1996 congressional campaign priorities of the AMA: tackling tobacco or limiting malpractice awards?
OBJECTIVE
This study sought to determine whether the political action committee of the American Medical Association (AMA) contributed more to pro- or anti-tobacco members of Congress in the 1995/96 campaign and whether representatives' voting records on malpractice reform could explain the AMA's contribution patterns.


METHODS
Campaign contributions to House members were analyzed.


RESULTS
The AMA's political action committee contributed averages of $5382 to pro-tobacco representatives and $2103 to anti-tobacco representatives (P < .0005). This contribution pattern can be fully explained by representatives' votes to limit malpractice awards.


CONCLUSIONS
In seeking malpractice reform, the AMA contributed significantly more to pro-tobacco representatives, potentially undermining tobacco control legislation.
Sharfstein
J
J
Boston Medical Center, Mass., USA.
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D000574:American Medical Association / Q000191:economics; D002648:Child; D005381:Financing, Organized; D018166:Health Care Reform / Q000191:economics / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence; D006801:Humans; D007351:Insurance, Liability / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D008318:Malpractice / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011057:Politics; D012907:Smoking / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D014481:United States; D014486:United States Food and Drug Administration / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence