User login
Health care has been dramatically transformed and influenced by medical and technological advances, insurance companies, state and federal legislation, and medical ethics. Amid these changes, including crises such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, earning the trust of patients to care for their mental and physical health remains a priority and a privilege.
It is troubling that federal health care agencies, in addition to hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, insurance companies, and administrators, often use the term provider when referring to clinicians on the multidisciplinary health care treatment team, which has become the predominant model for health care delivery. The word provider does not originate in the health care arena but from the world of commerce and contains no reference to professionalism or therapeutic relationships.1 Therefore, it should be replaced with more appropriate terminology that acknowledges clinicians’ roles and expertise and values our unique relationship with patients.
Why Is Provider a Problem?
First, the origin of the term provider is deplorable. During its ascent to power in the 1930s, the Nazi Party promoted the devaluation and exclusion of Jews in German society, including the medical community. Due to its eugenics campaign, the Nazi Party first targeted pediatrics, a specialty in which nearly half of its practitioners were Jewish.2 Beginning with female pediatricians, all Jewish physicians were redesignated as Behandler (provider) instead of Arzt (doctor).2 This is the first documented demeaning of physicians as providers in modern history. Jewish doctors were soon restricted to treating only Jewish patients and were further persecuted during the Holocaust. Knowing this background, what health care organization would use a term once associated with Nazi ideology?3
Second, using provider changes the treatment relationship. The nomenclature shift in the United States also seems to have originated in political and legislative circles. Although the reasons for this shift are unclear, the terminology became more pervasive after the government first used the term provider in Title XIX of the 1965 Social Security Amendments that established Medicare and Medicaid. Paydarfar and Schwartz noted it was used “in the sense of a contractor being paid for delivering any health-related products and services.”4 Ironically, a 1967 medical student health organization grant proposal discussed the role of a patient advocate in facilitating communication between “health care provider and patient.”5 A journalist for the New York Times used the word to describe a 1970 New York Senate debate surrounding the sale of Medicaid bills to collection agencies, but it is unclear whether the senators themselves used the term.6 Provider was later used in the National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974.7
Ultimately, the adaptation of this terminology led to medicine being thought of only as a business, a commoditization of care, and reinforced by referring to patients as consumers, clients, or customers.3 This terminology suggests that the clinician-patient relationship is a commercial transaction based on a market concept where patients are consumers to be serviced.1,8 Emphasis is placed on following algorithms and treating symptoms rather than patients.9 Despite a goal of minimizing cost, a mismatched referral to a provider may actually compromise patient safety and cost-effectiveness due to missed diagnoses or excessive diagnostic testing.10
In addition to government, other nonclinical entities (eg, insurance companies, advocacy groups) and some clinicians may prefer the generic term provider. Besides health care commoditization, reasons may include convenience, simplifying health care nomenclature, or removing distinctions among health care professionals to reduce costs and/or increase autonomy.
However, our value as health care professionals is not simply what we can “provide.”11 We seek to know patients as people, putting their needs ahead of ours.1 We serve as confidants and advocates and not merely providers of medications, tests, or procedures.11 This personalized nature of health care depends on trust and professionalism rather than dispassionate delivery of commoditized services.1 Using traditional terminology acknowledges the true nature of the treatment relationship—one that is established not on market concepts but on medical ethics of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence.
Third, provider is inaccurate and potentially disrespectful and harmful. The word doctor is derived from Latin doctus or docere, meaning to teach or instruct—a valued function in our interactions with patients, families, students, and colleagues.12,13 In contrast, provider refers to commercial transactions or the provision of shelter, food, and love within families and communities.1,14
Although there are no studies assessing the impact of this terminology on individual clinicians, the term provider may have a negative impact on both individual clinicians and on the health care system. Health care professionals may feel they are being disrespected by being portrayed as dispensers of services rather than as individuals.13,15 Furthermore, provider does not acknowledge the specialized training and qualifications of multidisciplinary treatment team members. The historical and theoretical foundation, degrees awarded, and scopes of practice for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists, psychologists, optometrists, physical therapists, or social workers are different yet valuable, and their expertise and accomplishment should be recognized.
