=CORPORATION DOCTORS=
Of recent years many corporations, especially the large manufacturing
and railway concerns, have made it part of their policy to employ
doctors on contract. At first such jobs paid fairly well. It was to the
interest of the corporations to engage men of reputation and they had to
pay them. It sounded well, it created a favorable impression, to have it
known that the United States Steel Corporation had engaged the
celebrated Dr. Curem to attend to such of its employees as might become
sick or disabled while in service.
Truly, a generous corporation, the public would argue. It not only looks
after its sick and injured without charge to the unfortunate, but it
gives them the benefit of the best medical and surgical talent
obtainable. But the corporations did not do this from philanthropic
motives. Not much. It was a matter of business.
Sickness and accident among a large force of employees costs money. The
quicker it can be overcome the better off the company will be. But, the
reputation for philanthropy once established, the corporations began to
economize in their outlay for medical expenses. For this the doctors and
surgeons were largely at fault themselves. The plum was too tempting and
there was a keen competition for it, with the result that prices took a
sharp tumble.
Physicians with a small practice who heard of other doctors getting
$5,000 a year to look after the sick and injured employees of a
corporation argued that they would like to do the work for $2,000. It
would ensure living expenses, and what they could pick up on the side in
regular practice would be profit. They didn’t know, until too late that
the demands on their time would be such that they would have little
opportunity for outside practice, and that the $2,000 they received from
the corporation would cover their entire income. So they began bidding
and wire-pulling against one another, and the corporations, wise unto
their day and generation, took advantage of the unseemly competition.
In no one line of corporate endeavor is this competition more keen and
noticeable than in life insurance. It is not so very long ago that the
position of medical examiner for a good company was a respectable,
lucrative position. What is it now? It is safe to say that there is
hardly a company in the field to-day that pays a decent sum for its
medical examinations. The doctor is the watchdog of the company’s
treasury. He stands between it and great financial loss. He protects it
against fraud. A slight error or the least degree of negligence on his
part may cost the company thousands and thousands of dollars. The
issuance of a policy is a very important business transaction. The
doctor stands in the same relation to it as does the lawyer who examines
the abstract in a real estate deal. Contrast the fee allowed the medical
examiner in a case involving the issuance of a $100,000 life insurance
policy and that received by the lawyer who examines the abstract in a
real estate transfer involving $5,000, and my argument is complete. Some
companies expect to secure all of an expert examiner’s time—and actually
get it—for $2,000 to $3,000 a year. It might be well to contrast, also,
the commission received by the agent who writes the policy, with the
medical examiner’s fee.
In the case of our fraternal societies the examiner’s fees are pitifully
low, so low that a busy man cannot do the work save at a great loss of
time. There are some extenuating circumstances in the case of the
co-operative societies. In the case of both old line and co-operative
insurance, however, only the overcrowded and generally poverty-stricken
condition of the medical profession can possibly explain the fact that
good men are to be had so cheaply.
Railroad and manufacturing corporations have no difficulty in securing
doctors to look after their interests at a rate so low as to reflect on
the respectability of the profession at large. There are, for example,
instances in which doctors are rendering for $300 a year services that
should bring several thousand dollars at very ordinary fees. In addition
to this direct cheapening of professional values, the company or
corporation surgeon is expected to go on the stand as an expert and
prevaricate in the interests of his employers. As a corollary, he is
expected to testify against the interests of the poor fellow who,
perhaps, as the result of the company’s wilful neglect, has only the
wreck of a once vigorous manhood with which to oppose the company’s
immense capital. And this the doctor does in an uncomfortable proportion
of cases.
When the charge is made that he “prevaricates” it is correct. It would
be pitiful, indeed, if the expert opinions rendered by some corporation
doctors were the result of ignorance. The corporation expert does not
always prevaricate. The truth may be the best card to play. He had
better not let the corporation catch him telling the truth, however,
when said truth is prejudicial to its interests. There is an ax, my
brethren, an ax that is ever ready.
Speaking of corporation surgeons reminds me of the fact that practice in
the neighborhood of our large factories is rather poor picking for
everybody. There is plenty of work to be done, and there would be
considerable income derived therefrom, but the corporation surgeon gets
it all, and receives a mere pittance therefor. The corporation claims to
employ a surgeon for humanity’s sake. This is pure hypocrisy—the doctor
is employed for its own protection. Every doctor knows of cases in
which, by the co-operation of the claim agent and the surgeon, an
injured employee has been induced to sign away his manifest rights. He
is usually denied the right to select his own surgeon. To the
non-partisan medical observer, the bitter opposition of the average
juryman to corporations is in no wise remarkable. It will be argued that
there are plenty of honest corporation doctors. Grant you that, but it
is hard to see how they hold their jobs.
Then there is a hurtful disposition to fraternize. In the good old days
the regular profession ostracized him who consulted with that horrid
bugaboo, the homeopath. It has come to pass that the regular lion has
laid him down beside the homeopathic lamb. And when they rise again the
mutton shall be no more, and the lion shall have waxed fat. The
latter-day regular has gone farther, and hobnobbed, as on equal terms,
with “osteopaths,” “Christian Scientists,” “faith healers,” and others
of their ilk. Not so? Oh, yes it is. It is not long since the
Physicians’ Club of Chicago invited representatives of these creeds to
break bread with it, and formally discuss the merits and demerits of
their theories as opposed to regular medicine. The affair was given
great publicity in the newspapers, and the wise layman, reading thereof,
laughed exceedingly merry and said, “What fools these doctors be.”
And, from a business, politic and social standpoint, were they really so
very clever? The Physicians’ Club gave these people standing in the
public eye, and by inviting them to a joint discussion, gave them
professional recognition—a recognition they were not slow to use as a
valuable advertisement. If a dinner invitation does not constitute
social recognition, what does? This action of the Physicians’ Club did
more to further the interests of these people than they themselves could
have done in a year. Still, mistakes will happen, and the worst that can
be said of the club is that it made a serious, impolitic and
unbusiness-like blunder.
It is much easier to direct attention to faults than it is to suggest
remedies therefor. In most of the points here made, the remedy suggests
itself. In general, the remedy lies in an improvement of professional
_esprit de corps_. With a betterment of this as a foundation, much can
be done to improve the business aspect of medicine in its higher sense.
The time will come when professional co-operation in the broadest sense
will be absolutely necessary if we would survive.
A little of the proper spirit of trades unionism might not be a bad
thing. So far as the strictly financial aspect of legitimate practice is
concerned, the sooner we impress the public with the idea that we
appreciate our own market value and insist on its appreciation by the
public, the better it will be for the profession. Once let it be
understood that ours is a business-like and financially sound
profession, and the _hoi polloi_ will give us the respect that is our
due. The public should have frequent and pointed reminders that there is
more than a philanthropic side to our labors. The doctor’s wife and
children deserve quite as much consideration as the layman’s.
“I know that the world, the great big world,
From the peasant up to the king,
Has a different tale from the tale I tell,
And a different song to sing.
But for me—and I care not a single fig
If they say I am wrong or right—
I shall always go in for the weaker dog,
For the under dog in the fight.
I know that the world, the great big world,
Will never a moment stop
To see which dog may be in fault,
But will shout for the dog on top.
But for me, I shall never pause to ask
Which dog may be in the right,
For my heart will beat, while it beats at all,
For the under dog in the fight.
Perchance what I’ve said were better not said,
Or ’twere better I’d said it incog;
But with heart and with glass filled chock to the brim,
Here’s luck to the under dog.”
------------------------------------------------------------------------