AMSA On Call
Go Back
  • Sign Petition to Limit Gun Violence

    AMSA has been placed on the National Rifle Association (NRA) “enemies list” ... and we are PROUD!

    We are also urging members and supporters to sign a petition that pushes the Obama administration and Congress to adopt a comprehensive strategy to limit gun violence and protect public health.

    The list – National Organizations with Anti-Gun Policies – is published by the gun lobby’s political arm, the NRA Institute for Legislative Action.

    “We're proud to advocate for the reduction of violence, for stricter gun legislation, for the protection of Americans against violent gun crime,” says Elizabeth Wiley, MD, JD, MPH. “As future physicians, we urge Congress to act now and help us reduce the number of patients we will see who are victims of senseless gun tragedies.”

    “It’s hard to believe that gun safety isn’t a medical issue when you are on the team taking care of a 3 year old with a bullet in her lung,” says Shahram Ahari, MPH, a senior medical student at UC-Davis School of Medicine.

    At AMSA’s Annual Convention, March 14-17, members will vote on updated policy that includes universal background checks for all new gun purchases, criminalization of gun trafficking, and a ban on assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines.

    Please join AMSA by signing the petition to President Obama and members of Congress. The numbers are staggering: of the 16,000 homicides in 2010, more than 11,000 were due to firearms. Read more and sign the petition here.

    Full story

    Comments (3)

  • Implement the Sunshine Act Now!

    AMSA, along with the National Physician's Alliance (NPA), is pushing the Obama administration to fully implement the Physician Payments Sunshine Act which is aimed at transparency. 

    The legislation, part of the Affordable Care Act, requires drug, medical device, biologic, and medical equipment manufacturers to collect data on financial relationships with doctors and hospitals, and to report that data to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. 

    The two groups sent a letter to the White House stating:

    The NPA and AMSA have supported the PPSA since its passage and are deeply discouraged that HHS has not yet released final regulations, even though the statute called for regulations to be issued by October 1, 2011. We are now 15 months past the statutory deadline. 

    We are joined in our support by a diverse array of stakeholders, including drug and device companies which have already invested a great deal of money to comply with the Sunshine Provisions. 

    As physicians and medical students, we understand that payments from industry can set the stage for significant conflicts of interest that can lead to the prescription of costly treatment, even when equally effective, safe, and less expensive treatments are readily available. Such conflicts pose a grave threat to the intent of the Affordable Care Act, which is to deliver quality and affordable care to all Americans. Transparency about industry payments is an important step toward restoring trust and integrity in medicine. 

    There is no call for further delay. We request that final regulations be released no later than January of this year, so that manufacturers can quickly implement procedures to begin collecting payment information.

    Want to help??

    The Physician Payment Sunshine Act regulations have yet to come out - we need to put pressure on the White House to get them out! If you're on Twitter please retweet one or more of the below:

    T: @matthewherper physicians are "disappointed" that the sunshine provisions remain unimplemented <link>

    Link: Prominent Doctors Call For Action On Transparency Law – January 16, 2013

    T: @ChuckGrassley called delayed rules on Physician Payments Sunshine Act “unacceptable” @pharmalot <link>

    Link: Frustration Rises Over The Missing Sunshine Rules – January 17, 2013

    T: RT @FiercePharma AARP, AFL-CIO and prominent docs to White House: Get us the sunshine rules <link>

    Link: AARP, AFL-CIO and prominent docs to White House: Get us the sunshine rules, stat, Fierce Pharma – January 18, 2013

    Not on Twitter? Post the following to Facebook and tag AMSA National!

    Prominent doctors, medical students, Eli Lilly, Medtronic, AARP, AFL-CIO, Pew urging the White House to adopt without further delay the "Sunshine rule," which requires pharmaceutical and medical device companies to disclose their financial relationships with doctors and teaching hospitals. Like and share if you agree that patients should know and that the government should act, Read here: http://www.pharmalot.com/2013/01/frustration-rises-over-the-missing-sunshine-rules/.

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • Where do we draw the line between rights and benefits?

    Carl G. Streed Jr.
    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
    M.D. Candidate, Class of 2013

    Following the unjust denial of Janice Langbehn's right to be at the bedside as her partner of 18 years, Lisa Pond, lie dying, Pres. Obama directed the Secretary of Health and Human Services to address hospital visitation, medical decision-making, and other health care issues that affect LGBT patients and their families, resulting in the granting of hospital visitation rights to patient chosen designees.

