As President Obama prepares to address the American Medical Association on Monday, America’s largest physician organization — which has so far avoided criticizing the Democrats’ reform efforts — has registered its opposition to the public health insurance plan. In comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the group argued that the option was not “the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs“:
The A.M.A. does not believe that creating a public health insurance option for non-disabled individuals under age 65 is the best way to expand health insurance coverage and lower costs. The introduction of a new public plan threatens to restrict patient choice by driving out private insurers, which currently provide coverage for nearly 70 percent of Americans.
But the AMA, which has a long history of opposing the enactment of Medicare and other health reform legislation, does not speak for all doctors. Many in the provider community would welcome an option that eliminates unnecessary hassle with private insurance companies, provides timely and adequate pay, and spearheads payment methods that reward providers who offer quality care in an efficient manner.
As Doctors for America — a grassroots organization of doctors dedicated to health reform– argues, “one of the critical features of competition between public and private plans is that in addition to competing for patient participation, plans have to compete for physician participation as well.” Indeed, if public plans institute rock bottom rates that aren’t accepted by health care providers, “Americans having a choice of private plans alongside the public plan would not opt for the latter, which would then either whither away or have to raise fees until it is competitive in the market for enrollees.”
To attract medical providers, the public plan would have to deliver timely, adequate, and efficient payments. As CAPAF Senior Fellow Peter Harbage recently pointed out, “if providers were sure that the public health insurance plan would make timely adequate payments absent the paperwork gimmicks (such as pre-authorization) used by insurers today,” they would likely participate in the program.
Currently, “physician practices report that overall the costs of interacting with insurance plans is $31 billion annually and 6.9 percent of all U.S. expenditures for physician and clinical services.” Approximately “one-third of the average primary care physician’s compensation is spent on physician practice-health plan interaction”:
On average, physicians spent three hours a week or nearly three weeks per year on these activities, while nursing staff spent more than 23 weeks per physician per year, and clerical staff spent 44 weeks per physician per year interacting with health plans. More than three in four respondents said the costs of interacting with health plans have increased over the past two years.
All this paperwork sometimes prevents patients from receiving the care they need. Doctors frequently have to haggle with insurers over denied payments, preauthorizations, or other administrative barriers. A new public plan could eliminate this unnecessary requirements and allow doctors to focus on delivering the best quality care to their patients.


Yea, and I want TP/WR to return to its former progressive state. Unfortunately, neither of us will get our way.
From a physician perspective, it doesn’t take much to envision a government plan with all the hassles of private insurers and much lower reimbursement.
Primary care docs already had to go from seeing 3 patients an hour to 5 to have a reasonable income.
Obama’s plans to increase the supply of primary care physicians is laughable.
http://stateofthedivision.blogspot.com/2009/05/sfc-health-care-mess-2-adding-primary.html
The AMA represents a fraction of the physician community. It’s infected with the same self-interest as the rest of the profit loving system.
June 11th, 2009 at 11:16 amThe Profit-Oriented Insurance Industry has destroyed American Health Care.
The time has come for Medicare for All, as the first step.
The AMA must choose the moral, high road and lead the way, this time.
The second step should be the organization of the Mayo Clinic Group model of care delivery in every community.
The third step should by fair reimbursement for services through fair negotiations between physicians represented by physician specialty organizations and the U.S. Government Health Service.
The fourth step should be fair negotiations between pharmaceutical and medical equipment manufacturers and the U.S. Government Health Service.
The alternatives have failed. Now is the time for serious, humane action.
Ange Lobue, MD, MPH, BSPharm
June 12th, 2009 at 6:01 pmAmerican Board of Psychiatry and Neurology
Academy of Television Arts and Sciences
trinidadca@gmail.com
I don’t think that Obama and Democrats really want competition. I think this veiled contest between the public option and surviving private carriers is a charade. Public option aficionados want MDs to be forced to participate in the public option as a condition of their Medicare participation. Does this sound like fair play? See http://www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
June 14th, 2009 at 11:28 amDr. Michael Kirsch’s blog does not allow comments which is proof enough that he is aware how precarious his arguments are. It’s filled with talk radio talking points and nonsense. His side cannot answer the simple question: why doesn’t any other western country in the OECD follow the american model?! The answer is simple: it doesn’t work.
June 15th, 2009 at 11:43 amhttp://opencrs.com/document/RL34175