Page 10 - Volume 69, Number 4
P. 10

independent categorizations of the resolutions, after reading them, based on the intended aim or issue and whether they were “patient-centered,” i.e., aimed at improving patient care, or physician-centered, aimed at making physicians’ lives easier, and finally whether I thought the issues were of high or low priority for the Medical Society to be working on. This taxonomy, needless to say, reflects my own personal bias, but may be nevertheless informative. Here is what I came up with (chart on page??).
The topics or issues in the
resolutions varied greatly by
geographic origin and reflected local
concerns. Nineteen of Kent County’s
29 resolutions related to physician-
centered practice problems, as did 7 or
13 from St. Clair County; only 2 were
patient centered. On the other hand,
5 of the 7 Oakland county resolutions
related to public health, as did 9 of the
18 student resolutions. Three of Wayne County’s
16 resolutions related to environmental concerns (the waste incinerator, oil spills), 4 to physician practice,
3 to public health, 3 to regulation.
One forward thinking resolution from St. Clair County called for opening MSMS to PA’s and nurses as associate members as a way to increase membership. It was disapproved. This was an idea floated informally by MSMS executive staff. We may see it back in the future.
Washtenaw County Resolutions
Four of the 7 Washtenaw County resolutions related to legislation or regulation. The resolution entitled “Single Payer Health Insurance” called for a “health care financing task force” to study the issue and was ap- proved after it was amended to take out the term “single payer.” The reason that this resolution, (which had been disapproved in the past), was approved this year related to the threat of repealing and replacing the Affordable Care Act. The resolution called for reassessing the cost of helmetless motorcyclists and reflecting these costs in the insurance rates, was approved. As was the resolution that called for revision of conflict of interest policy to reflect regulatory capture as a conflict of interest. These are examples of useful resolutions.
Two of Washtenaw County’s more progressive resolu- tions were disapproved, in both cases for the wrong reasons. One called for strengthening the requirements for initial licensure to include completion of 3 years of accredited residency in a post-graduate training pro- gram. This was disapproved because of perceived “concerns about unintended consequences that (might) evolve including those to various subsets of residents.” In other words, it might interfere with moonlighting by
residents in training, as if that is something to be hon- ored and preserved at the expense of the public. The second resolution called for adoption by the state of the Interstate Medical Licensing Compact, which would assist the Michigan Board of Medicine and other state medical boards in their work. Kent County brought in a hired gun from Pennsylvania Medical Society to testify against, making patently false accusations. Delegates conflated this with their opposition to Maintenance of Certification, which is completely unrelated, but there was no time for discussion or explanation.
Cheryl Farmer was more successful in getting her resolution opposing the production and sale of “keepsake ultrasounds” on pregnant women at shopping malls, even though the reference committee disap- proved, because she was able to argue for it successfully the next day at the full house. Experience in politics obviously counts.
Washtenaw County was well represented on the Reference Committees by Charles Koopman, Jim Szocik, Sandro Cinti, and Barbara Threat and by Board Advisors Jack Billi and Jim Mitchiner. We should strive to continue this level of participation.
Conclusion
Although the MSMS House of Delegates remains chaotic and can be as much a political as much as an instructive exercise, it nevertheless remains an important avenue for putting ideas on the table and calling for change. It is now time for us to begin to think about
what we think of as important medical care priorities.
I recommend thinking big, but also realistically, and getting your ideas to the WCMS (dnixon@wcms-mi. org) early with a deadline of February 1, 2018,
for feedback and assistance.
The schematic below shows the source and priority and what happened to them. The vast majority of resolutions were approved either as written or as amended.
County
Priority
Amend
Approve
Disapprove
Refer
Withdraw
Substitute
N/A
Kent (29)
Low (17)
4
7
1
1
1
2
Mod (8)
8
N/A (4)
Wayne (16)
Low(13)
5
6
2
1
Mod(1)
1
High(1)
1
N/A
1
Student (18)
Low (10)
3
7
Mod(4)
2
1
1
High(3)
3
N/A(1)
St. Clair (13)
Low(7)
6
1
Mod (2)
2
High (1)
1
N/A (3)
Washtenaw (7)
Low(2)
2
Mod (2)
1
1
High (3)
1
2
10 Washtenaw County Medical Society BULLETIN OCTOBER / NOVEMBER / DECEMBER 2017


































































































   8   9   10   11   12