All Ontarians Should Hope New Health Minister Sylvia Jones Succeeds

New Ontario Health Minister Sylvia Jones

Sylvia Jones is now Ontario’s Minister of Health, the largest, most volatile ministry in government. The Ontario Medical Association’s (OMA) correctly tweeted about this:

My first thought when I saw this was a somewhat flippant “should have sent her condolences instead.” Minister Jones has a whole lot of headaches going forward. To succeed, she pretty well needs to be perfect. A cursory glance at the issues she faces is mind boggling.

Should she support further lifting of Covid-19 restrictions? This will make some doctors mad. Should she instead support re-introducing mask mandates and tightening of Covid-19 policies? This will make other doctors angry. Worse, both sides have credible experts, so the whole “listen to the experts”can’t apply when the experts themselves are saying different things.

There is a Health Human Resources crisis unfolding in Ontario (and Canada). Hospital ERs are being closed due to staffing crises and there does not seem to be a quick solution. As more health care workers plan on retiring or leaving the profession early, finding replacements is going to be exceptionally challenging.

The Long Term Care (LTC) situation is equally dire. Wait times for LTC beds in Ontario are skyrocketing. In 2017 I wrote about how we needed 26,000 hospital beds right away, and another 50,000 by 2023. More beds are being built by the Ford government, which is great, but they will take time to arrive.

A quick solution to ease the burden would be to allow older homes who had ward beds in their facilities, open them up again. Rules were changed under covid to no longer allow 4 residents per room. However, if you do that, people will scream you are committing gerontocide. (This is despite the fact that just about all residents in nursing homes have got four covid shots now).

Need more? (As if that wasn’t enough). Over 20 million medical procedures were delayed due to the pandemic. Many of these procedures are early detection screening tests for cancer (sooner you catch, the sooner you cure and, cold-heartedly, the less cost to the health care system).

How about wait times? Wait times for medically necessary procedures continues to rise. MOH bureaucrats like to refer to these as “elective” procedures. But the reality is that if you are suffering from knee pain every day, and have to wait a year to get a knee replacement, it’s not elective, it’s necessary.

All of which makes me realize just how courageous Minister Jones is to take on the Health Portfolio. Allah/God/Yahweh/(insert deity of your choice) knows I wouldn’t want the job. But if I may, I would suggest the Minister should focus on a few things in the first year, as even improvements in a couple of areas will have benefits across the health system.

A word of caution first. She should take what bureaucrats tell her with a grain of salt. There were a few times when I was on the OMA Board when it became obvious that the MOH Bureaucrats had NOT fully informed then Health Minister Christine Elliot about some issues around physicians that caused needless kerfuffles. The bureaucracy has a certain way of thinking that is rigid, ideological and focussed on self perpetuation as opposed to making meaningful change.

I don’t always agree with columnist Brian Lilley of PostMedia, but he hit the nail on the head when he wrote:

“…Ford and his team shouldn’t rely on the Ministry of Health for solutions. These are the people who got us into this mess and who have been failing upward for years..”

and

“..Ford has a real opportunity to change health-care delivery, to speed up access to services, to do away with wait lists and all without changing the single-payer system that Canadians rely on..”

The last comment lines up nicely with the first part of the OMA’s Prescription for Ontario, where they recommend developing outpatient surgical clinics to move simple operations out of hospitals and free up beds. The bureaucracy will oppose it because they are incapable of new ways of thinking and are beholden to hospitals. But at least the Minister will have the support of Ontario’s doctors to work through some of the blowback (there’s always blowback to anything new).

The other easy win is to develop a digitally connected team of health care providers for each patient (also an OMA recommendation). We have something similar in the Georgian Bay Region for the past 12 years and I cannot stress how much it has improved patient care. If I have a patient in need of increased home care, all I have to do is message the home care co-ordinator directly from their chart and ask for help, and they usually respond within 24 hours among other benefits.

This also ties in with a project I was pushing hard for during my term on the OMA Board that got sidetracked mostly by the pandemic but also with some political issues around OntarioMD. I remain convinced that had that project gone forward there would be people alive today that aren’t because of the improved communication it would have provided. But at least preliminary work on it has been done, and with a nudge from the Health Minister this could potentially be restarted to give patients a digitally connected health care team.

NB- this is another area where the Digital Health Team at the Ministry of Health is going in the wrong direction. Their plans are (in my opinion) needlessly complex and won’t result in the kind of robust digital health infrastructure that is absolutely essential to a high performing health care system.

In short, Minister Jones has a monumental task ahead of her. Someone will will criticize her no matter what choices she makes (it’s no secret that health care is referred to as the third rail of politics). If however, she can set, say, three attainable goals in her first year (my suggestions would be open LTC beds, start building outpatient surgery clinics and get the digital infrastructure done), while keeping the bureaucrats in check, then real progress can be made in improving the health system.

All Ontarians, regardless of political stripe, should hope she succeeds. Our crumbling health system depends on it.

What Role Should Nurse Practitioners Play in Health Care?

A recent look at some of the news stories around health care do not paint a pretty picture for Family Medicine. In Ottawa, a truly wonderful 41 year old Family Physician (whom I had the pleasure of meeting when I was OMA President) is closing her family practice due to burn out. The BC government is on the defensive over the shortage of Family Physicians. Medical School graduates are avoiding Family Medicine. The list goes depressingly on, but the point is clear.

