The repercussions after Obama’s speech to the AMA’s delegates continue to be felt.
Not least of which are the murmurings of the other professional physician groups, who say that the AMA does not represent a majority of physicians. In this piece from pediatrician Rahul Parikh, he notes that about 30 percent of physicians are AMA members. Remaining doctors belong to groups with more liberal political leanings, including the American College of Physicians, for instance (in interests of full disclosure, I am a member of the ACP, but I do not always agree with some their positions like, for instance, their stated support for a single-payer system).
Which goes to say that there is a wide disparity in physician views when it comes to health reform. For every physician who supports a Medicare for all, you’ll find another that just as vehemently opposes it. None was that more apparent than the anecdotes from this piece in HealthLeaders Media, which details some of the conflicts within the AMA membership when it came to supporting the public option, or not.
According to that article, “AMA delegates this week spent several hours in an emotional debate–one member who was there called it ‘knockdown, drag out’–between left wing and right wing members who disagreed over how to weigh in their voice on President Barack Obama’s push for a public plan,” and not surprisingly, according to one doctor who was there, “It broke down between the right and the left. The right outnumber the left, but people on the left are about as loud as the people on the right.”
As I mentioned, it’s really too early to form a substantive opinion on the public plan option, as there are not enough concrete details. Again, if it forces doctors to participate, and pays close to Medicare rates, I’ll oppose it. If it’s an option that competes fairly with the other insurance options, I won’t have a problem with it. Time will tell.
Back to the original issue of whether the AMA is relevant. It obviously is. After all, President Obama chose to speak to their members, and not to those of the other organizations. And, it appears, that despite his reservations, Dr. Parikh realizes this as well, saying, “like so many influential organizations, the number of doctors who comprise the AMA matters less than their influence in the beltway—they still are a potent Congressional lobby.”
And in the current health reform environment, that’s what perhaps matters most.
Related posts:
- Should a public plan option be part of any health reform initiative?
- 10 health reform posts you may have missed
- Convincing doctors to accept a public health care plan option
- How to get doctors to embrace health care reform
- Will doctors get a pay cut under a public health option?
- Why health reform is going to be difficult, and the trouble with saying no to American patients
- KevinMD Live Q&A on health care reform, today at 11:30am Eastern
{ 1 trackback }
{ 8 comments }
Doctors need to stand united and form a strong lobby so we can counter the insurance companies’ lobby and the Drug Maker’s lobby. Otherwise the new health care reform will be the same as others – reward the merchants and hammer the doctors.
there will never be a perfect solution, but all i know is the current system is definitely not good for the physicians. the reform attempt will be influenced by the physicians that politically active. the problem is that the majority of the main stakeholders, the physicians, of the health care delivery system are too busy to get involved in policy making process. if all the voices are not heard, the louder people’s policies will be adopted and the rest of the physician community will have to follow and improvise as they always do. a more democratic approach would be a referendum to find out where all the physicians stand.
It seems that most are assuming that substantial changes in healthcare coverage are a done deal and that the change from Washington will be sooner than later. I too hope that we don’t end up with a Medicare system for all. Whatever course is taken there does need to be much better pay for primary care physicians and better coverage for the currently uninsured. As to whether the AMA will have a voice, I do believe that they will.
Silly question overall. Any group with money has influence in any debate they want to.
Current system is a crisis maker for primary care. AMA is totally for specialists, it is amazing that they have primary care docs as members given the ill treatment they endure.
American college of Physicians has a more balanced view and comes across as a fair group.
A simple answer to your question is, NO.
I’m always confused by the claim that the AMA doesn’t represent the majority of physicians. While yes, most aren’t members of the AMA, most are members of their respective specialty societies (eg. the ACP), which do have representation (and votes) in the AMA House of Delegates. So doesn’t that indicate that it is representing the majority of physicians?
I’m of the mind that solidarity is essential in order to maximize influence. As a medical student who is generally more progressive than the AMA as a whole, I know that simply throwing my hands up in the air, giving up and joining some other organization is not going to be effective because, as others have noted, the AMA has been and continues to be powerful and influential. If we leave it to stagnate in its current form, we deprive it of our moderating or dissenting voices, voices that can move the organization forward. As I tell my classmates, if you don’t like the AMA, then help change it.
I’m gonna try this again (in the interest of pulling back that “veil”), because I can see no reason why my second comment yesterday would be moderated out.
Just call me a dissenting voice.
Suchita, you’re in medical school. It’s fine to be a cheerleader for “solidarity”. But gIve it a few years and several knife blades in the back, and you might have a better appreciation of the peculiar type of physician advocacy practiced by the AMA – “representation” that has disenchanted so many physicians. It’s a big PR problem for the AMA right now.
Physicians like myself have decided to “vote” by not paying dues to an organization that we feel sold the profession out long ago. You could say the selling out was incremental and slowly progressive.
P.S. If you want to be “inclusive” and not overtly politicize your positions, you probably should not be throwing around the word, “progressive”.
Comments on this entry are closed.