Category: Organized Medicine

AMA – AMA votes to continue commitment to health system reform

AMA – AMA votes to continue commitment to health system reform:

AMA votes to continue commitment to health system reform
Outlines details to guide efforts toward making the health system better for patients and physicians
For immediate release:
Nov. 9, 2009
HOUSTON – The American Medical Association (AMA) House of Delegates today voted on health system reform policies, reaffirming the AMA’s commitment to health system reform. The AMA’s House of Delegates is the nation’s broadest, most inclusive assembly of physicians and medical students. Delegates representing every state and medical specialty debate and vote on behalf of their physician peers.
“Now is a defining moment in the history of the AMA,” said AMA President J. James Rohack, M.D. “In a democratic process, the AMA House of Delegates today voted to continue AMA’s commitment to health system reform for patients and physicians. The time to make health system reform a reality is now.”
The AMA reaffirmed its support for health system reform alternatives that are consistent with AMA policies concerning pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of physician practice and universal access for patients. It also outlined specific elements it will actively and publicly support and oppose as the health system debate continues.
The AMA’s support for H.R. 3962 and H.R. 3961 remains in place.
“H.R. 3962 is not the perfect bill, and we will continue to advocate for changes that help make the system better for patients and physicians as the legislative process continues,” Dr. Rohack said.”

Now that the American Society of Anesthesiology has voted to support the House Bill, we now have an AMAZING NINE OF of the TEN largest physicians organizations supporting reform.

Even if you take out the AMA and AOA as a friend suggested because they are multispecialty groups, we have 8 of the ten largest physician specialty organizations supporting reform. The American College of Radiology is still against it, the American College of Emergency Physicians (# 9) has still not committed and the American College of Cardiology ( which I’m pretty sure is # 10) is on board.

That’s about as close as you can get to running the table with physicians groups.

House Bill Effects on Physician Income

I had a piece in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette today on physician support of health reform.

A sadistic friend posted it on Sermo. Weee!

The subject of the effect on physician income came up on our Doctors for America and I said:

I often ask my colleagues who 1.) complain about Medicare rates and 2) say all care for the uninsured should be via charity by physicians , “Wouldn’t you rather get paid a bit less and have everyone covered so you have more paying patients?”

I doubt anyone has done an analysis of what the net effect of this would be, but perhaps the net effect would be neutral or positive, I don’t know. BUT as the NEJM survey said, most of us find it acceptable to take lower reimbursements if everyone is covered.

Our terrific Media Mogul, Mandy Krauthammer-Cohen, MD, of course, had a great bit of information:

Some additional food for thought. If you look at the Lewin group analysis….which does have a conservative bias given it is owned by United Health…physicians will actually make more money under health reform with a public option.

Testimony by Lewin states: “In the first year of the program (when public option is only opened to small businesses with less than 10 employees), physician income would increase by $10.9 billion. This reflects the reduction in uncompensated care for uninsured people as well as increased health services utilization for newly insured people. It also reflects the House bill provisions that would increase Medicaid reimbursement for primary care services to Medicare payment levels. Thus, the reductions in payment for people who shift to the public plan are outweighed by increases in reimbursement for Medicaid, reductions in uncompensated care and revenues from increased service use for newly insured people. Average net-income per physician wouldincrease by $15,237 in 2010 under this scenario.”

Read the whole testimony here.

Physician’s Perspective on Health Reform Slides

I updated my slides on physicians’ opinions on health reform for a talk tonight for the Pittsburgh Chapter of Drinking Liberally.

The new slides are here. ( I hope I fixed the link!)

I had to strip out the slides of me (and Doctors for America) at the White House, and on our way TO the White House, already in our white coats in order to get under the 5 MB Google docs limit.

Cheers,

Eight of Ten Largest Physician Groups Back HR 3200

(Original Title) “American Psychiatric Association voted unanimously to support H.R. 3200”

Medical News Today News Article – Printer Friendly:

The Board of Trustees of the American Psychiatric Association voted unanimously to support H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, as the basis for health reform.

‘In doing so, the APA is pleased to stand with the American Medical Association,’ said a letter presenting the board’s decision to the American Medical Association. ‘The APA Board of Trustees also voted to support the concept of a public plan option based upon the voluntary participation of physicians and other healthcare professionals in the ongoing dialogue of health care reform.’

‘While H.R. 3200 – like any bill – is not perfect, we recognize that it offers many positive benefits for psychiatrists and other physicians, and most importantly for our patients,’ the letter said.

