This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in JAMA  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

Robert G. Petersdorf, MD
University of Washington Veterans Health Administration Seattle

JAMA. 1995;274(23):1833-1834.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

To the Editor.

—The argument by Dr Whitcomb¹ that the number of generalist physicians in the United States is adequate is flawed for four reasons.

First, it adheres slavishly to the physician-population ratio as an instrument of public policy. I pointed out in 1975 that there was no correlation between the physician-population ratio and the quality of care both cross-nationally and within the United States.² This ratio also ignores maldistribution between generalists and specialists and by geography. More important, Whitcomb's interpretation comparing generalist physician-population ratios between countries is misleading because it ignores the total number of physicians in the workforce. England is a case in point; while its generalist-population ratio is only 54:100 000, generalists comprise 59% of the physician workforce. In the United States, where the ratio is 69:100 000, generalists comprise only 34% of the workforce.

Second, cross-national comparisons of physician workforces are fraught with danger . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?