Yesterday, I spoke with Nancy Nielsen, president of the American
Medical Association, for a longer piece I'm writing about the
prospects for health-care reform. I thought that in the wake of
yesterday's appointment of Tom Daschle as Secretary of Health and
Human Services, it would be worthwhile to explain the thinking of
the influential physicians' group.
Historically, the AMA has vociferously opposed efforts to expand
the government role in health care (see, as an example, this
classic 1961 LP "Ronald Reagan Speaks
Out Against Socialized Medicine" that was recorded on behalf
of the organization).
The AMA now sees covering the uninsured in some type of universal
health care plan as an urgent matter. Nielsen was sure to
emphasize repeatedly that, "We are not in favor of government-run
health care." The group's own proposal
in many ways mirrors the one John McCain put out during the
campaign by shifting the tax subsidy on employer-based insurance
to individuals.
Nielsen made it pretty clear that the current AMA thinking is
that if health care reform is inevitable, they'd much rather have
a place at the table than draw a line in the sand and get
excluded from the process, because either way, physicians will
have to work within the system that gets created.
"It appears that change is probably going to happen," she said.
"The important thing for us is that we are part of the solution.
If we are on the outside looking in and just complaining without
being pat of the solution, that's not a good place for physicians
to be."
She said that Daschle reached out to the AMA shortly after the
election, and the group expects to be involved as a plan gets
hashed out.
"That's a better way than to cross your arms and say 'no' 100
times," she said. "Then nobody talks to you anymore."
The AMA may speak up at times to point out potential unintended
consequences from some ideas, she explained, but it doesn't want
to be an obstacle to reform.
I asked her specifically about Daschle's idea of a Federal Health
Board, modeled after the Federal Reserve Board, which I
criticized in my
article on the main site today.
"It's a very interesting approach," she said. "I wouldn't
immediately react negatively to it at all."
But she made clear that she'd have to know how it would take
shape, and her ultimate opinion "would depend on the scope of the
board."