This now adds the 9th largest physician organization to be on board for HB 3200, including the AMA, ACP, AAFP, AAP, AOA, ACS, and ACOG.

For completeness, #8, the American Society of Anesthesiology and #10, the Amercian College of Radiology are still against reform until they get reimbursement “fixes.”

#11, the American College of Emergency Physicians is still waiting for final form bills to commit.

Hospitalists’ Take on Baucus Bill

From The Hospitalist Web site

Addition of a hospital value-based purchasing (VBP) program to Medicare beginning in 2012. The program would tie incentive payments to performance on quality measures related to such conditions as heart failure, pneumonia, surgical care, and patient perceptions of care. So far, the program’s rough outlines have been well received. “We fundamentally support hospital value-based purchasing,” Dr. Siegal says. “We think it’s a necessary step in the evolution to higher-value health care in general.”

Expansion of the Physician’s Quality Reporting Initiative, with a 1% payment penalty by 2012 for nonparticipants. The bill also would direct the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) to improve the appeals process and feedback mechanism. Although the Baucus plan’s “mark” doesn’t discuss transitioning to pay-for-performance, Dr. Siegal says the shift likely is inevitable. In the meantime, pay-for-reporting can encourage better outcomes through a public reporting mechanism and “grease the skids” for a pay-for-performance initiative.

Creation of a CMS Payment Innovation Center “authorized to test, evaluate, and expand different payment structures and methodologies,” with a goal of improving quality and reducing Medicare costs. Dr. Siegal says the proposal is consistent with SHM’s aims. “We have for a long time advocated for a robust capability to test new payment models and to figure out what works better than what we have right now,” he says.

Establishment of a three-year Medicare pilot called the Community Care Transitions Program. The program would spend $500 million over 10years on efforts to reduce preventable rehospitalizations. SHM’s Project BOOST (Better Outcomes for Older Adults through Safe Transitions) likely would qualify. “We’re very positive about that,” Dr. Siegal says. “I think there is a huge amount of scrutiny now on avoidable rehospitalizations. We think BOOST is a step in the right direction, and we’d love to see greater funding to roll this out on a much larger basis.”

For more information on the current healthcare reform debate, visit SHM’s advocacy portal.

Bryn Nelson wrote the piece for The Hospitalist, and Eric Siegal, MD, is chair of the Society of Hospital Medicine’s Public Policy Committee.

Organized Medicine on Reform

***Update: Now 8 of the 10 largest organizations are on board!***

Welcome to the blog. To make this a bit easier for everyone, here are the physician organizations FOR either HB 3200 or something close to it: AMA, AOA, ACP, AAFP, ACOG, ACS, AAP, ACC, AGA, ASCO, and SHM.

Squishy middle: AAO, AAOS, ACEP

Mo’ money, then we’ll talk: ASA, ACR.

Details below…

The American Medical Association, ~240K members:

[After passage of HB 3200 out of committee -cmhmd]… the American Medical Association sent a letter to House leaders supporting H.R. 3200, “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” “This legislation includes a broad range of provisions that are key to effective, comprehensive health system reform,” said J. James Rohack, MD, AMA president. “We urge the House committees of jurisdiction to pass the bill for consideration by the full House.” H.R. 3200 includes provisions key to effective, comprehensive health reform, including:

  • Coverage to all Americans through health insurance market reforms
  • A choice of plans through a health insurance exchange
  • An end to coverage denials based on pre-existing conditions
  • Fundamental Medicare reform, including repeal of the flawed sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula
  • Additional funding for primary care services, without reductions on specialty care
  • Individual responsibility for health insurance, including premium assistance to those who need it
  • Prevention and wellness initiatives to help keep Americans healthy
  • Initiatives to address physician workforce concerns

“The status quo is unacceptable,” Dr. Rohack said. “We support passage of H.R. 3200, and we look forward to additional constructive dialogue as the long process of passing a health reform bill continues.”

The American Osteopathic Association (“represents” 67K, per their website; not clear if this is actual membership)

Why is the AOA supporting H.R. 3200?
The “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act” (H.R. 3200) contains several provisions that reflect AOA priorities forhealth system reform. These priorities include: expanding the availability of affordable health care coverage to the uninsured, increased support for prevention and wellness services, investments in the physician workforce, increased Medicare payments for primary care services without cutting payments for other services and, importantly, it represents our best hope for eliminating the current sustainable growth rate (SGR) formula for updating Medicare physician payments. The AOA continues to work with members of the House of Representatives to improve the bill by seeking additions and changes in the legislation. Specifically, we are working to include expanded graduate medical education provisions, medical liability reform, and student loan financing reforms. Favorable action on a House bill is necessary to move the process to the end game negotiations that will determine the specifics of a final bill.

