Does the AOA represent your views?

[dkwyler94]

Poll question:
Does the AOA (American Osteopathic Association) represent your views and address those areas you feel our most pertinent for Osteopathy today?

I am not going to vote on this right away. My idea is to get as many views of people who care to vote or make a comment, then send these results and the link to the AOA so they can know what the students-in-training are thinking. As such, please include your school and Class in any reply and keep them professional in such a way that it can be submitted. Thanks

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[DeLaughterDO]

I think some of the most important issues which must be addressed are as follows:

Quit opening new schools and focus on postgraduate opportunities. We already do not have enough internship spots for the number of new physicians we are graduating. They bitch about students going to allopathic training programs, but they leave no choice for many - even if we WANTED to go to an osteopathic training facility, very quickly we would run out of places.

They must improve the QUALITY of the residencies (specialty and primary) they already have, in addition to increasing the NUMBER of places available to new graduates. I applaud the AOA for becoming increasingly interested in dual accreditation with the ACGME. This gives Osteo students the opportunity to train in high quality institutions alongside their allopathic counterparts and take advantage of the increased academic opportunities available at these institutions.

Get rid of the COMLEX. It is a poorly written exam (especially compared to the USMLE) and it makes no sense. If we all took the same exam (remember, everyone used to take the FLEX exam - allo and osteo alike), some of the barriers would be dropped. Instead, we are faced with the fact that some 30% of DO first time USMLE takers fail the exam - not good for our reputation or chances of getting good residency positions. Instead, the AOA looks for the $$$ it gets from the testing, rather than what is best for the students the osteo schools are "training."

Finally (since we are only allowed 4), I want to comment on the osteo schools. We need to get close ties with established teaching hospitals and (preferably) state schools. I think, right now, there are only 3 or 4 state supported osteopathic schools, and very few schools have strong ties with teaching hospitals. This would help the reputation of osteopathic education immensely.

Ok, I'm done. If I were allowed to list more, I could talk about lack of evidence for OMT, requirement of DO internship in the "famous 5," and other issues, but I'll stop for now..

jd

 

[jhug]

i would like to see the aoa use its lobbying force to eliminate the internship year requirement still remaining in 5 states. i know the aoa already said "it's a state thing, we have no power over it"...but i always thought that is what the aoa is for...to lobby legislators to change foolish/out-date laws. The internship rule makes many of us un-reimburseable for our last year of residency which will almost 100% of the time eliminate you as a competitive applicant.

They bitch about students going to allopathic training programs, but they leave no choice for many - even if we WANTED to go to an osteopathic training facility, very quickly we would run out of places.

excellent point!

 

[raptor5]

The internship rule makes many of us un-reimburseable for our last year of residency which will almost 100% of the time eliminate you as a competitive applicant.

Why would you be uncompetitive after an internship. So your only half funded for your final year of residency.

 

[Wahoowa]

I think some of the most important issues which must be addressed are as follows:

Quit opening new schools and focus on postgraduate opportunities. We already do not have enough internship spots for the number of new physicians we are graduating. They bitch about students going to allopathic training programs, but they leave no choice for many - even if we WANTED to go to an osteopathic training facility, very quickly we would run out of places.

They must improve the QUALITY of the residencies (specialty and primary) they already have, in addition to increasing the NUMBER of places available to new graduates. I applaud the AOA for becoming increasingly interested in dual accreditation with the ACGME. This gives Osteo students the opportunity to train in high quality institutions alongside their allopathic counterparts and take advantage of the increased academic opportunities available at these institutions.

Get rid of the COMLEX. It is a poorly written exam (especially compared to the USMLE) and it makes no sense. If we all took the same exam (remember, everyone used to take the FLEX exam - allo and osteo alike), some of the barriers would be dropped. Instead, we are faced with the fact that some 30% of DO first time USMLE takers fail the exam - not good for our reputation or chances of getting good residency positions. Instead, the AOA looks for the $$$ it gets from the testing, rather than what is best for the students the osteo schools are "training."

Finally (since we are only allowed 4), I want to comment on the osteo schools. We need to get close ties with established teaching hospitals and (preferably) state schools. I think, right now, there are only 3 or 4 state supported osteopathic schools, and very few schools have strong ties with teaching hospitals. This would help the reputation of osteopathic education immensely.

