Volume IX, Number 2

The Louisiana Campaign Newsletter

May 1999

Following a morning operating schedule, Dr. Palmisano completes the medical chart of one of the patients he has just examined.

Membership Recruitment Update

     You will recall in the March issue of The Pelican, Dr. Palmisano spoke in his Pelican Brief of the importance of recruiting new members to join your American Medical Association. Dr. Palmisano first began an aggressive membership recruitment campaign in 1996 netting 35 new members for the AMA. His increased efforts in 1997 brought 85 new members to the organization. As he wrote his column in March he was awaiting results of his 1998-99 membership drive, and we are happy to report his efforts for this have resulted in a total of 110 new members so far this year for the AMA. Dr. Palmisano has found our AMA web site to be very helpful in his recruitment efforts, and he encourages each of you to utilize this resource to disseminate information to potential members, as well in retaining current members.

Dr. Palmisano talks with U.S. Representative Tom Campbell just after a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee on H.R. 4277, ``The Quality Health Care Coalition Act of 1998." Dr. Palmisano presented AMA testimony in favor of antitrust relief for physicians.

Dr. Palmisano welcomes your comments and suggestions. Please call him at 504-455-5895 or e-mail him at djp@intrepidresources.com or at Donald_Palmisano@ama-assn.org. Copies of The Pelican can be viewed at http://www.intrepidresources.com/htm l/pelican_newsletters.html.

The Pelican
The campaign newsletter of the
Louisiana State Medical Society

W. Juan Watkins, M.D.
Editor
Jay Shames, M.D.
Contributing Editor

6767 Perkins Road
Baton Rouge, LA  70808
225-763-2310
E-mail: publicaffairs@lsms.org

The Pelican Brief  -  The candidate's position on the issues
Antitrust Reform
    We need antitrust reform to allow physicians to bargain with insurance companies that threatened the patient-physician relationship. I wrote this in a Pelican Brief before my election to our AMA Board of Trustees in 1996, and the need for such antitrust relief has continued to intensify. The increasing power of insurance companies and managed care organizations eliminates the opportunity for fair play in the contract environment of today, punishing physicians and patients. In my 1985 outgoing address as President of the Louisiana State Medical Society, I warned that the juggernaut of managed care had the potential to destroy the patient's best interest, which is the sine qua non of quality medical care.
     I had the privilege to present our AMA testimony to the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee advocating for passage of the Campbell Bill which would allow physicians who are competitors to collectively bargain. The presidential impeachment sidetracked pending bills in last year's Congress, but the Campbell Bill is back and we need to get as many sponsors as possible and urge passage.
     In addition, our AMA has developed model legislation for the ``State Action Doctrine" which allows exemption from the Federal Sherman Antitrust Act if a state passes a law allowing collective bargaining by independent physicians and also actively supervises that bargaining.  On Doctors' Day, March 30, 1999, I presented AMA testimony supporting this bill in concert with the Texas Medical Association before the House Insurance Committee of the Texas State Legislature in Austin.  As of press time for this newletter, this bill has passed favorably out of this committee, and a companion bill has passed the full Senate. This is exciting news and an important way to advance better negotiations with insurance companies while we continue to press for antitrust relief at the Federal level.
     The issue of collective bargaining will be before us at the Annual Meeting of the House of Delegates and will be discussed in a special reference committee.  Each of us should be familiar with the legal meaning of terms such as labor organizations, collective bargaining units, unions, negotiating units, and guilds.  Consider the legal classifications and review the potential legal impediments regarding employed non-supervisory physicians, independent practitioners, residents and interns. Before entering the debate, let us define the terms and understand the implications.  Without clarity of terms and a clear purpose, a tower of Babel could ensue and our goals will not be achieved.  Whatever is decided after reasoned debate, we must always remain united and adamant that physicians will never strike and hold patients as ransom.  As we heard Dr. Anderson say at the Leadership Conference in March, Is it good medicine?  As I said in 1985, Is it in the patient's best interest?  And finally, I would add a third question, Would the patient give informed consent to such action?
                                                                                                          DJP

Best Viewed with