American College of Physicians (ACP, represents 126 K internal medicine physicians including primary care and medical subspecialists like me):

H.R. 3200 does much of what ACP asked Congress to do in terms of coverage, support for the primary care workforce, payment and delivery system reform, based on long-standing policies that have been adopted by this organization. No bill is perfect, but H.R. 3200 delivers on our major priorities in a way that is remarkably consistent with ACP policies, policies that were developed by the College’s leadership over many years and always guide how ACP’s leadership, Key Contacts and staff advocate for internal medicine physicians and their patients.

American Academy of Family Physicians, 94K members:

On behalf of the 94,600 members of the American Academy of Family Physicians, thank you for the positive steps you have taken toward broader, affordable coverage that will mean improved health care based on primary care. We believe that the America’s Affordable Health Choices Act (H.R. 3200) will make significant progress toward payment and delivery system reforms and contribute to building a primary care workforce for the future. AAFP supports this legislation and we will be pleased to work with your committees to improve it further.
……
The public plan option developed by your committees reflects most of these principles very well.

American Academy of Pediatrics, 60 K members:

“The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), which represents 60,000 pediatricians, pediatric medical subspecialists, and surgical specialists, praises the U.S. House Energy and Commerce Committee for its vote today on H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act, and applauds all three House Committees for their continued and steadfast work in the effort to pass significant health care reform.
“The Academy continues to support the process of bringing comprehensive health care reform to America’s children. While there is still work to be done, H.R. 3200 makes significant progress in achieving the Academy’s priorities of covering all children in the United States, providing children with age-appropriate benefits in a medical home, and establishing appropriate payment rates to guarantee children have access to covered services.

American College of Surgeons, 76 K members:

They have a letter of support for HR 3200, but you can’t copy and paste… maybe a little gun-shy about letting the membership see it!

American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology, 52 K members:

“ACOG President Gerald F. Joseph, Jr. MD provides ACOG endorsement of HR3200 (proposed America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009).”

[The rest is behind a password protected section.]

American Academy of Ophthalmology, 7 K members:

Have not yet taken a position on any specific bill, but:

Meanwhile, the Academy, AMA and the American College of Surgeons have been up on the Hill pushing medicine and ophthalmology’s agenda. The Senate bill is expected to contain a rate-setting commission proposal that the Academy helped defeat in the House bill and other troublesome provisions affecting medicine and surgery.

and…

Acknowledging that the status quo in health care is unsustainable and that issues of access to coverage, quality of care and cost control must be addressed, and given legislative momentum in Congress, the Academy is advancing components for bills that protect patients and physicians. While reform discussions are still ongoing and no pending legislation is perfect, we are committed to continue collaborating with health leaders in Congress to improve bills being considered. The Academy is actively engaged with other physician organizations as key House and Senate committees debate legislation that puts a long-term sustainable growth rate (SGR) fix in play, in addition to other top issues.

American Association of Orthopedic Surgeons, ~17 K members:

The AAOS is committed to ensuring that the final bill be as beneficial as possible to the Orthopaedic community, including our patients. We will not make any decisions in support or opposition until something closer to a final bill is available.

Ooops! Perhaps phrased poorly!

American College of Cardiology, 37 K members:

On behalf of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), representing 37,000 cardiovascular members, I am writing to commend you for H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009.” This legislation makes a significant financial commitment to comprehensive health system reform and we are committed to working with you on this effort.
ACC is especially pleased that H.R. 3200 takes extraordinary measures to extend coverage to every American and takes positive steps to strengthen Medicare. Among the Medicare provisions the College supports include:
• Funding to eliminate the accumulated debt from the flawed Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR);
• Establishment of a positive Medicare physician payment update (MEI) for 2010
and favorable spending targets for updates in the future;
• Significant payment and delivery reform models such as incentives for physicians to participate in Accountable Care Organizations; and
• Expansion and improvements to the Physician Quality Reporting Initiative (PQRI) to encourage successful participation;

American Society of Clinical Oncology:
Can’t find anything on their website. The American Cancer Society, on the other hand, has made access to health care via serious reform their top priority. And, by the way, on palliative care? They’re for it.

