Moderator Emeritus
Lifetime Donor
Nov 21, 1998
Over the rainbow
  1. Attending Physician
I appears that the AMA is trying to copy the AOA.
Is this just a means to generate more money or more control? Next, will they want to control licensure and certifications?

A Medical News Service
on Physicians' Online


AMA approves wide reorganization plan

Last Updated: 2002-06-20 11:19:22 -0400 (Reuters Health)

By Peggy Peck

CHICAGO (Reuters Health) - After hours of debate, the American Medical Association approved a plan to overhaul the AMA by changing it from a membership organization to an umbrella organization, similar to the United Nations.

Under the plan, medical organizations, such as state medical societies or national medical specialty societies, as well as AMA special sections, such as the medical students section and the young physicians section, would pay membership dues to the AMA.

Although the details of the new plan need to be worked out, AMA president Dr. Richard Corlin said that organizational dues would probably be determined by the number of members in each organization. For example, if an organization had 1000 members and the AMA dues were set at $100 a member, the organization would be billed $100,000 for AMA dues. But Dr. Corlin hastened to add, "no one is saying that dues would be set at $100 a member."

Board chair Dr. Timothy T. Flaherty said there are very few models for the type of organization the AMA is planning, but that it may be similar to the World Medical Association, which serves as a forum for national medical organizations from several countries.

The AMA, which has seen a steady decline in membership over the last decade, has spent more than 10 years studying various plans aimed at rejuvenating the organization. After the AMA house voted to approve the plan, Dr. J. Edward Hill, chair-elect of the AMA board of trustees, said the board was "excited about the house action because of the potential for positive change."

But the board had recommended against changing the AMA into an "organization of organizations," and before the house debate it appeared that the board would work against the change. But several trustees said the board was simply exercising caution because there was no "business plan" for a newly structured AMA.

During the house debate, the California delegation proposed that a committee, representing all interested medical organizations, put together a business plan and present that plan to the AMA house in June 2003. At that time, the house would finally vote to approve the new "organization of organizations." The house approved the California amendment, which was backed by the board during the floor debate, but the house rejected a suggestion by the American College of Physicians/American Society of Internal Medicine to include "a time definite for implementation."

The house also rejected a plan to eliminate the AMA's interim meeting, which is held in December, but the house did approve a recommendation that will create an advocacy-coordinating forum when the AMA is restructured.

Although the house gave itself a standing ovation after it completed the final vote on the new plan, individual assessment of the action varied widely. Former AMA president Dr. Robert E. McAfee told Reuters Health, "we need money and members, and this may be the way to get both." But he said he was not convinced that it would work.

California Medical Association executive director, Dr. Jack Lewin, claimed the vote marked "an historic day for the AMA." Dr. Lewin predicted that the changes would revitalize the organization.


Copyright ? 2002 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved.


7+ Year Member
15+ Year Member
Jun 3, 2002
Pomona CA
Visit site
I'm not sure if your question was loaded with a point of view. In any case, I wonder if it is a bad thing for the AMA and AOA to want to generate money or control licensure/certification.
This thread is more than 18 years old.

Your message may be considered spam for the following reasons:

  1. Your new thread title is very short, and likely is unhelpful.
  2. Your reply is very short and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  3. Your reply is very long and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  4. It is very likely that it does not need any further discussion and thus bumping it serves no purpose.
  5. Your message is mostly quotes or spoilers.
  6. Your reply has occurred very quickly after a previous reply and likely does not add anything to the thread.
  7. This thread is locked.
About the Ads