Powerful doctors group backs Obama's healthcare reform plan

Endorsement by the AMA speeds the way for the president to accomplish one of his signature campaign promises

America's largest and most powerful doctors group has endorsed Barack Obama's massive overhaul of the US healthcare system, removing a substantial hurdle to legislation that Democrats hope will extend health coverage to most of the estimated 46 million Americans who currently lack it.

The American Medical Association, which vigorously opposed Bill and Hillary Clinton's 1990s reform effort, today pledged to work with congressional leaders to ensure legislation is soon passed. The group endorsed the strongest legislation currently on the table, proposed this week by top Democrats in the House of Representatives. The group long opposed government intervention in the healthcare system for fear that its physician members would see their lucrative pay decline.

With no universal public programme akin to the National Health Service, Americans rely on a patchwork of employee-provided healthcare, government programmes for the poor, elderly and veterans, and costly private health insurance coverage. Americans spend one out of every six dollars on healthcare - roughly twice as much per capita as other industrialised nations - but lag behind in life expectancy, infant mortality and other health indicators.

The medical association's surprise turnaround may be an indication they see reform as inevitable and hope to influence the legislation at the margins. In its letter to Charles Rangel, a powerful New York Democrat, the group said it hoped for "constructive dialogue" during revision of the legislation.

"We pledge to work with the House committees and leadership to build support for passage of health reform legislation to expand access to high quality, affordable health care for all Americans," the group wrote in a letter signed by executive vice president Michael Maves. The letter was obtained by advocacy group Healthcare for Americans Now. The medical association was expected to issue a statement later today.

The endorsement from a heretofore chief opponent of healthcare reform speeds the way for Obama to accomplish one of his signature campaign promises. Wal-Mart, America's largest private employer, has also backed Obama's effort. The president has made reform a top priority in his nascent administration, and in recent weeks has pushed hard for legislation, dispatching lieutenants to rally support on Capitol Hill and making speeches.

<snip>

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/16/obama-health-plan-ama-support

oh that's fucking right. I didn't. As it happens, unlike some drooling morons, I don't make up my mind about something based on whether the AMA supports or opposes something. Oh, and my doc is a member of the AMA and a leading voice for single payer in my state. I'll read the legislation. I'll listen to what my Senators and rep say about the legislation. Then I'll decide whether it's a good thing. That's called critical thinking. Try it.

and WE THE PEOPLE need to push this across the line. The nay sayers and whiners can sit in the background with the Republicans and take all the potshots they want.

http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_treatment/archive/2009/07/16/breaking-ama-endorses-house-bill.aspx

snip//

So what's in it for the docs? The medical community came into this debate with two big concerns. One is the financial and emotional burden of malpractice lawsuits. The other is the annually scheduled reduction in Medicare payments, known as the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) formula, that the AMA and other physicians lobbies end up fighting every summer when it's about to take effect.

SGR, at least, has very much been on the table, as readers of this blog may recall:



And, sure enough, the AMA talks about the SGR fix in its letter, endorsing reform that:



(Emphasis mine.) Changing the SGR is expensive, probaby $200 to $300 billion over the course of ten years, depending on the details. And that's on top of the cost of expanding insurance coverage. But, to be clear, the SGR adjustments were becoming a farce. If they are part of a package that includes payment reforms designed to improve quality and reduce health care costs over the long run, it'd be money well spent.

Is this a bug?