Protecting Doctor's Interests

[Schrodinger]

---

Members don't see this ad.

Who in the medical world/legislative world is protecting physician's interests?

Is there a group against universal healthcare, falling wages etc.?

It seems like doctors are one of the only service fields that has to deal with providing service and not getting compensated. You never hear plumbers, accountants, or lawyers complaining.

 

[deleted87716]

The AMA as well as specialty-specific professional organizations like the AAFP, ACOG, AAP, etc. all lobby the government on behalf of their membership, if that's what you're asking. You may or may not agree with their position on every issue, but that's the nature of special interests.

You may not hear other special interests complaining, but that's only because you're not listening. 😉

 

[Schrodinger]

Right. I was asking if there was such a major group that advocated against universal care and protecting wages. The AMA seems to be the closest but I was looking for a more purely economic driven group.

The AMA has a lot of focus (from the website) on patient type issues which will conflict with physician's interests sometimes.

 

[deleted87716]

It's easier to lobby for something than against something. For that reason, you'll typically see organizations proposing alternatives to single-payor rather than simply decrying the concept.

Likewise, I don't think you'll find anyone specifically pushing for wage protection, although that's usually one of the the goals of any special interest lobby (including the AMA), whether or not it's explicitly stated.

A successful lobby cannot come across as too self-centered, particularly a physicians' lobby, given the public perception (and the fact) that physicians are already among the most well-off members of our society.

 

[docB]

No one is doing an optimal job of looking out for physician interests. The problem with the AMA is that they continue to try to be an advocacy group for docs as well as a health care policy group. "Listen to us. We're the doctors." doesn't fly when the public can't tell if you're a labor union or a policy entity. A good example of this is education. When the teacher's unions continually call for more money for less hours and fewer students per class is it because they want what's best for teachers or for students. They aren't always the same. Just as what's best for docs isn't always what's best for patients. We need an actual doctor's advocacy group who are not diluting and deluding themselves by also paying lip service to other issues. The AMA could become this group but they'd need to split their advocacy functions from their policy functions.

 

[dawg44]

I am not concerned about the move for universal healthcare. When Anthem and United can pay their CEOs bonuses sometimes as much as 100 million dollars, what do you think the entire industry is going to do if anything comes down the line in Washington. They could fill every billboard and buy every TV commerical and hire every lobbyist in Washington with the capital reserves they have and they will if or when it comes up.

 

[NonTradMed]

No one is doing an optimal job of looking out for physician interests. The problem with the AMA is that they continue to try to be an advocacy group for docs as well as a health care policy group. "Listen to us. We're the doctors." doesn't fly when the public can't tell if you're a labor union or a policy entity. A good example of this is education. When the teacher's unions continually call for more money for less hours and fewer students per class is it because they want what's best for teachers or for students. They aren't always the same. Just as what's best for docs isn't always what's best for patients. We need an actual doctor's advocacy group who are not diluting and deluding themselves by also paying lip service to other issues. The AMA could become this group but they'd need to split their advocacy functions from their policy functions.

Yes it does seem a conflict of interest. What's good public policy may not be good for doctors and vice versa.

 

[Hallm_7]

I think the AMA is doing the best job right now simply because they are the largest. They are intimately involved with health policy right now, and were recently rated as the third strongest lobbying organization in Washington. People on both sides of congress listen to AMA's viewpoint because they represent the largest number of physicians. AMA is a huge organization that has its hands firmly around very different issues: they are leaders in advancing science and medicine with JAMA, they are the leading political lobbying group for physicians, they are one of the biggest advocates for public health issues, they are ultimately in charge of health education being connected with national groups like AAMC, NBME, and ACGME, they are leaders in implementing EMR and P4P nationally, they are the sponsoring organzation for the largest medical student group in the country with the AMA-MSS. I could go on and add a few more, but I think you get the point. They are fighting for physicians, but they do so in many ways other than just politically.

As for the falling wages, the AMA has definitely been leading the push in DC to get the SGR fixed so medicare reimburesments stop falling. They've successfully prevented cuts the last several years and are now working on a permanent fix.

I think your comment about universal healthcare is stated incorrectly. You automatically assume that universal healthcare is detrimental to physicians. I would respond by saying that some universal healthcare proposals are very detrimental to the medical profession, but there are other universal healthcare proposals that are very beneficial to physicians. For example, at least 10-20% of care given by most physicians will be uncompensated. With universal coverage that 10-20% uncompensated care will be eliminated, and assuming that reimbursement levels stay the same for procedures then doctors stand to increase their salaries fairly significantly. Many people (incorrectly) assume universal healthcare necessitates government sponsorship control. All universal healthcare means is that everyone is given the opportunity to have health insurance if they want it. There are a multitude of proposals out there (including one that the AMA has written) that will cover 100% of Americans without turning us into the Canadian system.

In the long run what is good for patients will be good for physicians and what is good for physicians will be good for patients. That may not be evident if you're taking a short-term view, but given time it will become evident.

 

[Miami_med]

I am not concerned about the move for universal healthcare. When Anthem and United can pay their CEOs bonuses sometimes as much as 100 million dollars, what do you think the entire industry is going to do if anything comes down the line in Washington. They could fill every billboard and buy every TV commerical and hire every lobbyist in Washington with the capital reserves they have and they will if or when it comes up.

Not if Universal Healthcare = Mandatory Insurance purchase. That just puts us at the political mercy of a few well connected insurance companies.