    "...the failure to have [Americans'] wishes respected concerning who may visit them or make medical decisions on their behalf has real consequences. It means that doctors and nurses do not always have the best information ... It means that a stressful and at times terrifying experience for patients is senselessly compounded by indignity and unfairness. And it means that all too often, people are made to suffer or even to pass away alone, denied the comfort of companionship in their final moments while a loved one is left worrying and pacing down the hall." Respecting the Rights of Hospital Patients to Receive Visitors and to Designate Surrogate Decision Makers for Medical Emergencies

    But this past weekend, the Republican Presidential hopeful made clear he believes LGBT individuals do not have the right to marriage, adoption, or hospital visitation. They are all benefits to be granted state-by-state...well not marriage...the federal government will ban that:

    "Governor Romney supports a federal marriage amendment to the Constitution that defines marriage as an institution between a man and a woman. Governor Romney also believes, consistent with the 10th Amendment, that it should be left to states to decide whether to grant same-sex couples certain benefits, such as hospital visitation rights and the ability to adopt children. I referred to the Tenth Amendment only when speaking about these kinds of benefits – not marriage."-Bay Buchanan, Gov. Romney Advisor

    The Republican Nominee has chosen to ignore current policy in favor of political gain, he has chosen to ignore the dignity of a group of Americans in favor of the votes of bigots, he has chosen to ignore the advice of medical professionals in favor of...what?

    Our American Medical Association supports legal recognition of domestic partners for hospital visitation rights and as the primary medical care decision maker in the absence of an alternative health care proxy designee. (Res. 101, I-01; Reaffirmed: CMS Rep. 7, A-11)

    Our American Medical Association encourages all hospitals to add to their rules and regulations, and to their Patient's Bill of Rights, language permitting same sex couples and their dependent children the same hospital visitation privileges offered to married couples.(Res. 733, A-06)

    Where do we draw the line between rights and benefits? Is my right to work as a physician, currently protected from discrimination on account of my sexual orientation, a benefit as well? Is my right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness also a benefit to be granted state by state rather than guaranteed across the nation?

    As a medical professional-to-be, I wonder why politicians keep telling our patients how to die, how to live, how to love.

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • AMSA Rocks the Vote!

    By Molly Zielenbach
    AMSA State and Local Policy Coordinator

    There’s an eerie similarity between election season and studying for med school exams. At the beginning, you’re in denial – plagued by memories of the stress, outrage, futility, and hopelessness you felt the last time, you pretend like election/test day isn’t staring at you from a distant but rapidly approaching future. Finally, though, something tips the scale and you begin to prepare. You pour your attention into diagrams, charts, “expert” testimonies (from pundits or your ever-wise classmates), and maybe you even start to care about the results. Then, as the day draws closer, you hit a wall. You’re in information overload. You just can’t care anymore.

    So how do you get through the wall? For me, the answer is the same in both cases – I find something to keep me inspired. In the case of my impending cardio exam, it’s the joy in finally knowing why they’re always shouting “push more epi!” on Gray’s Anatomy (hey, whatever works, right?). In the case of the upcoming presidential election, it’s remembering that voting is a hard-won right, and a right that too many people in our society still have to fight for.

    A large body of evidence tells us that social determinants of health – things like stable housing, clean air, safe neighborhoods, quality schools, access to healthy and affordable food, and good jobs – are the most important determinants of the diseases that bring us patients, and the effectiveness of our treatments. So what determines the social determinants? A major player is the history of discriminatory and unjust laws, policies, and budgets that have marginalized and disenfranchised huge segments of our country’s population, thereby directly and indirectly jeopardizing their health and wellbeing.

    By voting, we can put pressure on policymakers, both local and national, to promote the health and welfare of our communities. By standing up for voters’ rights and providing voter registration to disenfranchised communities, we amplify the voices of our patients and support them in advocating for their own health and welfare. So, here are a few simple steps we, as medical students and AMSA chapters, can take to promote health and justice for all:

    1) Educate yourself, not just on the Presidential candidates, but on local candidates and policies also being decided on election day. Have your AMSA chapter host an event in the next month on a policy issue that will be affected by the election (keep in mind that AMSA is non-partisan so events should not endorse any specific candidates). And, most importantly, go vote!

