You've probably seen this but if not:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-di ... ss-medical

What a bunch of money grubbing, self serving hypocrites. Lower case in the address line intentional.

from Flying,

"From a pilot's perspective, the enemy of positive change is self-interest and bureaucracy, and both were well represented during this week's meeting of the American Medical Association (AMA) in Chicago. At this gathering of delegates, an AMA committee voted to oppose the FAA's proposed driver's license medical by directing lobbying efforts in Washington, D.C., to defeat the rule change.

As you probably know already, the change in the FARs would allow pilots to practice the privileges now afforded by a third class medical certificate to demonstrate their fitness with a current state-issued driver's license. Flying has long supported such liberalization and has encouraged member organizations, including the AOPA, EAA and GAMA, to stand behind the change, which they have.

The final AMA vote, which took place just hours ago, was based on testimony from a variety of experts. Flying reader, pilot, physician and AMA delegate Dr. Dan McCoy, who participated in the process, told Flying there were just two experts who supported the adoption of the driver's license medical, himself and one other pilot, and that both the military and aerospace groups of the AMA strongly opposed the FAA's proposed rule change.

The members who offered testimony in favor of opposition to the change cited arguments all too common in this ongoing debate. According to McCoy, these include:

1. That pilots operating under a driver's license medical would represent a danger to commercial aircraft, constituting a public health concern.

2. That AMEs frequently find unreported health issues during the certificate exam that would disqualify a pilot.

3. That a license is really an "unrestricted ticket" and that AMEs offer the last line of defense to make sure the skies are safe.

4. That most pilots are "infrequent fliers," which adds stress and puts them at greater health risk.

The tone of the discussion, according to McCoy's report, verged on disrespectful to pilots. One AME, he said, asked during his testimony, “Have you seen those guys hanging around the airport? You need me to make sure they are safe to fly.” The comment, McCoy said, was greeted by laughter from those in attendance.

There was testimony in opposition to the AMA's recommendation, led by the Texas Delegation (represented by McCoy) and the Medical Student Section. McCoy said, “We testified on the need for an evidence-based decision and the need to foster a doctor-patient (airman) relationship.”

McCoy also testified that it was not fair to pilots that the FAA medical branch often makes decisions about an airman's status without ever seeing the airman, in most cases even without input from the pilot's treating physician.

The AMA vote is disturbing but not shocking. The association represents physicians, and many AMA members are also medical examiners. The income these physicians earn from giving FAA medical exams can represent a sizable percentage of their income, a situation they understandably don't want that to change. If they were acting in the best interests of their patients, however, they would ask such questions as these: (Flying's views are in parentheses.)

1. Does the evidence point to pilot incapacitation as a factor in aircraft accidents? (It does not. In fact, all evidence shows there is almost zero link between having a valid medical and pilot incapacitation.)

2. Has the FAA used the model before, and has it worked? (Yes, it has, in the Sport Pilot certificate. The model has worked perfectly with zero reported accidents associated with medical incapacitation that would have been spotted in an FAA third-class medical exam.)

3. Just how effective is a third class medical examination? (That's a harder question, but suffice it to say, there are any number of scenarios under which a pilot could pass the Third-Class exam with flying colors despite a disqualifying condition that wasn't caught. This is not to mention the fact that between medical exams, anything could happen to change the pilot's health status, with no mechanism in place for the AME or the FAA to monitor the condition or do anything about it.)

The bottom line here is that the AMA did what the AMA does, protect the interests of its members, who are physicians. In this matter, as is often the case, it was the financial interest of its members the AMA was protecting. Unfortunately, it just so happens that it was also voting to add to the health care burden of patients while offering almost no associated benefit to them. So it was business as usual, it's sad to say.

Shame on the AMA."

I don't see why having the AMA represent the interests of its members is a shame, that is what they are supposed to do. The pilot community needs to badger our Congressional representatives with good hard facts that show how safe and efficient the self certifying medical has been for the public when used by glider pilots, motor glider pilots and LSA pilots. We just need to be sure that the broader interests of pilots, aircraft companies, airports and service organizations (like Pilots and Paws and Air Compassion for Veterans) are considered by our Congressmen and women as they make decisions. We need to ensure they enact legislation that supports the greater good, not the narrow interests of the AMA. Every lobbying organization is supposed to represent the interests of their constituents. We just have to show that more people will benefit from the proposed change to medical certification than will be hurt by it.

“Have you seen those guys hanging around the airport? You need me to make sure they are safe to fly.” The comment, McCoy said, was greeted by laughter from those in attendance.
Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/going-di ... 7hivswq.99

Not intending to start pi$$ing match with forum member doctors here but after reading the above quote, I think it would be interesting to do a comparison between the number of deaths caused per capita by private pilots vs md's, not to mention what the average life expectancy of md's vs the general public is. Considering some of the numbers I've seen published by the JAMA, they might sing a different tune if confronted by the facts.

