This Article  • Full text  • PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Related articles  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Our article in the October 13, 1997, issue of the ARCHIVES¹ could be construed as "managed care bashing," since we attacked one widely discussed managed care practice (gag clauses) and directed attention to a less-publicized but equally important ethical infringement (trade secrets or proprietary information clauses). Apparently, however, this was not enough criticism of the business practices of managed care organizations for Himmelstein and Woolhandler,² who would have wished us to attack every vestige of the marketplace in health care, and to whom "business ethics" appears to be an oxymoron.

We share Himmelstein and Woolhandler's concern about for-profit managed care organizations, and join them in hoping for sweeping reforms that will ensure access to good health care for all Americans. We do not believe that any fair reading of our commentary will support their charge that we "seem ready to accept the paradigm of market medicine—that profit-driven care serves the . . . [Full Text of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?

RELATED ARTICLES

Bound to Gag
David U. Himmelstein and Steffie Woolhandler
Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(18):2033.
PDF  

Gag Rules and Trade Secrets in Managed Care Contracts: Ethical and Legal Concerns
Howard Brody and Vence L. Bonham, Jr
Arch Intern Med. 1997;157(18):2037-2043.
ABSTRACT