Doctors and dentists tell patients, "all your review are belong to us"

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/all-your-reviews-are-belong-to-us-medical-justice-vs-patient-free-speech.ars

by chanks • 15 years ago

187 76 15 years ago

arstechnica.com

bugsy• 15 years ago

It seems the obvious thing to do would be to have a site that collects the names and addresses of the doctors and dentists who are so incompetent that they fear reviews.

cosgroveb• 15 years ago

I'm not a Doctor but I seem to think if I were at least competent with a good bedside manner that the best play would be to encourage patient reviews. You are always going to get a few bad apples, but people appreciate transparency and I bet that would translate to more/better reviews.

I could be completely wrong though. You would probably want to A/B test it ;)

hugh32• 15 years ago

It's difficult to know. It only takes one complete horror story to drive a lot of patients away, and the person telling the horror story may not necessarily know what he's talking about.

At least when I read hotel reviews on tripadvisor I know enough to tell when the one-star reviews are based on real complaints ("Cockroaches all over the room") or excessively picky customers ("Desk clerk rolled his eyes the third time I requested to be shifted to a room with a better view").

But if I read "Doctor Smith botched my surgery, and I lost both my legs" I'm at a loss. Did Doctor Smith really botch the surgery? Or did Doctor Smith's heroic and brilliant surgical intervention just manage save the life of a patient who otherwise would have died? I don't know, and the patient really doesn't know either.

If I knew more about medicine I'd probably have a more realistic example than that, but the fact is that some patients always wind up with outcomes from their medical treatment which are worse than they expected, and they're usually pretty ignorant about to what extent the blame lies with "crappy doctor" vs "crappy luck".

jrockway3• 15 years ago

These "copyright rights" violations are becoming egregious. I recently had to sign an addendum to my apartment lease stipulating that the management company owned my "copyright" and could broadcast, on the Internet, all security footage of me in the building.

What action should I take to get this clause removed? I don't care if they share the tapes with the police when they have a warrant. I do care if they end up on the Internet. I want to walk to my apartment, not have my life broadcast to strangers.

pyre2• 15 years ago

You could attempt to direct a bunch of publicity towards the fact that the management company wants to broadcast the security footage on the Internet:

* 'Anonymously' put up a bunch of papers around your apartment complex to direct residents' attention to those terms in the lease contract.

* Notify the local media about it.

* Discuss the idea that someone could use it to determine when you are/aren't home in order to rob/assault you.

* If you want to fight dirty you could bring up the 'protect the children' angle and talk about online predators watching your children.

thebooktocome• 15 years ago

> 'Anonymously' put up a bunch of papers around your apartment complex to direct residents' attention to those terms in the lease contract.

Kind of hard, when they have security cameras.

dp1234• 15 years ago

If your lease was not up for renewal, you probably could have gotten out of your lease by refusing to sign it. Refusing to sign it and taking your business elsewhere is one of the best ways to let them know that you won't stand for this type of thing. And then spread the word to anyone that will listen about why you don't recommend doing business with that establishment.

bdhe• 15 years ago

Refusing to sign it and taking your business elsewhere is one of the best ways to let them know that you won't stand for this type of thing.

Although this is probably the best way to let them know, unfortunately real world constraints often mean that there are a very small percentage of people who are in a position to truly have a choice between not renewing their lease (in this example) and renewing it. Therefore, a company who is only being affected by those people who don't like their policy and have a choice to follow through will likely receive very little feedback. This is why, I feel, although on paper it works, in real life unfortunately one must insist on other ways to get our point across, including the ones mentioned in replies to the OP.

lurker194• 15 years ago

...which brings this subthread back on topic to the growing practice of vendors attaching gag clauses to service contracts.

kmfrk• 15 years ago

It's quite possible that they could use the footage to help find assailants or other criminals, where the footage of you might pose a violation of the law.

