| |
March 2003
Volume 67 |
Number 3 |
|
38,272-Strong, Or Are We?
As Immediate Past President, and with my time on the
Administrative Council exceeding that of any other current
officer, I am inclined to reflect on ASA’s main
strengths and weaknesses in my last officer’s
column for this NEWSLETTER. I hope these thoughts
have credibility based not only on my years and level
of service but also on the fact that I have actively
practiced anesthesiology throughout that time and expect
to do so for at least another decade.
For more than 20 years, I have witnessed the excellence
of ASA in executing its two main functions: education
and advocacy. ASA has for decades provided outstanding
educational activities and unequaled advocacy for our
members.
Our Annual Meeting is the biggest and best general anesthesiology
meeting in the world, and our expert educators are studying
how to make it better. Anesthesiology is not
only the best journal within the specialty but is among
the best in all of medicine. ASA also provides excellent
materials and conferences to support its members in
nonscientific endeavors such as practice management,
departmental organization and regulatory compliance.
We have repeatedly educated, trained and mobilized all
willing members, and we have applied our money and our
dedicated staff in federal and state advocacy efforts
on a wide range of issues. Our successful retention
of the federal requirement for physician supervision
of nurse anesthetists was regarded as one of the most
remarkable lobbying accomplishments within the health
fields during the past decade. While satisfactory outcome
is still pending on Medicare payment issues, we are
nevertheless recognized by all of medicine as a leader
in this arena as well.
Our members should have confidence in our continuing
success. While many professional societies struggle
financially, ASA is sound with strong reserves and leaders
who exercise fiscal responsibility, assuring that this
strength will persevere. Leadership positions are routinely
filled with highly dedicated and competent physicians
from private, academic, personally delivered and care
team practices and from large and small groups from
all parts of the country. Our board and committee chairs
provide a pool from which our House of Delegates will
elect equally qualified future leaders. Our House of
Delegates functions by a democratic process in which
every member can participate in making critical decisions
regarding ASA policy and programming with full consideration
of what is best for the specialty and our members, while
higher levels of governance are empowered to act more
quickly when necessary.
Our successes occur through the efforts of a minority
of our members who are doing remarkable things. Small
numbers of dedicated anesthesiologists plan and execute
our educational activities, serve in state legislatures,
lead state and county medical societies, attend our
legislative conferences, develop relationships with
and support candidates for office and contact legislators
by telephone and e-mail when requested.
We are, of course, not without our weaknesses. Above
all else and therefore receiving my singular emphasis,
our vast and growing membership still includes a large
majority that never responds to a single request for
help from the elected leadership of the Society! Our
most recent requests for communications to Congress
were initially ignored by more than 95 percent of our
members. This figure remained at more than 80 percent
after our Web site was modified to facilitate the completion
of this communication in just a few minutes and in spite
of the fact that such communication, if successful,
can be worth about $45 million to the specialty —
more than $1,500 per practicing member. Is this not
sufficient return on an investment of a small amount
of our members’ time?
Another measure of member involvement in advocacy is
the rate of participation in the ASA Political Action
Committee (ASAPAC). Historical contribution rates of
11 percent transiently rose to 20-22 percent in 2000
and 2001 but actually fell below these historical rates
in 2002. Again, the vast majority of our members have
never once made a contribution to ASAPAC. Still, anesthesiology
is doing much better than most of the rest of medicine.
Unfortunately, most other physicians contribute to political
action committees and participate in advocacy at even
lower levels.
In spite of low rates of political activity, ASA has
achieved remarkable accomplishments in advocacy. But
think how our successes could be multiplied and extended
and how our failed efforts might succeed if all of our
members added their efforts to those of the minority
who is carrying the load! For these reasons, I urge
all of our members to do their share and respond with
action when your officers request support.
return to top |
|