Wonk Room » AMA Walks Back From Its Opposition To All Public Options

AMA Walks Back From Its Opposition To All Public Options

By Igor Volsky on Jun 11th, 2009 at 1:50 pm

AMA Walks Back From Its Opposition To All Public Options

The American Medical Association is walking back from its strong opposition to the public option. This morning, the New York Times’ Robert Pear reported that in comments submitted to the Senate Finance Committee, the AMA stated that “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 now, the AMA has issued a statement saying that it is willing to accept a public plan that looks like the private option:

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.”

A public plan that lacks the ability to negotiate cheaper rates with providers and push private insurers to do the same is a public plan in name only. While it may provide a repository for individuals who don’t trust private insurers, it will be unable to significantly lower health care costs. A trigger proposal would postpone the enactment of a public option and the co-op public health alternatives would be unable to exert the purchasing power of a Medicare-like public option.

Comments
5

5 Responses to “AMA Walks Back From Its Opposition To All Public Options”

Chris Says:

I think Obama and those Dems not named Baucus or Nelson should move fast on this. A single payer health care program for this nation should have been on Congress’ desk for a vote before the table settings were cleared away from the inauguration. This is simply too crucial an issue for too many people and I wouldn’t listen to the AMA, Big Pharma or the Insurance vermin if, well, my life depended on it.
June 11th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
when-the-whip-comes-down Says:

To me, buying commercial health insurance is akin to buying protection from the mafia. You have the AMA who protects the interests of the drug manufacturers who protects the interests of the physicians to have the patient become addicted to the drugs that will further promote future office visits. To me it all boils down to the protection of the interested partys profit rather than guaranteeing a base level of quality health care.
June 11th, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Peter Cohen,MD Says:

To hell with the AMA. I am one of 15,000 members of Physicians for a National Health Program, an organization that has been working for single payer health care for years. I agree that a meaningful public option must include the abilty to negotiate cheaper rates from teh pharmaceutical industry and will produce meaningful savings by doing away with the massive amount of money that goes to private insurance overhead and corporate profits (or obscene not- for -profit executive compensation.
June 12th, 2009 at 1:15 pm
Leighton Sweet M.D. Says:

To second Dr.Cohen, to Hell with the AMA- they do not speak for all physicians- I am also a member of PNHP, and support a canadian style single payer insurance-the President and the Dems should pass legislation with a Public plan similar to medicare and Private insurance companies be damned- if they cannot compete they will go away-
June 12th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Leslie Vensel, MD, FACP Says:

In 25 years of medical practice I have never felt in step with the AMA. I have never joined the AMA because the organization is not concerned with patient care. It is concerned with maintaining the status quo which included huge salaries and profits for the pharmaceutical, medical equipment and insurance industies. The AMA is also concerned with protecting physician salaries at the expense of healthcare reform. The AMA has repeatedly failed opportunies for healthcare leadership in years past and they do so again. It is embarassing that President Obama has to meet with them to explain why his plan is a good one.
June 12th, 2009 at 2:20 pm