American Medical Association Walks Fine Line of Support for Public Plan

By Ceci Connolly

The American Medical Association wants it to be known: they support a government-sponsored health insurance plan, except when they oppose one.

In testimony to the Senate Finance Committee last month, the physician lobby went on at length detailing its discomfort with a so-called public plan, predicting it would "restrict patient choice," force private insurers out of the market and "would likely lead to an explosion of costs that would need to be absorbed by taxpayers."

The AMA made clear it opposes any public plan modeled after the popular Medicare program for the elderly and disabled, and it would fight any effort to require doctors to participate in a government-sponsored insurance option.

The document received little attention at the time, but now that President Obama has scheduled a speech to the group on Monday, its positions are getting a fresh look, specifically in today's New York Times. It seems the AMA didn't like the article, headlined: "Doctors' Group Opposes Public Insurance Plan."

AMA President Nancy Nielsen issued the following statement: “Today's New York Times story creates a false impression about the AMA's position on a public plan option in health care reform legislation. The AMA opposes any public plan that forces physicians to participate, expands the fiscally-challenged Medicare program or pays Medicare rates, but the AMA is willing to consider other variations of a public plan that are currently under discussion in Congress. This includes a federally chartered co-op health plan or a level playing field option for all plans."

In an interview this evening, Nielsen said that perhaps the confusion stemmed from a faulty headline.

"When people say public plan there's all kinds of variations," she said. "We're looking forward to hearing from President Obama about his vision" for a public plan.