I am not aware of the AMA ever taking a stance that is this prudent, ever. Just today the body approved a resolution to formally call for the repeal of the US military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy, which does not allow gays and lesbians to serve openly. Recognizing the difficulty with which closeted soldiers must contend when divulging potentially damaging personal information in a supposedly confidential environment and the impact of this suppressive atmosphere on their physical and emotional health, the AMA wisely takes the approach for the repeal of DADT while framing it from a preventive health perspective. Timely? Yes. Smart? Yes. Overtly political? No. Perceived as being overtly political? More than likely. | LINK via top LGBT blog Pam’s House Blend

Rep. Michelle Bachmann and her cadre of “tea-baggers“, AARP, the AMA. What do these three disparate groups have in common? They have all made appearances in one way or another on the Hill to make their feelings known on pending healthcare legislation — which is now set to begin debate this weekend on the House side.

• Bachmann held a “freedom” rally of sorts today to “kill the bill” — a nod to Democratic lawmakers she thinks will be “scared” into voting against a reform bill.
• The AARP has taken a political stand — uniting with the Democrats in support of the bill, for seemingly obvious reasons.
• The AMA “supports” the bill but really hates congressional provisions within which will tie facility reimbursements with Medicare, diluting payment reform issues with CMS even further so than they are now.

Framing his goals for healthcare reform as a matter of access and not an across-the-board socialized delivery construct, President Barack Obama urged the AMA to support (even if initially tepid) his vision for shutting the gap in the number of uninsured in this country. In his speech on Monday, widely regarded as the opening salvo in this session’s debate on healthcare reform, Obama called for unity among those on the front lines of this crisis: the physicians. According to the president, the implementation of government involvement in guaranteeing access to care for the uninsured would only be as an alternative (ie, the so-called “public option”) — enhancing competition within the economy of healthcare, and lowering costs in the process.

Sounds a little simplistic, perhaps? While mostly seen as an effort to provide a balm of sorts to mild detractors of his intentions with regard to government-run care delivery, Obama’s plans for reform really do not provide assurances that both Republicans and Democrats can reach any further common ground on this issue, a fact increasingly apparent as this debate rages on. What seems certain, at this point, is that Obama is concerned more with his short term perception as healthcare advocate as opposed to long term visionary. In an environment in which the perceptions of physicians of any “plan” which affects their livelihood is lukewarm at best, Obama has his work cut out for him. Perhaps legislative debate on this issue will illuminate matters and modify those perceptions so that some productive action toward consensus is taken, even if it is a weak agreement between doctors and the U.S. government. | LINK

Today is the day that President Obama makes his pitch for his version of a healthcare delivery overhaul. His speech to the American Medical Association begins around 12:15 PM CST. His speech is being billed as the “irrefutable” case for healthcare reform.

In today’s speech, according to the White House, Obama will “lay out his vision for a system that replicates best practices, incentivizes excellence and closes cost disparities — and he’ll ask for our medical professionals’ help in getting the job done.”

Tough sell, or substantive push for meaningful reform?

UPDATE: Text of his speech follows below the fold.

Read the rest of this entry »

Barack Obama is scheduled to speak Monday to the American Medical Association. Right out of the box, the AMA has issued a pre-emptive press release, of sorts, for the Commander-in-Chief: they want no part in a public option for healthcare access.

[T]he A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans. [..] If private insurers are pushed out of the market [..] the corresponding surge in public plan participation would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers

The organization appears to be making these statements as a lobbying organ, as it does not represent all doctors. (Believe it or not, the AMA was one of the earliest and fiercest opponents of Medicare.) To be sure, many healthcare providers believe completely the opposite. Obama will have to steer discussion toward those points with which the AMA agrees vis-à-vis reforming the current government-financed plans — starting with, for example, wasteful payments to MA plans. | LINK

How about holding a house party discuss healthcare policy reform, and inviting some unexpected guests: among them — the insurance companies? Interest and advocacy groups representing the entire healthcare delivery spectrum will be holding informational sessions all over the country in anticipation for the culture of healthcare accountability Barack Obama has proposed as a policy point. Organizations from the AMA to America’s Health Insurance Plans, from state medical societies to pharma and device lobbies will all be taking part in these strategic listening sessions in which local physicians are urged to take an active part. Culture of accoutability in healthcare? It appears as though Barack Obama wants full disclosure, like, yesterday. | LINK

A healthcare imprimatur of sorts for the outgoing Bush Administration?  The current lame-duck president’s ‘Patients’ Right of Conscience’ regulation, which proposes that healthcare providers may withhold services based upon their moral beliefs, would probably do more to hurt patients than help — even those religious conservative patients who are the regulation’s intended targets.  Unsurprisingly, the major medical associations have swiftly come out against such proposed actions, citing patient safety — especially in emergency cases. Read the rest of this entry »