What I'm saying is that there's not necessarily any shady motive behind it. The problem is - and has always been - how to determine this.

jemfinch2• 15 years ago

Model releases are not necessary for the use of recordings as evidence.

r00fus• 15 years ago

They are required to give up security footage to law enforcement anyway during an investigation.

How is this copyright clause even helpful in that case? I'm guess it's not.

lnguyen• 15 years ago

Have you asked for clarification on the terms of the addendum?

I'm guessing the situation is that networkable cameras have been installed and that they're being accessed remotely by management or a security company they hired.

I'm also actually surprised they even bothered to notify you and have the addendum. It'd be nice if they just said that or offered that as an immediate explanation. But they probably just got boilerplate text designed to be as broad as possible. Nothing necessarily sinister but lazy/cheap.

pyre2• 15 years ago

  > Nothing necessarily sinister but lazy/cheap.

This attitude really irks me sometimes. Once you've signed off on that overly broad language, do you think that the management company wouldn't take full advantage of it if there was a way for them to profit off of it?

Lazy/cheap is no excuse for attempting to pool as much power in your corner as possible 'just in case.' Once you've gained all of that power 'just for defensive purposes' there is nothing to stop you from using it offensively.

te_platt• 15 years ago

Most likely they "broadcast" the footage over the internet to a security company. There may be issues involving consent to record in your state that your apartment owners are trying to make sure they don't get in trouble over. If you are concerned over where the video ends up or what safeguards are in place to protect your privacy talk to the owners.

logjam• 15 years ago

My prior comment posted about another link describing doctors behaving like this remains pertinent:

"I'm a doc. I have no idea of the legality of such "contracts", but it doesn't matter - such a practice is completely unethical.

"Nor is it going to help a physician when a patient makes a complaint to your medical licensing board.

"If you're doing your job as a physician you aren't a "provider" to "consumers" - you are hopefully a professional working in the best interests of a patient or population of patients regardless of your own personal interests - this horseshit obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with that goal."

Goladus2• 15 years ago

Very pertinent. The last also makes me think, though, that the sites encouraging people to post random doctor reviews online to sell ads are the biggest culprits.

I don't want my doctor focused on winning internet popularity contests. Most people are not qualified to critique for the general public much more than manner, environment, and particularly egregious mistreatment.

Choosing a doctor can be difficult and it's a problem worth solving, but I don't think online review sites are the best way to do it. (That doesn't make unreasonable terms and conditions any less unreasonable, though).

stretchwithme3• 15 years ago

Random reviews are encouraged? So these sites are encouraging people to post reviews on anyone, regardless of whether they'e actually received a service from them? Or do you mean something else when you say random?

latj2• 15 years ago

Well, I didnt sign any contract with this guy. I guess I'll head over to yelp now. :> I cant speak for his abilities as a dentist but having to sign something like this is good enough reason to find a different dentist.

derwiki• 15 years ago

Yelp's ToS forbids writing a review based on someone else's experience -- to allow that would enable and encourage an echo chamber effect of one person's bad experience. There's a lot of mis-information floating around about what would cause a Yelp review to disappear, but a ToS violation like that is a perfectly valid reason. (disclaimer: I used to work at Yelp)

kenjackson• 15 years ago

Just call the dentist and ask or have the form faxed. Then you have first hand experience.

latj2• 15 years ago

I emailed his office directly to ask about the policy yesterday. I'm making my own experience. yay!

michaelpinto• 15 years ago

The funny thing is that this will lead to many more anonymous reviews — which will be much more nasty than folks who sign their actual name to a comment. So negative reviews will always outweigh any positive feedback. What's sad is that you can take negative feedback and use it to improve your practice (if you care about those things)...

ben1040• 15 years ago

Here's a few examples of these forms I found from googling:

http://lagunaskincenter.com/RegistrationForms.aspx

I agree to the mutual privacy agreement and authorize the office to retain full copyrights to any communication or online posts related to my treatment and services.

http://www.academylaser.com/user/PatientSignInForms.pdf

This doctor demands a five year gag order on all his patients!

http://www.rejuvalife.md/forms/patientreg09.pdf

This doctor seems to imply he would try to find loopholes in HIPAA to use your records for marketing if not for you agreeing to keep quiet on Yelp.

colinprince• 15 years ago

So the question becomes:

Are all Dr. Y's reviews positive because Dr. Y is a great doctor, or because Dr. Y removed the negative reviews?

With ownership of the commentary comes the power to remove it.

Natsu• 15 years ago

There's a simple algorithm for that: don't trust "perfect" people or companies. There are two ways to appear perfect: suppress all bad information and actually be perfect. One of these is much easier, and therefore a lot more likely, than the other.

chopsueyar2• 15 years ago

With regard to http://lagunaskincenter.com/RegistrationForms.aspx...

Since the office owns the full copyright to any communications posted online by the patient, if the patient were to post libelous content, would the doctor then sue his office for libel?

TomOfTTB• 15 years ago

People seem to be missing the most cogent point here...

"The agreement is based on a template supplied by an organization called Medical Justice, and similar agreements have been popping up in doctors' offices across the country. As we dug into the story, we began to wonder if Medical Justice was taking advantage of medical professionals' lack of sophistication about the law. Doctors and dentists are understandably worried about damage to their reputations from negative reviews, and medical privacy laws do make it tricky for them to respond when their work is unfairly maligned. Although Dr. Cirka declined repeated requests for an interview, his emailed statements (and the statements of his staff) suggest he doesn't understand the terms of the agreement he asks his patients to sign."

Doctors aren't lawyers. Most just want to stay in business and do their job without getting sued. That's where organizations like Medical Justice come in. Attacking the individual Doctors on an issue like this does no good. Because they weren't the people who thought up the chain of logic that led to the creation of this form. So they can't argue the pros and cons of its existence. Meaning they might agree with every counter point you present but still stick with the agreement because they are "trusting experts"

If Ars or anyone else wants to really make a difference in this arena they need to engage those "experts" and take the accusations to that organization (they clearly tried to do this, my issue is with their attack on the doctor)

The problem with the author calling-out an individual doctor is it makes a case for the agreement. By singling out one doctor and attacking him for an industry practice it says "patients can be irrational online" which will make doctors fear the online world more (and hence give more credence to organizations that claim the best way to deal with patients is to censor them)

dillona• 15 years ago

At the same time, I think it is fair to say that anyone (doctor or otherwise) should attempt to understand any legal agreement they enter into.

If doctors are asking patients to enter into a contract with them, they should have a good understanding of exactly what it says.

jemfinch2• 15 years ago

No, doctors aren't lawyers. But they are humans, and thus they're responsible for their own actions, even if they've been misled by so-called experts. They bear responsibility for refusing medical treatment to clients who refuse to sign ridiculous "mutual privacy agreements".

I reasonably expect that highly educated doctors should have enough skepticism and worldliness to recognize that there exist people who will try to take advantage of them, much like "Medical Justice" has done here. Demanding that patients sign away their rights to public expression of their opinions is prima facie ridiculous and should trigger the bullshit meter of any doctor I'd consider trusting my treatment to. If doctors' bullshit meters don't trigger there, I shudder to think what pharmaceutical companies and free lunches could sneak by them.

hugh32• 15 years ago

Think about the constraints that doctors operate under. They're bound by doctor-patient confidentiality, and certainly aren't allowed to tell the whole world what they think of you. So they might well think it's reasonable that you're not allowed to tell the world what you think of them, either.

Legally enforceable? Damned if I know.

scott_s• 15 years ago

TomOfTTB's point is not that what the doctor's did is justified. It's that if we want to deal the situation, we're barking up the wrong tree.

gfunk911• 15 years ago

Regarding the argument that doctors aren't lawyers, and they were just listening to so called experts:

There was a popular article last week discussing how doctors were ignoring evidence and logic because so-called experts in their fields hadn't instructed them what to do yet. They refused to think for themselves.