Ok, I'm done. If I were allowed to list more, I could talk about lack of evidence for OMT, requirement of DO internship in the "famous 5," and other issues, but I'll stop for now..

jd

I could not have said it better. I matched allopathic anesthesiology without even applying osteopathic for a few reasons. After anesthesia rotations at osteopathic institutions, I got the impression that there was nonexistent didactics and strong lack of organization. Further, during my third year, there were at least three osteopathic residencies that closed. In fact, one was an ENT residency and the residents had to scramble to find whatever osteopathic residency they could get. One of these ENT surgeons went into FP. So much for dreams. In essence, more osteopathic residencies are closing than are opening. I am against new medical schools opening in this atmosphere of not enough and reduced residency positions. However, VCOM is a college of Virginia Tech--not only is Virginia Tech a major public research university, it is one of the premier engineering and science universities on the Eastern Seaboard. To be affiliated with Virginia Tech is very prestigious. Stop driving the this artificial wedge between MD's and DO's and start looking for ways to work together to improve patient care.

In the field, I have seen none of this so-called "hostility" coming from MD's. This is not to say that it has not happened in the past. I trained mostly with MD's that wanted nothing more than to increase my skills and knowledge in preparation for graduation. At the institution where I am in residency, I see MD's and DO's working together to achieve the best patient care possible--there is no major difference in the way they are going about it. It is like the AOA is still beating a dead horse, but the horse carcass was dragged away years ago.

 

[TCOM-2006]

i don't think that the importance of this topic can be overstated, and i honestly hope that when dkwyler94 sends this to the AOA leadership - they will listen and take action.

i would also encourage anyone reading this or posting their concerns to contact their SOMA and student govt assn leadership - express their views - and, if you really want to cause change, write a resolution and submit it to the AOA house of delegates meeting (i'll try to send out a follow up email on how to do this). this forces the organization to deal with the issues we are concerned about.

i share the concern about the UME (undergraduate medical education) and GME issues that have been mentioned. i am also, quite frankly, concerned with the potential for an organization that falls away from the majority DO view because the leadership of the organization is not necessarily elected in a fair and democratic way.

for example - it's my understanding that there has not been a contested race for president-elect of the AOA since the 80s, and the single candidate is actually decided upon in closed-door meetings that students are not invited to attend. The AOA president has a great deal of authority on who get appointed to committees, bureaus, etc - which do a great deal of work of the organization.

Open and contested races are good for our organization because they allows our "representative democracy" (ie - the AOA house of delegates, which includes student representation) to make a choice that is fitting with the mainstream DO view and it requires a serious debate about this important issues that we really care about. I would really like to hear the perspective of the existing leadership on this issue.

Thanks

 

[dkwyler94]

Thanks for the comments. I will post my letter on this site when I write it. I do feel the AOA has chosen to ignore the interest of students as do apparently the majority of you. It seems they are more interested in the traditions of Osteopathy and keeping it pure and seperate from the MDs than they are about improving the quality of the profession and addressing its current needs. I considered just abandoning the profession and just worry about getting into the best residency, but I want to at least tell them what my views are and show that the majority of you back these.
David

 

[TCOM-2006]

i would also encourage anyone reading this or posting their concerns to contact their SOMA and student govt assn leadership - express their views - and, if you really want to cause change, write a resolution and submit it to the AOA house of delegates meeting (i'll try to send out a follow up email on how to do this). .

Thanks

here are some resources to write a resolution and/or contact national leadership of COSGP, SOMA or the AMA-MSS regarding the joint match or other issues. if you plan on bringing a resolution forward - you should probably contact and explain your resolution to leadership - so you can get feedback:

COSGP resolution writing guide:
http://cosgp.aacom.org/Pages/legislative_issues.htm

COSGP national leadership:
http://cosgp.aacom.org/Pages/about_cosgp.htm

Osteopathic Student Govt Presidents:
http://cosgp.aacom.org/Pages/osteopathic_schools.htm

SOMA national leadership:
http://www.studentdo.com/soma/officers.html

AOA policy:
http://do-online.osteotech.org/index.cfm?PageID=ps_yearbook
(under "AOA documents and data" click "AOA position papers")

AMA-MSS resolution writing guide:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/12942.html

AMA-MSS policies:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/123.html

AMA policy:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/noindex/category/11760.html

AMA-MSS leadership:
http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/385.html

AMA-MSS-Osteopathic Caucus listserv - to join, send email to:
[email protected]

 

