Why Five Out of Six Physicians Have Quit The AMA

[mikejfox]

http://www.clinician1.com/posts/article/why_five_out_of_six_physicians_have_quit_the_ama/

 

"Sally Pipes, President of the Pacific Research Institute, has written an important article in Forbes analyzing new survey results demonstrating that 87% of medical physicians in the United States no longer view the American Medical Association as representing their views and interests.

Ms. Pipes states: “Much of that dissatisfaction stems from the organization’s support for President Obama’s contentious health care reform package.” The survey, conducted by physician recruitment firm Jackson & Coker, discovered that more than three times as many doctors believed that the quality of American health care would “deteriorate” rather than “improve” under ObamaCare; and nine of ten physicians think ObamaCare will have a negative impact on their profession..."

 

I wonder how PAs compare to these MDs regarding ObamaCare.

[Contrarian]

Political Topic and obviously politically motivated by someone who claims this is not the place for such discourse but self-describes as "the conservative Republican" in several posts in various threads... "All you are really doing is revealing your inner self."

 

I'm wondering how long it will take the Moderators to "step in here and put a halt to it."

 

MODS... PLEASE CLOSE THIS AND DELETE....!!!!

 

Thanks

[cinntsp]

I'm 99% certain that mikejfox = TerryF

 

Forgive me if this has already been pointed out elsewhere.

[Contrarian]

So its the same "histrionic" dude that threw the tantrum about discussing political topics in the "Don't ask... Don't tell" thread...AFTER he made sure we all knew where he stood politically... and asked for his profile to be deleted... when we called him on it.

 

Then re-registered under a different name... and true to his Axis II, Cluster B self... threw another tantrum in the "Gardasil" thread about the "political" nature of the thread... AFTER he made sure we all knew where he stood politically...

 

Who is now attempting to discuss "political" topics...

 

 

OK... that explains quite a bit...

[Planteater]

Why doesn't this thread: http://www.physicianassistantforum.com/forums/showthread.php/32887-news-article-of-AMA-vs-MDs-amp-CPTs bother you? I don't really have an opinion on TerryF and/or mikejfox because I am not entirely sure how that conclusion was reached. However, I am not sure why this is considered a political posting. Please enlighten me because I, personally, am very interested in what PAs think about the Health Care Bill. It seems to me that it will help PAs/NPs and hurt physicians, but I have not read the entire thing, so I cannot form an educated opinion just yet.

[mikejfox]

Contrarian, the plain truth is that not everybody agrees with you.

 

I am not sure who you are talking about: TerryF.

 

No political motivation on my part.

 

I just find it interesting most MDs do NOT like ObamaCare. I didn't ask anyone to discuss the pros and cons of ObamaCare.

 

My point was: do PAs on the whole view ObamaCare as MDs do.

 

Now, Contrarian, you do as you please and make more of what I posted. I think you are simply afraid most PAs will NOT agree with you. You are rather vocal around here.

 

Just so you'll understand, unlike you, I am NOT a liberal socialist, but you brought that up and not me. And I don't care to discuss that, but, again, you brought it up. You are the paranoid one.

 

You know NOT what you speak when you assume to judge!!!!!!

 

cogitant apud dicendi

[physasst]

Contrarian, the plain truth is that not everybody agrees with you.

 

I am not sure who you are talking about: Terry F.

 

No political motivation on my part.

 

I just find it interesting most MDs do NOT like ObamaCare.

 

I didn't ask anyone to discuss the pros and cons of ObamaCare.

 

My point was: do PAs on the whole view ObamaCare as MDs do.

 

Now, Contrarian, you do as you please and make more of what I posted.

I think you are simply afraid most PAs will NOT agree with you. You are

rather vocal around here.

 

Just so you'll understand, unlike you, I am NOT a liberal socialist, but you

brought that up and not me. And I don't care to discuss that, but, again,

you brought it up.

 

You know NOT what you speak when you assume to judge!!!!!!

