Med School Student Criticizes AMA Group

A second-year student at Harvard Medical School co-authored a study published in yesterday's New England Journal of Medicine, alleging that the political action committee of the American Medical Association (AMA) places its economic agenda before its public health concerns.

Congressional candidates who opposed the AMA's positions on three key public health issues received more money from the AMA's political action committee than candidates who supported these issues from 1989 to 1992, according to the study co-authored by Joshua M. Sharfstein '91.

Sharfstein's report in the magazine's January 6 issue said the American Medical Political Action Committee (AMPAC) contributed approximately $4,500 more to political candidates who opposed the AMA's positions on promoting tobacco exports, controlling the proliferation of handguns and eliminating federal restrictions on abortion counseling.

"The AMA has taken important stands on certain public health issues and the AMA's political action committee gives more money, on average, to representatives who have voted against the AMA's own public health positions," Sharfstein said yesterday.

Sharfstein, who wrote the study with his father, Dr. Steven S. Sharfstein, said, "It is important for the AMA to articulate to physicians and the public the reasons behind their contributions."

The study theorizes that because AMPAC supported conservative members, as rated by the American Conservative Union, more than liberal members, AMPAC supports members based on their views on particular economic issues.

"AMPAC is advancing the AMA's economic agenda while undermining their public health agenda," Sharfstein said.

This agenda includes raising doctor's fees under Medicare and opposing a federally-run health care system, according to Sharfstein.

AMA Executive Vice President James S. Todd said in a statement that although the "findings are interesting," no definitive conclusions can be drawn because the study was not broad enough.

"The authors chose to narrow their focus by selecting only three issues, instead of analyzing the broad range of areas where the AMA attempts to influence legislation on behalf of the public and the medical profession," Todd said.