[TCOM-2006]

here are some resources to write a resolution and/or contact national leadership of COSGP, SOMA or the AMA-MSS regarding the joint match or other issues. if you plan on bringing a resolution forward - you should probably contact and explain your resolution to leadership - so you can get feedback:
[/email]

--hi everyone - i just noticed that the was AOA resolutions/reports/memos and HOD (house of delegates) actions were just posted at:

http://do-online.osteotech.org/index.cfm?PageID=cal_hod04


--i would encourage ya'll to skim through to get an idea of what goes on at the AOA house of delegates meeting every july - you might get some resolution ideas. here's one resolution that i'm concerned with:

--from the AOA-HOD 2004 meeting:

RES. NO. 274
A/04

SUBJECT: MATCH PARTICIPATION AND ROTATIONS WITH OSTEOPATHIC PHYSICIANS, PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS FOR OSTEOPATHIC

SUBMITTED BY: American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians

REFERRED TO: Committee on Professional Affairs

WHEREAS, the practice of osteopathic medicine is distinctive from the practice of allopathic medicine, and

WHEREAS, the teaching of medical students to become osteopathic physicians involves more than the passing of knowledge and facts alone, but importantly involves also teaching the art of osteopathic practice through role modeling and mentorship of osteopathic physicians and their application of its principles and practice, and

WHEREAS, the teaching of osteopathic principles and philosophy is a continuum that begins with acceptance to osteopathic medical school, extends into postgraduate training and continues through the practice/life of an osteopathic physician, and requires the continuous mentorship, role modeling and interaction with other osteopathic physicians to foster and advance the knowledge and skill of the physicians and the profession itself, and

WHEREAS, the colleges of osteopathic medicine and their teaching faculties have both the opportunity and responsibility to teach and prepare osteopathic physicians for entry into postdoctoral osteopathic training; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED, that the American Osteopathic Association revise the Standards for Accreditation of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine to require the following become included as requirements for accreditation as a College of Osteopathic Medicine:

1. that each COM, on a seven-year rolling average, must have at least 40 percent of graduates enter osteopathic post-graduate training programs,

2. that osteopathic students complete at least 51 percent of their total number of clinical rotations with an osteopathic physician as a standard for continuing accreditation as a COM,

3. that the clinical and professional faculty of each COM be composed of at least
50 percent osteopathic physicians.

Explanatory Statement: The 50 percent faculty requirement will be exclusive of those holding the degrees PhD, DA, EdD, but will be inclusive of but not limited to MD, PharmD, DDS, DMD, APN, RN, JD, DPM, DO.

 

[San_Juan_Sun]

I'm absolutely dumbfounded. Literally speechless.

Interesting to see insulting allopaths, screwing over DO students, creating ridiculous mandates, and allowing propaganda to determine policy all go hand-in-hand.

On the other hand, it's so over the top that it'll spark common sense to break out (i.e. normal DOs and students not wanting to see dogma further codified by the AOA).

 

[TCOM-2006]

yes, if this resolution passes the AOA-HOD next july, UNTHSC/TCOM would eventually lose its accreditation because aprox 70% of our grads go to ACGME programs, and have for some time. i don't know where other DO schools stand - but my guess is that all send significant numbers to ACGME programs.

the purpose of accreditation of osteopathic medical schools is to ensure consistent and quality standards of undergraduate medical education. i think it's very misguided to make a requirement of something that has essentially nothing to do with undergraduate medical education. this is clearly an attempt to force students into a dogma while ignoring the fundamental issues of why DO students are choosing to pursue ACGME programs, such as more choices as far as location and specialty, percieved quality difference, etc.

and one must also ask the question - is there a huge different between a good AOA surgery program and a good ACGME surgery program? we need to stop pretending that the AOA label necessarily means that we are being trained on a basis of osteopathic philosophy and teachings.

now to be fair - the AOA has *not* adopted this policy - it is being studied, and will probably be voted on next july. ACOFP, however, has apparently adopted this as policy and supports it. i would encourage you to convey your opinion to national leadership:

http://cosgp.aacom.org/Pages/about_cosgp.htm
http://cosgp.aacom.org/Pages/osteopathic_schools.htm
http://www.studentdo.com/soma/officers.html
http://www.acofp.org/students/index.html

 

[Ypo.]