The idea that a doctor only used this form because an expert told them to, and didn't think about it for even a minute, does not fill me with confidence. Why would this thought process be confined to one area?

Link: http://www.cancer-healing.com/blaylock_brother.php

Alex3917• 15 years ago

"Why would this thought process be confined to one area?"

It's obviously not, you can find any number of books on Amazon about how the standard of care in virtually every area of medicine is horrifically awful. The one thing these books have in common is that virtually none of them are selling more than 10,000 copies, and of course number of physicians that actually read and take the time to read these books and understand them is only a small fraction of that. The vast majority of doctors can't even name a single recent finding in their own field, let alone the most important ones.

pygy_2• 15 years ago

Another day, another relevant and polite post(http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2582372) randomly [killed]. phren0logy wrote:

----

>Alex3917: The vast majority of doctors can't even name a single recent finding in their own field, let alone the most important ones.

I guess what you are saying is that it's important to support one's opinion with peer-reviewed research, rather than being overly reliant on personal experience. A noble goal. I'm assuming that because this is important to you, you have done the same. Could you please cite your sources for the above statement? Or is this an extremely clever way of proving the point that perhaps physicians really are justified in worrying about unfounded negative opinions on the internet?

-----

Kadrith• 15 years ago

I work in healthcare IT; specifically I am the IT Security Officer and HIPAA Security Officer for a health system. In that role I deal with technology, operations and compliance issues frequently. It has been my experience that most physicians care about learning more, but are overwhelmed with the expectations around changing regulations, adopting technology and new demands outside of medical knowledge being placed on them.

Healthcare is in an odd state right now. Technology is being adopted rapidly, regulations are being passed that change how medicine is practiced, patients are getting more involved in their care and the clinical staff is expected to be involved with this while continuing to improve patient care. Eventually all of this change will be for the better, but not everyone handles change well.

narrator• 15 years ago

Most doctors don't give a damn. They just follow exact rigid procedure. If someone dies they can exonerate themselves in front of any medical review board that bothers to investigate. They can then send the patient off to the morgue and go play golf on the weekend. Happens all the time.

If a doctor reads a medical study, takes a risk, and the patient dies anyway then the medical review board will ask them to explain themselves and why they didn't follow procedure.

phren0logy2• 15 years ago

>narrator: "Most doctors don't give a damn. They just follow exact rigid procedure. If someone dies they can exonerate themselves in front of any medical review board that bothers to investigate. They can then send the patient off to the morgue and go play golf on the weekend. Happens all the time."

Physicians are required to provide treatment within the standard of care. I'm not sure if that's the "exact rigid procedure" that you are referring to, but I would note that this requirement is imposed by the legal system.

Also, it really makes me sad to hear that you think that doctors don't care about their patients that die. I am a physician, and I can tell you (anecdotally) that doctors I have known who lose patients don't take it lightly. I'm sure there are exceptions, but I would ask you to back up such a broad and accusatory statement with some evidence.

pak• 15 years ago

"Most doctors don't give a damn" if someone dies?

Perhaps you had a bad experience with a physician, but please don't generalize that to the entire profession. That's a ridiculous, inflammatory starting position.

lurker194• 15 years ago

It turns out that clinical treatment and medical research are two distinct activities, and patients appreciating not getting the one they did not expect.

Gatsky• 15 years ago

Have you ever cared for someone who is chronically unwell, in pain, depressed? Take all the complexities of that relationship. Think about the days when you want to kill each other. Think about all the emotional ups and downs. Now have 10 relationships like this each day, every day.

You don't know anything about being a doctor.

dfranke• 15 years ago

As a consumer, the way deal with this stuff is to cross out the objectionable provisions, sign, and hand it back without a word. Walk out if they put up a fuss, but they usually won't.

