AMA’s Scope of Practice Partnership, Part 1 ~ the plan to limit the practice of OTHER healthcare practitioners

by faithgibson on August 9, 2020

in AMA's SOPP, Economic Issue$

Work-N-Progress// Temporary Holding

Draft ~ Hoover profile info at the bottom
will soon be transferred to its own post

AMA series ~ Day #2

Organized Medicine in America is not
on the same side of healthcare issues
as We, the American People

I am beginning this series on the AMA’s SOPP on August 9th, 2020 – the 29th anniversary of my arrest by the MBC on the same date in 1991. I was home alone with my youngest daughter and a litter of 2-day old puppies when a professionally dressed man and woman appeared on my porch. The older man knocked on my door and when i answered, asked if I was Faith Gibson. When I answered “yes”  — Mr. McQuines, who was an employee of our State medical board, informed me that he had a warrant for my arrest and I would have to come with him.

My response is best described as an “out of body” experience, liking having found yourself on the planet Mars or falling down Alice’s rabbit hole while the Queen yelled “off with her head!”.

That is when I heard this sentence come out of my very own mouth:

I’m sorry, but I can’t leave, i have 2-day out puppies and there are no other adults in our household“.

Apparently, the Medical Board of California did not see newborn puppies as barrier to arresting midwives.  I was quickly handcuffed and put in the back of an unmarked police car. Then I was driven to the Santa Clara County’s Women’s Correctional Facility, where I was placed in a holding room that reminded me of the waiting room in a Trailways bus station — rows of seats with an armrest between each seat so no one could lay down.

Of course, such a scene would be incomplete without the ubiquitous TV high on the wall in one corner, blaring out loud and obnoxious daytime soap opera and even louder commercials between the short segments of the over-acted dramas.

How I became a target for our State’s Medical Board

The drama that played out in my living room actually began during the 15 or so years that I worked as an L&D nurse during the bad old days of “knock’em out, drag ’em out obstetrics“. This K.O.D.O. obstetrical system began in the 1910 and consisted of Twilight Sleep drugs — morphine and the amnesic and hallucinogenic drug scopolamine — and the routine use of general anesthesia for “delivery”.
These automatic protocols also included cutting a “generous”  episiotomy and forceps delivery. Due to the narcotics given to the mother during labor, use of general anesthesia, forceful fundal pressure in concert with the use of forceps,  the majority of newborns suffered from some degree of respiratory depression. Babies that were more profoundly depressed had to be resuscitated by L&D nurses like myself and did not make it about 5% of the time. This long litany of interventions finally ended with the manual removal of the placenta and perineal suturing of the still unconscious new mother.
This represented the most profound change in normal childbirth practices in the history of the human species. Due to the routine use of these obstetrical practices, anesthesia complications were the 3rd leading cause of maternal death and the effects of the narcotic drugs and general anesthesia on newborns caused the death of many of them who were so profoundly depressed that they could breathe on their own after being born.
As a childbearing woman myself, I attempted to avoid these harmful practices, which at the time were unavoidable, the only way I could — that is, by getting to the hospital very late in my labor. However, Providence decreed that I gave birth to my first baby in the back seat of our Renault in the ER drive way of the hosp. that i worked at, both amazed and thrilled to be the first person alter GOD to put my hands on my tiny new daughter.
After trying to change the “system” from within for more than a decade (and getting fired more than once as a result), I permanently ‘retired’ from hospital obstetrics and walked away from the nursing profession. Over time I began practicing as a Mennonite midwife under California’s religious exemptions clause, which at the time was the only avenue of ‘legal’ practice for non-nurse midwives attending births in a non-medical setting.
Unfortunately, State’s medical board was for political reasons trying to get the rel exemptions provision relative to mfry declared illegal and I became their ‘test case’. After being arrested by agents of the Medical Board in my home in the presence of my youngest daughter I was and handcuffed driven 20 miles to a jail in another part of the county.
In some ways this was quite fitting — as a healthy pregnant woman giving birth in the hospital I’d been hand-cuffed to the side of the OR-type delivery table and now i was being handcuffed for the so-called ‘crime’ of assisting other healthy women give birth normally and criminally prosecuted over the course of 20 months.