It seems they are more interested in the traditions of Osteopathy and keeping it pure and seperate from the MDs than they are about improving the quality of the profession and addressing its current needs.
David

The impression I get is that the AOA feels in order for the osteopathic profession to remain independant from the allopathic profession-it needs to maintain its "unique identity." (otherwise stated-if osteopathic medicine doesn't remain "different" and the difference between MDs and DOs grows even smaller, osteopathic medicine will become swallowed up by the AMA). The AOA seems to be concerned with self-preservation and guarding osteopathic medicine as a unique entity rather than improving and increasing osteopathic residencies (as a top priority), and increasing dually accredited residencies. In part this seems to be due to the history of osteopathic medicine (struggling for the right to exist) but also it just seems to be an organization fighting to exist and not be swallowed.

Does anyone worry what will happen if the osteopathic profession doesn't continue to assert whats unique about it? What would happen if the AMA swallowed the AOA and decided OMT wasn't based enough in science to warrant teaching in medical schools, or if they decided to get rid of the DO degree? Would this be a realistic outcome?

 

[TCOM-2006]

The impression I get is that the AOA feels in order for the osteopathic profession to remain independant from the allopathic profession-it needs to maintain its "unique identity." (otherwise stated-if osteopathic medicine doesn't remain "different" and the difference between MDs and DOs grows even smaller, osteopathic medicine will become swallowed up by the AMA). The AOA seems to be concerned with self-preservation and guarding osteopathic medicine as a unique entity rather than improving and increasing osteopathic residencies (as a top priority), and increasing dually accredited residencies. In part this seems to be due to the history of osteopathic medicine (struggling for the right to exist) but also it just seems to be an organization fighting to exist and not be swallowed.

Does anyone worry what will happen if the osteopathic profession doesn't continue to assert whats unique about it? What would happen if the AMA swallowed the AOA and decided OMT wasn't based enough in science to warrant teaching in medical schools, or if they decided to get rid of the DO degree? Would this be a realistic outcome?

--you bring up some good points to consider:

--first, i believe that the osteopathic and allopathic medicine are historically and philosophically distinct. i think that it's also true that there are differences in medical education and practice - OMT is an example - although one really has to take a realistic look differences between the practices of DOs and MDs.

--i'm not saying that there's no difference - but it seems like that AOA leadership has an over-idealistic view that every AOA residency and all 3rd/4th year clerkships is waaaaay different than an ACGME/LCME training, that every DO uses OMT all the time and recites A.T. Still quotes every day (clearly i'm exagerating here - but you get my point).

--it's also true that, because of unique DO practices or characteristics more associated with DO schools or physicians - the osteopathic profession faces some different political/legislative battles than medicine in general. for example - insurance reimbursement for OMT (unique to osteopathic), or title VII funding (which, in general, DO programs rely more on than MD programs because we get less funding from other sources like NIH)

--so - i would agree that the osteopathic profession (through the AOA) should strive to maintain the unique aspects of our profession so long as they continue to benefit the patients we serve - that should be our standard. so, some specific suggestions to the AOA include:

--be realistic about the challenges and problems our profession faces.

--regarding medical education: we want to grow in quality - not just quantity. consider *not* opening any new schools until we have the GME to back them up. focus resources on developing GME (both improve quality and improve geographic and specialty choices). consider supporting a joint NRMP-AOA match to increase application and fill rates of AOA residency programs and to give students more choices. all these suggestions would address the true cause of the problem of decreasing fill rates among AOA programs. the ACOFP resolution goes against the very fundamental philosophy of osteopathic medicine - it just treats the symptom while doing nothing about the underlying problem.[U/]

--regarding political/legislative issues: continue to be the strong voice for our unique osteopathic issues, and those issues that affect DOs in greater proportion. also work for broader medical and healthcare issues by participating in coalitions with the AMA and other groups.

**

--now, let me address another point you made about the AMA "swallowing" the AOA or osteopathic medicine. while it is absolutely true that the AMA has tried to both extinguish and absorb the osteopathic profession in the past - we must understand that the AMA is a fundamentally different organization than it was in the past. the history of the AMA is one that represents the "allopathic" profession, but that's no longer the case.

