About us Login Get email updates
County Fair
Print

Why didn't the NYT mention AMA's reliance on drug company funding?

June 14, 2009 9:04 am ET by Jamison Foser

Matthew Yglesias explains a few things about the AMA that I didn't include in my column on Friday:

The AMA’s self-presentation is as a membership organization of doctors. But many doctors, of course, are not AMA members, and the group “inflates its numbers by giving reduced membership fees to medical school students and retirees, who make up about half of the dues payers.” ... [T]he AMA has found that it can’t rely on membership dues to generate the kind of revenue that the AMA leadership is looking for. Instead, they’ve turned to corporate sponsorship—businesses with money to make by casting a veneer of medical respectability around their pursuit of profit find a relationship with the AMA to be useful.

...

These days, fortunately, the AMA isn’t on the hook to tobacco companies for its money and it’s not into anything as deadly as touting the health benefits of cigarettes. What they are on the hook for, however, is the pharmaceutical lobby which provides at least 20 percent of the AMA’s budget. And PhRMA is in the midst of a multimillion dollar advocacy campaign against many progressive health reform ideas.

Ouch.  Add that to the list of things the New York Times probably should have included in its report about the AMA's opposition to a public health care option.

Tags: The New York Times

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by rtwmd1230 (June 14, 2009 9:32 am ET)
      2  
      "But many doctors, of course, are not AMA members"

      Misinformation by understatement. When you subtract medical students and retirees, the AMA represents less than 20% of practicing physicians. Why is the AMA considered a major player in this debate?


      Report Abuse
      • Author by oscar the grouch (June 14, 2009 11:23 am ET)
           
        For much the same reasons that, although AARP is not supported financially by more than a minor portion of retirees (accepting dues from anyone over 50, in fact) or that the NRA is not supported financially by more than a small portion of lawful gun owners (and probably by no illegal gun possessors), other lobbying groups with less than majority support in their industry/professions are major players when it comes to debate concerning issues affecting them.
        Report Abuse
        • Author by National_Insecurity (June 14, 2009 12:30 pm ET)
             
          Therefore money counts more than people, correct?
          Report Abuse
    • Author by twseattle (June 14, 2009 12:36 pm ET)
         
      This still is only a cursory look at the AMA's lack of integrity in positioning itself as a champion of quality healthcare in America. Where do they stand, for example, on perks for doctors from pharmaceutical companies. Not just the pens and trinkets you see in the doctors office, but the endless dinners, trips and club memberships ?
      Do they insist doctors claim this as income to protect undue influence?
      Report Abuse
    • Author by whattodo (June 14, 2009 2:38 pm ET)
         
      FIrst, if Phamra companies did not do the R&D. . . NOONE would. The government spends about 20% of all the money spent on R&D. The other 80, medical companies. And with dwindling investments from foreign countries, it is a complete reliance on these companies. Does the goverment have the money to take their place? No. Now, that said, to address the other comment below, yes, pharma companies take doctors out to dinner and by them lunch, to discuss products. How is this any different than politicians? Or any sales company in the world? Now, your argument may be that these people provide health care. . . OK, so it seems you have very little confidence that Doctors will do the right thing, and prescribe the approrpriate drugs. I do not know ANY doctor that would prescribe a less efficacious drug, because they had a steak. The pharma industry has taken a beating over the last ferw years, and truthfully, they should be applauded. They are spending an insane amount of money (ofetn more than 10 bil) to bring a drug to market, where, they get on average 6 years to make that back, before it goes generic, and everyone can start making it. And, by the way, in foreign countries most often, people don't wait the required period. They just start producing the drug after a pharma company spends all of their money on R&D. Finally, think about a GP. They are dealing with 10's of thousands of disease states, annually. How are they supposed to know what the new latest and greatest therapy is? They rely on the pharma companies to educate them. If you want to find the real villains in all of this, do some research on insurance companies giving rebates to dr's who prescribe the drugs that the insurance company wants them to use. Sometimes, the less efficacious. And insurance companies publicly embarass doctors that don't prescribe, while removing monies from risk pools (hurting doctors bottom line).
      Report Abuse
      • Author by twseattle (June 15, 2009 6:37 pm ET)
           
        "do some research on insurance companies giving rebates to dr's who prescribe the drugs that the insurance company wants them to use"

        So you spout off the r&d line the pharmaceutical companies use to justify their practices to come to the conclusion the insurance executives came up with this 'preferred treatment' bull on their own? No collusion whatever? No insurance board of directors members are on pharmaceuitcal (spelling the whole word isn't that hard) companies boards? Where do the campaign contributions go?

        Finally, doctors are supposed to continue their education through professional seminars. There is a huge difference between a seminar on the treatment of a particular condition and a drug company rah-rah meeting. And even if a steak dinner isn't that big of a deal, you know it goes way beyond that, where would you draw the line? This isn't a search for buried treasure, winner take all.
        Report Abuse
    • Author by National_Insecurity (June 14, 2009 7:57 pm ET)
      1  
      I have issues with the AMA's ownership of CPT reimbursement coding.

      I'm working with several firms on new healthcare technologies ranging from chronic illnesses like diabetes to oncology surgery.

      Core the to the success of these companies is payment (reimbursement) by insurers. Payment requires 2 items - a CPT code (Current Procedure Terminology) an ICD code (International Statistical Classification of Diseases) from WHO.

      AMA seems far more interested in how these technologies affect doctors' billing for service than they are with healthcare efficacy. e.g. If we can more accurately, more timely and frankly, more cheaply, deliver in-home healthcare monitoring for diabetes without a visit to a doctor or nurse practitioner, while also providing very early alerts of patient conditions, one would think acceptance would be assured. But CPT seems to dismiss methods that remove a fee-for-service from the loop.

      There is only 1 home healthcare technology code for similar methods, and that's for a implantable cardioverter-defibrillator (ICD). We're not the only smart guys in the country, so this lack of alternatives should tell you something.

      Report Abuse