new special representation out of providers will further undermine true provider input. The other change would permit providers not currently listed in the law to be represented. Currently, physicians and other health professionals, institutional representatives, insurors, health profession schools' representatives, and allied health professions are listed. Encouraging more non-physician representation can only impair the effective input of those physicians already on the board and preclude other physicians from becoming involved in local health planning activities. We oppose both these changes because we believe that health planning decisions must have sufficient physician and provider input to be realistic and effective. To do otherwise may lead to decisions based on inadequate information that might adversely affect the availability and quality of health and medical services. We urge that these provisions (sections 206 and 208) not be adopted. Rather we encourage an increased physician representation on planning bodies as a means of enhancing the effectiveness of the planning process. The AMA has already proposed amendments to achieve such representation. Conclusion There are many provisions in P.L. 93-641 that are ripe for change; however, several of the provisions of H.R. 11077 suggest, in our opinion, the wrong direction. Less, not more, federal control is what is needed to make health planning work in the best interests of patients. More, not less, provider input will lead to more effective, patient-oriented, planning decisions. We again commend to your attention the AMA amendments previously submitted to the Subcommittee. We believe they will go a long way to insuring that health planning truly reflects local conditions and the medical needs of patients and we urge their adoption. H.R. 11077 in its present form should not be adopted. |