PAMED Sees Positives, Negatives in Health System Reform Legislation Passage

Health system reform is a step toward increasing patient access to care, but it falls short in some areas and could create more red tape for physicians.

“It is difficult for the Pennsylvania Medical Society (PAMED) to speak glowingly or disparagingly of the health system reform package,” PAMED President James A. Goodyear, MD, said in a statement released Monday, March 22, 2010.

PAMED supports the movement toward health insurance access for all Americans since physicians see firsthand how the uninsured and underinsured struggle to afford health care.

However, the legislation does not address medical liability or Medicare payment reform. It also creates more government bureaucracy, including a committee that would decide Medicare payments.

“Physicians and other health care providers, already heavily regulated and heavily burdened by administrative requirements, dread the imposition of even more bureaucracy,” Dr. Goodyear said.

PAMED urges Congress and President Barack Obama to continue work on health system reform that is consistent with PAMED’s Eight Essential Principles of Health System Reform.
“There is much still to be done and, undoubtedly, this monumental legislation will need to be adjusted as any unintended consequences become known,” Dr. Goodyear said.

Add Your Comments


The Pennsylvania Medical Society encourages lively debate, but please behave courteously and responsibly. Comments that include profanity, personal attacks (including language that could potentially identify an individual), or any other inappropriate, offensive, or illegal material will be removed. For more information, please see our Terms of Use.

Display name as (optional):

Comments (max 2000 characters):




Comments: 21


The Pennsylvania Medical Society is promoting legislation that would protect physician apologies, which have been shown to make patients and their families more willing to enter into mediation instead of filing a lawsuit. Apologies are currently protected only during mediation, but broader protection is needed so that physicians can freely apologize to the patient or their family when informing them of a serious event.

PA Medical Society at 4/6/2010 3:48:12 PM


Where are we re mediation as a method of reducing lawsuits ?

john parker at 3/29/2010 1:33:10 PM


I am completely disgusted with the weak statement from Dr. Goodyear that manages carefully to straddle all opinions about health care reform. It is clearly evident to me that the PA medical Society is not advocating for what I believe in any longer and I will be canceling my membership just as I have done with the AMA.

MM at 3/29/2010 8:34:43 AM


Surprised that doctors on here really believe that 32 million are uninsured. Those numbers are not accurate. That figure the press and government talks about is a factor based up one given day in the year that is that there is an amount uninsured (therefore you are getting people in between insurances, jobs) It also factors in the people that could afford ins just don't pay it. did you ever see the Oprah episode where the family was getting financial counseling. They made over 200,000 a year and did not have health insurance but had everything else. I don;t mind every citizen pooling money for those who need help , but I don't believe giving free care to people who choose to have fancy cars, ipods, big house.

anonymous at 3/27/2010 10:02:39 PM


What i predcit happening is insurance companies will make money at first due to the fact everyone has to have insurance. they will get in quick, then leave the market once more regulations come into play This is what the government wants because they want to come back in and say they need a public option. That is why it was so easy to get them to get rid of the public option. Also I think physicians that are employed have a much different option than those who own their own business. Those who are employed don't see what goes on behind closed doors; the red tape, . They take a paycheck home and someone else worries about the government red tape, patients. Her in PA we stopped taking Ma becausue they owe us so much money and have never paid, because they don't have the money payment ect. We are thinking in a few years of going case only business. I don't want to deal with RACs, secret shoppers, deductions on my payments because I don't e-prescribe. I do not want more government and I do not want my children to live in a country owned by China.

anonymous at 3/27/2010 9:53:27 PM


My problem with reform besides the above mentioned concerns is that a family with income of 250000 is taxed to support others. I would not be opposed to a tax that included everyone or state run new tax on goods such as tanning beds, smoking, unhealthy foods. Because my husband and I are new doc many yrs we will make this and still have heavy student loan burden that we have no tax deduction for. We are also hit because we have a small business and all the new taxes for this. This tax is not a graduated income tax it is a tax on those who work hard to make good money and that is getting close to more socialism and communism.

cm at 3/27/2010 9:45:53 PM


A lot of welcome health insurance reform, not much health care but there is absolutely nothing wrong letting additional 32 million Americans gaining access to health insurance. If only the Republicans cooperated and not such obstructionists, it would have been a better bill.