Vivtek2• 15 years ago

This sounds like a pretty good tactic.

nhangen• 15 years ago

Just make sure to initial next to those changes.

chopsueyar2• 15 years ago

It works with rental car agreements, too!

Vivtek2• 15 years ago

The real question is how much each doctor or dentist pays Medical Justice for the privilege of being lied to.

yaks_hairbrush• 15 years ago

I wonder if (non-tenured) college professors will undertake a similar endeavor, given the visibility of ratemyprofessor.com

SoftwareMaven2• 15 years ago

The internets don't provide much information for doctors to go off of. Lots of people who want to sell them mutual privacy agreements, lawyers that say "you should do it!", but nothing with any real facts about them.

Maybe EFF could do some SEO efforts to get on google's front page talking about what they really mean to balance everybody trying to sell them.

nathanwdavis• 15 years ago

Angie's List (I work for AL) recently did an informational video to inform customers on the topic. http://magazine.angieslist.com/videos/is-your-doctor-asking-...

Hopefully more people will become educated on the matter and refuse to be a patient of such physicians and dentists.

ChattyKathy• 15 years ago

MedicalJustice is an EXTREMELY slimy organization. Not only do they sell these damn contracts but they also take "extra legal" measures against doctors who testify on behalf of a patient in a medical malpractice trial. (http://blog.medicaljustice.com/?p=2048) AND they post positive reviews for doctors across the US. (http://www.ratemds.com/social/?q=node/49926) At least four of the doctor who have received reviews from them are themselves members of Medical Justice.

Its like they're saying, "Don't rate your doctors, let us do it for you!"

SkimThat• 15 years ago

TL;DR - An Ars Technica reporter was about to sign an agreement with a new dentist when he noticed that the contract forbade posting any reviews of the dentist online. An organization called Medical Justice is supplying boilerplate agreements to doctors and dentists to put in contracts with new patients like the one previously mentioned in order to help control negative reviews. Doctors, however, may not fully understand what those agreements actually entail. They’re mostly focused on fraudulent negative reviews by non-patients, which privacy laws make difficult to eradicate, but the agreements could have a chilling effect on legitimate patient reviews. Doctors, however can respond by making general comments about their practices, accepting that there will be a few negative reviews, and dealing with complaints made by patients.

robdd1• 15 years ago

There should be an open way for patients to give public feedback. HIPAA makes it impossible for a Doctor to defend herself from a BS review.

For EXAMPLE:

Patient X: This Doctor is terrible, I had a broken leg and he told me to get the hell out of the hospital and walk it off.

Doctor Y: This Patient has been to the ER 30 times over the past 2 months, every time he asks for narcotics for broken bones that NEVER show up on X-rays.

Patient X's Lawyer: You are now being sued for a HIPAA violation.

learc83• 15 years ago

What is the doctor giving you in return? From my understanding it's not an valid contract unless both sides get some kind of consideration (such as money or a discount for service).

rorrr• 15 years ago

Here are the places where you can review this particular dentist:

http://www.yelp.com/biz/ken-cirka-dmd-philadelphia-2

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Dr-Ken-Cirka-DMD/142418484400?...

http://philadelphia.doctoroogle.com/reviews/viewdentist.cfm/...

http://www.bbb.org/washington-dc-eastern-pa/business-reviews...

callmeed• 15 years ago

The "product" is $625/year or included with some larger membership.

https://www.medicaljustice.com/web-defamation-purch1.aspx

The fake patient quote on the page is so bad it's almost funny ...

Egregore• 15 years ago

The article says that the agreement will not work in court, but even if it will, why can't somebody (your relative) who know the situation and have not signed the agreement post a bad review?

chalst• 15 years ago

AMS News wrote about this in 2008: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/06/09/bica0609.htm criticising an earlier invocation of Medical Justice's "vaccine against libel".

Doctors and dentists tell patients, "all your review are belong to us"

Related Stories