I support the majority of these regulations and think that they would help to eliminate medical error, reduce malpractice lawsuits, and ensure a healthier population. Its interesting that these regulations are on the organizations and entities invested in medical care, rather than directly placed on the physician themselves. (i.e. insurance companies)
I think in theory these sanctions would be really beneficial, but I don't know how accepting people will be of it, for example putting regulations on Red Bull, or even prior auth for drug benefits-which can take more time for the physician to distribute necessary drugs to the patient.
It kind of goes in with our discussion the other day in HSR about increasing guidelines, which some individuals don't support. But, I think that such regulations are necessary in order to ensure a fairer health care system and better outcomes for the people who we are all working to serve-the patients.
Nonetheless, I wonder who mainly sits on these boards and who makes these policies and the ultimate decisions? I think that having a more committee would increase representation of different parties affected by these policies.
"We are against government, except when we are for it." This statement is the absolute truth! I think its safe to say we are against anything, unless we are for it.
You have to think, who will these regulations benefit the most? That is the group that will vote for regulations. Clearly, many of these regulations will add more to a Physician's workload and/or hinder some preciously had freedoms. If that's the case, I would be against regulations as well.
I wish I knew what goals each of these respective parties were trying to achieve by proposing these specific regulations. Are they aimed to improve quality of care? cut healthcare costs? increase access to care?
Without an end goal in mind, these regulations seem so random and will only benefit some parties where they harm others. At the end of the day our systems needs to become more unified and work toward the betterment of the consumer and not the system itself.
I vote for regulations that promote uniformity in practice across the country and for all demographics. I'm just not sure how to get there.
Having grown up in Canada, I've gradually developed appreciation for having a government that is more involved, "hands on," and less reliant on free market principles. So ever since I moved down to the U.S., I've always been enlightened (and amused) by the ways in which Americans respond to changes in their government's power/role in society.
The list of policy changes mentioned here seem like they would be beneficial for the health of individual/population as well as for the ongoing efforts to improve the health care delivery... But I can understand some of the reasons why providers and practitioners are hesitant to adopt these policies. But in some ways, I wonder if this list of things, which hopefully will improve quality and outcomes, will merely become "band-aid" solutions that offer temporary fixes which, unfortunately, don't get at the core or root of the problem(s).
Bob asked the question at the end about physicians having this kind of split view, and I think it's very true and is perhaps a reflection of human nature? It reminds me of folks who lend support to causes as long as these causes don't interfere with their own personal preference/property/family. So in the same way, physicians are okay with government regulations as long as these regulations don't bother them.
I'm likewise curious about Naira's question. Who sits on these policy panels???
My reading of this blog is colored by the fact that I'm also currently taking Ted Brown's class on the history of American health policy. In the history that is presented -- and yes, it's from a primarily liberal viewpoint -- the AMA is depicted as a powerful lobbying organization that has acted more in its members' self-interest than in the interest of patients, even though it claims to be looking out for patients. And that has, on occasion, led the group to recommend government involvement.
With this historical perspective, I wonder how much these policy recommendations really are the AMA's move to choose the lesser of the evils. Not knowing enough about the issues behind these recommendations, I can't come down on one side or the other, but items like requiring physician supervision of NPs and requiring states to include physicians on the boards of health exchanges make me wonder. They sound innocent enough as presented and may very well contribute to the improvement of quality, outcomes and efficiency, but without the details, without the broader context, I'm reluctant to think that the greater good is the primary motivator.
And, as to the blogger's question, I don't think, looking at the AMA's history of recommendations with respect to health insurance, you can say the organization is internally inconsistent.
It seems that most of the calls for government intervention pertain to how care is financed and are less about the delivery of care. This is an outcry against insurance company practices of underpaying, the inconsistency of pharmaceutical formularies, and their practice of dropping coverage on patients.
From the AMA's perspective, I assume they believe that a medical provider should ultimately decide how care should be provided. I agree that the provider is in the best position to advise a patient concerning medical decisions. The pharmaceutical company and (for the most part) the government shouldn't be involved in the doctor-patient relationship.
