New York Times Examines Physicians Criticism of Zagat Ratings
The New York Times on Monday examined criticism of Zagat Survey physician ratings. Under an agreement reached with WellPoint in 2006, Zagat began asking plan members to post reviews of their physicians and rate them in categories such as trust and communication. According to the Times, as in other Zagat ratings, the "responses are summarized and presented as scores that, in this case, are edited" by WellPoint. The ranking guide is available online to about two million WellPoint and Anthem Blue Cross members in the three states and 3.7 million members of Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina, which is not affiliated with WellPoint.
However, "[n]ot surprisingly, many doctors -- including those in California, Connecticut and North Carolina, where the Zagat-WellPoint venture was first introduced -- have given the idea low marks," the Times reports. William Handelman, a kidney specialist and president of the Connecticut State Medical Society, said, "It is curious that they would go to a company that had no experience in health care to try to find out how good a doctor is," adding, "It certainly is very subjective." Ronald Thurston, a psychiatrist, asked, "Are patients the best judges of health care?" He added, "Patients notoriously ignore their doctor's advice to eat well and exercise. Often they quit taking their pills when they're feeling better. They usually don't understand the technologies and skills needed for treatment."
Arthur Caplan, director of the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania, said he is skeptical of open forums that evaluate physicians, adding, "There is no correlation between a doctor being an inept danger to the patient and his popularity." He said, "I like free speech, publishing opinions that help with picking movies and college courses to take," but reviewing physicians is "a recipe for disaster." Eric Fennel, the WellPoint vice president overseeing the online review program, said that Zagat scores would be posted only when at least 10 reviews are received about a physicians and that "abusive language" aimed at physicians would not be allowed (Freudenheim, New York Times, 2/16).
