They claim a decent membership approaching 250,000 but many estimates put their numbers well below that at about 20% of the workforce of doctors in this country. I have no doubt they still consider me a member although I have refused to pay dues for the past several years. Undoubtedly, I am on the mailing list and still considered a "member in waiting" who is simply behind in paying his dues. Come to think of it, I probably would owe several thousand dollars to once again become a current member in good standing in any other more prestigious medical organization if it weren't for the fact that they are desperate for more members.
The AMA has lost touch with the physicians in this country. It is now obvious that the AMA has developed a lapdog mentality when it comes the current Congress and Administration. It hasn't been able to exert any significant influence in years and has now, in its estimation, come against the immovable force. If you can't beat 'em, join 'em! This is at the expense of what many consider part of the Holy Grail of true health care restructuring ... liability protection for doctors, or Tort Reform.
Regardless of what attorneys or legislators (attorneys again) claim, Tort Reform works as evidenced from my personal experience in Texas. Everyone from the solo family practitioner to the hospital CEO to the high-risk obstetrician has seen significant cost reductions in malpractice insurance premiums. More importantly, lawsuits against doctors have dropped precipitously.
It is in my opinion as a front line community based surgeon, that true health care reform cannot occur without legislation to protect providers from frivolous lawsuits. The AMA's basic acceptance of the representative bill HR 3200 once and for all proves that the AMA is out of touch. If an organization created to support your goals cannot protect its members, why should they continue to support the organization. By their admission, the AMA is "working on this issue" along with the attempt to outlaw physician-owned entities. However, "working" on it is not enough!
A line in the sand must be drawn.
If you can't protect physicians in this country from predatorial plaintiff's attorneys, what hope do we have of cutting the cost of medicine? What hope do we have of creating lifelong, trusting doctor-patient relationships if we are constantly worrying about the casual lawsuit? How can we be completely honest with patients if we have to worry about hurting their feelings when we need to tell them to quit smoking or, heaven forbid, lose weight?
We risk losing the spirit of what makes the American health care system so great - its doctors. It's not the technology; it's the human element. Our idealistic, hard-working nature is at risk of being crushed without so much as a fight by our own lobby. I, however, refuse to acquiesce. I am too young and care too much for my patients and my parents and family. I will not go without a fight.
Sounds like AARP for people over 50 Mark. They really represent the views of the Socialist; however, we do get the 10% discount on motels etc. ha ha
ReplyDeleteMark:
ReplyDeleteI would love to discuss these issues with you. I will defer to you on the quality of healthcare issues. I agree that having the government in charge of healthcare is a dubious proposition. I doubt they can run anything "efficiently."
You are so wrong, however, on your selected villain. I believe I know why you are screaming "tort reform", I bet your insurance premiums are more than most people make in a year!
That is not the fault of lawyers and lawsuits. That is an insurance industry problem. Over 70% of medical malpractice is being committed by less than 5% of the doctors. Why then does the insurance industry calculate premiums charged to good doctors based on the risk to the bottom 5% of doctors?
The answer is simple: So insurance companies make more money and at the same time convince doctors that lawsuits are to blame.
I do not do med mal. However, I know of cases where a doctor was sued for cutting off the wrong leg. That is, he scheduled a surgery to amputate the right leg. Went in and cut off the left leg. Are you arguing that this doctor be shielded from liability? How about the victim who was having a hard enough time dealing with the loss of one leg now faced with the reality that they have no legs? Should that persons recovery be limited?
Of course not. There is no way you support that. I am convinced that you are an excellent surgeon. I have said for years, that one day Mark Mettauer will be recognized as the #1 heart surgeon in the world.
However, you are wrong on this issue, Mark.
We do not need "tort reform" we need "insurance reform"
True tort reform will be difficult to realize. It is only a piece of the puzzle for overall health care reform. How do you propose to reform health care without input from physicians because that is exactly what the current legislative branch is intending to do. Token representation from a toothless AMA and a spineless ACS have led to this so we as physicians can eat the crumbs off the dinner table all the while watching our backsides for a kick in the backside from frivolous lawsuits. We have all the responsibility and risk with limited benefit.
ReplyDeleteBelieve me, the insurance providers are an equally responsible and dangerous head of this multi-faced monster. United Health Care, for instance, PROFITED almost $900 million dollars this last quarter alone with declining membership! Open up the state borders and allow true competition among theses guys and you will see premiums (i.e. health care costs!) drop precipitously. However, don't think for one minute that plaintiffs attorneys don't see my colleagues and me as the calf waiting to be slaughtered for an easy buck!
Patients largely don't take responsibility for their health and engage in abusive behavior leading to that leg that needs to be amputated. Laws and rules are in place to remedy gross negligence via plaintiffs attorneys and our own medical profession. As a member of many credentialing committees and an expert consultant for the Texas Medical Board, a travesty such as this would have had many negative consequences for that theoretical physician. Why don't we have the plaintiffs put up a percentage of the cash they are seeking up front for a lawsuit? At that point, I think we can argue to remove non-economic damage limitations and see what happens to the number of frivolous suits in this country.
Or all of your physicians can become government employees? Have you ever heard of a doctor in a VA hospital successfully sued? It happens but it's pretty darn rare!
From what I heard, Texas has attracted many Doctors from other states because of the 'caps' on liability issues. Those states that have not addressed the issue must be losing! I think this is a good thing.
ReplyDeleteThank you Dr. for doing a great job on my Triple Bi-pass. You are good but God is Greater. But you already knew that. King, David
ReplyDelete