 

Well, without being overly political, much of my work is as a health policy analyst, advisor, and speaker. I would say after numerous presentations, that PA's overall, seem to be either neutral, or slightly in favor of the bill. This is anecdotal, and is only borne out of my own experiences.

 

I have encountered PA's who are opposed, and they tend to be quite vocal about their opposition, but they seem to be the vocal minority overall.

 

I would not make the statement that most physicians do not endorse the PPACA. We simply don't know. The person saying that in Forbes was Sally Pipes, who is the President of the Pacific Research Institute.

 

PRI is a libertarian think tank. They are very much like Cato, and are dedicated to free market solutions for every problem. So philosophically, they are of course opposed to the PPACA. They are citing a questionable study conducted by Jackson and Coker which is a Physician Recruiting Firm in Atlanta.

 

Their survey response rate as 1.44%.....HOW you can make an inferential assumption about the majority of physicians with that low a response rate is beyond me.

 

Additionally, the characteristics of those surveyed don't add up. Geographic representation was heavily noted in the south. It pretty much renders the data worthless.

 

ALSO, they never asked WHY they were unhappy with PPACA...there are many physicians who feel that it doesn't go far enough....

 

Basically, it's a worthless assumption at the moment. I'll take a better look at the entire survey methodology tonight for a more complete post hoc.

 

Bottom line is, the AMA has been losing members for the better part of the last 50 years. Most physicians are joining their specialty organizations. The PPACA I would be willing to bet has had at most, a minimal effect on this process. There are numerous other reasons behind this, but PRI isn't interested in them.

[Contrarian]

Why doesn't this thread: http://www.physicianassistantforum.com/forums/showthread.php/32887-news-article-of-AMA-vs-MDs-amp-CPTs bother you? I don't really have an opinion on TerryF and/or mikejfox because I am not entirely sure how that conclusion was reached. However, I am not sure why this is considered a political posting. Please enlighten me because I, personally, am very interested in what PAs think about the Health Care Bill. It seems to me that it will help PAs/NPs and hurt physicians, but I have not read the entire thing, so I cannot form an educated opinion just yet.

 

Umm... THAT thread doesn't "bother me" at all...

 

I think healthcare providers and just plain ole everyday Americans SHOULD be discussing these issues. I also think that as PAs... we had better be discussing healthcare.

 

My problem is NOT with THAT thread.

 

It is with THIS one... started as a purely POLITICAL thread as evidenced by the use of political and divisive terms like "OBAMACARE" (instead of "PPACA") by a histrionic dude who thinks its ok to rail against political discussion as long as he can be sure HIS position has been displayed.

 

The fact seems to be that there are a myriad of reasons why the average physician doesn't belong to the AMA... but this dude wants us to believe that it has something to do with "OBAMA-care."

 

He thinks we are too simple to see what he is infering with this thread.

 

Then to further define his political position he adds things like:

Just so you'll understand, unlike you, I am NOT a liberal socialist, but you brought that up and not me. And I don't care to discuss that, but, again, you brought it up.

 

Where did I say I'm liberal... or even support "social programs"....??

Cause anyone who has read here for a while or even took a minute to look up my previous post on "Socialized Medicine" would quickly see that I'm all about the free market... so its all silliness.

 

Go read the two threads mentioned in post #4 then come back and read this one... you may see the problem... or maybe not....

 

YMMV

Contrarian

[Planteater]

physasst- thanks for the info.

 

Contrarian- OK. I guess I haven't paid attention to/noticed enough if the OP's posts to notice. Thanks for clarifying. Do you support the free market with regards to health care in our country? I am torn on this issue.

 

I recently watched Frontline's "Sick Across America" and "Sick Around the World". I guess I wonder why no one seems to be addressing the malpractice side of healthcare expense in the US. Neither these shows, or people I talk to, mention limits on money awarded in a medical lawsuit. Do you guys think that would have much of an impact on our healthcare costs?