American Gastroenterological Association, 17 K members:

On behalf of the American Gastroenterological Association (AGA), representing over 17,000 physicians and scientists who research, diagnose and treat disorders of the gastrointestinal tract and liver, I am writing to express our appreciation and support for several provisions in H.R. 3200, America’s Affordable Health Choices Act. The AGA appreciates your leadership and shares in your goal to expand health care coverage to the uninsured, improve coordination of care, and enhance quality.

American College of Emergency Physicians, 27 K members:

“It is important to note, however, that a common theme supported by members of the House and Senate (Democrats and Republicans), as well as the White House, is to extend coverage to nearly all Americans, although there are differences of opinion as to how this objective is best achieved. ACEP supports this endeavor to provide universal health care as a benefit for patients and its outcome of drastically reducing the burden of uncompensated care provided by emergency physicians.
ACEP encourages you to discuss and promote these issues with your members of Congress during the August recess. Your message to lawmakers:
These provisions will improve your constituents’ access to vital emergency medical care services and they must be part of the final health care reform package that is sent to President Obama.
Due to the fragmented, unpredictable nature of the process, and the lack of a final product in the House or Senate, ACEP has refrained from taking a public position on the overall legislative proposals. This has been, and remains, a very fluid process and we want to assure you that ACEP will continue to monitor these plans and advocate
for the needs of emergency physicians and your patients.”

American Society of Anesthesiology, 43 K members:

“ASA members may be confused by a request for support of H.R. 3200 by other medical associations, including most recently the AMA. ASA CANNOT AND WILL NOT SUPPORT THE BILL IN ITS CURRENT FORM. Members are strongly encouraged NOT to respond to AMA’s request to support H.R. 3200. The bill, the ‘America’s Affordable Health Choices Act,’ includes a public plan option based upon Medicare payment rates for anesthesia services. A Medicare rate-based public plan would be detrimental to the medical specialty of anesthesiology.

“ASA has consistently urged lawmakers to address anesthesiology’s ‘33 percent problem’: the fact that Medicare pays 33 percent of what private insurers pay for anesthesia services (while Medicare pays an average of 80 percent of what private insurers pay for most other medical specialties). This 33 percent payment level simply does not reflect the costs of providing anesthesiology medical care. As such, Congress must not use this payment level as a model for any health care plan.

“We acknowledge that there are many laudable provisions included in H.R. 3200. Still, many issues remain unresolved, and questions linger about how various provisions would impact anesthesiology. We must remember that there is no other organization involved in the reform debate that is speaking for anesthesiology. In fact, some groups are actively lobbying for provisions that would harm our specialty. Anesthesiologists’ shared voice is the only way to ensure that the important and unique concerns of our specialty, our practices and our patients are heard in the halls of Congress. “

American College of Radiology, 32 K members:

Best I could find on their website:

Unfortunately, it seems ACRs position regarding the House version of healthcare reform, HR 3200, has been incorrectly characterized. As many of the details of overall health care legislation remain fluid, the College has not taken a position, for
or against, any of the current overall congressional proposals, including HR 3200.
Regarding HR 3200, we continue to educate congressional leaders that the imaging and radiation therapy provisions, including a raise in the equipment utilization rate assumption to 75 percent and a further 25 percent cut to contiguous imaging, are flawed ideas that will ultimately harm patient access to care particularly in rural areas.
Until negotiations regarding such provisions are complete or are clearly at an impasse, ACR will not take an official position on the entire House bill. Any information that ACR has offered its support or opposition to HR 3200 is incorrect.

Update: I almost forgot to include some rather contrarian sentiments from the South Carolina Medical Association, as well as some “Old School” conservative physicians to round out the round up. They are not alone, as some other deeply red states’ Medical Societies have expressed similar dire warnings. But for them, this is really about ideology, not solutions.

Update II:

Society of Hospital Medicine ( ~6 K members, represents hospital based physicians):

On behalf of the Society of Hospital Medicine (SHM), I am writing to express our support for provisions in H.R. 3200, the “America’s Affordable Health Choices Act of 2009” regarding delivery system reform. SHM represents the nation’s hospitalists—physicians whose primary professional focus is the general medical care and management of hospitalized patients. We agree that the time has come for comprehensive health reform and appreciate your leadership and commitment in pursuit of this worthy goal.

From our friends at the South Carolina Medical Association

Dear Colleague, [This was sent to the members of the SCMA – my comments are in italics below.]

The momentum that has been building in support of a nationalized health care system appears to be overwhelming. With health care overhaul bills on the fast-track in Congress, and with a new and powerful administration determined to pass legislation this year, the deck is stacked against us. We’ve been told to sit in the corner and watch while the “experts” figure out how to fix health care. The problem is that the “experts” who are fixing health care are the same people who have run Medicare into insolvency and created a Medicaid system that is inefficient and ineffective.

The federal government is kicking us down the road toward indentured servitude. Envision a world where each decision you make for every patient has to be approved through the laborious channels of government bureaucracy. Imagine the federal government dictating to you which patients yo can and cannot see and which treatments you can and cannot provide—not just for Medicare patients but for all of your patients. Consider what it will be like to be reimbursed for all of your patients at levels significantly less than current Medicare.

Physicians have been offered a seat at the table so long as we sit still with our hands folded in our laps and keep our mouths shut. Dutiful compliance and inaction are no longer options. The muzzle that the Feds placed on us must be removed and the decibel level of our voices must be raised so that we are unmistakably heard. We’re not suggesting a strike, but anything short of that is the kind of bold and thunderous statement we need to be making right now.

The leadership of the South Carolina Medical Association senses the anger and the building resentment and confusion that physicians are currently experiencing. Our commitment to channeling these strong feelings into action is strong and will not lessen. W will not stand silent and watch while the federal government destroys our health care system. In the next few weeks, we will be laying out a course of action to ensure that our voice is heard. Be ready to act quickly, speak loudly, and fight for your career and the health care freedoms your patients deserve.

[Signed by the President and Chair of the Board of the SCMA]

Wow. They must be practicing in paradise down there in South Carolina. No problems, everybody’s insured, getting great preventive and chronic care, nobody goes bankrupt from health care expenses, etc. Maybe we all should move there. Because, you know, in the rest of the country we have ridiculous bureaucracies, rules, and non-physicians telling us what we can do and who we can see and what we can charge already, only they are our private health insurance companies.

But here is the money quote, “Consider what it will be like to be reimbursed for all of your patients at levels significantly less than current Medicare. ” And that’ really what it boils down to for so many, doesn’t it? And besides, the answer to this question is that, if I don’t have to hire a team of staff to fight with PRIVATE insurers to get reimbursed, to get prior approval, to jump through all of their hoops, maybe that reimbursement would result in a higher net reimbursement. And at least Medicare doesn’t tell my patients whether they can see a physician because he’s not on the right panel.

SCMA, what is the solution? Or aren’t there any problems with the health care system in South Carolina.

Maybe they’re still all practicing in Mayberry in the 1950’s, but for the rest of us, we need to fix this broken system!

I ranted further over at dailykos…

Wow. This is not about healthcare reform with these people. These are like the Japanese soldiers found on islands 20 years after WW II, still fighting against the Yankees. They are opposing a Soviet medical gulag, entirely a figment of their imaginations and deep paranoia. Lively debate, eh?

But, to the letter’s substance, and frankly, its’ ignorance.

Nationalized, or singe payer, if that’s what they mean, is pretty much off the table according to the guys in charge of the process like Baucus. It would be nice to have the momentum for that, but although there are vocal supporters at the grass roots level, the powers that be will not hear of it. But sadly, I doubt they even know what they mean when they say “nationalized.” I am sure they have some conceptual bogey man system hybrid of the UK, Canada, and the old Soviet Union in their heads, but I am equally certain they have not spent more than 10 minutes actually learning any comparative health care, even bothered to investigate the systems in Germany, France, Australia and elsewhere.

“The deck is stacked against us.” Is that against patients, physicians, insurance companies, who? Who is the deck stacked against?

“We’ve been told to sit in the corner…” Really? The message I’ve heard from Congress and the White House is that they value and want physician input. Maybe they don’t want bat-shit crazy input, but they want input.

“The same people who have run Medicare into insolvency…” Um, that would fall quite largely on the shoulders of physicians. We have abdicated our role in shaping health care policy and controlling spending and reducing unwarranted and dangereous practice variation and having realistic end-of-life discussions with our patients and so on. We have also not called BS on the private insurers who steal health care dollars in the name of private enterprise and we have taken the money of Pharma for ou meetings and lunches and pretended they were spending all that money on R & D and not on recruiting cheerleaders. Literally recruiting cheerleaders.
But I’m with them on the Medicaid thing.

“The federal government is kicking us down the road toward indentured servitude.” Seriously? Don’t you guys have private health insurance companies in South Carolina? But really, this letter is not about health care, this is a stale ideology in its last throes.

