A Symbiotic Relationship — The AMA And The For-Profit Health Lobby

The New York Times is reporting that the American Medical Association will be lobbying Congress to oppose a public health insurance program, an integral part of health reform. In an attempt at damage control, the AMA has responded with a statement declaring it would support a public option if it operates like a for-profit insurance agency. In effect, the AMA still opposes reform. While Igor Volsky details the various reasons why the member physicians of the AMA should support a public health insurance program, it is important to consider that the AMA as an institution is not a neutral player simply representing doctors. Started in the mid 19th century as an accrediting organization, the AMA has morphed into a behemoth lobbying and member services entity that is deeply entwined with the for-profit health industry.

In the past century, the growth of AMA has been not only funded by health industry lobbies such as drug makers, but this relationship has tailored AMA’s anti-reform policy agenda. In reading the Huffington Post and the New America Foundation articles revealing AMA’s opposition to health reform during the New Deal, its efforts to block the passage of Medicare, and the AMA’s critical role in defeating health reform in 1993, questions arise over why the AMA has historically opposed any initiative to take health care out of the hands of the for-profit health industry.

In the first 50 years after its inception, the AMA struggled to fill its coffers. Because member dues were deemed insufficient to fund its various activities, the AMA eventually decided to sell advertising space for its medical journal JAMA to drug companies. Expanding on this business model, AMA President George Simmons decided to create the “AMA seal-of-approval” for favored drugs in 1899, resulting in a five-fold increase in advertising revenue by 1909. Simmons, it turned out, had no credible medical credentials and the AMA did no drug testing for the products given the seal-of-approval.

Simmons was later driven out of the AMA, but his model for extracting fees for branding medical practices and products persisted. Simmons’ focus on molding public opinion also became one of the greatest weapons of the AMA — his “Propaganda Department” would soon expand to communicate the AMA’s views through a column syndicated published in over 200 newspapers, a weekly radio program, and various books about how homeopathic practices and non-AMA approved drugs were “quackery.”


Click More To Continue Reading Through the 1930s to 1950s during the tenure of AMA President Morris Fishbein, the tobacco industry leaned on the AMA to substantiate its dubious health claims. Beginning in 1933, JAMA published tobacco advertisements, stating that it had done so only “after careful consideration of the extent to which cigarettes were used by physicians in practice.” The tobacco industry became the AMA’s largest advertiser, and its implicit endorsement of tobacco products allowed companies like Camel to proclaim slogans such as, “More doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”

Of course, during this period of heavy of tobacco and industry influence, the AMA defeated the health care reform proposals of both President Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman using the specter of “creeping socialism” that would bring “debased standards of medical care.”

Currently, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), the nation’s largest pharmaceutical lobbying group, is pursuing a multimillion dollar campaign against many aspects of health reform. A public insurance plan might pay less for branded drugs, or would opt for generics in many cases, so drug companies want to maintain the status quo. But if this is the concern, why is AMA stepping up to the plate for the drug lobby?

AMA derives at least a fifth of its budget from drug companies through an arrangement known as “licensure.” The program consists of AMA selling drug companies its “Masterfile” of doctor profiles, spanning everything from detailed biographic information to an individual doctor’s prescription-writing history. The program is extremely controversial since drug companies in turn use the information to aggressively market their products to doctors. Controversial drugs Vioxx and Avandia, which have subsequently been found to pose significant risks to patients, have been marketed to doctors, in some cases, using information obtained from the AMA.

After an uproar in 2007, the AMA, through a policy of self-regulation, claimed to have stopped selling doctor prescription-writing information. But that pledge must be viewed with skepticism given the AMA’s track record.


During a Senate investigation of abuses of the licensure practice in 1990, the Boston Globe reported that AMA and PhRMA lobbyists came to Capitol Hill to promise Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) that the program was not part of any effort to convince doctors to prescribe PhRMA drugs. This promise to self-regulate was never kept. In 2001 the New York Times reported that the AMA generated $20 million dollars a year from licensure sales to drug companies in a complex scheme to market drugs like Baycol to doctors. In 2006, that number climbed to $40 million, and in 2007 it was reported to be $45 million.

So while the AMA projects an image of representing doctors (a claim tarnished by the fact that the AMA inflates its numbers by giving reduced membership fees to medical school students and retirees, who make up about half of the dues payers), it is actually financially tethered to the drug industry. Unless there are major structural changes to the AMA and its sources of revenue, it is difficult to view the group as an honest broker in the reform dialogue.