@@@@@@@@ Material below this line will be moved to Day#3, which begins the download of AMA’s House of Delegates (HOD) resolutions and other associated documents @@@@@@@

The AMA’s 2006 Scope of Practice partnership is a well-funded (we are talking millions each and every year since 2006 frankly highly successful attempt to limit the licensed authority to practice of all non-MDs.
The list of these non-MD practitioners includes  Advanced Nurse Practitioners, Registered Nurse Anesthetists,  chiropractors, midwives, physical therapists, physiologists, and many others. Some of these practitioners don’t even provide allopathic forms of care.
These new laws, or ones already passed that restrict the practice of these healthcare practitioners, create legally requires all non-MD practitioners be either be employed by, or practice under the supervision of an MD or DO.  If they are employed by an MD, his office will bill the insurance company and federal Medicare-Medicaid programs as if the doctor has provided the care, even though the MD never saw or was involved in the patient’s office visit.
In states where the AMA’s chapter (in California its the California Medical Association) has gotten license-restricting laws passes, any practitioner that does function under the supervision and control of an MD, can be criminally prosecuted for the illegal practice of medicine.
In my research, I ran across these (and other) documents, which ve archived. Enclosed are large excerpts of pertinent parts.
It was interesting to read the other resolutions in their 30-page report for the year 2008 — a schizophrenic experience that included (along with the SOPP and anti-mfry-PHB / Ricki Lake roast) the following nonsense:
(1) a resolution declaring that all speciality associations (ex. ACOG, etc) had to get an OK from their state medical association before introducing any legislation that would impact on the scope of practice of any other licensed physicians in their state (obviously doesn’t apply to any of the rest of us!) 
(2) a resolution announcing that the AMA was ‘strongly opposed’ to the policies of some insurance companies that refused to pay physicians for patient services that result in iatrogenic complications and policies of non-payment for hospital-acquired conditions that ‘may not in fact be preventable‘ (or maybe were!).
The resolution authorizes development of an educational campaign to convince the public and the congress to pass laws prohibiting this egregious policy that would (obviously! create great ‘patient harm’.
“that our AMA continue its education and advocacy of Members of Congress about the unintended consequences of non-payment for hospital acquired conditions that may not in fact be preventable; that our American Medical Association oppose the use of payment and coverage decisions of governmental and commercial health insurance entities as determinative of the standard of care for medical practice and advocate that payment decisions by any third party payer not be considered in determining standards of care for medical practice.”
(3) AMA approved a policy permitting non-physicians to perform intraoperative neurophysiologic monitoring of anesthetized patients during surgery, which they simultaneously identified as a restricted ‘practice of medicine’ and OK’d to “be delegated tonon-physician personnel under direct supervision or online real-timesupervisionof the operating surgeon or another physician trained in, or who has demonstrated competence, in neurophysiologic techniques and is available to interpret the studies and advise the surgeon during the surgical procedures  (i’m assuming this is like having L&D nurses sit out at the desk and watch banks of EFM screens)

Welcome to the Alice in Wonderland world of organized medicine (and you thought ACOG was the problem!)


Limited Licensure Health Care Provider Training and Certification Standards
Duane M. Cady, MD, Chair
At the 2005 American Medical Association (AMA) Interim Meeting, the House of Delegates (HOD) adopted as amended Resolution 814 entitled “Limited Licensure Health Care Provider Training and Certification Standards.”  Resolution 814 calls on the AMA, along with the Scope of Practice Partnership (SOPP) and interested Federation partners, to study the qualifications, education, academic requirements, licensure, certification, independent governance, ethical standards, disciplinary processes, and peer review of the limited licensure health care providers and limited independent practitioners, as identified by the SOPP.
Reference Committee recommended that the initial resolve be modified to reflect the involvement of the SOPP in conducting the study called for in Resolution 814.
Definition of occupations included those that “function in a newly expanded medical support role to the physician in the provision of patient care.”
“physician-support occupations” based on ….. the physician’s capability and competence to supervise such an assistant.
[faith’s NOTE: this distinction identifies the primary function of nurse practitioners, nurse midwives, and physician assistants as “physician extenders” or an ‘assistant’, rather than primarily meeting the needs of the patients — obviously physicians require more help than sick people]  

AMA  HOD rule #160.949 – Practicing Medicine by Non-Physicians.  H-160.949 states that “[o]ur AMA:

(1) …“substitution of a non-physician in the diagnosis, treatment, education, direction and medical procedures where clear-cut documentation of assured quality has not been carried out, and where such alters the traditional pattern of practice in which the physician directs and supervises the care given;
(3) [AMA] continues to actively oppose legislation allowing non-physician groups to engage in the practice of medicine without physician (MD, DO) training or appropriate physician (MD, DO) supervision;
(4) [AMA] continues to encourage state medical societies to oppose state legislation allowing non-physician groups to engage in the practice of medicine without physician (MD, DO) training or appropriate physician (MD, DO) supervision; and
(5) through legislative and regulatory efforts, vigorously support and advocate for the requirement of appropriate physician supervision of non-physician clinical staff in all areas of medicine.


The Scope of Practice Partnership (SOPP) was created by a coalition comprised of the AMA, six national medical specialty societies:
  • American Academy of Ophthalmology,
  • American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons,
  • American Academy of Otolaryngology – Head and Neck Surgery
  • American Psychiatric Association,
  • American Society of Anesthesiologists
  • American Society of Plastic Surgeons

Six State Medical Associations

  • California Medical Association
  • Colorado Medical Society
  • Maine Medical Association
  • Massachusetts Medical Society
  • New Mexico Medical Society
  • Texas Medical Association
Members of this coalition (referred to as the “SOPP Steering Committee”) agreed that it was necessary to concentrate the resources of organized medicine to oppose scope of practice expansions by allied health professionals that threaten the health and safety of the public.
The SOPP Steering Committee agreed that this would best be accomplished through a wide-range of efforts, including a combination of legislative, regulatory and judicial advocacy, as well as programs of information, research and education.  Moreover, the SOPP Steering Committee was committed to creating a true partnership that operated by consensus and functioned in a cooperative and coordinated manner.
The SOPP Steering Committee has met either in person or via conference call quarterly for the last two years.  During this time, it developed various core documents that serve as the foundation for the SOPP.  Three main principles that the SOPP Steering Committee agreed to are as follows:

·      Membership:  Input from all state medical associations and national medical specialty societies will be vital to the viability of the SOPP.  The SOPP and its Steering Committee will be open for participation by any state medical association and/or national medical specialty society represented in the AMA HOD.  The greater the number of members, the greater the resources (both financial and in-kind) the SOPP will have to advance its advocacy efforts.

·      Funding:  SOPP project funding will be derived solely from the annual dues collected from all medical societies participating in the SOPP.  In other words, the amount of dues raised in any given year will dictate the SOPP’s level of involvement in scope of practice initiatives.