R L Furigay MD at 3/26/2010 9:55:36 PM


Giving of your own free will is great. Please do so. Unfortuantely, it is rather difficult for a person with severe pain to first appeal to his/her church/synagogue/mosque for the money to then obtain and pay for the needed medical services. And it appears that not many churches/synagogues/mosques are paying for those bills after services have been provided. So, people forgo health-care and suffer, or they incur huge debt and become either bankrupt or an unpaid debt for the health-care providers. Given the failure of religious institutions and of individuals to provide for the needy, the government is the logical choice. The US is unique

anonymous at 3/26/2010 2:57:18 PM


To one of the above comments--"Judeo-Christian principles of helping the needy". What a can of worms you are opening. The value of helping the needy comes from doing this of your own free will--mandating this does not put you in the good graces of your supreme being. Robbing you of extra resources so that you can not give your excess to the needy. What is your position on legislating other Judeo-Christian principles?

anonymous at 3/26/2010 12:32:23 PM


If you review the language on grants to states who consider tort reform, they are prohibited from reducing lawyers' fees or damage caps. They don't just tie the states' hands, they shackle them hand and foot.

medatwork at 3/26/2010 9:47:57 AM


It is already 2700 pages let's not encourage even larger documents. Health care reform should have been written more concisely. In 2700 pages why weren't the trial lawyers burdened?

anonymous at 3/26/2010 9:42:15 AM


For the best summary of the bill I have seen so for: http://www.kff.org/healthreform/8060.cfm

cmhmd at 3/25/2010 9:11:17 PM


Also, there is liability reform in the bill as well, again, according to the AMA. Specifically, the Secretary of HHS will authorize multiple five year demonstration grants. As I think many institutions are showing just in our own state, there are substanive benefits to many proposals such as apology rules, alternative dispute resolution and medical courts.

cmhmd at 3/25/2010 9:10:16 PM


30+ million presently uninsured people will now have better access to health-care and can obtain better relief of physical pain and suffering. Shouldn’t this be applauded by a nation that prides itself in its Judeo-Christian principles of helping the needy?

anonymous at 3/25/2010 7:52:10 PM


Also, there is liability reform in the bill as well, again, according to the AMA. Specifically, the Secretary of HHS will authorize multiple five year demonstration grants. As I think many institutions are showing just in our own state, there are substanive benefits to many proposals such as apology rules, alternative dispute resolution and medical courts.

cmhmd at 3/25/2010 7:12:04 PM


Fortunately, according to the AMA's press release today, there will be significant administrative simplifications in the reconciliation portion of the bill. Given that one recent Health Affairs article estimated the cost of dealing with a multitude of insurers at more than $80,000 PER PHYSICIAN in a primary care practice, and a separate study estimated the cost at 14% of TOTAL REVENUE, not to mention the several hours of physician time/opportunity cost they tabulated, these provisions should be tremendously helpful to physicians in dealing with the private health insurers.

cmhmd at 3/25/2010 7:09:20 PM


I would like to echo my sentiment that I will never join the AMA based on many factors but most importantly that they have endorsed this bill. Also Dr. Goodyear, your comments seem to be out of step. The good points in this bill are dwarfed by the bad points. Overall the bill stinks. Don't water this down by trying to note the minor positives.

anonymous at 3/25/2010 6:03:33 PM


Dr. Goodyear your comments are weak. This bill naturally has a few good points, but overall is seriously flawed and not dealing with appropriate reimbursements and tort reform renders this bill as arrogant, inappropriate, inpractical, and impotent as well as being unwieldy, costly, invaribly screwing up an already messed up system, and my guess not saving dollars but increasing the deficit and increasing taxes.

Richard J. Greene, M.D. at 3/25/2010 5:59:00 PM


Health care costs too much! The solution is to get government and businesses 100% out of health care. People need to buy their own policies as they do all other forms of insurance. That will involve the patient (consumer) in the cost of services. Only then will the free market work. Cost will be driven down as patients make choices about who is providing the best care and the most reasonable price. Medicine will need to get back to the charitable component that has been progressively lost over the last 30 years as the government became more involved. Of course we need regulatory, insurance company and legal reform. Being a physician was a great honor...30 years ago. Now we are virtual GS-14's. Soon you can remove virtual!

anonymous at 3/25/2010 5:57:27 PM


While I agree that health reform is needed, this political monstrosity is a play for power and NOT effective reform. It is ABSOLUTELY necessary to repeal and replace it!

anonymous at 3/25/2010 5:11:55 PM


At one time I was a member of the AMA, but I will never consider rejoining the AMA after their misguided support for this atrocious legislation. There is no tort reform included, but the AMA keeps parroting the line that some sort of liability reform will be included. The AMA no longer represents physicians.

anonymous at 3/25/2010 4:46:17 PM

Last Updated: 4/9/2010
From: 
Email:  
To: 
Email:  
Subject: 
Message: