Click here to open downloadable print version or, if slideshow above is not visible.

Insert Your Comments
* Name:
* Comments:
Type the characters you see in the picture below.
Send To A Friend
* Your Name:
* Your Email:
* To Email:
* Subject:
* Message:
  * denotes a mandatory field
Posted By: D | 9/19/2011 12:17:04 PM
They really thought the AMA was too far left? This is the same organization whose Board of Directors hissed at a speaker at an AMA banquet who stated that single-payer health care was the only reasonable solution. (This occurred in about 2002-3 or so). That incident (I was in the room) is what finalized my decision to leave the AMA. Their support of the Affordable Care Act is a good thing, but too late. Their support has been eroding for a long time.
Posted By: Rashida Loya | 9/15/2011 3:38:26 PM
AMA was a good organization for the docs.Unfortunately they are tooo politically decisive in Health Matters Not taking into consideration Physicians and the Patients. We would not have dealt with 6 figure CEOs and theor HMOs etc IF AMA would have kept Physicians and Patients well being as the first priority
Posted By: Dr Mike | 9/12/2011 6:53:51 PM
I dropped my membership 6 years ago and will never go back. Their actions caused me to close a practice of over 20 years - putting over a dozen people out of work and take a job in the corporate world - advising but not treating patients.
Posted By: Williams | 9/9/2011 9:45:47 PM
The AMA has been in bed with the health insurance companies since the 1980's. The AMA has not been a physician advocate, only a health insurance "become wealthy" partner, collecting millions of dollars for themselves off of the physician's labor while cutting physician reimbursement and patient services.
Posted By: John | 9/9/2011 4:35:35 PM
Merthin - I actually don't care about the AMA - only about research methodology. In fact my understanding is that AMA is losing members because there is a lot of dissatisfaction among its members and it's not worth it to them to continue membership. But here I'm only pointing out that we can't conclude anything from these survey results because less than 2% of the people asked to take the survey took it. ANY survey with such a small sample size can't be trusted, whether it's for or against AMA. The fact that you are characterizing people that disagree with you as doing so because they support AMA is wrong in my case. I would encourage you to just look at the response rate and decide for yourself if you can trust these data.
Posted By: Merthin | 9/9/2011 1:39:17 PM
Must be a bunch of AMA flacks on the board here sticking up for this corrupt, self serving and decrepit organization. AMA ...Association of Medical Asshats. Not only does the AMA not represent physician and patient interests, the AMA actively works against them.
Posted By: id_doc | 9/9/2011 11:13:31 AM
Where are the slides showing the methods?? I see the response rate was 1.44% (slide 13), which makes these data pretty much garbage, but in addition the geographic distribution is very skewed towards the south (see slide 20). Are these results at least weighted to be nationally representative by geography? If not, I'd just note that it's pretty easy to find a room full of docs who both oppose AMA positions and don't understand how the AMA works (i.e., that is is a representative assembly with every state and specialty society voting). That seems to be what the survey represents.
Posted By: John | 9/9/2011 11:11:15 AM
Correction: They indicate on p. 13 that their response rate was 1% . ONE percent. This is too low of a response rate for us to put any confidence in their results.
Posted By: John | 9/9/2011 11:06:08 AM
It is not clear to me that we should put any value in this survey seeing as we don't know who was surveyed. Was it only doctors looking for work through this recruitment firm? Until we know the population they surveyed, how they chose their respondents, and what their response rate is, there is no reason to think this is a valid survey.
Posted By: Michael MD | 9/8/2011 5:56:04 PM
Physicians in the US enjoy the most profitable healthcare system in the world. The same goes (in spades) for hospitals & pharma. Because of this, it remains exceedingly difficult for any substantial changes to be made, even though our house is NOT in order. The AMA is trying, but is torn between the interests of physicians who first see themselves as small business owners, and those who see themselves as advocates for patients.
Posted By: Dankat11 | 9/8/2011 3:04:48 PM
No longer AMA member. It has not served Physicians need for years. Who are these people? do they work ? Have they ever attended to patients? Tort reform or no reform.