The AMA also sought a detailed and exhaustive legal review of the SOPP by its Office of General Counsel (OGC).
This was done in order to ensure that the creation of the SOPP was not in violation of any existing antitrust, truth in advertising, election, or lobbying laws.
Understandably, this was a very extensive review.
Ultimately, the AMA OGC approved of the underlying principles governing the SOPP. 
**NOTE -> faith: Their lawyers insisted that the phrase “in a manner that threatens the health and safety of the public” always be apart of the phrase “to oppose allied health professions that seek to expand their scope of practice”, so they could pass their unfair business practices off as altruistic concern over ‘patient safety’.  
From its inception, the SOPP Steering Committee has envisioned that the SOPP’s involvement in scope of practice “campaigns” would be multi-dimensional.  The members of the SOPP Steering Committee had the foresight to see that the SOPP would become involved not only in the individual state legislative, regulatory, and judicial advocacy, but also in programs of information, research and education.  From the very start, the SOPP Steering Committee’s discussions focused on two “top priority” research projects.  Both studies would be extensive and therefore, benefited from the formation of the SOPP and the concentration of the Federation’s resources.
The first of these studies would focus on discrediting access to care arguments repeatedly made by various allied health professionals when seeking to expand their respective scope of practice, particularly in rural states.
The second study, and arguably the more extensive of the two, would concentrate on completing educational/training/licensure comparisons of specific allied health professions and the medical profession.  Obviously the second study aligns perfectly with Resolution 814.
Official Roll-Out of SOPP
The SOPP was officially rolled out at the AMA Advocacy Resource Center’s (ARC) 2006 State Legislative Strategy Conference in January.  Up to that point in time, the SOPP had been favorably received by the Federation**-2 [of State Medical Boards] and was enthusiastically embraced by the attendees of the conference.
(2) discrediting access to care arguments made by various allied health professionals, particularly in rural areas of a state;
(3) creating maps that identify the locations of physicians, by specialty, to be used to counter claims that physicians do not exist in certain areas of a given state; and
(4) same as (1) but for the medical profession and specific complementary /alternative medicine professions.
It is notable that the draft SOPP Work Plan clearly identifies (1) as its “top priority” for SOPP projects in 2006.
Next Steps
Since the 2006 State Legislative Strategy Conference, ARC staff has sent letters to the executive directors of all state medical associations and national medical specialty societies recognized by the AMA HOD.
These letters included … the SOPP’s core documents, as well as the Statement of Legal Compliance for all medical societies to sign and an invoice for annual dues for all national medical specialty societies and the AMA to process.  ARC staff is currently fielding any questions associated with these memos and processing all dues that are sent by the Federation * [of State Medical Boards].
The SOPP Steering Committee considered the draft SOPP Work Plan at its face-to-face meeting on March 13, 2006.  The priority for this meeting was determining the amount of annual dues raised and based on that, identifying SOPP 2006 projects.
Shortly after the SOPP Steering Committee meeting, the ARC team added a new full-time legislative attorney who was hired to focus their attention on scope of practice issues.**-1  This is an exciting addition to the ARC team and signifies the AMA’s continued commitment to addressing scope of practice issues in an effective, collaborative and cooperative manner with its Federation**-2 partners.
ARC staff will continue to monitor and track scope of practice developments at the state level, expand its Scope of Practice Campaign when deemed necessary, and work with affected state medical associations and national medical specialty societies, at their request, to oppose allied health professions that seek to expand their scope of practice in a manner that threatens the health and safety of the public. **
The Federation [of State Medical Boards] has been energized by the development of the SOPP and the AMA will continue **its work in bringing organized medicine together to fight these scope of practice battles.

End SOPP material copied from AMA websites

Day #3 ~ Following the AMA’s $$$ Trail 

According to the online Hoover Profile of the AMA ( 2008), the AMA’s annual income in the 21st century is approximately $300,000,000. While the organization has been around for 175 years and often had as many as 1/4 million dues-paying members, the AMA has never relied on membership fees as the major source of its revenue.

This $300 million annual in 2008 can be directly traced back to the late 1800s and early 1900s, when the AMA first expanded its activities to include publishing professional journals. The Journal of the American Medical Association was first published 1883 by Nathan Davis, the AMA’s first editor, followed by a dozen “speciality” journals.

These monthly journals were originally seen as an educational services to AMA members. However, they very soon turned into a double-barreled financial bonanza. First, they weren’t free so each of its members, as well as hospitals and medical libraries all had to buy annual subscriptions. This more than covered the cost of layout, printing, and mailing.

But the “real money” wasn’t from subscriptions but from eagar advertisers interested in hawking an endless number of drugs, products and other medical services in JAMA — the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association.

 The group spent lavishly on its public outreach campaigns, backed by money from its for-profit arms such as its successful publishing division.

At its 2000 national meeting, the group announced it would begin to peddle its information technology services.

The AMA’s executive vice-president, E. Ratcliffe Anderson, claimed in an article in Modern Healthcare (June 19, 2000) that the AMA was ‘probably the most data-rich entity anywhere in the world of medicine.’

Information technology initiatives, such as a new online health network called ‘Your Practice Online,’ would bring the group the financial success it needed in order to continue to fund its work

Editor’s Note: The “work” identified by the AMA was its political lobbying efforts to influence state and national legislation and block efforts to pass any form of universal healthcare.

TempHOLD –


In 1961, the AMA opposed the King-Anderson bill proposing Medicare legislation and took out advertisements in newspapers, radio and television against government health insurance. The AMA established the American Medical Political Action Committee, which was separate from AMA though the Association nominated its board of directors.[13] The AMA’s efforts to defeat Medicare legislation was called Operation Coffee Cup and included secretive meetings in which the vinyl LP “Ronald Reagan Speaks Out Against Socialized Medicine” was played.[45] The AMA created an “Eldercare” proposal rather than hospital insurance through Social Security.[46]


The AMA first published the Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) coding system in 1966. The system was created for uniform reporting of outpatient physician services. The first manual was 163 pages and contained only four-digit codes with descriptions of each.[11] A second edition of the book was published in 1970 with a fifth digit added.[47]

CPT is owned and maintained by American Medical Association, which has copyright protection on CPT. In 1966, the AMA published the first edition of CPT, which at that time focused on surgical procedures.

The AMA does not divulge exactly how much it earns from CPT licensing fees, although they are believed to be substantial. A 2001 estimate put the figure at $71 million; its IRS Form 990 for 2017 listed $148 million in “royalties,” which is believed to represent CPT code revenues.
AMA applies royalties for the use of CPT codes and descriptors based on the type of product in which the CPT content is used and the type of user of the product.
CPT codes and ICD 10 codes are different in two very important ways.
 First, CPT codes describe what was done to the patient, including diagnostic, laboratory, radiology, and surgical procedures while the ICD code identifies a diagnosis and describes a disease or medical condition.
CPT codes are copyrighted by AMA and can only be used by paying a subscription fee, while ICD codes are free and can be used by anyone without having to pay a fee.


CPT® (Current Procedural Terminology) | AMA – American … › amaone › cpt-current-proce…
Find coding and billing resources as well as the latest CPT Licensing and PLA (Proprietary Laboratory Analyses) articles on the AMA’s CPT Overview.

Hoover’s Profile: American Medical Association

Home > Library > Business & Finance > Hoover’s Profiles


Contact Information

American Medical Association

515 N. State St.

Chicago, IL 60610

IL Tel. 312-464-5000

Toll Free 800-621-8335

Fax 312-464-4184


Excerpt from timeline starting with in 1949

At the same time, the AMA continued to lobby Washington against national health insurance. When President Truman again raised the idea of mandatory national health insurance in 1948, the AMA quickly spoke out against it. The AMA began levying dues from its members for the first time in 1949, which gave the organization ready cash to pay for publicity.

Over the 1950s, the association spent millions of dollars on various campaigns to influence opinion against national medical insurance. This fight intensified in the 1960s, when John F. Kennedy came to office pledging to provide medical insurance for the indigent aged, a program that became known as Medicare. The AMA spent heavily to block Medicare.

The group claimed 180,000 physician members at that time, and all received posters and pamphlets for their offices to inform patients of their doctor’s opposition to Medicare. Its writers produced speeches for members’ use, put out radio advertisements and full-page ads in big-city newspapers, and came up with instructions for the AMA’s Women’s Auxiliary to begin a letter-writing campaign.

In 1961 the AMA began contributing money to politicians’ election campaigns. As a nonprofit organization, the AMA could not contribute money directly, but it set up an organization called the American Medical Political Action Committee, or AMPAC, to filter money to its candidates.

“AMPAC apparently had vast resources from the beginning, and is still one of the wealthiest political action committees in the nation.”

The AMA brought in revenue through annual membership dues and by selling advertising in its publications. Ad revenues rose in the 1960s, peaking in 1967 with $13.6 million, which was more than 40 percent of the organization’s total revenue.

After 1967, however, advertising revenue fell sharply following the enactment of new regulations by the Food and Drug Administration that slowed the process of bringing new drugs to market. As a result, pharmaceutical companies cut their advertising budgets, and the AMA found its income shrinking.

The AMA raised membership dues to take up the slack, bringing them up from $45 to $70 in 1967. Inflation and the lack of advertising revenue put the association in a perilous financial position at the end of the 1960s, and the AMA began the 1970s in the red.

In the early 1970s the AMA began to lose members when several state chapters stopped requiring their members to be AMA members as well. Mostly as a result of this, the AMA lost 11,671 members in 1971. The association was unable to convince board members to raise membership dues enough to make up for lost revenue. At the same time, journal publishing costs were rising quickly.

By 1974, the AMA was at the point of having to borrow money to meet its payroll. A new president, James Sammons, took over that year, and he immediately instituted financial reforms. The AMA shut down some of its committees and cut some staff. Members were asked to send in a special $60 assessment to ease the organization’s plight. This raised $7 million in 1975. Sammons and a fiscal committee reviewed the dues-collection system and worked actively to recruit members.

The AMA began operating under a strict fiscal plan that aimed for increasing membership fees to cover operating costs for a period of five years. Though the number of regular members declined in the late 1970s, growing numbers of residents and students signed up. In 1975 the AMA had just over 179,000 total members. 8,700 were residents, and 8,100 students. By 1982, total membership was 213,400. The number of residents and students had risen sharply, to 27,900 and 26,900, respectively.

Sammons also overhauled the association’s publishing ventures. A single group vice-president for publishing became responsible for all publications, and all were reviewed. As a result, some ceased to publish, and others were sold.

By 1979, the AMA’s publishing division was financially sound. It began bringing in money through new projects with broad consumer appeal, such as the AMA Family Medical Guide, published in 1982.

With its finances under better control, the AMA continued to fund national campaigns on public health issues in the 1980s. In 1981 the group recommended more study on the effects of dioxin and Agent Orange, chemical defoliants deployed in the Vietnam War, which could have lingering health effects. The AMA also began a renewed campaign to curb the harmful effects of alcohol in 1982. It called on its state chapters to work for legislation that would raise the legal drinking age to 21.

The AMA began educating physicians and healthcare workers in 1984 about the symptoms and treatment of child abuse and neglect, and in 1985 the organization began working toward nationwide curbs on tobacco smoking. The AMA called for a ban on tobacco advertising, and also supported legislation that banned smoking on public transportation. That year the AMA also began an education campaign regarding AIDS that continued through the 1980s.

Though total membership in the AMA continued to grow, the percentage of doctors who belonged to the organization declined from the mid-1960s on.

At the height of the group’s campaign against Medicare, the AMA claimed at least 70 percent of American doctors as members. By the mid-1990s, the AMA represented only about 40 percent of American doctors.

The group spent lavishly on its public outreach campaigns, backed by money from its for-profit arms such as its successful publishing division.

But revenue from membership did not keep up. The group lost money in 1993 and 1994. A sharp increase in advertising revenues made up the loss in 1995, but by the mid-1990s it was clear that the physicians’ group was troubled. Close to 90 percent of doctors over the age of 70 were members, but fewer than 35 percent of those aged 30 to 49. The group had worked hard to sign up students and residents at reduced rates, but the full rate for regular membership was over $400 in the mid-1990s, and apparently many younger doctors felt the price was too high.

Faced with this probability, the AMA looked for ways to trim its budget and to bring in more money. At its 2000 national meeting, the group announced it would begin to peddle its information technology services.

The AMA’s executive vice-president, E. Ratcliffe Anderson, claimed in an article in Modern Healthcare (June 19, 2000) that the AMA was ‘probably the most data-rich entity anywhere in the world of medicine.’

Information technology initiatives, such as a new online health network called ‘Your Practice Online,’ would bring the group the financial success it needed in order to continue to fund its work.

Principal Competitors

American Nurses Association; American Academy of Family Physicians.

Further Reading

Booth, Bonnie, ‘AMA Seeking New Lifetime Membership,’ American Medical News, August 7, 2000, p. 17.

Burrow, James G. AMA: Voice of American Medicine, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1963.

Campion, Frank D. The AMA and U.S. Health Policy Since 1940, Chicago: Chicago Review Press, 1984.

Dreyfuss, Robert, ‘Which Doctors? The AMA’s Identity Crisis,’ New Republic, June 22, 1998, pp. 22-26.

Fishbein, Morris. History of the AMA 1847-1947, Philadelphia and London: W.B. Saunders, 1947.

Gibbons, Don L., ‘Dr. Sammons Weathering Storm,’ Medical World News, December 25, 1989, p. 17.

Gorman, Christine, ‘Doctors’ Dilemma,’ Time, August 25, 1997, p. 64.

Harris, Richard, ‘Medicare: We Do Not Compromise,’ New Yorker, July 16, 1966, pp. 35-70.

Jaklevic, Mary Chris, ‘AMA Loses Millions,’ Modern Healthcare, June 14, 1999, p. 3

‘AMA’s Profits Climb 17% in 1996,’ Modern Healthcare, June 23, 1997, p. 20.

McCormick, Brian, ‘Re-Organized Medicine,’ American Medical News, February 2, 1998, p. 7.

Melcher, Richard A., ‘The AMA Isn’t Feeling So Hot,’ Business Week, September 1, 1997, p. 33.

Thompson, Elizabeth, and Kristen Hallam, ‘AMA Reminds Members of What It Can Do,’ Modern Healthcare, June 19, 2000, p. 6.

— A. Woodward


Previous post:

Next post: