From Library Journal
Chicago Sun Times reporters Wolinsky and Brune argue that what is good for the American Medical Association (AMA) is not necessarily good for the public or its health. Since the AMA is a doctors' organization, few readers will be surprised by the authors' revelations of conflicts of professional vs. public interests. The authors provide an overview of the AMA, discussing its organization and membership and how it works; its political "wheeling and dealing"; and some of its less altruistic actions regarding alternative (i.e., nonallopathic) medicines, Medicare, and the tobacco and drug industries and its ethical waverings on health issues such as abortion and AIDS. They write that "the AMA is a cheerleader for just enough reform to avoid a major overhaul" of the U.S. healthcare system. Recommended for healthcare and public policy collections.
James Swanton, Albert Einstein Coll. of Medicine, New York
Copyright 1994 Reed Business Information, Inc.
Chicago newsmen Wolinsky and Brune document well the major political activities of what they call the "American Doctors Association" in support of its own financial and organizational health. The AMA, they claim, is more interested in doctors' salaries and privileges than in the care of patients. Doctors' ownership or interests in laboratories, diagnostic facilities, pharmacies, and other health-related work have drawn them away from their profession and into business. Battles against other medical groups, such as those for homeopathy and chiropractic, also have been carried on for financial reasons rather than for the improvement of care. Besides presenting their case, Wolinsky and Brune etch good characterizations of the major AMA spokespersons over the years. The product of many interviews, thorough grounding in the literature, and knowledge of important, leaked internal reports, their book is a contribution to both health-care history and the current health-care reform debate. William Beatty