    2) Sign this petition sponsored by RxDemocracy! and the National Physicians Alliance to defend our communities from voter rights infringement. Check out rxdemocracy.org for more information on the link between health and civic engagement.

    3) Host a community voter registration drive at your hospital. This is much easier than it sounds, and depending on where your school is, AMSA’s policy team can connect you with local organizations that may already be doing it. Please contact me (policy.local@amsa.org) if you’re interested!

    4) If you live in a state where restrictive voting policies are being enacted or contested, organize your fellow medical students and take a stand! This includes PA, TN, FL, OH, VA, and many others. Get in touch with AMSA’s policy team for more information on how to make your voice heard (again, policy.local@amsa.org).

    So get out there and make a difference, for yourself and your patients!

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • President Obama: Make Publicly Funded Research Free, Available

    Christopher A. Hesh
    University of Maryland School of Medicine c/o 2015
    Co-President of UMD AMSA

    Barriers to healthcare access manifest in many forms and AMSA stands at the forefront of the fight to tear down these barriers in the effort to establish healthcare as a human right. Integral to this fight for access is the engine that drives discovery of healthcare delivery methods and new treatment programs: taxpayer-funded research.

    The American public spends $60 billion each year on non-defense research through government programs like the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the National Science Foundation (NSF), and the Department of Energy (DOE). [1] Accessing this research can cost anywhere from $15 to $32 for a single article to multi-thousand dollar subscription fees for a single journal, forcing taxpayers to pay twice: once to fund the research and again to see the results. [2] This necessity of paying multiple times for access to life-saving research furthermore serves as a direct barrier to healthcare access for patients, who rely on their physicians to provide them with timely treatment programs informed by federally-funded research.

    We know from the success of the NIH Public Access Policy, which requires all NIH-funded research to be open-access 12 months after publication, that the scientific community is a powerful instrument of change. Indeed, the Public Access Policy has proven an invaluable step in the fight toward complete open access. The NIH, however, is not the only federal agency responsible for medical research grants. Furthermore, recently introduced bills such as the Research Works Act (H.R. 3699) have targeted open-access in an attempt to not only roll back the NIH’s public access policy, but completely prohibit open-access mandates for federally funded research altogether. The Research Works Act was eventually pulled by its legislative sponsors in response to overwhelming opposition by patients, students and taxpayers, but the fight for open access is not over.

    AMSA believes the continued attack on open-access research equates to an attack on healthcare access. In response, we’re joining a coalition of individuals and organizations including the Public Library of Science and Wikimedia Foundation, along with over 20,000 current signatories, in supporting a ‘We The People’ petition urging President Obama sign a directive to require free, timely access over the internet to journal articles arising from taxpayer-funded research. Help us reach this goal by signing the petition, and spread the word so that we can reach our target of 25,000 signatures by June 19th.

    Sign the petition!

    [1] Bennof, Richard J. Proposed Federal R&D Funding for FY 2011 Dips to $143 Billion, with Cuts in National Defense R&D. InfoBrief. Washington, DC: National Science Foundation, September 2010. Available at: http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf10327/nsf10327.pdf

    [2] Examples of single article purchase prices come from the New England Journal of Medicine ($15 at http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1111961) and from The Lancet ($31.50 at http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2811%2961625-5/fulltext).

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • HealthCareandYou.org

    AMSA is proud to join the Health Care and You Coalition to educate Americans about the health care law. Visit www.healthcareandyou.org for state-by-state information about the law, a timeline of implementation, a glossary of health care terms, the latest news and more. Share this website with your friends, family and colleagues to help them understand what the health care law means for them.

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • Students Occupy for Health Justice

    By Danielle Alexander
    I met a patient last week who stopped taking her antidepressant medications because she had been denied long term health insurance and thought it would improve her chances of eligibility. Unfortunately this obviously wasn’t in the best interest of her health. I had another patient who presented to the emergency department with metastatic lung cancer. He had not been to the doctor in over 30 yrs because he couldn’t afford it. If he had sought treatment earlier he may have been cured. Everywhere I look private health insurance companies are making our patients sicker.

