CHAPTER I
MEDICINE AS A BUSINESS
By G. Frank Lydston, M.D.
As a general proposition it is safe to assert that the practice of medicine from a business standpoint is a failure. The successful exceptions merely prove the rule. It is also safe to assume that the elements of financial non-success are cumulative in their action—a fact that is easily proved by hospital and dispensary statistics.
The practitioner of medicine, like every man who relies on his own hand and brain for a livelihood, is entitled to a bit of earth that he and his may call their own, at least a modest competence, and a well-earned rest when his sun begins to set and the twilight of his life approaches. How many doctors are in a position to enjoy or even render less awesome their twilight days? As city doctors are all supposed to be rich—at least by the public, that does all it can to prevent their becoming so—it would be interesting to know what proportion of them, even in metropolitan medical centers, own their own homes or have property investments. A far smaller proportion than is just, I fancy.
The assertion has been made that the general poverty of the medical profession is due to a lack of appreciation and a contempt for the rights of the medical man on the part of the public at large. This, however, is a secondary matter which, being self-evident, overshadows the primary cause—the asinine stupidity of the profession itself. As a broad, general proposition the reputable profession as a whole has about as much sense as the dodo, and, unless signs fail, will, sooner or later, meet the fate of that remarkable bird. How the profession can expect the respect and appreciation of the public when it has no respect or appreciation for itself is difficult to conjecture. The public cannot be expected to keep clean the nest of the medical dodo. Furthermore, the public quite rationally values the stupid thing according to its self-appraisement.
Primarily, the practice of medicine is supposed to be founded on a mawkish, blanket-like sentiment of philanthropy, which is expected to cover both God’s and the devil’s patients—the pauper and the dead-beat—the honest man and the rascal—the rich and poor alike. The doctor is expected to wallow eye-deep in the milk of human kindness, scattering it broadcast for the benefit of humanity, but he is in no wise expected to even absorb a little of it, much less to swallow a gulp or two occasionally for his own benefit. By way of piling Pelion upon Ossa, the public, having discovered that the doctor sets little value on his own services, proceeds to eye him with suspicion; the tradesman is very careful how he trusts doctors. Of course the tradesman has his own family physician “hung up” for a goodly sum, but—knowing doctors to be poor business men—the tradesman often cheats them in both the quality and price of goods.
It is a great and goodly game that plays from both ends and catches the victim in the middle. The tradesman has one redeeming feature, however; he does his best to teach his doctor patrons a lesson. He either sends his goods C.O.D., or, if the doctor be one of the favored ones, he finds the bill in his mail bright and early on the first of the month. I often think my tradesmen must sit up all night in order to get their bills in bright and early on the first. If not paid by the 15th, a collector is usually at the doctor’s office to see about it.
Yet the professional dodo—my apologies to the shade of the “sure enough” dodo—will not learn. He goes on and on, neglecting his accounts, mainly because he is afraid of offending his patrons and driving them off to some other doctor who isn’t so particular; and the worst of it is, there are plenty of contemptible fellows who draw their own salaries promptly when due, or present their bills for goods with frantic haste, who consider a doctor’s bill a flagrant insult. Will nothing ever inspire the doctor with courage enough to despise and ignore such contemptible trash? Does he prefer the role of a lickspittle to that of an independent and self-reliant man?
As illustrations of the value the profession sets on its skill and learning, the amount of gratuitous work done is striking. Our pauper—or pauperized—patrons are divided into several classes, viz.: 1. The free hospital, clinic and dispensary class. This is on the increase. According to Dr. Frederick Holme Wiggin, 51 per cent of all cases of sickness in New York City are now classed medically as paupers, as against 1.5 per cent twenty years ago! This is appalling. Of these alleged paupers it is safe to say that 75 per cent are able to pay full or at least fairly good fees. Why should pauperism be shown so prominently in the matter of medical bills, as compared with other necessities of life? And why should the profession carry a burden that belongs to the public? 2. Free patients of the private class: (a) those who can pay but will not, i.e., dead beats, and swindlers; (b) persons whose circumstances are such that the doctor feels in duty bound to render no bills; (c) persons who presume upon social acquaintance with the doctor to “hold him up” for friendly, perhaps informal, consultations.