The use of this term has potential for causing moral injury and reduced self-worth, sense of purpose, and meaning in our daily work; this could threaten satisfaction and commitment and lead to demoralization and burnout.1,16 It may impair effective team dynamics, as it makes no reference to professional values and may lead patients and clinicians to place lower value on professionalism and conduct.10 It may negatively impact primary care specialties by propagating the connotation that primary care is simple care and promoting low compensation, lagging recruitment, and diminished respect.10 Finally, it is detrimental to patients by changing the nature of the relationship and failing to evoke the compassion and support that sick people (that is, patients) need and deserve.3
Last, use of this term can mislead patients. By law, a health care provider is defined as “a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is authorized to practice medicine or surgery… or any other person determined by the Secretary [of Labor] to be capable of providing health care services,” which includes podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, clinical social workers, and physician assistants.17
When clinicians are categorized as providers rather than by their degrees and roles/responsibilities, patients may assume that all team members have equal training, interchangeable skills, and uniform expertise and knowledge and may conclude they can receive the same level of care from anyone.8,10 Potential for confusion is increased by the nearly ubiquitous white laboratory coat in clinical settings and doctoral degrees attainable in different health care disciplines (eg, medicine, nursing, psychology, pharmacy, physical therapy). Patients deserve to know who does what on the team of professionals who care for them and may not be fully informed when requesting or receiving treatment if they are not provided important information, such as a clinician’s title, training, and scope of practice.8,16
Reversing the Trend
Increasing awareness among patients, their families, health professions students, and health care colleagues and administrators of the importance of traditional nomenclature is a first step in reversing this trend or mitigating its impact. If an overarching generic term is required, then health care professional, clinician, or practitioner are preferred.10,12 Fifteen years ago, the Southern California Permanente Medical Group prohibited the use of the word provider to describe physicians, and its editorial style deemed it cold and institutional.16 Many, but not all, state, regional, or national medical associations and journals avoid provider in their names or titles.
I am encouraged that this journal—drawing its audience from several government health care agencies—is named Federal Practitioner rather than Federal Provider. This is reasonable and accurate, as practitioner refers to the practice of a profession, usually associated with health care.
I hope other professions can resist this trend. Lawyers are not considered legal aid providers, and teachers are not called knowledge providers.3 We do not refer to airline pilots as air transportation providers or musicians as instrument-playing melody providers. Many veterans likely would be offended if they were referred to as Constitution support and defense providers rather than by the military branch-specific titles that they earned through dedication, training, and sacrifice. The individuals in these examples demonstrate commitment to representing clients, educating students, flying passengers, playing instruments, or ensuring national defense. As health care professionals, our commitment to treating patients is equally important.4
Language matters when it comes to people feeling respected and achieving their full potential.1 I encourage government health care agencies to stop referring to us as providers and resume using traditional nomenclature. This will demonstrate genuine respect for us, transparency for the patients we serve, and recognition that caring for the sick is a calling, not a commodity.
Dedication
The author dedicates this article to his father John E. Scarff, Jr, a physician and United States Army veteran.
1. Beasley JW, Roberts RG, Goroll AH. Promoting trust and morale by changing how the word provider is used: encouraging specificity and transparency. JAMA. 2021;325(23):2343-2344. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6046
2. Saenger P. Jewish pediatricians in Nazi Germany: victims of persecution. Isr Med Assoc J. 2006;8(5):324-328.
3. Nasrallah HA. We are physicians, not providers, and we treat patients, not clients! Curr Psychiatr. 2020;19(2):5-7,29.
4. Paydarfar D, Schwartz WJ. A piece of my mind. Dear provider. JAMA. 2011;305(20):2046-2047. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.702
5. Student Health Organization. Grant Proposal of Student Health Organization. Summer Project of the South Bronx, 1967. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, unpublished.