    I was proud to be at in Lafayette Park today for the Health Professional Students Day of Action for the 99%. We carried a banner that said “Health Professional Students Occupy for Health Justice and Single Payer”. I support the occupy movement because I feel that powerful and profiting insurance companies get in the way of my practice of Medicine. Treatment should be the same high quality for everyone; instead, we have to consider what someone can afford. It too often becomes treatment for the ‘haves’ and neglect for the ‘have nots’. But the thing is, these days you may not know which group you fall into. Insurance plans are so spotty, with major gaps in coverage, that you don’t even realize it until you need medical attention, and you find your plan does not cover it. I see it every day in the clinic – treatment is designed around what the insurance will pay (or not) instead of what is best for the patient first and foremost. It’s no fault of the medical team, we want to give the patients the best care, but the insurance industry has our hands tied.

    Today’s future doctors realize that healthcare is more than physical health, social determinants of health are equally as important. The schools our kids attend, the neighborhoods we grow up in, the cleanliness of the environment, joblessness, and poverty all deeply impact our health. A classmate said today, “There is so much inequity and injustice, it cuts into everything, including caring for patients. If you really want to care for patients you’ve got to care about everything, not just their liver”.

    I asked some of the other attendees why they support the Occupy Movement. “Healthcare is a fundamental human right and by increasing access to health care we can reduce some of the inequality”, said one medical student. Another classmate agreed, “We’re here for healthcare because you can’t do anything if you’re not healthy. “ “As a future physician, it’s disconcerting that patients can’t get into my exam room, and I want to change that,” was another colleagues reply. Even early in their medical careers, these students see that there are major problems with the health of our Nation.

    As I talked with my classmates, I found that we were all there for slightly different reasons. “I feel like too much of our country’s infrastructure has been diverted away from the important stuff like health and wellbeing,” said yet another student. His peer believes “the system is broken and change needs to start somewhere”.

    The United States is the only industrialized country that does not provide healthcare to all its citizens regardless of employment status or economic class. Our profit driven healthcare industry raises costs and inequality. But our political system has been corrupted by corporate money and power, and the 1% have rejected evidence based health policy that save lives and money, namely expanded and improved Medicare for all. We support Occupy Wall Street because economic and social inequality makes our patients sick.

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • Don't Let the Supercommittee Cut Residency Positions!

    As you have probably heard, the Congressional "Supercommittee," or the Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction, is scheduled to announce its recommendations to cut $1.5 trillion in federal spending over the next ten years on Wednesday, Nov. 23. The Supercommittee was created by the Budget Control Act of 2011 back in August to avert the debt ceiling crisis. Congress is scheduled to vote on these recommendations by Dec. 23. If Congress fails to adopt Supercommittee recommendations, there will be an automatic sequestration, or across-the-board cuts.

    The Supercommittee is rumored to be contemplating substantial (up to 60%) cuts to Medicare Graduate Medical Education (GME) funding which supports vast majority of residency programs in the U.S. As a result, it is critical that we, as physicians-in-training, make our voices heard on this issue. Please take a few seconds to email your members of Congress and urge them to protect Medicare GME:

    The American Medical Student Association strongly supports continued Medicare GME funding and condemns any effort to cut this funding. Massive cuts to Medicare GME will compromise patient access to care and, in some cases, may result in the closure of some residency programs. As the United States seeks to insure millions of previously uninsured Americans, it is critical that the federal government continue to invest in a robust health professional workforce to meet our nation's health care needs. Sustained GME funding is an essential element of this investment.  



    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • Preserving Funding to Medicaid and Medicare

    By Colin McCluney
    AMSA Education & Advocacy Fellow

    Last week, I had the pleasure of representing AMSA, along with other national leaders, at meetings at the White House and the Capitol to emphasize the importance of preserving funding to Medicaid and Medicare. While key entitlement programs are on the chopping block, we want the voice of physicians-in-training to be heard. AMSA joined with 14 other physician organizations in signing a coalition letter to oppose cuts to Medicaid and Medicare; this letter was hand-delivered to leadership from both parties in the House and the Senate. In addition to expressing our opposition to any reduction in benefits or coverage from Medicaid and Medicare, we emphasized our support for innovation in health care administration to reduce costs.

