get discounted rates, of which they usually only pay a deductible or co-pay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
mention doesn't prevent any patient from reporting the doctor to the Medical Board etc... or from critical. It is an effort to protect the physician from libel NOT protected speech. The physician cannot enter a written defense of competency without violating HIIPA rights of the patient which carries amoung other things hefty fines.The next site seen will be RateMyNeighbor.com. Then we'll see how the general public likes being libeled without recourse. Maybe someone who doesn't like you will publish your name anonymously (of course) as a sex offender, drunk or child molester. You will, of course, put up with that because it is their First Amendment right to do so. Correct?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Should they care?
Bad doctors need to advertise and offer discounted services in order to keep their practices open.
The only doctors who really care are the ones with trouble getting people into their practice.
IMHO if a doctor insists on a "don't review me" policy... they are admitting to not being such a good doctor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the tip off
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clinic Level
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And today you wonder why "service providers" don't want the public to share their views.
Is it really that big a mystery to you? End users are idiots.
They can get the best care in the world and still find something offensive about it.
"If one would give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, I would find something in them to have him hanged."
--Cardinal Richelieu
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
And you point is...what exactly? That because someone might post something on the Internet that (gasp!) isn't true or (surprise!) is stupid or (shudder!) offensive, that this shouldn't be allowed? We know that people post untrue/stupid/offensive things to the Internet and we judge it accordingly.
So, yeah, people are going to post biased or uninformed reviews online, but the right way to use these sites is to look for trends and to use them in conjuntion with other sources. There are ways to factor out idiocy.
"Secrecy is the first essential in affairs of state."
- Cardinal Richelieu
[And modern medicine too, apparently.]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No you fucking simpleton.
But this freedom everyone is having a hardon about (and by the looks of it really doesn't understand) comes with the price of taking responsibility for ones own actions. And that is what the waiver can do. It can force the person who lies be held liable. They still have their freedom to say and do what they want. But now they might have to pay for it like they should.
"but the right way to use these sites is to look for trends and to use them in conjuntion with other sources"
Yeah, like my 80 year old grandma is going to give a flying fuck about trending in public opinion.
She is going to see a bad review and be scared the dude will rape her.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
You're forgetting something... If the patient signs a waiver stating that they won't say anything online about the doctor, then the doctor can sue them *even if what the patient has said online is true*. The waiver doesn't make liars accountable, it gags all patients whether they're lying or not.
Personally, if asked to sign such a waiver, I would refuse. If the doctor then refused to see me because I didn't sign the waiver, then I would be sure to let the world at large know about it (via the internet). After all, shouldn't doctors be held responsible for their actions as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your freedom allows you the right to not sign the waiver. That is freedom.
Freedom is not the right to do and say what you like without consequence.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Maybe us fucking simpletons wouldn't have to guess what your point is if you actually, you know, made one in your original post instead of having to in a follow-up.
But this freedom everyone is having a hardon about (and by the looks of it really doesn't understand) comes with the price of taking responsibility for ones own actions.
Speaking of taking responsibility, here's an idea. Why don't the people reading anonymous comments take the responsibility to judge for themselves the validity of an anonymous comment? It seems like you want to take the responsibility of critical thinking away from the average person and bestow it to the arbiters of truth like newspapers and TV news.
And that is what the waiver can do. It can force the person who lies be held liable.
You might want to re-read the article. The waiver doesn't hold someone liable for lies, it prevents any comments. I think they call that cencorship.
Yeah, like my 80 year old grandma is going to give a flying fuck about trending in public opinion.
She is going to see a bad review and be scared the dude will rape her.
So, because your elderly grandmother doesn't understand the revolutionary change in the way information can now be distributed, we're all supposed to allow our freedom of speech to be limited? Again, if you have a point, you might actually want to make it instead of blathering on about your relatives and leaving the reader to assume what your conclusion is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
HIPPA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: HIPPA
It may surprise you to know that these sorts of lists have existed for years, and were available to hospitals and other provider organizations by subscription as a way to weed out bad doctors. Those subscription services still exist to this day, even though HIPAA (spelled correctly) similarly prevents the physicians from responding. The only real objection here is the added layer of transparency by allowing the public to see and create reviews of physicians.
But here is the much larger problem for the physician. Many of them have a god complex, and some of them treat their patients poorly (not the same as providing poor care). This is certainly a customer service issue, but it's also a potential litigation issue. There are a number of studies that demonstrate quite clearly that doctors who spend more time with their patients and are perceived to have a "better" bedside manner are far less likely to ever be sued of malpractice, even when they have made a mistake that would be cause for suit. Treating your patients with kindness and respect is the cheapest form of malpractice insurance there is, even in this litigious society. A sensible doctor would look at this as an opportunity to use patient feedback improve their practice, but they don't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RUN don't walk to the next doctor. They should be more than confident in their abilities, so that something like this won't phase them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
On the other hand, why would you agree to sign such a document, anyways? Seems that the correct response to such a thing would be to refuse and find another doctor. I'm certainly not shy about laying into my doctors when the level of respect is less than should be, after all, it is all about trust. You have to really trust someone to literally put your life in their hands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'm surprised
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I sometimes rate my doctor....
Figured it might help others. Wish there were more reviews though.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agreed with this article.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dr. Robert F Allum DO. Gaylord Michigan. Otsego Memorial Hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Dr. Robert F Allum DO. Gaylord Michigan. Otsego Memorial Hospital.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Piece of shit Dr. Robert Allum (Otsego hosp, East Jordon Family Practice, now Cheboygen MICH)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
East Jordan Family Health
The doctors "nurses" cover the asses of the dorkters all the time. The dorkters let the underlings cover all the hard patients or difficult patients while the dorkters sit back and let someone else hear all the bullshit.
I hate going to this place and will be firing my dorkter very soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]