The American Medical Association (AMA) stands at a pivotal moment, confronting issues of representation, governance, and size within its House of Delegates. Outgoing AMA CEO James Madara, MD, posed crucial questions about the efficacy of this governing body during his recent speech at the AMA’s interim meeting in Orlando, Florida. His observations underscore the complexities the organization faces as it grapples with its expanding membership and changing demographics within the physician community.
Since 2011, the size of the AMA House of Delegates has burgeoned from approximately 500 delegates to over 700, a trend that Madara attributes to a variety of factors. One of the primary drivers has been the decision to provide balanced representation between state-level and specialty societies, reflecting the diverse landscape of modern medicine. However, this growth also poses the question of whether a larger governing body can maintain effective communication and decision-making.
Madara noted that nearly 40% of the increase in delegates can be traced back to membership growth resulting from the current governance model. This correlation prompts an examination of the implications of such a size increase on the operational efficiency of the House. As bodies become larger, they can often become unwieldy, hampering discussions and democratic processes. This is a concern echoed in the broader context of governance: larger assemblies tend to experience diminished quality in representative functions. Thus, there is an urgent need for the AMA to address whether the benefits of increased diversity in opinion and experience outweigh the conflicts stemming from a bulky delegate body.
Madara introduced the cube root law as a theoretical framework for determining optimal legislative size, suggesting that the ideal number of seats correlates to the cube root of the population represented. Given that there are roughly 1 million physicians in the U.S., the law implies an ideal cap of around 100 delegates within a house of 1,000 seats. While 100 may seem drastically low when considering the over 200 societies represented, the current figure far exceeds that number, necessitating a discourse on the appropriateness of the House’s size.
Comparatively, the AMA House of Delegates surpasses the size of a joint session of Congress, which serves a population over 330 million. This disparity raises additional concerns about functionality and representation. If the AMA intends to expand its membership further, it must consider how this growth will affect the effectiveness and coherence of its governance structure.
An equally pressing issue Madara addressed is the shifting landscape of physician employment. The proportion of employed physicians has considerably increased, climbing from approximately 42% in 2011 to over 50% today. This shift casts a spotlight on the necessity for the AMA to incorporate the voices and needs of employed physicians in its decision-making processes.
Historically, the AMA has adapted its representation framework to accommodate changes within the medical community, such as the greater involvement of specialists toward the end of the 20th century. Now, as more physicians find themselves employed within groups, the AMA faces the challenge of effectively integrating these practices into its governance system. Current practices seem to fragment representation among existing specialty and state societies, which could lead to the underrepresentation of this growing demographic.
Madara highlighted prior steps toward addressing these concerns with the establishment of the integrated physician practice section. This avenue allows employed physicians to submit resolutions and influence policies relevant to their circumstances. However, it remains to be seen whether this measure suffices as the voices of employed physicians become increasingly predominant.
The AMA’s management is tasked with navigating these complexities as it seeks to modernize its representation strategies. An open dialogue about the future of the House of Delegates is essential. Potential strategies may include revising the current governance structure to create dedicated spaces for employed physicians and streamline decision-making processes. The emphasis must shift towards developing robust frameworks that effectively capture the needs of the entire physician community—both independent practitioners and employed physicians alike.
The AMA is presented with both daunting challenges and remarkable opportunities as it grapples with a growing and evolving physician community. The questions raised by Madara are crucial for fostering a more effective governance model that balances representation and functionality, ensuring that the AMA remains relevant and representative in the years to come. The ongoing dialogue about the House of Delegates’ size and structure must be undertaken with meticulous attention; otherwise, there is a risk of disengagement from essential physician constituencies.
Leave a Reply