“Physicians have been offered a seat at the table so long as we sit still with our hands folded in our laps and keep our mouths shut. “
Again, one has to have reasonable views to expect to be listened to seriously Foaming at the mouth like Zell Miller and Sean Hannity does not invite reasoned discussion. But listen, all of the physician supporters of single payer have much more to gripe about than the SCMA. At least organized medicine is participating in discussions, while PNHP has to have a major grass roots insurrection just to get invited to the White House photo-op. If anybody has the right to gripe about exclusion, it’s the progressives, not the conservatives.

“The leadership of the South Carolina Medical Association senses the anger and the building resentment and confusion that physicians are currently experiencing.” I expect this is true. SC represents a far more conservative population than most states (it’s in the top 10 most red states), and so their phsyicains likely are more conservative as well. So, fine, make your case, but we will not sit quietly by and let you screw up the best chance for health care reform we’ve had in this country’s history.

The final line about fighting “for your career and the health care freedoms your patients deserve.” Again, maybe I’m practicing in a dark dystopic bit of America, but around here, that ship has sailed. Our patients, even the insured ones, have little choice in doctors or hospitals. They only go to whom and where their plan allows. No “freedom” there. And our careers? Whose careers? Your primary care physicians careers? Really? I’ll let my colleagues decide who you’re really looking out for. My bet is that you’re looking out for your failed ideology, not for physicians or patients.

“Doctors, too, are ready for CHANGE” | The Register-Guard | Eugene, Oregon

“Doctors, too, are ready for CHANGE” The Register-Guard Eugene, Oregon:

“For most of the last century, no single group was a bigger obstacle to universal health care than organized medicine. Today, perhaps no single group stands more united in support of some form of universal coverage.

“Before their lost battle against President Lyndon Johnson and Medicare, the opposition of major medical organizations and individual physicians guaranteed doom for various state and presidential efforts to establish either a national health plan or other means to achieve universal health insurance.

“Now, surveys reveal that overwhelming numbers of physicians resent the current crazy patchwork health care system, which fixes their reimbursements, regulates and too often denies patient care, and piles physicians with paperwork so unending and from so many directions that the average doctor has little time left over to challenge the status quo.

“Add to all this the frustration arising from working for no pay to coordinate care and provide care after hours, from struggling with the cost of health care insurance for their own employees, and from seeing their uninsured and underinsured patients go without recommended care, and what emerges is widespread physician support of radical reform.

“More than four-fifths of physicians now agree that our health care system either needs fundamental changes or should be rebuilt completely.”

Keep reading, this is a nice summary of where the specialty societies are coming down on health care reform, and it is encouraging…

Medical Professional Organizations’ Views on Legislative, Regulatory, and Other Issues: Health System Reform

ACS Views on Legislative, Regulatory, and Other Issues: Health System Reform:

Since November 1, 2004, representatives (one elected leader and one staff person) from 11 physician organizations have held three health reform summits, with the goal of developing consensus on approaches that might lead to health care coverage for all, control of exploding health care costs, and sensible adjustments to America’s medical justice system.

Participating organizations included:

  • American Academy of Family Physicians
  • American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons
  • American Academy of Pediatrics
  • American College of Cardiology
  • American College of Emergency Physicians
  • American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists
  • American College of Osteopathic Family Physicians
  • American College of Physicians
  • American College of Surgeons
  • American Medical Associatio
  • American Osteopathic Association

    The Board of Directors of 10 of the 11 participating organizations approved the final set of “Principles for Reform of the U.S. Health Care System”; the AAP did not sign on.

    The goal when signing on to the principles was for each organization to be able to say: “These principles are consistent with our organization’s policy, and therefore we support them.”

Now is the time for the organizations to begin discussions about how we might wish to introduce these important principles to various external audiences — key decision makers, policy makers, the media — and to consider any other “next steps” that we might consider regarding this important issue.
…………….
1.Health care coverage for all is needed to ensure quality of care and to improve the health status of Americans.
2.The health care system in the U.S. must provide appropriate health care to all people within the U.S. borders, without unreasonable financial barriers to care.
3.Individuals and families must have catastrophic health coverage to provide protection from financial ruin.

………….

6. Access to and financing for appropriate health services must be a shared public/private cooperative effort, and a system which will allow individuals/employers to purchase additional services or insurance.

…
11.Comprehensive medical liability reform is essential to ensure access to quality health care.

This was news to me, and it is something to build on…