6. Clines FX. Doctors face ban on sale of bills. New York Times. February 25, 1970:51
7. The National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974. 42 USC § 300 (1975).
8. American Academy of Family Physicians. Provider, use of term (Position paper). Published 2018. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/provider.html
9. Sanniec K, Gellis M. I am not a medical provider; I am a doctor. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(5):749-750. doi:10.1177/1090820X13487017
10. Goroll AH. Eliminating the term primary care “provider”: consequences of language for the future of primary care. JAMA. 2016;315(17):1833-1834. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2329
11. Lee BY. Time to stop labeling physicians as providers. Published May 5, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/05/05/time-to-stop-labeling-physicians-as-providers/?sh=7edfc865118e
12. Dhand S, Carbone WJ. Physicians are not providers: An open letter to the AMA and medical boards. Published November 30, 2015. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/11/physicians-are-not-providers-an-open-letter-to-the-ama-and-medical-boards.html
13. Al-Agba N. If you call me a provider, I will assume you are a Nazi. Published February 8, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://thedeductible.com/2019/02/08/if-you-call-me-a-provider-i-will-assume-you-are-a-nazi
14. Weiss JM. Physician or surgeon, but not “provider.” Published February 5, 2020. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-in-medicine/202002/physician-or-surgeon-not-provider
15. Liao L. Providers or professionals: how our conceptions of physician as machine or person lead to burnout. Med Teach. 2021;43(2):234-236. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2020.1769049
16. Weiss J. ‘Physician’ not ‘provider’ is better for doctor and patient. Published December 16, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://permanente.org/physician-not-provider-is-better-for-doctor-and-patient
17. Definition of Health Care Provider. 29 CFR § 825.125 (1993).
Health care has been dramatically transformed and influenced by medical and technological advances, insurance companies, state and federal legislation, and medical ethics. Amid these changes, including crises such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, earning the trust of patients to care for their mental and physical health remains a priority and a privilege.
It is troubling that federal health care agencies, in addition to hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, insurance companies, and administrators, often use the term provider when referring to clinicians on the multidisciplinary health care treatment team, which has become the predominant model for health care delivery. The word provider does not originate in the health care arena but from the world of commerce and contains no reference to professionalism or therapeutic relationships.1 Therefore, it should be replaced with more appropriate terminology that acknowledges clinicians’ roles and expertise and values our unique relationship with patients.
Why Is Provider a Problem?
First, the origin of the term provider is deplorable. During its ascent to power in the 1930s, the Nazi Party promoted the devaluation and exclusion of Jews in German society, including the medical community. Due to its eugenics campaign, the Nazi Party first targeted pediatrics, a specialty in which nearly half of its practitioners were Jewish.2 Beginning with female pediatricians, all Jewish physicians were redesignated as Behandler (provider) instead of Arzt (doctor).2 This is the first documented demeaning of physicians as providers in modern history. Jewish doctors were soon restricted to treating only Jewish patients and were further persecuted during the Holocaust. Knowing this background, what health care organization would use a term once associated with Nazi ideology?3
Second, using provider changes the treatment relationship. The nomenclature shift in the United States also seems to have originated in political and legislative circles. Although the reasons for this shift are unclear, the terminology became more pervasive after the government first used the term provider in Title XIX of the 1965 Social Security Amendments that established Medicare and Medicaid. Paydarfar and Schwartz noted it was used “in the sense of a contractor being paid for delivering any health-related products and services.”4 Ironically, a 1967 medical student health organization grant proposal discussed the role of a patient advocate in facilitating communication between “health care provider and patient.”5 A journalist for the New York Times used the word to describe a 1970 New York Senate debate surrounding the sale of Medicaid bills to collection agencies, but it is unclear whether the senators themselves used the term.6 Provider was later used in the National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974.7
Ultimately, the adaptation of this terminology led to medicine being thought of only as a business, a commoditization of care, and reinforced by referring to patients as consumers, clients, or customers.3 This terminology suggests that the clinician-patient relationship is a commercial transaction based on a market concept where patients are consumers to be serviced.1,8 Emphasis is placed on following algorithms and treating symptoms rather than patients.9 Despite a goal of minimizing cost, a mismatched referral to a provider may actually compromise patient safety and cost-effectiveness due to missed diagnoses or excessive diagnostic testing.10
In addition to government, other nonclinical entities (eg, insurance companies, advocacy groups) and some clinicians may prefer the generic term provider. Besides health care commoditization, reasons may include convenience, simplifying health care nomenclature, or removing distinctions among health care professionals to reduce costs and/or increase autonomy.
