The American Medical Association takes issue with how the New York Times characterized their stance on government-run health care options.
"Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of the public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans. The AMA is working to achieve meaningful health reform this year and is ready to stand behind legislation that includes coverage options that work for patients and physicians."
What this means: the AMA is open to any plan that doesn't force physicians to accept lower fees.
And why not? Physicians that accept Medicare already have to balance those ridiculous payments by increasing what they charge privately insured patients.
Answer these two questions and you can understand the AMA position:
1. What is a reasonable income for a primary care physician?
2. Is anywhere near that income attainable if all the physician's patients were paid at Medicare/Medicaid rates?
Given a reasonable answer to the first question, the answer to the second question is certainly "No".
When I read the NY Times today I was appalled at my MD colleagues from the AMA. But as I think about questions 1 and 2 above, I see the point.
http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/06/apparently_were_not_getting_mu.html
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.: "Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane."
We want health care equality. We also want our health care to be more affordable and better quality. To achieve all of that, we will need to reform our current system by retooling the methods of financing. By changing the way that health care is paid for, single payer health care can eradicate the disparities and inequalities while simultaneously improving quality of care for everyone. This increase in quality will also cost less. I'm eager to talk to you about how this can only be accomplished with single payer.
More here: http://www.everydaycitizen.com/2009/06/apparently_were_not_getting_mu.html
As this excellent article by Atul Gawande notes, the problem is not in the payer, but in the system set up by payees. It can be done well, in the interest of the patient and with the physicians still earning appropriate salaries, or poorly, with physicians becoming too interested in the business aspect of medicine. I like how this article explains it, because it does not demonize physicians for their misguided attempts at capitalism, and it points the industry in the right direction for cost control.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande?currentPage=all