Posted By: Patrick,M.D. | 9/8/2011 10:46:35 AM
I agree, we should repeal Obama care and replace it with real reforms that are affordable and protect patients and doctors from the lawyers greed.
Posted By: Lisa, MD | 9/7/2011 8:15:19 PM
I agree completely with those of you who say they are not representing MDs in the trenches. It is easy to go with what academia says and forget that the world is not a research hospital. The AMA has not promoted anything that will assist it's membership, and the price of the code books, along with the conflict of interest in their owning them is ridiculous. We need universal coverage, and we need it 10 years ago!!!
Posted By: Deb. MD | 9/7/2011 8:13:57 PM
The AMA is unable to represent the membership because the only people they listen to are the academics. They fail to recognize that most of us in the trenches don't have access to bottomless resources - only $80K for P4P, etc. We need universal health care, and we have needed it for over 10 years. The insurance and drug companies have too much power, and need to be reigned in!
Posted By: Lyndon Taylor | 9/7/2011 6:49:47 PM
Posted By: Editor | 9/7/2011 1:43:48 PM
Answers to questions regarding methodology: Family physicians were included in the cross tabs under "Internal Medicine, General". Error range was calculated using the statistical formula: square root of ((p)(q)/n) multiplied by 1.96. See
Posted By: DW | 9/7/2011 11:52:35 AM
I have also dropped my membership to the AMA. I could accept support for reform that would ultimately help to provide better care for patients at sustainable rates even though reimbursement will ultimately decrease. However, this bill does nothing to improve quality or sustainability but does harm those providing the care.
Posted By: David Bross | 9/7/2011 11:48:16 AM
Very interesting - confirms the impressions I have had as well as those of my colleagues
Posted By: Dr. Rivera | 9/7/2011 11:42:28 AM
The AMA hasn't represented me for 20 years. But you guys are short-sighted. Health care can't continue without change because revenue and resources are finite. It is a travesty that we don't have universal coverage. But, if the Feds want me to work for less money, I need that bullseye off my back, reasonable working conditions and the pharmaceutical and insurance industries need to be on a very short leash.
Posted By: James, MD | 9/7/2011 11:17:58 AM
After four generations of AMA membership and service by the 15 former and current ophysicians in my family, I have dropped membership and will not return. They have committed a fundamental error of leadership -- supporting legislation that was not supported by their membership. Time to clean house or shut down. Start a for profit to sell code book, their chief concern. Their reimbursement committee, syncophants for the Medicare administration, have nearly destroyed my practice and resulted in the firing of one-third of my employees. Soon, there will be anti-trust issues that they will be incapable of persuing on behalf of doctors whose practices will be crushed by huge groups and for-profit hospital systems in league with the government.
Posted By: Jenny Lu | 9/7/2011 8:45:09 AM
I agree the statistics. AMA is no longer a voice for physicians. It failed terribly. It failed to represent physicians; it failed to provide its own voice to help formulating a reasonal plan for national health care reform. AMA is very diappointing.
Posted By: Paul Arkay | 9/6/2011 3:30:06 PM
Why did you not include family physicians as a column in your crosstab by specialty? Family physicians were 10% of your total respondents. Additionally, I question your estimation of the error range of +/- 1.59% @ the 95% confidence level. What equation are you using to calculate this?
Posted By: maureen | 9/6/2011 1:33:58 PM
Very important work.
Posted By: Physician | 9/6/2011 9:36:21 AM
My parents fled poverty and oppression in postwar Europe to come to America for the freedoms, opportunities, and diversity which she represents. I'd like to see more of the 'American' in the AMA - these unique values, opportunities and experiences, born of a celebration of diversity and the chance for each of us to pursue our individual dreams in the unique way we each conceive of them, which have made America great and the unique beacon which she is in the world. No, we're not perfect, and no single one of us has all the answers. But by allowing everyone to contribute in their own way, we do continue to build a 'more perfect Union.' This ideal is no less true in healthcare than it is in business or in governance, and that is what I would look for in a truly representative 'American Medical Association.‘
<< Previous |