[Contrarian]

Initial reports shows that "Tort Reform" would have a "negligable" effect on the cost of healthcare... but thats another discussion for the appropriate thread.

Do a search for "tort reform" and you will see some of the studies posted on this site that shows that it wouldn't decrease healthcare costs much.

As a matter of fact... I think Physasst posted quite a few of the studies a few yrs ago.

[physasst]

Initial reports shows that "Tort Reform" would have a "negligable" effect on the cost of healthcare... but thats another discussion for the appropriate thread.

Do a search for "tort reform" and you will see some of the studies posted on this site that shows that it wouldn't decrease healthcare costs much.

As a matter of fact... I think Physasst post quite a few of them a few yrs ago.

 

Yep, I also wrote a 3 part series for Business Insider online on that very topic as well. I am happy to supply the links if anyone is truly interested.

[Planteater]

OP- sorry I wasn't trying to hijack the thread and change the subject....this is just a subject I've been thinking a lot about lately so I jumped in with my questions.

 

physasst- found your thread- will read it later. If you have other links besides the blog mentioned on the thread I would be interested.

Here it is in case anyone else is interested: http://www.physicianassistantforum.com/forums/showthread.php/29952-Medical-Malpractice-Liability-Reform....?highlight=tort+reform

[alleycat]

Why doesn't this thread: http://www.physicianassistantforum.com/forums/showthread.php/32887-news-article-of-AMA-vs-MDs-amp-CPTs bother you? However, I am not sure why this is considered a political posting. Please enlighten me because I, personally, am very interested in what PAs think about the Health Care Bill. It seems to me that it will help PAs/NPs and hurt physicians, but I have not read the entire thing, so I cannot form an educated opinion just yet.

 

I posted THAT thread. and it was in the new (boring ?) Billing and Coding Forum...where it belonged. I point out that the intro of the article is NOT why I posted it (MD vs APA)...who cares .... but because of the relationship of MD control of CPT which dictates Billing. I was not aware of that. I thought perhaps other's interested in B & C would like to know it too.

 

if you can find a political statement there, PLEASE let me know.....I guarentee it was thru ignorance, not political position. me....I'm more of the " can't we all get alone" folks.

 

but I AM unhappy that you inply that MY post is related to THIS post.

 

please consider my atavar as NOT smiling at you. think instead of teeth and fur-on-end!

 

Alberta

[alleycat]

Yep, I also wrote a 3 part series for Business Insider online on that very topic as well. I am happy to supply the links if anyone is truly interested.

 

 

please send links PM. thanks PHYSASST.

[Planteater]

Alleycat- I was not trying to imply your thread was political. I just didn't see where this one was either, which was why I compared the two. Well, at least you are not hissing....

[alleycat]

Alleycat- I was not trying to imply your thread was political. I just didn't see where this one was either, which was why I compared the two. Well, at least you are not hissing....

 

I'm not hissing because I'm old and I forgot to ...:smile:

 

dang! I hate it when I get my dander up and then folks go a'being nice to me. drats.

 

oopsie....thread hijack alert !! sorry :;;D:

[physasst]

BTW,

 

The survey asked

 

"I agree with the AMA's position on health reform"

 

That was it...talk about a problematic question, as there was no follow up question. This is as bad as the Rasmussen polls. It never asks "Do you think the health reform bill needed to be expanded, or repealed?"

 

Rasmussen kept claiming this cr*p back in the spring, claiming something along the lines of 40% of Americans favored repeal....they never asked, repeal all of it, or part of it....another pollster did, and only 12% favored a complete repeal.

 

This is where survey research can be tricky, cause you can lead the respondents with your wording, and you can manipulate the results simply by how you ask the questions.

 

Also, they claim a "CI of 1.69%" the problem is, that is only looking at the sample population of 111, 792 physicians with a 1.44% RR (n=1,611)....BUT, they are extrapolating the results to a population of 850,000 physicians. This with just some quick napkin stats would have a CI of 2.44%...I don't mind some things, but when you start to report bad statistical methodology with a low RR, well, the whole thing is completely invalid as far as I am concerned.

 

As I have told others, low RR's aren't great, but you can still make inferential assumptions if you can prove that the general population is represented in your respondent population. For example, roughly 15% of primary care in the US is provided by general internists...yet only 6% of respondents to that survey were general internists. Likewise....Anesthesiologists comprised 9% of the respondents, yet only make up 4.1% of the physician workforce........

 

Basically, the survey is garbage...

[Planteater]

I'm not hissing because I'm old and I forgot to ...:smile:

 

dang! I hate it when I get my dander up and then folks go a'being nice to me. drats.

 

oopsie....thread hijack alert !! sorry :;;D:

 

 

Oh sorry I wasn't up for a cat fight....I am more of a dog & chicken person these days :;;D:! I did have this one cat named Magellan that was probably my favorite cat ever. If I could find another one just like him I might get a cat again. Sorry- totally off subject....back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

 

Physasst- very interesting.

[alleycat]

Oh sorry I wasn't up for a cat fight....I am more of a dog & chicken person these days :;;D:! I did have this one cat named Magellan that was probably my favorite cat ever. If I could find another one just like him I might get a cat again.[quote}

 

my avatar smiles upon you.

 

now, back to the thread.

[alleycat]

Oh sorry I wasn't up for a cat fight....I am more of a dog & chicken person these days :;;D:! I did have this one cat named Magellan that was probably my favorite cat ever. If I could find another one just like him I might get a cat again. Sorry- totally off subject....back to your regularly scheduled thread.

 

 

my avatar smiles upon you again. :smile:

 

now, back to the thread

[HopefulPA]

Interestingly enough at the large innercity hospital I work at I have yet to hear anything negative about "Obama care" and I have actually overheard a few Attendings actually in support of the change.

 

I don't think anyone (including the OP ) can say that an entire profession is for or against something, I am pretty sure each side of the coin has its supporters regardless of profession.

[ordered steps]

Yep, I also wrote a 3 part series for Business Insider online on that very topic as well. I am happy to supply the links if anyone is truly interested.

 

 

 

physasst,

 

I would like a copy of these links to the series you penned.

 

Thank You,

Ordered Steps

[ventana]

back to the initial post

 

I for one am strongly in favor of the implementation of a single payer universal health care system - will not get into it here as it is off topic

 

but I think one of the HUGE factors that Doc's have with any reform is for almost all the specialists it will mean a pay cut - all good and noble thoughts aside doc's are people to (and some of them are greedy people) that are not going to support anything that equates to a pay cut. However we the people of the USA deserve better and honestly I think Doc's are overpaid in this country with specialists being far over paid. A brand new grad Rad is starting in the 250 range on a partnership tract of 1-2 years and they will be at 350+ (atleast in my local area) Yet a PCP starts at 150 and maxes out at 200k. But here is the rub, PA's start at 80 and max at 100 in Primary care locally......

 

I think Docs are hugely smart but specialists should be making far less - so I ?think? this is why doc's are really disliking any health care reform as they assume they will take a pay cut.....

 

 

 

But at some point someone has to ask when is enough enough......

[brookspa]

most if not all situations can be attributed the overriding influence of money or sex. cynical but true.

[CAAdmission]

If we want everyone covered, single-payer is probably the only realiistic way to go. From a clinician perspective, it will be bad news, since there will be a reimbursement monopoly. You will be told what you are getting paid, the amount will get lower each year as the debt crisis worsens, and there will be no grounds for appeal. This situation will make the NCCPA (whom I hate more than sin and death) look like relative angels.

 

On another note, the AMA was recently allowed to enter an amicus brief on behalf of an insurance company against a PA on the grounds that they are the official, authoritative voice of medicine in America. If most docs disagree with AMA and don't belong, hopefully the court will tell them to stick it next time...