2010 House of Delegates

RESOLUTION NUMBER C-5, STANDARD COMMUNICATION, CONSENT AND DECISION-MAKING PROCESS FOR SERIOUSLY ILL INPATIENTS IN SOUTH CAROLINA: A RESOLUTION
(Submitted by: SCMA Bioethics Committee, & Greenville County Medical Society)

“RESOLVED; that the South Carolina Medical Association support the development by physicians and hospitals of a uniform process for addressing difficult ethical issues that will be widely recognized and accepted across the state and can be used regularly by any physicians caring for seriously ill patients; and, be it further

RESOLVED; that the proposed process address 1) legal ability to consent according to established South Carolina law; 2) determination of the proper decision makers, agents, or surrogates; 3) determination of the patients’ understanding, beliefs, values, and wishes; 4) facilitating effective communication; and 5) calling for palliative care and/or ethics consults to address concerns; and, be it further

RESOLVED; that the South Carolina Medical Association collaborate with physician groups, hospital groups, and other interested organizations to improve the process for communication, consent, and decision – making for seriously ill inpatients in South Carolina.”

RESOLUTION NUMBER D-4, GOOD SAMARITAN LAW
(Submitted by: Spartanburg County Medical Society)

“RESOLVED; that the SCMA encourage passage of amendments to Section 38-79-30, in the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976 (the ‘Good Samaritan Law’), that strengthen the protections afforded by and broaden the application of the Good Samaritan Law.”

RESOLUTION NUMBER D-5, MEDICARE EDUCATION DAY
(Submitted by: SC AMA Delegation)

“RESOLVED; that the AMA promote the creation of a monthly National Medicare Day; and

RESOLVED; that the purpose of a monthly National Medicare Day is to pointedly and eloquently educate the public about the impending crises in Medicare; and be it further

RESOLVED; that on each monthly National Medicare Day physicians should communicate through various means – posters, pamphlets, discussions, etc. – to Medicare patients and their families the impending collapse of medical care for Medicare patients due to the economic restraints imposed on most community physicians and hospitals by the Medicare system.”

RESOLUTION NUMBER D-6, ACUPUNCTURE ACT
(Submitted by: Charleston County Medical Society)

“RESOLVED; that physicians should be exempt from the need to achieve additional licensure (L.Ac.) in order to perform acupuncture; and be it further

RESOLVED; that the South Carolina Medical Association continues its work to change the Acupuncture Act to permit MDs and DOs to perform acupuncture without additional licensure.”

RESOLUTION NUMBER D-7, USE OF THE WORD “PHYSICIAN”
(Submitted by: Charleston County Medical Society)

“RESOLVED; that the SCMA will take active steps to introduce legislation defining the word "physician" so that its public and advertised use will be limited to those health professionals who are graduates of an accredited medical school or school of osteopathy, and are duly licensed by the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners pursuant to Section 40-47-32, of the Code of Laws of South Carolina, 1976.”

RESOLUTION NUMBER D-8, SURGICAL PRIVILEGES FOR OPTOMETRISTS
(Submitted by: SC Society of Ophthalmology Society)

“RESOLVED; that the SCMA oppose H-4819 as introduced in the 2009-2010 General Legislative Session and any similar legislation.

RESOLUTION NUMBER E-3, STATEWIDE ONLINE UNIFORM CREDENTIALING APPLICATION
(Submitted by: Charleston County Medical Society)

“RESOLVED; that the South Carolina Medical Association collaborate with the South Carolina Hospital Association to create a standardized online uniform credentialing application that could be recommended for use by all hospitals and other healthcare providers and practitioners, including state agencies in South Carolina.”

RESOLUTION NUMBER F-6, ABPS VS. ABMS CERTIFICATIONS
(Submitted by: Richard A. Schmitt, MD on Behalf of SCCEP)

“RESOLVED; that the SCMA oppose the designation of ABPS certification as being equivalent to ABMS and AOA board certification, and communicate this to the South Carolina Board of Medical Examiners, as well as The South Carolina Legislature.”

RESOLUTION NUMBER G-5, SCMA CO-SPONSOR RESOLUTION TO THE AMA FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A SENIOR PHYSICIANS SECTION
(Submitted by: Greenville County Medical Society)

“RESOLVED; that the South Carolina Medical Association co-sponsor the following resolution at the 2010 American Medical Association Annual Meeting.

AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HOUSE OF DELEGATES
Resolution: __________
(A-10)
Introduced by: __________ Delegation
Subject: Establishment of a Senior Physicians Section
Referred to: Reference Committee __________
(__________, Chair)

Whereas, AMA Policy G-620.041 (8) states that “Our AMA House of Delegates should be composed of individuals representing organizations that reflect the major dimensions of a physician’s life,” and

Whereas, A Senior Physician’s Group (SPG) has been in existence under the AMA umbrella since 1994 when the AMA absorbed the American Association of Senior Physicians; and

Whereas, The mission of the SPG is to act as a link to the policies and actions of our AMA related to the senior physician community; and

Whereas, The SPG has sought representation from each state on senior-oriented issues and programs, several of which have been presented at Annual and Interim Meetings; and

Whereas, In 2005, the AMA approved new eligibility criteria for the SPG, which states that all AMA physician members who are 65 years of age and above are members of the SPG; and

Whereas, The senior age group is the most rapidly growing segment of our U.S. population, with a corresponding increase in senior physicians; there are currently 56,000 AMA members 65 years of age and older, with estimates suggesting nearly 164,000 additional potential senior members who could be recruited to have formal representation through a SPG Section; and,

Whereas, Our AMA has long been sensitive to the appropriateness of Section designation for age-related interests in the form of MSS, RFS, and YPS; therefore be it

RESOLVED, That our AMA House of Delegates enact Section status for our Senior Physicians Group with corresponding delegate representation as specified in current AMA Bylaws. Relevant AMA Policy
G-620.041 Characteristics of a New Federation of Medicine

Our AMA House of Delegates recognizes the need for changes in the structure of the medical association sector and in the relationships among medical associations; commits itself to implementing changes that will strengthen organized medicine, enabling it to meet the challenges of the future and advocate with a single, effective voice for the interests of patients and physicians; and endorses the concept that our AMA should serve as the framework for a new Federation of Medicine. The characteristics of the new Federation of Medicine include the following: (1) The Federation of Medicine should be restructured in a way that enables each medical association to retain its individual identity and activities, but which functions more like a total enterprise. Our AMA should become the framework within which a new Federation of medicine is established. (2) The restructured Federation of organized medicine should be built on the basic components of the existing Federation: local medical societies/counties, state medical societies, specialty societies and the national umbrella organization (Our AMA). Additional components may need to be included. (3) Individual physician membership should remain the predominant form for membership in all components of the Federation. (4) The primary objectives of the new Federation should be: (a) an increase in value of membership; and (b) unity of voice and action of all Federation components. (5) Physicians should be encouraged to join organized medicine at all levels of the restructured Federation. There should be initiatives to encourage maximal collaboration in membership development efforts among components of the Federation. (6) Federation participants must recognize that achieving real unity of voice and action and achieving true enhancement of the value of membership will require significant streamlining of roles throughout the Federation to reduce duplication (i.e., cost and dues) and create synergy. (7) The roles of organizations serving physicians should be clarified and positioned to take full advantage of the strategic advantages enjoyed by each kind of organization. The Federation of organized medicine will be a catalyst and a forum for pursuing collaborative efforts to enhance the value of membership throughout the Federation. This effort will be the highest priority in the implementation process for creating the new Federation. (8) Our AMA House of Delegates should be composed of individuals representing organizations that reflect the major dimensions of a physician's life. (9) The Federation House of Delegates should strive to be as inclusive as possible of physician organizations that have a stake in, and a contribution to make to, the goals of the Federation. (10) State societies should be represented by one delegate for every 1000 AMA members or portion thereof. (11) State societies should continue to count AMA direct members from that state for purposes of determining delegation size. (12) The current criteria for specialty society eligibility will continue to apply. (13) State societies should continue to get a "bonus delegate" for being unified. Specialty societies that are unified should also get a "bonus delegate." (14) Consistent with the idea that "voting" is not the only way to participate in an organization, mechanisms should be established through which organizations or groups of physicians with particular interests can meaningfully participate in the Federation without having a vote in the House of Delegates. (15) To establish a new, effective Federation of Medicine, a mechanism will be needed for the purposes of: (a) Clarifying roles and achieving active coordination of efforts: (i) developing a process for helping to coordinate the responses of medical associations to key issues, and (ii) enhancing communication among medical associations and between medical associations and physicians, and (b) Establishing a process for pursuing collaborative efforts among Federation members: (i) identifying opportunities, including joint ventures, for medical associations to work together, and (ii) promoting information sharing and compatible database development among medical associations.

(BOT Rep. 40, I-95; Consolidated: CLRPD Rep. 3, I-01).”