ACP Calls for End to “Provider” Terminology in Clinical Practice

The American College of Physicians (ACP) is calling for an end to the routine use of the term provider to describe physicians, arguing that the language undermines medical ethics, professional identity, and the patient–physician relationship, according to a new policy paper published in Annals of Internal Medicine.¹

In the paper, authored by Lois Snyder Sulmasy, JD, and Jan K. Carney, MD, MPH, on behalf of the ACP Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee, the authors contend that referring to physicians as providers reflects and reinforces broader trends toward corporatization and commercialization of health care that threaten professionalism—particularly in primary care.¹

"The term provider is derogatory because it diminishes the physician-patient relationship. Physicians are not providers, they are confidants, health advocates, and partners with patients, especially in times of medical need, bound by deep and longstanding ethical responsibilities,” Jason M. Goldman, MD, MACP, President, ACP, said in a press release.² “And patients are not merely consumers. They are individuals with dignity and unique needs. This paper serves as an important reminder that words have meaning and should be used carefully and thoughtfully."

Language as an ethical issue

While prior commentary has criticized the term provider as imprecise or disrespectful, the ACP paper frames the issue explicitly as one of ethics and professionalism. The authors argue that language shapes how care is understood and delivered, influencing both patient expectations and physicians’ sense of professional responsibility.¹

The term provider originated in federal Medicare and Medicaid statutes in the 1960s, where it referred broadly to entities delivering services. Over time, its use expanded to include individual clinicians, institutions, and insurers alike—blurring distinctions between human relationships and commercial transactions.¹

According to the ACP, this lack of clarity is particularly problematic for patients, who may not fully understand differences in training, expertise, and ethical obligations among members of the health care team.

Distinguishing care from commerce

The paper emphasizes that medical care is not a transactional service but a relational practice grounded in ethical duties. Physicians are bound by obligations of beneficence, nonmaleficence, respect for patient autonomy, and justice—responsibilities that extend beyond those of commercial service providers.¹

By contrast, the authors note, business relationships prioritize efficiency, contracts, and financial considerations, which may conflict with patient-centered decision-making. Referring to physicians as providers risks reframing the patient–physician relationship as a market exchange rather than a fiduciary partnership.¹

This concern is not new. The paper situates the terminology debate within decades-long warnings about the “medical-industrial complex” and the erosion of professional autonomy described by Relman and Pellegrino, trends many clinicians now experience as deprofessionalization.¹

Implications for primary care

The ACP highlights primary care as especially vulnerable to the effects of depersonalized language. In team-based care models, the term provider can obscure meaningful differences in training and scope of practice, complicating patients’ understanding of who is responsible for diagnosis, treatment decisions, and longitudinal care.¹

“Medical journal articles have criticized the term as deemphasizing professional identity, with particular negative ramifications for primary care because differences in training and expertise among clinicians are not recognized; others have found it to be ambiguous and disrespectful,” authors wrote.¹

The authors also argue that language influences professional identity. Repeated use of transactional terminology may alter how physicians view their role, potentially affecting behavior, morale, and trust.¹

ACP recommendations

The ACP makes a clear recommendation: Physicians should be referred to as physicians, not providers. When speaking collectively about professionals involved in patient care, terms such as clinicians or health care professionals should be used instead.¹

The paper further urges physicians to avoid using provider to describe themselves, their colleagues, or their trainees, emphasizing that precise language supports ethical accountability and public trust.

The ACP concludes that while health care delivery continues to evolve, language must continue to reflect the ethical foundations of medicine. The words physician and provider, the authors argue, are not interchangeable.¹

For practicing clinicians, the position paper reinforces the importance of preserving the patient–physician relationship as a humanistic, ethically grounded partnership rather than a commercial interaction.

References

1. Snyder Sulmasy L, Carney JK; ACP Ethics, Professionalism and Human Rights Committee. Physicians are not providers: the ethical significance of names in health care. Ann Intern Med. Published February 10, 2026. doi:10.7326/ANNALS-25-03852
2. Physicians Are Not Providers: New ACP Paper Says Names in Health Care Have Ethical Significance. News release. American College of Physicians. February 10, 2026. Accessed February 10, 2026. https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/physicians-are-not-providers-new-acp-paper-says-names-in-health-care-have-ethical-significance