We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Editor's Correspondence |

When History Really Is Not Applicable or Relevant

Amit Misra, PhD, MBA; Sumi Misra, MD, MPH
Arch Intern Med. 2009;169(19):1806-1818. doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.364.
Text Size: A A A
Published online


We wish to respond to the Commentary “A 300-Year-Old Solution to the Health Care Crisis,”1 in which the authors present an interesting analogy between fire insurance in London in the late 1600s and today's health care system in the United States, particularly between the incentives for insurers in both cases.

The Commentary is thought provoking but the analogy and arguments fail to provide any fresh insights into how we might solve the current health care crisis. The analogy fails in 2 critical aspects. First, the incentives stated (reduced risk exposure and cost control and increased profits) for prevention and for effective and efficient fire fighting that property/casualty insurers had in London are absent for US private health insurers. This is because private health insurance companies and insurers can reduce their exposure to risk, control costs, and increase profits by other means such as “cherry picking,” denying claims (as the authors note), or by reducing reimbursements. Second, a medical emergency (eg, myocardial infarction or stroke) does not lead to another in the same manner as one house on fire can burn down the neighboring house. In cases where such an event can happen (ie, epidemic, natural disasters), governments are acceptably better equipped to deal with it than independent private insurers.

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

First Page Preview

View Large
First page PDF preview





Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.


Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

52 Citations

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

Articles Related By Topic