Today, the editor-in-chief of Medical Voice saw an article in a Beijing newspaper, “The shortening time of doctors’ visits is due to the doctor-patient economy! The article was very interesting. The first thing the article said was: “The queue is three hours, the visit takes three minutes, and then you are prescribed some tests”. This undeniable fact exists. Now let’s do an arithmetic problem. The doctor sees 3 minutes each (20 per hour), and the patient still has to wait in line for 3 hours, which means you are in the 60th place. If the doctor sees 30 minutes each and works 8 hours a day, he or she can see 16 patients. The patient in the 60th position would have to wait in line for 4 days. The fundamental problem here is the lack of medical resources, unreasonable hierarchical diagnosis and treatment, and the reason why common colds are running to tertiary hospitals to see specialists. Do not throw the conflict to the doctor. One more, three minutes, an experienced clinician can basically complete the basic medical history and physical examination. The next diagnostic step is a clinical ancillary examination …… There doesn’t seem to be anything wrong with this procedure! The report also said that the short visit time is driven by “economic interests”, I summarize the report as follows. Doctors have become “lazy”, because of the development of various medical testing technology and fast, it is said that the stethoscope is also used rarely. 2. Doctors rely on clinical auxiliary examinations, without which they cannot see the patient. 3. Physical tests such as stethoscopes are less expensive, while biochemical tests and radiological tests have economic benefits. 4. Patients spend more for doctors to benefit. Patients do not spend or spend less, the doctor will suffer; the more sick people, the better the doctor’s day, the less sick people, the more difficult the doctor’s day. About the above points, I think we grew up learning Marx’s capitalism, Marx taught us to look at everything, to see the essence through the phenomenon. And these views may only see the surface. 1. Undeniably, the stethoscope, thermometer, sphygmomanometer percussion hammer, flashlight. Are a few of the major pieces of our clinical visits. It is an important tool to find clues of disease, but these positive signs only provide some clues or part of the diagnostic basis for diagnosis, not yet a definitive diagnosis of a disease. The basis for the diagnosis of a disease needs to be composed of medical history, symptoms and signs, physical examination, and medical and technical auxiliary examination results. Medicine is about evidence, not about what you feel like a cold is a cold. 2. Nowadays, medical and technical examinations are more credible for the diagnosis of diseases, and the basis for diagnosis is more adequate. In the past, when science was not developed, we could only rely on the 5 major things to diagnose diseases, but I believe the misdiagnosis rate is quite high. Now science and technology have developed. We have to keep up with the times and use technology to confirm the diagnosis of diseases. Is there anything wrong with that? Having said that. The basic physical examination technique for clinicians still cannot be lost. Because it is an important tool to detect clues of disease. 3. Regarding your comment about the low cost and low fees for using the five major components of traditional physical examination, you want to gain economic benefits through high ancillary examinations. I would like to say that this doctor economic benefit has nothing to do with it. We are looking for a correct data with a strong scientific basis to confirm the diagnosis of the disease. This ancillary testing is a must. If a misdiagnosis is missed, won’t the patient find the doctor in trouble? 4. Nowadays, some instruments for clinical auxiliary examinations are very expensive, so the natural examination cost is not low. The examination fees are set by the ZF according to laws and regulations, the hospital has no pricing power. Now almost universal health insurance, health insurance bureau on excessive examination and treatment check is very strict, because this money they have to pay most of. It is not a good idea to let the hospital prescribe tests indiscriminately. This is the best monitoring mechanism. I would like to call on friends who write medical reports to be objective and report from the characteristics of the medical discipline, based on facts. Otherwise, it will only add fuel to the already distrustful doctor-patient relationship. When the time comes, I am afraid it will hurt the whole society and the whole country. This is also the result that our countrymen do not want to see.