Last year, I wrote (PDF) about the growing popularity of weblogs and online rating systems for doctors, like Rate MDs.com, where patients can share their experiences.

Doctors hate these websites because patients can post anonymous, negative reviews about docs' bedside manner. Consumers love these websites because when health care "buyers" get together to share their experiences, it helps them make more-informed choices about the doctor that's right for them.

I, too, am a fan of these websites -- I recently used RateMDs.com to pick my own primary care physician (users said that my doc was "wonderful, kind, and smart"). But the real benefit is that these patient-driven rating systems make health care function more like a real marketplace, where consumers can aggregate and share diffuse information. From epinions.com to Roger Ebert, we get recommendations or ratings for every product or service imaginable.  Health care should be no different.

Yesterday, the Wall Street Journal's Health Blog reported on an interesting twist to the controversy:

"Next time you go to the doctor, look for a new form buried in the stack of insurance and health-history paperwork you’re asked to complete. You might find a contract that would require you ask your doctor for permission to grade him or her online.

"It’s the brainchild of Medical Justice, a company that already provides doctors with contracts to discourage patients from filing frivolous lawsuits, and to agree to use only board-certified expert witnesses if they do go to court."

The WSJ further reports that about a third of the 1,600 doctors who pay Medical Justice’s annual fee have asked for the online-review contract since the company started offering it earlier this year.