Is the American Medical Association hemorrhaging members? Could it be that they are out of step with the majority of physicians practicing in the US? An interesting article discusses how the AMA has opposed any sort of national healthcare program, and that their current president may still have loyalties to managed care.

In August, the AMA launched a $15 million advertising campaign that focused on the problems of the uninsured, hoping to persuade voters to cast their ballots in 2008 with the issue in mind. But this project has frustrated reformers, who contend that the organization’s approach to achieving universal care—providing tax breaks and vouchers for those lacking coverage so they can purchase affordable plans—is too timid.

“At best … the AMA is advocating a completely unproven method of achieving their ends and ignoring things that we know will work,” says Dr. Stephanie Woolhandler, co-founder of Physicians for a National Health Program.

Given these realities, many doctors are turning their backs on the AMA. The medical news service MedPage Today estimated that the AMA represented only 15 percent of practicing U.S. physicians in 2005, down from 70 percent during the 1961 Medicare fight.

Tax breaks and vouchers.  Yep, that’s really going to solve the problem. Their opposition is interesting because if people don’t have insurance, or if they have insurance with enormous copays/coinsurance or huge deductibles, people are not going to see their doctors. They are going to put off surgeries or other treatments. In short, the docs will lose revenue. So how does their opposition help the average physician trying to stay in practice?

The stats are also quite telling. Only 15% of physicians in the US are members of the AMA, a drop from 70% in 47 years. Is the AMA paying attention to this, I wonder?