Doctors limit doctors; First do no harm?

[Guest 1152923]

     This is an old article and certainly not scholarly but eye opening just the same.  Is it common knowledge that the AMA (through lobbyists' efforts) intentionally limits the number of physician residencies to drive up salaries-I.e. the old 'supply and demand' argument?  This is at the same time that the organization heavily lobbied to restrict mid-level providers' scopes of practice in the midst of a near critical health care provider shortage in many areas (especially rural) which continues today.  This is the first I've heard of it and find it reprehensible.  Your thoughts?

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/thanks-to-doctors-there-arent-enough-doctors

[MunoRN, RN]

I've seen varying numbers on how many currently practicing doctors are active members of the AMA, but it generally appears to be less than half. I've met far more doctors who are strongly opposed to the AMA than are strong supporters of the AMA.  To be fair, a similar claim can be made of the ANA.  

Like the ANA, it's a lobbying group, and that's were the conflict comes from when your talking about a profession that at least in theory puts their patients above themselves.  The purpose of lobbying groups, whether it's the ANA or AMA, is to put their members above everyone else.  I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing so long as their is a balance between advocating for a group of professionals and that this includes advocating for their patients.

[Guest 1152923]

12 minutes ago, MunoRN said:

I've seen varying numbers on how many currently practicing doctors are active members of the AMA, but it generally appears to be less than half. I've met far more doctors who are strongly opposed to the AMA than are strong supporters of the AMA.  To be fair, a similar claim can be made of the ANA.  

Like the ANA, it's a lobbying group, and that's were the conflict comes from when your talking about a profession that at least in theory puts their patients above themselves.  The purpose of lobbying groups, whether it's the ANA or AMA, is to put their members above everyone else.  I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing so long as their is a balance between advocating for a group of professionals and that this includes advocating for their patients.

    Agree, however, I've long maintained that the ANA is in bed with the AHA and other mega health system conglomerates, and as such, does not advocate or represent the many rank and file nurses.

[MunoRN, RN]

9 minutes ago, morelostthanfound said:

    Agree, however, I've long maintained that the ANA is in bed with the AHA and other mega health system conglomerates, and as such, does not advocate or represent the many rank and file nurses.

I agree, the ANA represents employers of nurses more than it represents nurses.  

[Guest1144461]

ANA and AMA both lobby hardcore.

As an APP ( we don't say mid-level) I will say that yes many MDs out there are trying to snipe our squash our role as much as possible. A lot of it behind our backs while smiling to our face.

But I am tried of hearing the "rural" excuse regarding providers. It's a farce to think APPS are clamoring to fills these roles, most want to live in the city/burbs like the MDs. There will always be a shortage in areas where people don't want to live.