However, our value as health care professionals is not simply what we can “provide.”11 We seek to know patients as people, putting their needs ahead of ours.1 We serve as confidants and advocates and not merely providers of medications, tests, or procedures.11 This personalized nature of health care depends on trust and professionalism rather than dispassionate delivery of commoditized services.1 Using traditional terminology acknowledges the true nature of the treatment relationship—one that is established not on market concepts but on medical ethics of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence.
Third, provider is inaccurate and potentially disrespectful and harmful. The word doctor is derived from Latin doctus or docere, meaning to teach or instruct—a valued function in our interactions with patients, families, students, and colleagues.12,13 In contrast, provider refers to commercial transactions or the provision of shelter, food, and love within families and communities.1,14
Although there are no studies assessing the impact of this terminology on individual clinicians, the term provider may have a negative impact on both individual clinicians and on the health care system. Health care professionals may feel they are being disrespected by being portrayed as dispensers of services rather than as individuals.13,15 Furthermore, provider does not acknowledge the specialized training and qualifications of multidisciplinary treatment team members. The historical and theoretical foundation, degrees awarded, and scopes of practice for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists, psychologists, optometrists, physical therapists, or social workers are different yet valuable, and their expertise and accomplishment should be recognized.
The use of this term has potential for causing moral injury and reduced self-worth, sense of purpose, and meaning in our daily work; this could threaten satisfaction and commitment and lead to demoralization and burnout.1,16 It may impair effective team dynamics, as it makes no reference to professional values and may lead patients and clinicians to place lower value on professionalism and conduct.10 It may negatively impact primary care specialties by propagating the connotation that primary care is simple care and promoting low compensation, lagging recruitment, and diminished respect.10 Finally, it is detrimental to patients by changing the nature of the relationship and failing to evoke the compassion and support that sick people (that is, patients) need and deserve.3
Last, use of this term can mislead patients. By law, a health care provider is defined as “a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is authorized to practice medicine or surgery… or any other person determined by the Secretary [of Labor] to be capable of providing health care services,” which includes podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, clinical social workers, and physician assistants.17
When clinicians are categorized as providers rather than by their degrees and roles/responsibilities, patients may assume that all team members have equal training, interchangeable skills, and uniform expertise and knowledge and may conclude they can receive the same level of care from anyone.8,10 Potential for confusion is increased by the nearly ubiquitous white laboratory coat in clinical settings and doctoral degrees attainable in different health care disciplines (eg, medicine, nursing, psychology, pharmacy, physical therapy). Patients deserve to know who does what on the team of professionals who care for them and may not be fully informed when requesting or receiving treatment if they are not provided important information, such as a clinician’s title, training, and scope of practice.8,16
Reversing the Trend
Increasing awareness among patients, their families, health professions students, and health care colleagues and administrators of the importance of traditional nomenclature is a first step in reversing this trend or mitigating its impact. If an overarching generic term is required, then health care professional, clinician, or practitioner are preferred.10,12 Fifteen years ago, the Southern California Permanente Medical Group prohibited the use of the word provider to describe physicians, and its editorial style deemed it cold and institutional.16 Many, but not all, state, regional, or national medical associations and journals avoid provider in their names or titles.
I am encouraged that this journal—drawing its audience from several government health care agencies—is named Federal Practitioner rather than Federal Provider. This is reasonable and accurate, as practitioner refers to the practice of a profession, usually associated with health care.
I hope other professions can resist this trend. Lawyers are not considered legal aid providers, and teachers are not called knowledge providers.3 We do not refer to airline pilots as air transportation providers or musicians as instrument-playing melody providers. Many veterans likely would be offended if they were referred to as Constitution support and defense providers rather than by the military branch-specific titles that they earned through dedication, training, and sacrifice. The individuals in these examples demonstrate commitment to representing clients, educating students, flying passengers, playing instruments, or ensuring national defense. As health care professionals, our commitment to treating patients is equally important.4
Language matters when it comes to people feeling respected and achieving their full potential.1 I encourage government health care agencies to stop referring to us as providers and resume using traditional nomenclature. This will demonstrate genuine respect for us, transparency for the patients we serve, and recognition that caring for the sick is a calling, not a commodity.
Dedication
The author dedicates this article to his father John E. Scarff, Jr, a physician and United States Army veteran.
