Niche players in health policy: Medical specialty societies in Congress 1969–2002

Abstract

Scholars and commentators alike have long used 'organized medicine' as shorthand for the American Medical Association (AMA). However, organized medicine has increasingly shown signs of fragmentation into specialty societies over the last two decades. While the AMA remains the largest association of physicians, and wields a great deal of influence in political circles, its use as a proxy for organized medicine may warrant reevaluation due to the changing political organization of medicine. We developed a unique database of specialty medical society appearances before all Congressional committees by combining records from Lexis-Nexis Congressional and the Policy Agendas database. Descriptive statistics were used to evaluate the participation of specialty societies by committee and by hearing type. The Herfindahl-Hirschman Index (HHI) was used to measure whether specialty societies develop niche roles with specific committees, and the Chi-Square Goodness of Fit test was used to study the distribution of specialty society testimonies in health hearings more formally. We found that although the AMA participates in Congressional hearings at a higher rate than any other individual medical specialty society, it accounts for a decreasing percentage of all specialty society appearances over time. In addition, specialty societies have developed niche and monopoly roles in health policymaking as well as relationships with particular congressional committees over time. We conclude that the increasing participation of specialty medical societies in the policymaking process is important because medical societies do not testify solely to promote the economic self-interest of their members. Specialization in medicine has segmented lobbying roles, such that specialty societies have a different focus than the AMA. Thus, 'organized medicine' and the AMA are no longer synonymous.