A position paper about using the term physician instead of provider? What does this have to do with biomedical ethics?
I fully support calling ourselves physicians and not providers, and have been sensitive to this issue in part thanks to American College of Physicians (ACP) President Emeritus Dr. Robert McLean’s call to action in his 2019 inaugural address. At first, I was puzzled that this became an issue for the ACP’s Ethics, Professionalism, and Human Rights Committee (EPHRC). Considering the term provider specifically through the lens of ethics was an interesting perspective. After reading the paper (and listening to this related podcast), I was convinced. This issue has everything to do with biomedical ethics.
Authors Lois Snyder Sulmasy, Director of ACP’s Center for Ethics and Professionalism, and Jan Carney, former EPHRC Chair and current ACP President, got it precisely correct. Writing for the EPHRC, they thoughtfully and eloquently describe the ethical significance of names in health care. Let me explain.
This paper begins with a brief history of the term “provider” which dates to Medicare and Medicaid law in 1965: “any provider of services.” Even though the term has evolved from simply meaning suppliers delivering products to today’s diverse array of clinicians, we know that medical care is much more than just a “service.” Sulmasy and Carney then poignantly remind us of the Latin origins of patient, physician, medicine, and compassion. For instance, the origin of compassion means “to suffer with.” Sit with this.
As we all know, provider can hold a whole host of meanings, from individual health professionals all the way to impersonal institutions and insurers. Do patients really know the differences in training and expertise between various types of clinicians? Do we? Using the all-encompassing term provider does not foster transparency.
Moreover, how do our responsibilities differ from other entities which may also be referred to as providers? The partnership we have with our patients is bound by our ethical duties of beneficence, non-maleficence, patient autonomy, and justice. We respect and uphold the dignity of our patients, and work to meet their individual needs. Do institutions do this? Or are they obligated first to their stockholders and owners?
As Sulmasy and Carney write, “The use of the term provider undermines ethics and professionalism.” The generic term provider devalues our training, identity, and ultimately ourselves. When we are lumped together with other health professionals as “providers” we as physicians lose our identity, and everything that entails. As we know, in the profession of medicine, we possess publicly declared values and uphold ethical duties. We are accountable to the public.
The authors emphatically state, “the words physician and provider are not interchangeable. Provider undermines the physician’s ethical obligations, clinical integrity, and accountability, as well as trust in the patient-physician relationship. The term should not be used to describe physicians, nor should physicians use it to describe themselves, their team members, or their trainees.” In addition, the authors assert that “when describing professionals with varied credentials who care for patients, the terms clinicians or health care professionals, not providers, should be used.”
In this era, science, scientific rigor, and public health are under assault, which we witness every day. This ranges from the many actions reported in the media, such as the blocking of publication of scientific studies by federal agencies, to the slow walking of NIH grant disbursements, and to our students on pediatric clerkships sharing that an increasing percentage of parents refuse vitamin K injections for their newborns. We must emphatically protect our profession. We must vigorously protect our collective commitment to our oath, our compassion, and each other. And on a simple, foundational level, we must not lose sight of the impact that devaluing words and terms may have. All of this begins, one person, one physician, at a time.
The last thing we want to contribute to, collectively, is our own deprofessionalization. Insisting on referring to ourselves as physicians, and not providers, is an important stance that we must assume. The language we use should reflect our individual and collective ethical responsibilities including our relationship with patients and our obligation to serve them.
Do I gently correct our students, or anyone else, when they refer to physicians, or nurses, or other health professionals, as providers? Absolutely. If we do not correct them, who will? This is our ethical responsibility.
Janet A. Jokela, MD, MPH, completed her term as ACP Treasurer at IM 2025. She serves as professor and senior associate dean of engagement at the Carle Illinois College of Medicine, Urbana, IL. She may be reached on BlueSky @drjanetj.bsky.social.
The American College of Physicians is the largest medical specialty organization in the United States, boasting members in over 145 countries worldwide. ACP’s membership encompasses 163,000 internal medicine physicians, related subspecialists, and medical students. Internal medicine physicians are specialists who utilize scientific knowledge and clinical expertise for diagnosing, treating, and providing compassionate care to adults, spanning from those in good health to individuals with complex illnesses. Stay connected with ACP on X @ACPIMPhysicians, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Instagram @acpimphysicians.