The fact that we are all inconsistent when it comes to the views on government regulation and especially when it comes to who the regulation will be affecting to tells me that AMA should not make these kind of decisions at all. I agree with most of these proposals. But I think it should be an independent organization that will consider regulations like these. And those regulations should be based on scientific evidence not on opinion of physicians who have much at stakes with each of the presented changes.
The AMA are looking out for themselves which is the essence of many professional associations. No organization wants to feel singled out by government legislation but, none have any issue seeking governmental involvement when it benefits them.
None of the policies that the AMA are putting forth are terribly surprising as all speak to their desire to improve their profession. It is not the goal of their organization to improve the situation of all stakeholders in health care. All professional organizations lobby government to have their agendas pushed through and the policies that the AMA is pushing for are merely in their own best interest.
The AMA want what they want, big business wants what it wants, the ANA (American Nursing Association) wants what it wants, the AHA (American Hospital Association) wants what it wants, John Q. Public wants what he wants and so on and so forth…at the end of the day all of these stakeholders come together and create perfect (or not so perfect) storm in D.C. What results from the storm – some kind of legislation that, when the political system is behaving properly is reflective of all inputs.
Guaranteed, when legislation is passed there will be unhappy stakeholders who are not keen on the government involvement because it doesn’t benefit them but that is the nature of the beast.
Even more clarity on how health professional organizations are looking out for their profession can be seen in their generic mission statements, all include some form of improving public health but at the end of the day, they want to be able to improve health in the best way possible for their group.
AMA Mission - To promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health. ANA Mission - Nurses advancing our profession to improve health for all. AHA Mission - To advance the health of individuals and communities. The AHA leads, represents and serves hospitals, health systems and other related organizations that are accountable to the community and committed to health improvement.
Internal consistency cannot be expected of any of these organizations if they are expected to truly advance the professions that they represent.
I support the majority of these regulations and think that they would help to eliminate medical error, reduce malpractice lawsuits, and ensure a healthier population. Its interesting that these regulations are on the organizations and entities invested in medical care, rather than directly placed on the physician themselves. (i.e. insurance companies)
ReplyDeleteI think in theory these sanctions would be really beneficial, but I don't know how accepting people will be of it, for example putting regulations on Red Bull, or even prior auth for drug benefits-which can take more time for the physician to distribute necessary drugs to the patient.
It kind of goes in with our discussion the other day in HSR about increasing guidelines, which some individuals don't support. But, I think that such regulations are necessary in order to ensure a fairer health care system and better outcomes for the people who we are all working to serve-the patients.
Nonetheless, I wonder who mainly sits on these boards and who makes these policies and the ultimate decisions? I think that having a more committee would increase representation of different parties affected by these policies.
"We are against government, except when we are for it." This statement is the absolute truth! I think its safe to say we are against anything, unless we are for it.
ReplyDeleteYou have to think, who will these regulations benefit the most? That is the group that will vote for regulations. Clearly, many of these regulations will add more to a Physician's workload and/or hinder some preciously had freedoms. If that's the case, I would be against regulations as well.
I wish I knew what goals each of these respective parties were trying to achieve by proposing these specific regulations. Are they aimed to improve quality of care? cut healthcare costs? increase access to care?
Without an end goal in mind, these regulations seem so random and will only benefit some parties where they harm others. At the end of the day our systems needs to become more unified and work toward the betterment of the consumer and not the system itself.
I vote for regulations that promote uniformity in practice across the country and for all demographics. I'm just not sure how to get there.
Having grown up in Canada, I've gradually developed appreciation for having a government that is more involved, "hands on," and less reliant on free market principles. So ever since I moved down to the U.S., I've always been enlightened (and amused) by the ways in which Americans respond to changes in their government's power/role in society.
ReplyDeleteThe list of policy changes mentioned here seem like they would be beneficial for the health of individual/population as well as for the ongoing efforts to improve the health care delivery... But I can understand some of the reasons why providers and practitioners are hesitant to adopt these policies. But in some ways, I wonder if this list of things, which hopefully will improve quality and outcomes, will merely become "band-aid" solutions that offer temporary fixes which, unfortunately, don't get at the core or root of the problem(s).
Bob asked the question at the end about physicians having this kind of split view, and I think it's very true and is perhaps a reflection of human nature? It reminds me of folks who lend support to causes as long as these causes don't interfere with their own personal preference/property/family. So in the same way, physicians are okay with government regulations as long as these regulations don't bother them.
I'm likewise curious about Naira's question. Who sits on these policy panels???
My reading of this blog is colored by the fact that I'm also currently taking Ted Brown's class on the history of American health policy. In the history that is presented -- and yes, it's from a primarily liberal viewpoint -- the AMA is depicted as a powerful lobbying organization that has acted more in its members' self-interest than in the interest of patients, even though it claims to be looking out for patients. And that has, on occasion, led the group to recommend government involvement.
ReplyDeleteWith this historical perspective, I wonder how much these policy recommendations really are the AMA's move to choose the lesser of the evils. Not knowing enough about the issues behind these recommendations, I can't come down on one side or the other, but items like requiring physician supervision of NPs and requiring states to include physicians on the boards of health exchanges make me wonder. They sound innocent enough as presented and may very well contribute to the improvement of quality, outcomes and efficiency, but without the details, without the broader context, I'm reluctant to think that the greater good is the primary motivator.
And, as to the blogger's question, I don't think, looking at the AMA's history of recommendations with respect to health insurance, you can say the organization is internally inconsistent.
It seems that most of the calls for government intervention pertain to how care is financed and are less about the delivery of care. This is an outcry against insurance company practices of underpaying, the inconsistency of pharmaceutical formularies, and their practice of dropping coverage on patients.
ReplyDeleteFrom the AMA's perspective, I assume they believe that a medical provider should ultimately decide how care should be provided. I agree that the provider is in the best position to advise a patient concerning medical decisions. The pharmaceutical company and (for the most part) the government shouldn't be involved in the doctor-patient relationship.
And don't touch my Red Bull!
The fact that we are all inconsistent when it comes to the views on government regulation and especially when it comes to who the regulation will be affecting to tells me that AMA should not make these kind of decisions at all. I agree with most of these proposals. But I think it should be an independent organization that will consider regulations like these. And those regulations should be based on scientific evidence not on opinion of physicians who have much at stakes with each of the presented changes.
ReplyDeleteThe AMA are looking out for themselves which is the essence of many professional associations. No organization wants to feel singled out by government legislation but, none have any issue seeking governmental involvement when it benefits them.
ReplyDeleteNone of the policies that the AMA are putting forth are terribly surprising as all speak to their desire to improve their profession. It is not the goal of their organization to improve the situation of all stakeholders in health care. All professional organizations lobby government to have their agendas pushed through and the policies that the AMA is pushing for are merely in their own best interest.
The AMA want what they want, big business wants what it wants, the ANA (American Nursing Association) wants what it wants, the AHA (American Hospital Association) wants what it wants, John Q. Public wants what he wants and so on and so forth…at the end of the day all of these stakeholders come together and create perfect (or not so perfect) storm in D.C. What results from the storm – some kind of legislation that, when the political system is behaving properly is reflective of all inputs.
Guaranteed, when legislation is passed there will be unhappy stakeholders who are not keen on the government involvement because it doesn’t benefit them but that is the nature of the beast.
Even more clarity on how health professional organizations are looking out for their profession can be seen in their generic mission statements, all include some form of improving public health but at the end of the day, they want to be able to improve health in the best way possible for their group.
AMA Mission - To promote the art and science of medicine and the betterment of public health.
ANA Mission - Nurses advancing our profession to improve health for all.
AHA Mission - To advance the health of individuals and communities. The AHA leads, represents and serves hospitals, health systems and other related organizations that are accountable to the community and committed to health improvement.
Internal consistency cannot be expected of any of these organizations if they are expected to truly advance the professions that they represent.