Framing choice: The origins and impact of consumer rhetoric in US health care debates

This paper examines the origins of consumerist discourse in health care from a communication perspective via a historical textual analysis of health writing in popular magazines from 1930 to 1949. The focus is on Consumers Union's Consumer Reports and the American Medical Association's lay health magazine, Hygeia. Findings from Consumer Reports show that the consumer movement of the 1930s-40s staunchly advocated for universal health insurance. Whereas consumer rights language nowadays tends towards individual choice and personal responsibility, consumerism in health care during that era articulated ideas about consumer citizenship, framing choice and responsibility in collectivist terms and health care as a social good. This paper also illuminates the limits and weaknesses of a central tenet in consumerism-freedom of choice-by analyzing stories in Hygeia about the doctor-patient relationship. A textual analysis finds that the AMA's justification in the 1930s-40s against socialized medicine, i.e., the freedom to choose a doctor, was in practice highly controlled by the medical profession. Findings show that long before the rhetoric of the “empowered consumer” became popular, some patients exercised some choice even in an era when physicians achieved total professional dominance. But these patients were few and tend to occupy the upper socioeconomic strata of US society. In reality choice was an illusion in a fee-for-service era when most American families could not afford the costs of medical care.