Health care has been dramatically transformed and influenced by medical and technological advances, insurance companies, state and federal legislation, and medical ethics. Amid these changes, including crises such as the ongoing coronavirus pandemic, earning the trust of patients to care for their mental and physical health remains a priority and a privilege.
It is troubling that federal health care agencies, in addition to hospitals, clinics, pharmacies, insurance companies, and administrators, often use the term provider when referring to clinicians on the multidisciplinary health care treatment team, which has become the predominant model for health care delivery. The word provider does not originate in the health care arena but from the world of commerce and contains no reference to professionalism or therapeutic relationships.1 Therefore, it should be replaced with more appropriate terminology that acknowledges clinicians’ roles and expertise and values our unique relationship with patients.
Why Is Provider a Problem?
First, the origin of the term provider is deplorable. During its ascent to power in the 1930s, the Nazi Party promoted the devaluation and exclusion of Jews in German society, including the medical community. Due to its eugenics campaign, the Nazi Party first targeted pediatrics, a specialty in which nearly half of its practitioners were Jewish.2 Beginning with female pediatricians, all Jewish physicians were redesignated as Behandler (provider) instead of Arzt (doctor).2 This is the first documented demeaning of physicians as providers in modern history. Jewish doctors were soon restricted to treating only Jewish patients and were further persecuted during the Holocaust. Knowing this background, what health care organization would use a term once associated with Nazi ideology?3
Second, using provider changes the treatment relationship. The nomenclature shift in the United States also seems to have originated in political and legislative circles. Although the reasons for this shift are unclear, the terminology became more pervasive after the government first used the term provider in Title XIX of the 1965 Social Security Amendments that established Medicare and Medicaid. Paydarfar and Schwartz noted it was used “in the sense of a contractor being paid for delivering any health-related products and services.”4 Ironically, a 1967 medical student health organization grant proposal discussed the role of a patient advocate in facilitating communication between “health care provider and patient.”5 A journalist for the New York Times used the word to describe a 1970 New York Senate debate surrounding the sale of Medicaid bills to collection agencies, but it is unclear whether the senators themselves used the term.6 Provider was later used in the National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974.7
Ultimately, the adaptation of this terminology led to medicine being thought of only as a business, a commoditization of care, and reinforced by referring to patients as consumers, clients, or customers.3 This terminology suggests that the clinician-patient relationship is a commercial transaction based on a market concept where patients are consumers to be serviced.1,8 Emphasis is placed on following algorithms and treating symptoms rather than patients.9 Despite a goal of minimizing cost, a mismatched referral to a provider may actually compromise patient safety and cost-effectiveness due to missed diagnoses or excessive diagnostic testing.10
In addition to government, other nonclinical entities (eg, insurance companies, advocacy groups) and some clinicians may prefer the generic term provider. Besides health care commoditization, reasons may include convenience, simplifying health care nomenclature, or removing distinctions among health care professionals to reduce costs and/or increase autonomy.
However, our value as health care professionals is not simply what we can “provide.”11 We seek to know patients as people, putting their needs ahead of ours.1 We serve as confidants and advocates and not merely providers of medications, tests, or procedures.11 This personalized nature of health care depends on trust and professionalism rather than dispassionate delivery of commoditized services.1 Using traditional terminology acknowledges the true nature of the treatment relationship—one that is established not on market concepts but on medical ethics of autonomy, justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence.
Third, provider is inaccurate and potentially disrespectful and harmful. The word doctor is derived from Latin doctus or docere, meaning to teach or instruct—a valued function in our interactions with patients, families, students, and colleagues.12,13 In contrast, provider refers to commercial transactions or the provision of shelter, food, and love within families and communities.1,14
Although there are no studies assessing the impact of this terminology on individual clinicians, the term provider may have a negative impact on both individual clinicians and on the health care system. Health care professionals may feel they are being disrespected by being portrayed as dispensers of services rather than as individuals.13,15 Furthermore, provider does not acknowledge the specialized training and qualifications of multidisciplinary treatment team members. The historical and theoretical foundation, degrees awarded, and scopes of practice for physicians, physician assistants, nurse practitioners, dentists, psychologists, optometrists, physical therapists, or social workers are different yet valuable, and their expertise and accomplishment should be recognized.
