Field Notes Inside an Integrated Communications Agency

There is a company in Greensboro, North Carolina that reportedly helps doctors prepare waivers by which patients agree not to comment online about physician "expertise or treatment." While I can understand physicians' concern over snarky or unfair assessments appearing online, I'm amazed that some doctors apparently think it's okay to ask people to blithely waive their First Amendment rights.

Could anything fly more in the face of a consumer-driven view of health care or the growing online world of candid, two-way conversations between businesses and their customers? Locally, doctors' organizations weren't thrilled when North Carolina's Blue Cross plan began carrying online rankings of physicians managed by Zagat, the folks who serve up restaurant reviews in many cities. One physician grumbled to the Raleigh paper about how awful it was to be rated by Blue Cross staff, apparently unaware of what Zagat's reviews are – first person accounts of patient experience.

Doctors make a valid point that the average person is unqualified to rate a physician's scientific or technical expertise. (I'll save the crying need for expert information on comparative quality for another post.) But there is plenty of first-hand experience that patients can and should share with each other, including wait times, administrative efficiency, ease of scheduling, bedside manner, out-of-pocket costs, etc.

I really want to believe that only a tiny minority of doctors think that stifling debate is the best way to defend their reputations. Personally, I plan to rate each and every one of my doctors. Most of my reviews thus far have been very positive, but where the service provided was really bad (e.g., I couldn't reach a live person by phone – ever), my reviews note this. No bomb throwing, no character assassination, but an honest opinion on how I felt I was treated, for good or ill.

What business expects to survive without listening to that kind of feedback?