Practice guidelines and professional autonomy in a universal health insurance system: The case of tissue plasminogen activator in Ontario

Ontario's universal health insurance system has placed few constraints on the clinical and economic autonomy of medical doctors. Although fees are standardized, most physicians remain in private fee-for-service practice and thereby retain control of the mix and volume of services. Utilization review is minimal. While organized medicine has argued that health care is 'under-funded', the government is pressing for better use of extant resources through firmer management of the medical services sector. The Ontario Medical Association (OMA), the major bargaining agent for doctors in the province, has accordingly sought to protect professional autonomy by developing voluntary self-regulatory approaches that obviate the need for external controls over physician practice patterns. Part of this strategy is promulgation of practice guidelines. Tissue plasminogen activator (t-PA), a clot-lysing drug for myocardial infarction, was released in late 1987, and, at C$2950 per treatment, constituted an unforeseen add-on cost for hospitals. The OMA subsequently convened an expert panel to develop guidelines for thrombolysis in myocardial infarction. Among the unanticipated results was the conclusion that insufficient evidence had accumulated to recommend routine use of t-PA instead of streptokinase, an older drug costing C$290. The OMA panel's guidelines were approved by the OMA executive, and led the government to reject special add-on funding for hospitals purchasing t-PA. The OMA's position and government decision provoked negative reactions from the OMA's own cardiology section. Indicative of clinicians' feelings, a follow-up survey of cardiologists and internists showed that only 28% of respondents were indifferent between t-PA and streptokinase, while 64% preferred t-PA. On the other hand, 74% supported clinical policy development by the OMA, while 94% opposed direct government involvement in guideline-setting. The case of the OMA thrombolysis guidelines illustrates a strategic conundrum facing Canadian organized medicine. Professional activism in guideline-setting may in theory protect the individual practitioner's autonomy by offering a voluntary alternative to utilization management by government, and is likely to strengthen the collective influence of organized medicine. However, among the risks are alienation of practitioners who see professional guidelines and government control as two sides of the same regulatory coin, and the transmogrification of voluntary guidelines into parameters for cost control and utilization management by government or hospitals. Future initiatives will depend on how these benefits and risks are weighed.