--in my view, the AMA is an organization that is making the transition from an organization that represents the "allopathic profession" to one that represents the entire medical profession (DOs, MDs, specialists, generalists, students, residents, etc). while i view the osteopathic and allopathic professions as distinct, as i have previously mentioned, they also share a lot in common and face many of the same issues - and unity is essential for us to address the issues that affect all of medicine (student debt, the uninsured, medical liability reform, etc). i have made this point before in another post that i will paste onto this thread...

bl

 

[TCOM-2006]

<<this was in response to a question that asked if anyone thought there would ever be a DO on the AMA board of trustees - and was originally posted on the DO vs. MD thread under the 'clinical years' heading>>

to answer your question - yes. now- there are many points to be made here (and this related back to the discussion started on another thread "Should DOs be involved in the AMA?" which i have not fully explained my position - but will try to do so soon).

while the AMA's history is certainly that of a purely 'allopathic' organization (and infact, as we all know - has fought against DOs gaining practice rights in the past), today it is a very different organization. while DOs are still 'underrepresented' in the AMA both in terms of membership and leadership, i believe the organization is slowly starting to make the transition to an organization that represents all of medicine - and i strongly believe that is in the interests of both branches of the medical profession to push forward with this vision.

many in the AMA leadership (infact all that i have talked to) are supportive of this vision and welcome DOs to get more involved. i have extensive personal experience with the AMA and, as a DO student, have been treated with nothing but respect from my MD student friends and the AMA physician leadership. these people understand the value in coming together as a unified voice for the medical profession.

however - many of the 'old school' DOs do not share this vision and still view the AMA for what it was - not what it is. this results in missed opportunities that are contrary to our interests. i can give you some concrete examples if you would like me to. it will be our generation that will make the change. many DO students are involved in the AMA medical student section (and i can list examples of leadership here). the relationships that we build as students through our involvement and the experience that we gain by being involved - will bring about future DO leaders of the AMA. this will take some time (years).

let me also say that it's very difficult to get to the AMA board even if you're an MD physician. it requires many years of experience (and networking) at the county, state, and national level. it requires a a great deal of organizational knowledge base as well as leadership skills and tremendous dedication. there are always more candidates than spots available when open seats are elected at the AMA's june meeting. so far - i think i'm safe to assume that a DO has never run for AMA trustee because a DO has never advanced to the point where they would be a worthy candidate. one day that will change, and when it does, i have confidence that the AMA will give a DO a fair shot.

questions? thoughts?

bl

 

[medic170]

<<this was in response to a question that asked if anyone thought there would ever be a DO on the AMA board of trustees - and was originally posted on the DO vs. MD thread under the 'clinical years' heading>>

to answer your question - yes. now- there are many points to be made here (and this related back to the discussion started on another thread "Should DOs be involved in the AMA?" which i have not fully explained my position - but will try to do so soon).

while the AMA's history is certainly that of a purely 'allopathic' organization (and infact, as we all know - has fought against DOs gaining practice rights in the past), today it is a very different organization. while DOs are still 'underrepresented' in the AMA both in terms of membership and leadership, i believe the organization is slowly starting to make the transition to an organization that represents all of medicine - and i strongly believe that is in the interests of both branches of the medical profession to push forward with this vision.

many in the AMA leadership (infact all that i have talked to) are supportive of this vision and welcome DOs to get more involved. i have extensive personal experience with the AMA and, as a DO student, have been treated with nothing but respect from my MD student friends and the AMA physician leadership. these people understand the value in coming together as a unified voice for the medical profession.

however - many of the 'old school' DOs do not share this vision and still view the AMA for what it was - not what it is. this results in missed opportunities that are contrary to our interests. i can give you some concrete examples if you would like me to. it will be our generation that will make the change. many DO students are involved in the AMA medical student section (and i can list examples of leadership here). the relationships that we build as students through our involvement and the experience that we gain by being involved - will bring about future DO leaders of the AMA. this will take some time (years).

let me also say that it's very difficult to get to the AMA board even if you're an MD physician. it requires many years of experience (and networking) at the county, state, and national level. it requires a a great deal of organizational knowledge base as well as leadership skills and tremendous dedication. there are always more candidates than spots available when open seats are elected at the AMA's june meeting. so far - i think i'm safe to assume that a DO has never run for AMA trustee because a DO has never advanced to the point where they would be a worthy candidate. one day that will change, and when it does, i have confidence that the AMA will give a DO a fair shot.

questions? thoughts?

