Online Spat Involves CPT Codes
From time to time, we all complain. We used to keep it among friends, family or a goldfish with a compassionate ear, but with the advent of social media, it's become all too easy to tweet a 140-character rant for all to hear. Now, a physician is using his own social networking site as a soapbox to speak out against the American Medical Association (AMA), and it's getting the medical community all riled up.
Founded by Daniel Palestrant, MD, Sermo is an uber-social networking site exclusively for physicians. It goes beyond the average blog/forum/photo sharing combo so many sites tout, allowing physicians to organize clinical trials, participate in expert panels and earn some pocket change by completing surveys.
Never heard of it? Me neither. That was until this morning, when my editor stumbled upon an article from HealthLeaders Media that notes some hullabaloo about a recent blog by Dr. Palestrant. Posted on July 8, the entry claims the AMA does not represent physicians' interests, citing results from a Sermo poll of 100,000 physicians. This followed a post Dr. Palestrant made July 1 on the Sermo physician community page that alleges the AMA exaggerates its membership numbers and rakes in millions of dollars from CPT codes, a system that has generated a slew of complaints from physicians for its confusing rules.
The AMA promptly responded back, defending its role as a representative of and advocate for physicians nationwide. The association also said it keeps physicians in mind when updated or developing new codes for the CPT system. Dr. Palestrant doesn't seem convinced; in fact, he accused the AMA of batting for insurers instead of playing on Team MD.
But Dr. Palestrant isn't just tiffed about codes. Turns out, Sermo used to have a business relationship with the AMA, as it does with other companies and associations in the medical community. The AMA paid to get access to physicians' comments and opinions posted on the Sermo site. So in a sense, the association was going straight to the source for guidance and feedback. Whether that was enough to sway the AMA from other lucrative ties, however, isn't so clear.
Besides adding some soap opera worthy drama to the medical community, the good relationship gone bad offers some valid questions to ponder. Should online forums and blogs replace trade associations as the go-to source for members' opinions? Is social media an appropriate outlet for dredging up issues, especially when there's bad blood? Are CPT codes really that awful, and do they favor insurers? And of course, is it OK to comment on a blog about comments? We say, yes! (Hint, hint: voice your opinion below!)