[chimeracoder]

> The AMA, which is little more than a union for doctors, doesn’t allow any policy changes that threaten to increase competition and reduce their monopoly profits

That's like saying that Comcast/Time Warner are a "union for Internet users".

If the AMA were "little more than a union for doctors", doctors would have a lot more respect for it, instead of the great contempt that they currently do.

If anything, you could argue that, because power follows the money, the AMA is an advocate for the insurance companies that the doctors are beholden to (essentially every doctor in the country must pay their fees to the AMA in order to process billing, because the AMA has a monpoly on that[0]). One of the big disadvantages of dissociating with the AMA (yes, a provider can do this) is losing the ability to use these insurance codes.

I don't think that that characterization is quite fair either, but it's a lot more correct than saying that the AMA is a union for doctors.

If you want to know more about CPT codes and billing, my startup[1] works with hospitals and outpatient providers to handle the billing process - I am happy to tell you far more about CPT codes than you ever wanted to know. :)

[0] The AMA owns and controls the CPT codes - the billing codes that payers use. The providers don't always pay them directly (especially if they're not independent practitioners), but they do end up paying them in the end.

[1] https://www.boardrounds.com/ (plugging shamelessly because it's relevant).

[nickff]

>"That's like saying that Comcast/Time Warner are a "union for Internet users"."

Comcast and Time Warner are most comparable to hospital chains in the medical context (or perhaps insurers, depending on what parameters you choose for the comparison).

>"If the AMA were "little more than a union for doctors", doctors would have a lot more respect for it, instead of the great contempt that they currently do."

Many rank-and-file union members hold their organizations in contempt.

>"If anything, the AMA is an advocate for the insurance companies that the doctors are beholden to"

The AMA's members are physicians, and other medical personnel; you may look at the AMA as a union, lobbying group, or a professional association, but it is certainly not advocating for the interests of the insurers.[1]

[1] http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/membership/faqs.page?

[chimeracoder]

> The AMA's members are physicians, and other medical personnel; you may look at the AMA as a union, lobbying group, or a professional association, but it is certainly not advocating for the interests of the insurers.[1]

Explicitly, certainly not. But in some ways they do end up empowering insurers (whether intentionally or corruption of their original intent).

(And by the way, I didn't mean that this was the case either; just that it was a slightly less ludicrous interpretation than the original statement.)

[nickff]

I think you are right that the AMA often ends up helping insurers in a number of ways, much like the California prisons guards' union which has interests that coincide with those of the prisons.[1] The way I look at industry-wide unions, they act as a tool for the companies to collude without direct communication.

[1] http://www.policymic.com/articles/41531/union-of-the-snake-h...

[ary]

As someone who had to license CPT codes for my own (now dead) medical billing app I can say unequivocally that the AMA is laser focused on getting their money. We had to pay a fee per user just so clerks could more easily process Medicare claims. Without a doubt the U.S. Federal government created a state-sanctioned monopoly in the AMA. That a private organization gets to profit from a public program (and much more) by having control of what amounts to an index table is nuts.