Is the AMA hypocritical?

[docB]

---

Members do not see this ad.

Is it hypocritical for an organization to be involved in advocacy for both the public good and its member’s professional goals? Can the public believe the AMA when it supports a health policy initiative it is not just trying to line the pockets of its members? Things that are good for doctors are not always good for patients and vice versa. Lots of organizations have this problem, the National Education Assoc. being a prime example. Should the AMA split into two organizations, one that supports healthcare policies without regard to physician impact and one that acts as a voice for practicing physicians?

 

[QuikClot]

I think the key issue is trust. The public trusts the AMA to be a voice for the public good, and not just an advocate for its members' interests. All organizations try to position themselves as being for the public good first and their members' interests second, but few are convincing on the score (cf. the NRA, the NEA, the AARP, AIPAC, etc.).

It serves the AMA as a lobby organization to maintain the public perception of honesty advocacy for public health. Contrawise, it serves the organization's idealistic ends to be associated with a powerful professional organization. Therefore I don't think a split is the answer.

Rather, the organization should maintain its clout by pushing hard for good science and good public health decisions, even when these have a neutral or somewhat negative impact on members. That clout will be used in part, inevitably, to maintain doctors' power and priviledge, whether this is in the public interest or not. So in sum, doctors sacrifice some of their power to pursue selfish ends to maintain their long-term position, and, hopefully, the public benefits as well.

It's kind of a dirty compromise; but that's politics for you.

 

[NonTradMed]

The AMA is a lobbying group like any other, the fact that what's good for docs can also be good for the public good makes it a organization people are more willing to trust than say the tobacco industry. However, I agree with the OP that what's good for docs aren't always good for the general public, but so far, the public trusts physicans as a group and the AMA is not viewed as negatively as some other lobbying groups.

 

[LADoc00]

Is it hypocritical for an organization to be involved in advocacy for both the public good and its member’s professional goals? Can the public believe the AMA when it supports a health policy initiative it is not just trying to line the pockets of its members? Things that are good for doctors are not always good for patients and vice versa. Lots of organizations have this problem, the National Education Assoc. being a prime example. Should the AMA split into two organizations, one that supports healthcare policies without regard to physician impact and one that acts as a voice for practicing physicians?

Lines pockets?? Of who? With what?!

The AMA couldnt line the pockets of docs with anything but dingleberries even if they lives depended on it!

What AMA branch is lining your pockets if I can ask, I want to join.

 

[docB]

I think the key issue is trust. The public trusts the AMA to be a voice for the public good, and not just an advocate for its members' interests. All organizations try to position themselves as being for the public good first and their members' interests second, but few are convincing on the score (cf. the NRA, the NEA, the AARP, AIPAC, etc.).

I agree with you about the trust. If you can get the public to trust you then nothing else matters. I think there's a difference though between groups like AMA, NEA and NRA, AARP. AMA and NEA are professional orgs which essentially tell the public "We're the teachers and the doctors so you should listen to us about policy." and work to improve conditions for their members. The NRA and AARP are just lobby groups for their particular agendas. They don't (shouldn't) get up on a high horse about being in a special position to dictate policy.

 

[docB]

Lines pockets?? Of who? With what?!

The AMA couldnt line the pockets of docs with anything but dingleberries even if they lives depended on it!

What AMA branch is lining your pockets if I can ask, I want to join.

The AMA lobbys for many things that financially benefit docs: increased medicare reimbursement, tort reform and so on.

 

[QuikClot]

I agree with you about the trust. If you can get the public to trust you then nothing else matters. I think there's a difference though between groups like AMA, NEA and NRA, AARP. AMA and NEA are professional orgs which essentially tell the public "We're the teachers and the doctors so you should listen to us about policy." and work to improve conditions for their members. The NRA and AARP are just lobby groups for their particular agendas. They don't (shouldn't) get up on a high horse about being in a special position to dictate policy.

I might quibble and say that gun owners would say they know best about guns, etc., but your point is well taken; all professional organizations are, to some extent, lobbies, but not all lobbies are professional organizations.

While people probably will give extra credence to what professionals say, this is not a given. Professional organizations can lose their "special position" very easily. The NEA is an example of an organization which sees all issues through the prism of their member's interests, and consequently has lost the trust of a large part of the public when it comes to education issues. That is the path the AMA should not follow.

 

[flighterdoc]

I might quibble and say that gun owners would say they know best about guns, etc., but your point is well taken; all professional organizations are, to some extent, lobbies, but not all lobbies are professional organizations.

While people probably will give extra credence to what professionals say, this is not a given. Professional organizations can lose their "special position" very easily. The NEA is an example of an organization which sees all issues through the prism of their member's interests, and consequently has lost the trust of a large part of the public when it comes to education issues. That is the path the AMA should not follow.

Except half, or more, of the NEA members don't support their stated agenda. Nor do half, or more, of AARP members or claimed members support the AARP's agenda.

The prime motivation for any organization is to exist, and grow. The NEA and AARP are good examples of that - so are organizations like AMSA. A bunch of stupid jackasses who spout off about things they carefully cultivate ignorance about, to support positions that will insure their survival.

AMA is the same way: Far fewer than 50% of the physicians (MD/DO) in the US belong to it. One reason is the insinuation of the AMA into areas of politics that are only tangentially involved in medicine. The latest is a 'fat tax' on sugared soft drinks in schools - if the AMA is so concerned, get out there and do some decent education for kids rather than attempt to force people to do things they don't want to do.

And the AMA's latest, current membership drive - 50% off membership? Sure, for 6 months....I guess the (non-physician) administrative leaders of the AMA think physicians are idiots.

 

[QuikClot]

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice;
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue

You got that off of Hamas' website, didn't you? I'm with you brother! Forth to majority rule! Tel Aviv delenda est!

 

[bananaface]

The AMA lobbys for many things that financially benefit docs: increased medicare reimbursement, tort reform and so on.

They also have the copyright on the CPT billing codes. The AMA controls who can be paid for what by choosing what billing codes to publish and who they authorize to bill under those codes. They protect physicians' turf by limiting certain procedures to certain practitioners, by sometimes placing lower level practitioners services at a lower reimbursement rate, or by refusing to define payable services for practitioners in other professions (this leaves you a bigger piece of the healthcare cost pie). It was a big struggle to get the AMA to implement a billing code so that pharmacists could be reimbursed for medication therapy management. Once Congress said the Part D plans would pay for it, they kind of had to go along and make a code. If pharmacists had a strong national organization like the AMA, we would be in alot better position to be properly reimbursed for the services we provide. The AMA sets out your bread and butter. You are fortunate to have them.

 

[QuikClot]

You got that off of Hamas' website, didn't you? I'm with you brother! Forth to majority rule! Tel Aviv delenda est!

It has been brought to my attention that some people could miss the sarcasm here. I'm quite offended by Fighterdoc's signature, which seems to advocate genocide against those he regards as America's enemies. To be absolutely clear, I don't think anyone "delenda est." This was, perhaps, not the right place to make that point.