bl

I can understand why the "old school" D.O. s distrust the AMA. They spent a lot of time and energy directly fighting the AMA for practice rights, admissions rights in hospitals, reimbursements, and general discrimination and bias. I can see why it would be hard to just forget all those years of hell and join the former enemy. Personally, I do not have enough experience with the AOA and AMA yet to form a good opinion, but I do know the history very well, and the AMA fought DO's well into the 1970's. When they found they could not destroy osteopathy, they tried to swollow it (remember the CA merger). I think some of the old schoolers see the modern AMA acceptance of osteopathy as another attempt to destroy osteopathis autonomy and absprb the profession. The question is: Are they? And if so, is that a badf thing in the opinion of the new generation of DO's? Maybe someone should start a poll as to whether SDN allopaths and osteopaths think the AMA and AOA should combine and just have one degree like the CA merger did? I don't like the idea, but I am curious as to what others think.

 

[macman]

the resolution above is the most bass-ackwards way of filling AOA residencies. I'll agree w/ the AOA on one point: there is, in my experience a big difference between clerkships and training w/ allopathic and osteopathic schools.

My "core" rotations were at was is supposed to be THE standard for osteopathic education in the Detriot area w/ great facilities but v. porr education. I saw chief surgery residents who were not comfortable with a lap. chole. that is scary! I learned next to nothing there. On the other hand-I learn more in a day at my 'visiting' clerkships at allopathic institutions than I did in a week on my school's affiliated sites. Sure-there are exceptions-but right now our profession is headed down the same path that harmed chiropractic education-too many schools w/ resultant lowering of admission standards to fill seats.

how about the novel idea of improving grad. ed. from the bottom up!

wheeew!

 

[TCOM-2006]

I can understand why the "old school" D.O. s distrust the AMA. They spent a lot of time and energy directly fighting the AMA for practice rights, admissions rights in hospitals, reimbursements, and general discrimination and bias. I can see why it would be hard to just forget all those years of hell and join the former enemy. Personally, I do not have enough experience with the AOA and AMA yet to form a good opinion, but I do know the history very well, and the AMA fought DO's well into the 1970's. When they found they could not destroy osteopathy, they tried to swollow it (remember the CA merger). I think some of the old schoolers see the modern AMA acceptance of osteopathy as another attempt to destroy osteopathis autonomy and absprb the profession. The question is: Are they? And if so, is that a badf thing in the opinion of the new generation of DO's? Maybe someone should start a poll as to whether SDN allopaths and osteopaths think the AMA and AOA should combine and just have one degree like the CA merger did? I don't like the idea, but I am curious as to what others think.

--first, i totally agree that its very understandable that many of the 'old school DOs' have very negative feelings about the AMA. infact - if i had to go through what they went through, i might very well feel exactly the same way. while the osteopathic profession, i believe has some big issues it needs to deal with, we have certainly come a long way - and we owe much of this to those 'old school DOs' who fought and won practice rights battles - and fought to maintain the disctinctiveness of the profession against the AMA. i honestly have a lot of respect for them.

--with that said - i fundamentally disagree with those that don't think that DOs should be part of the AMA (this is a view that many of the 'old school DOs' hold). it's in our best interests to do so (i will explain in detail later).

--regarding the issue of should the AMA and AOA be merged - let me re-state my perspective from a previous post:

--i do *NOT* believe that the AOA should merge with the AMA and form one organization. why?...

--even though practice rights battles in the U.S. have been fought and won by the AOA (and state osteopathic orgs) - there are still many osteopathic-specific issues, especially in the areas of medical education, and will be for the forseeable future. i attended the AOA house of delegates last year and was suprised by the number of resolutions that involved DO specific issues.

--the AOA (and state osteopathic orgs at the state level) are the strongest voice we have for the advancement of these issues - the AMA would not be able to effectively address these issues, even if it had policy supporting them - because they are not the common overarching issues of medicine and healthcare such as medical liability reform, student debt, the uninsured, etc. in other words, the percentage of physicians affected by osteopatic specific issues is very low.

--the same logic is true for issues that are specialty-specific. for example - the AMA would clearly not invest a large portion of its political resources into an ophthalmology-specific issue. If AMA could adequately address all specialty specific issues for all specialties... then there would be no need for specialty society lobby efforts. specialty societies exist, in part, for this very reason.

--now - i'm *NOT* saying that osteopathic medicine is a specialty of allopathic medicine - i support the idea that osteopathic medicine is based on a seperate philosophy and view the system as two branches of the same tree, as i have mentioned. i *AM* saying that DOs have osteopathic-specific issues within the larger context of medical and healthcare issues.