The use of this term has potential for causing moral injury and reduced self-worth, sense of purpose, and meaning in our daily work; this could threaten satisfaction and commitment and lead to demoralization and burnout.1,16 It may impair effective team dynamics, as it makes no reference to professional values and may lead patients and clinicians to place lower value on professionalism and conduct.10 It may negatively impact primary care specialties by propagating the connotation that primary care is simple care and promoting low compensation, lagging recruitment, and diminished respect.10 Finally, it is detrimental to patients by changing the nature of the relationship and failing to evoke the compassion and support that sick people (that is, patients) need and deserve.3
Last, use of this term can mislead patients. By law, a health care provider is defined as “a doctor of medicine or osteopathy who is authorized to practice medicine or surgery… or any other person determined by the Secretary [of Labor] to be capable of providing health care services,” which includes podiatrists, dentists, clinical psychologists, optometrists, chiropractors, nurse practitioners, nurse-midwives, clinical social workers, and physician assistants.17
When clinicians are categorized as providers rather than by their degrees and roles/responsibilities, patients may assume that all team members have equal training, interchangeable skills, and uniform expertise and knowledge and may conclude they can receive the same level of care from anyone.8,10 Potential for confusion is increased by the nearly ubiquitous white laboratory coat in clinical settings and doctoral degrees attainable in different health care disciplines (eg, medicine, nursing, psychology, pharmacy, physical therapy). Patients deserve to know who does what on the team of professionals who care for them and may not be fully informed when requesting or receiving treatment if they are not provided important information, such as a clinician’s title, training, and scope of practice.8,16
Reversing the Trend
Increasing awareness among patients, their families, health professions students, and health care colleagues and administrators of the importance of traditional nomenclature is a first step in reversing this trend or mitigating its impact. If an overarching generic term is required, then health care professional, clinician, or practitioner are preferred.10,12 Fifteen years ago, the Southern California Permanente Medical Group prohibited the use of the word provider to describe physicians, and its editorial style deemed it cold and institutional.16 Many, but not all, state, regional, or national medical associations and journals avoid provider in their names or titles.
I am encouraged that this journal—drawing its audience from several government health care agencies—is named Federal Practitioner rather than Federal Provider. This is reasonable and accurate, as practitioner refers to the practice of a profession, usually associated with health care.
I hope other professions can resist this trend. Lawyers are not considered legal aid providers, and teachers are not called knowledge providers.3 We do not refer to airline pilots as air transportation providers or musicians as instrument-playing melody providers. Many veterans likely would be offended if they were referred to as Constitution support and defense providers rather than by the military branch-specific titles that they earned through dedication, training, and sacrifice. The individuals in these examples demonstrate commitment to representing clients, educating students, flying passengers, playing instruments, or ensuring national defense. As health care professionals, our commitment to treating patients is equally important.4
Language matters when it comes to people feeling respected and achieving their full potential.1 I encourage government health care agencies to stop referring to us as providers and resume using traditional nomenclature. This will demonstrate genuine respect for us, transparency for the patients we serve, and recognition that caring for the sick is a calling, not a commodity.
Dedication
The author dedicates this article to his father John E. Scarff, Jr, a physician and United States Army veteran.
1. Beasley JW, Roberts RG, Goroll AH. Promoting trust and morale by changing how the word provider is used: encouraging specificity and transparency. JAMA. 2021;325(23):2343-2344. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6046
2. Saenger P. Jewish pediatricians in Nazi Germany: victims of persecution. Isr Med Assoc J. 2006;8(5):324-328.
3. Nasrallah HA. We are physicians, not providers, and we treat patients, not clients! Curr Psychiatr. 2020;19(2):5-7,29.
4. Paydarfar D, Schwartz WJ. A piece of my mind. Dear provider. JAMA. 2011;305(20):2046-2047. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.702
5. Student Health Organization. Grant Proposal of Student Health Organization. Summer Project of the South Bronx, 1967. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, unpublished.
6. Clines FX. Doctors face ban on sale of bills. New York Times. February 25, 1970:51
7. The National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974. 42 USC § 300 (1975).
8. American Academy of Family Physicians. Provider, use of term (Position paper). Published 2018. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/provider.html
9. Sanniec K, Gellis M. I am not a medical provider; I am a doctor. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(5):749-750. doi:10.1177/1090820X13487017
10. Goroll AH. Eliminating the term primary care “provider”: consequences of language for the future of primary care. JAMA. 2016;315(17):1833-1834. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2329
11. Lee BY. Time to stop labeling physicians as providers. Published May 5, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/05/05/time-to-stop-labeling-physicians-as-providers/?sh=7edfc865118e
12. Dhand S, Carbone WJ. Physicians are not providers: An open letter to the AMA and medical boards. Published November 30, 2015. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/11/physicians-are-not-providers-an-open-letter-to-the-ama-and-medical-boards.html
13. Al-Agba N. If you call me a provider, I will assume you are a Nazi. Published February 8, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://thedeductible.com/2019/02/08/if-you-call-me-a-provider-i-will-assume-you-are-a-nazi
14. Weiss JM. Physician or surgeon, but not “provider.” Published February 5, 2020. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-in-medicine/202002/physician-or-surgeon-not-provider
15. Liao L. Providers or professionals: how our conceptions of physician as machine or person lead to burnout. Med Teach. 2021;43(2):234-236. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2020.1769049
16. Weiss J. ‘Physician’ not ‘provider’ is better for doctor and patient. Published December 16, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://permanente.org/physician-not-provider-is-better-for-doctor-and-patient
17. Definition of Health Care Provider. 29 CFR § 825.125 (1993).
1. Beasley JW, Roberts RG, Goroll AH. Promoting trust and morale by changing how the word provider is used: encouraging specificity and transparency. JAMA. 2021;325(23):2343-2344. doi:10.1001/jama.2021.6046
2. Saenger P. Jewish pediatricians in Nazi Germany: victims of persecution. Isr Med Assoc J. 2006;8(5):324-328.
3. Nasrallah HA. We are physicians, not providers, and we treat patients, not clients! Curr Psychiatr. 2020;19(2):5-7,29.
4. Paydarfar D, Schwartz WJ. A piece of my mind. Dear provider. JAMA. 2011;305(20):2046-2047. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.702
5. Student Health Organization. Grant Proposal of Student Health Organization. Summer Project of the South Bronx, 1967. Albert Einstein College of Medicine, unpublished.
6. Clines FX. Doctors face ban on sale of bills. New York Times. February 25, 1970:51
7. The National Health Planning and Resource Development Act of 1974. 42 USC § 300 (1975).
8. American Academy of Family Physicians. Provider, use of term (Position paper). Published 2018. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.aafp.org/about/policies/all/provider.html
9. Sanniec K, Gellis M. I am not a medical provider; I am a doctor. Aesthet Surg J. 2013;33(5):749-750. doi:10.1177/1090820X13487017
10. Goroll AH. Eliminating the term primary care “provider”: consequences of language for the future of primary care. JAMA. 2016;315(17):1833-1834. doi:10.1001/jama.2016.2329
11. Lee BY. Time to stop labeling physicians as providers. Published May 5, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.forbes.com/sites/brucelee/2019/05/05/time-to-stop-labeling-physicians-as-providers/?sh=7edfc865118e
12. Dhand S, Carbone WJ. Physicians are not providers: An open letter to the AMA and medical boards. Published November 30, 2015. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.kevinmd.com/blog/2015/11/physicians-are-not-providers-an-open-letter-to-the-ama-and-medical-boards.html
13. Al-Agba N. If you call me a provider, I will assume you are a Nazi. Published February 8, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://thedeductible.com/2019/02/08/if-you-call-me-a-provider-i-will-assume-you-are-a-nazi
14. Weiss JM. Physician or surgeon, but not “provider.” Published February 5, 2020. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/women-in-medicine/202002/physician-or-surgeon-not-provider
15. Liao L. Providers or professionals: how our conceptions of physician as machine or person lead to burnout. Med Teach. 2021;43(2):234-236. doi:10.1080/0142159X.2020.1769049
16. Weiss J. ‘Physician’ not ‘provider’ is better for doctor and patient. Published December 16, 2019. Accessed September 22, 2021. https://permanente.org/physician-not-provider-is-better-for-doctor-and-patient
17. Definition of Health Care Provider. 29 CFR § 825.125 (1993).