We'll probably have to agree to disagree on this, but I see the knowing misrepresentation of facts by any organization, including (especially?) lobbyists, for the purpose of financial gain as shameful. See Citizens United. As I read information related to this issue it seems that a size-able number of AMEs find the 3rd class medical to be ineffective as applied to private pilots. For an organization to take a stand on an issue contrary to empirical data solely to enrich its membership and to spend large sums to influence legislation is unethical and thereby shameful. One simple man's opinion. Probably why I'll never be rich, and I'm good with that.

I have been a family doc for 18 years and have never joined the AMA...I never felt they ever advocated for docs with boots on the ground. And only a very small percentage of physicians in the country are members. So they do not speak for the majority of physicians.

I am also a new AME...believe me I am not doing it for the income, I do it because I love aviation and enjoy spending time talking with pilots...please no pitch forks or torches

My beef is not with a hard working doc, or carpenter, or plumber trying to do a good job. No torches or pitchforks aimed in that direction.

"Flying reader, pilot, physician and AMA delegate Dr. Dan McCoy, who participated in the process, told Flying there were just two experts who supported the adoption of the driver's license medical, himself and one other pilot, and that both the military and aerospace groups of the AMA strongly opposed the FAA's proposed rule change."

what's the military and aerospace got to lose from the driver's license medical?

Not all AME's belong to AMA or CAMA......... call you AME and ask if they do. If so thank them kindly for their past service and that you will be choosing one in the future who does not belong.
Don't get mad, don't get upset just say good bye................then call your congressman

ExperimentalAviator wrote:that both the military and aerospace groups of the AMA strongly opposed the FAA's proposed rule change."

what's the military and aerospace got to lose from the driver's license medical?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Gump

GumpAir wrote:

ExperimentalAviator wrote:that both the military and aerospace groups of the AMA strongly opposed the FAA's proposed rule change."

what's the military and aerospace got to lose from the driver's license medical?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$


Gump

i know that but how

NAPY wrote:I think it would be interesting to do a comparison between [...] the average life expectancy of md's vs the general public is. Considering some of the numbers I've seen published by the JAMA, they might sing a different tune if confronted by the facts.

"Among both U.S. white and black men, physicians were, on average, older when they died, (73.0 years for white and 68.7 for black) than were lawyers (72.3 and 62.0), all examined professionals (70.9 and 65.3), and all men (70.3 and 63.6)."

rw2 wrote:

NAPY wrote:I think it would be interesting to do a comparison between [...] the average life expectancy of md's vs the general public is. Considering some of the numbers I've seen published by the JAMA, they might sing a different tune if confronted by the facts.

"Among both U.S. white and black men, physicians were, on average, older when they died, (73.0 years for white and 68.7 for black) than were lawyers (72.3 and 62.0), all examined professionals (70.9 and 65.3), and all men (70.3 and 63.6)."

Thanks for posting that. Hopefully the trend continues.

Here are some links to to go along with my other comments.
http://chriskresser.com/medical-care-is ... -in-the-us
"...The most shocking revelation of her report is that iatrogenic damage (defined as a state of ill health or adverse effect resulting from medical treatment) is the third leading cause of death in the U.S., after heart disease and cancer."

..and the JAMA article the above is based on:
http://www.jhsph.edu/research/centers-a ... s/A154.pdf

mnewb1 wrote:I have been a family doc for 18 years and have never joined the AMA...I never felt they ever advocated for docs with boots on the ground. And only a very small percentage of physicians in the country are members. So they do not speak for the majority of physicians.

I am also a new AME...believe me I am not doing it for the income, I do it because I love aviation and enjoy spending time talking with pilots...please no pitch forks or torches

Make no bones about it. The AMA does not represent doctors. Less than 15% of physicians nationally belong to the AMA. They speak as a minority.

I'll bet the whole AMA has no clue the difference between the classes of FAA medicals, so, all they think of is all the airline pilots, etc, w/ class 1 or 2, who go their AME anyway. I have never heard of AME's making any money on medicals, they all just do it to keep their hands in it, or for their friends.

"AMEs offer the last line of defense to make sure the skies are safe"

Thank GOD there are men like that making us piss in cups thereby keeping the unsuspecting public safe!

No disrespect intended to the doc who posted above. You sound like a stand up guy.

rw2 wrote:"Among both U.S. white and black men, physicians were, on average, older when they died, (73.0 years for white and 68.7 for black) than were lawyers (72.3 and 62.0), all examined professionals (70.9 and 65.3), and all men (70.3 and 63.6)."

What is the source of this quote please?

SteveCanyon59 wrote:

rw2 wrote:"Among both U.S. white and black men, physicians were, on average, older when they died, (73.0 years for white and 68.7 for black) than were lawyers (72.3 and 62.0), all examined professionals (70.9 and 65.3), and all men (70.3 and 63.6)."

What is the source of this quote please?

You can find it on Pubmed.
The study is over 15 years old and the the data even older.
While it is a single study not substantiated by further studies, there are none that I can quickly find that dispute it.
It does beg further investigating though.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11020591