    Medicare has long been one of the most popular governmental programs, covering over 45,000,000 individuals, and has thus been largely protected from significant cuts. Medicaid, on the other hand, is less well-regarded and is frequently targeted as an opportunity for cuts. Why is this? Perhaps it’s due in part to the unglamorous perception that Medicaid is for poor people, a segment of the population that is hard to mobilize politically, frequently forgotten about and easy to demonize (think about the notion of lazy welfare cheats for example). On top of that, some groups and individuals have claimed that people are better off being uninsured than having Medicaid. Take all these things together and you can see how easy it could be to cut elements of the program. As you might have intuited though, these assertions aren’t true. While Medicaid does cover eligible individuals at certain poverty thresholds, it is worth noting that Medicaid covers some 30,000,000 children nationwide and provides payment for about a third of all births. Most exciting, though, are the recent findings to come out of a randomized controlled trial of Medicaid in Oregon. The origins and methodology have been extensively reviewed elsewhere but the key results were that individuals with Medicaid received more preventive care (for example, mammograms), had fewer financial problems (for example, borrowing money to pay debt or having bills end up in collections), reported having a regular doctor, and were much more likely to rate their own health as “excellent” or “good” (rather than “fair” or “poor”). While objective data on quantitative health outcomes won’t be available for another year or more, it is clear that Medicaid has already had a substantial positive impact on those individuals lucky enough to have been enrolled. This study – the first on the effects of health insurance since the landmark Rand study – shows clearly the value of Medicaid in improving the health and well-being of some of the most vulnerable Americans.

    The budget negotiations will rumble on and Medicaid & Medicare will continue to be targets for cuts. Even after this round of discussions is finished, it is clear that there will be more battles to come. We see, however, that these programs are essential and effective in helping provide access to necessary medical care for a significant portion of the population, and we will continue to fight to support Medicare and Medicaid, to oppose cuts, to ensure & expand coverage, and to reduce waste.

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  • The Hidden Costs of DOMA

    By Carl G. Streed Jr.
    Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine
    MD Candidate, Class of 2013

    On July 20th, the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee held its first hearing addressing S.B. 598 The Respect for Marriage Act. The Respect for Marriage Act attempts to right the wrongs committed by the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

    Since its passage in 1996, DOMA has limited the definition of marriage to be between “one man and one woman,” stripping states’ of their right to define marriage (as family law is generally under their purview) and has relegated thousands of same-sex couples to second class citizens. Under DOMA, same-sex couples cannot enjoy over one-thousand federal and state marriage benefits: they cannot access the plethora of tax-benefits afforded opposite-sex couples that are married, they are denied social security survivor benefits, they cannot extend health insurance coverage without being over taxed, and same-sex partners of veterans are denied all survivor benefits afforded an opposite-sex partner. These benefits afforded opposite-sex marriages provide, among other things, a safety net for couples by minimizing the costs of raising a family, allowing couples to save money for the future, and ensuring that should one partner die, the other is provided for. The denial of these benefits to same-sex marriages significantly burdens them and leaves many with few options to manage their finances and maintain their health coverage.

    Here are some of the stories I heard at the hearing:

    Ron Wallen (see Ron's testimony below), a resident of California, talked of his marriage to his husband, Tom Carrollo. The two had been together for over 58 years before Tom succumbed to his ongoing battle with leukemia. Because Ron is denied survivor benefits under DOMA, he has seen his monthly income drop from $3050 to $900, putting him at risk of losing his home and threatening to limit his access to health care.

    Susan Murray (read testimony here), a resident of Vermont and long time LGBT advocate, talked of how her health insurance, $6,200 per year, afforded by her wife’s employer is considered taxable income under DOMA (opposite-sex couples are not taxed on partner health insurance). Additionally, Susan is unable to access her wife’s flexible spending account for health care costs. The restrictions placed on Susan and her wife, Karen Murray, amount to reduced access to health care and, consequently, increased costs for care.

    Andrew Sorbo (read testimony here), a resident of Connecticut, shared his story of loss and hardship after his husband, Dr. Colin Atterbury, died of pancreatic cancer. DOMA did not allow Andrew to oversee his husband’s medical care or access survivor benefits.

    As we work to repeal DOMA, Andrew Sorbo reminded the Senate Judiciary Committee that, “the financial aspect is only one aspect of the harm that DOMA does, and the discrimination against gay people (is) an insult to our dignity and our sense of equality.”

    Find out more about the campaign to repeal the Defense of Marriage Act.

    You can follow me on Twitter at @cjstreed and @AMSAPolicy

    Full story

    Comments (0)

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. Next page

What is AMSA On Call?

AMSA On Call is the official blog of the American Medical Student Association. Join us as we discuss the hottest issues in health care. 

Join Us on InEx!

Inspiration Exchange

Log on to Inspiration Exchange (InEx) and communicate, file share & network with fellow students.