Search results

Physician anthropologists have contributed extensively to the anthropology of biomedicine, as well as to other aspects of medical anthropology. Their use of detailed clinical case narratives allows elucidation of what is at stake for individuals and communities in the course of any given illness. Biomedically informed observations of bodies illustrate the connections between microscopic harm and macrosocial arrangements, while observations of clinical spaces and medical knowledge production contribute to current debates over evidence, metrics, migration, and humanitarianism. In moving away from culturalist explanations for illness, physician anthropologists have drawn attention to the manifold workings of structural violence—and have often sacrificed the possibility of deep epistemological challenges to biomedicine. While raising a note of caution about the moral authority of physician anthropologists, I recognize that much of this scholarship has laid the intellectual groundwork for a movement toward equity that refuses to justify poor-quality health care for poor people.

Although there has been significant interest from health services researchers and policy makers about recent trends in hospitals' ownership of physician practices, few studies have investigated the strengths and weaknesses of available data sources. In this article, we compare results from two national surveys that have been used to assess ownership patterns, one of hospitals (the American Hospital Association survey) and one of physicians (the SK&A survey). We find some areas of agreement, but also some disagreement, between the two surveys. We conclude that full understanding of the causes and consequences of hospital ownership of physicians requires data collected at the both the hospital and the physician level. The appropriate measure of integration depends on the research question being investigated.