Labor Law and Physicians' Privileged Position: An Example of Structural Interest Influence

Abstract

Health care delivery in the United States may be characterized as a dynamic system of conflicting interest groups. Since the reorganization of the medical profession in 1910, however, physicians have been able to maintain their position as a dominant structural interest group. A dominant structural interest in one which is served by the structure of social, economic, and political institutions. It does not have to reorganize continuously to protect its privileged position.

Although several medical sociologists have noted the privileged position of physicians, few have attempted to explicate the process of status maintenance. This paper examines the development of labor law in health care as one example of structural interest influence. Labor law provides an excellent illustration of this influence in that its development and application are far removed from the physicians' sphere of direct influence. It is demonstrated that the ideology that physicians should hold a privileged position is so ingrained that their interests are protected even in their absence.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Alford

Health Care Politics: Ideological Interest Group Barriers to Reform. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1975.

Krause

Power and Illness: The Political Sociology of Health and Medical Care. Elsevier, New York, 1977.

Brown

E. R.

Rockefeller Medicine Men. University of California Press, Berkeley, 1979.

Fishbein

A Short History of the American Medical Association 1847–1947. W. B. Saunders, Philadelphia, 1947.

Shryock

The medical history of the American people. In Medicine in America: Historical Essays, edited by Shryock

, The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1966.

Rothstein

American Physicians in the Nineteenth Century: From Sects to Science. The Johns Hopkins Press, Baltimore, 1972.

Stevens

American Medicine and the Public Interest. Yale University Press, New Haven, 1971.

Navarro

Medicine Under Capitalism. Prodist, New York, 1976.

The American Medical Association: Power, purpose, and politics in organized medicine—The political basis of power. Yale Law Journal 63: 954–959, 1954.

10.

National Labor Relations Act (as amended), Public Law No. 101, 80th Cong., Chp. 120, H.R. 3020, 1947.

11.

Dunlop

Collective Bargaining: Principles and Cases. R. D. Irwin, Chicago, 1949.

12.

Abodeely

J. E.

The NLRB and the Appropriate Bargaining Unit. University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia, 1971.

13.

Morand Bros. Beverage Co. 91 NLRB 409 (1950), enforced 190 F. 2d 576 (7th Cir. 1951).

14.

McCullock

F. W.

Bornstein

The National Labor Relations Board. Praeger Publishers, New York, 1974.

15.

Health Care Amendments of 1974, Public Law 93-360, 88 Stat. 395, 1974.

16.

120 Congressional Record 12994 (remarks of Senator Fanning), 1974.

17.

Hearings before the House Special Subcommittee on Education and Labor, 81st. Cong., 1st Sess., 1949.

18.

Ohio Valley Hospital Assn. 95 LRRM 1430. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1977.

19.

Cedars-Sinai Medical Center 91 LRRM 1398. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1976.

20.

Smith

Two lines of authority: The hospital dilemma. In Patients, Physicians and Illness, edited by Jaco

E. Gartley

, pp. 460–477, The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill, 1958.

21.

Maylenovich

Medical Sociology. Alfred Publishing Co., Sherman Oaks, Ca., 1980.

22.

Hall

The stages of a medical career. In Patients, Physicians and Illness, edited by Jaco

E. Gartley

, pp. 289–300. The Free Press, Glencoe, Ill., 1958.

23.

Derbyshire

Medical ethics and discipline. J.A.M.A. 228: 59–62, 1974.

24.

Stroman

The Medical Establishment and Social Responsibility. Kennikst Press, Port Washington, N.Y., 1976.

25.

Mercy Hospitals of Sacramento 89 LRRM 1097. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1975.

26.

Standard Oil Co. 33 LRRM 1424. Bureau of National Affairs, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1954.