--the only way that the AOA should be merged into the AMA - is if there comes a day when the DO degree essentially no longer exists. i do *NOT* support this and i believe that the AOA should always exist and will have a role to play. the AOA, however, needs to undergo some fundamental change - as i have pointed out in my other post under "Does the AOA represent you" thread. i think all DO physicians and student should be members of both the AOA and AMA.


--you also raise the question of does the question of: is the AMA just trying to absorb the osteopathic profession now? the answer, i believe, is **NO**. i have been fortunate to become very involved with this organization - and i have discussed this issue with members of the AMA board of trustees that i know personally. from my experience - i believe that the leaders of the AMA want to build an organization which respects both "branches of the tree" but unites us all to address our common important issues. the AMA's official policy is also reflective of this - it specifically defines "physician" as DO or MD - just like AOA policy does. i'll follow up with some more policy examples.

--i have a few more points to make - but i tend to be rather long-winded about this issue - so i'll follow up with a later post.

bl

 

[medic170]

--first, i totally agree that its very understandable that many of the 'old school DOs' have very negative feelings about the AMA. infact - if i had to go through what they went through, i might very well feel exactly the same way. while the osteopathic profession, i believe has some big issues it needs to deal with, we have certainly come a long way - and we owe much of this to those 'old school DOs' who fought and won practice rights battles - and fought to maintain the disctinctiveness of the profession against the AMA. i honestly have a lot of respect for them.

--with that said - i fundamentally disagree with those that don't think that DOs should be part of the AMA (this is a view that many of the 'old school DOs' hold). it's in our best interests to do so (i will explain in detail later).

--regarding the issue of should the AMA and AOA be merged - let me re-state my perspective from a previous post:

--i do *NOT* believe that the AOA should merge with the AMA and form one organization. why?...

--even though practice rights battles in the U.S. have been fought and won by the AOA (and state osteopathic orgs) - there are still many osteopathic-specific issues, especially in the areas of medical education, and will be for the forseeable future. i attended the AOA house of delegates last year and was suprised by the number of resolutions that involved DO specific issues.

--the AOA (and state osteopathic orgs at the state level) are the strongest voice we have for the advancement of these issues - the AMA would not be able to effectively address these issues, even if it had policy supporting them - because they are not the common overarching issues of medicine and healthcare such as medical liability reform, student debt, the uninsured, etc. in other words, the percentage of physicians affected by osteopatic specific issues is very low.

--the same logic is true for issues that are specialty-specific. for example - the AMA would clearly not invest a large portion of its political resources into an ophthalmology-specific issue. If AMA could adequately address all specialty specific issues for all specialties... then there would be no need for specialty society lobby efforts. specialty societies exist, in part, for this very reason.

--now - i'm *NOT* saying that osteopathic medicine is a specialty of allopathic medicine - i support the idea that osteopathic medicine is based on a seperate philosophy and view the system as two branches of the same tree, as i have mentioned. i *AM* saying that DOs have osteopathic-specific issues within the larger context of medical and healthcare issues.

--the only way that the AOA should be merged into the AMA - is if there comes a day when the DO degree essentially no longer exists. i do *NOT* support this and i believe that the AOA should always exist and will have a role to play. the AOA, however, needs to undergo some fundamental change - as i have pointed out in my other post under "Does the AOA represent you" thread. i think all DO physicians and student should be members of both the AOA and AMA.


--you also raise the question of does the question of: is the AMA just trying to absorb the osteopathic profession now? the answer, i believe, is **NO**. i have been fortunate to become very involved with this organization - and i have discussed this issue with members of the AMA board of trustees that i know personally. from my experience - i believe that the leaders of the AMA want to build an organization which respects both "branches of the tree" but unites us all to address our common important issues. the AMA's official policy is also reflective of this - it specifically defines "physician" as DO or MD - just like AOA policy does. i'll follow up with some more policy examples.

--i have a few more points to make - but i tend to be rather long-winded about this issue - so i'll follow up with a later post.

bl

Great insight. Thanks for posting, I look forward to hearing more.

 

[TCOM-2006]

Great insight. Thanks for posting, I look forward to hearing more.

thanks medic. since the topic is shifting to DOs in the AMA - instead of issues concerning the AOA (though these issues overlap) - i'm going to post more comments on the thread: "should DOs and DO students be involved in the AMA" let's continue this discussion there...

bl