Family Medicine is in crisis.

Jumping into this environment is former Ontario Deputy Health Minister Bob Bell and his colleagues. To fix Family Practice, they recommend expanded use of Nurse Practitioners (NPs), allowing them to work independently to replace much of what family doctors do. They claim that NPs can independently provide care for rosters of 800 patients, and collaborate with Family Doctors only for more complex patients. The authors reference a British Medical Journal (BMJ) study that suggests this will be “cost-saving.”

Bell doubles down on his beliefs that NPs can replace family doctors on Twitter by cherry picking data, in this case a Cochrane review:

One wonders if Bell and his colleagues bothered to read the reviews. If they had, they would have seen that the BMJ study on “cost-effectiveness” admitted:

“…it was not possible to draw conclusions about the cost-effectiveness of the complementary provider specialized ambulatory care role of nurse practitioners because of the generally low quality of evidence.

And that the “authoritative” (Bell’s words not mine) Cochrane review also stated:

We are uncertain of the effects of nurse‐led care on the costs of care because the certainty of this evidence was assessed as very low.

For those of you not versed in medical literature those phrases are the author’s way of saying they did studies where the results couldn’t be relied upon to be reproducible. Using these to promote a belief that allowing NPs to work independently to replace family docs is…….puzzling.

Bell’s belief that Family Docs are easily replaceable is nothing new. He planned on actually ending his career as a general practitioner. Apparently he thought he could easily slide back into it after having done it for a couple of years early in his career, then gone on be an orthopaedic surgeon for another few decades before getting involved in health administration and the MOH:

I don’t personally attribute any malice to his statement (though others on that thread did), I’m not sure that that Bell realized just how much he insulted every single GP in Canada with his seeming belief that he could simply suddenly switch gears after 4 decades of not being in primary care, and go back to being a GP without at least a residency. Hate to tell you this Dr. Bell, but Family Medicine has changed a LOT since you last practiced it. We have more than just beef or pork insulin for diabetes for example.

More to the point however, is there data out there that actually looks at the kind of system that Bell and his colleagues would propose? One where NPs scope of practice is drastically increased allowing them to work independently, and they replace the bulk of work that Family Doctors do? Turns out, there is.

In South Mississippi, the Hattiesburg Medical Clinic, an Accountable Care Organization that is very similar in structure to the proposed Ontario Health Teams (OHTs), did exactly what is Bell and his colleagues are proposing. Fifteen years ago, based on ongoing shortages in Family Physicians, NPs and Physician Assistants (collectively referred to as Advanced Practice Providers or APPs) were hired and allowed to work separately and independently with physician colleagues.

Did this work? In a word: Nope.

A comprehensive analysis of their findings (minimum of 11 years of data over a large patient population) was published in the Journal of the Mississippi State Medical Association. You can read the details for yourself but here are some highlights:

  • the cost for looking after patients who did not have end stage renal disease (i.e. were on dialysis) or were not in nursing homes was $43 a month higher per patient for those who were looked after by APPs than family docs
  • when the data was adjusted for complex patients, the cost of having an APP look after them, rather than a family doc was $119 per month higher (!)
  • these costs were attributed to ordering more tests/more referrals to specialists and MORE emergency department use (yes MORE)
  • Physicians performed better on 9 out of 10 quality metrics in the review

In short, doing what Bell and his colleagues are suggesting led to poorer overall health care outcomes at an increased cost.

Now to be completely clear, I personally have worked with NPs in a number of ways. I strongly believe they are an essential part of the health care team and provide a valuable service. In my practice, they have assisted me in providing care to my patients. When I had a couple of “cardiac kids” in my practice, I dealt exclusively with the NPs on the cardiology team at the Hospital for Sick Children (never once spoke to a Cardiologist or Cardiovascular Surgeon). When the Royal Victoria Hospital in Barrie had NPs on their oncology service, I discussed issues around cases with them exclusively. The NPs were at all times incredibly helpful to me and my patients. NPs definitely have a role to play.

I would also point out that the Hattiesburg Medical Clinic feels the same way. They strongly valued their NPs, and still have them on staff. But they have modified the way they provide care to ensure that all patients now have a Family Doctor but the visits to the clinic now alternate between the Doctor and the APP. On days when only an APP is in house, telemedicine back up by physicians is provided.

We need to build a better Family Practice system. In order to do so, NPs can and should play an essential role. That role however, is not taking on independent rosters of patients. It is working as valued members of a team that looks after a patient population, where each patient has a Family Doctor.

It’s Time to Open Up Nursing Home Capacity

Recently, I posted what I referred to as a controversial tweet about the need to open up nursing home beds that had been closed during the seemingly never ending Covid pandemic.

While there was not much “controversy” in twitter feed as a result of this, it did lead to some questions being asked during an interview I gave for CTV News.

While I certainly appreciate the professional nature of the reporter (the always adept Kraig Krause), the reality is that 30 second blurb on this topic, in an interview about all things COVID, can’t really do it justice. So let’s delve into this deeper.

It’s no secret that Ontario’s Nursing Homes were hit hard by the Covid pandemic. One nursing home in my region, Roberta Place in Barrie, was ravaged badly by the disease. I still grieve for all of the residents and families there, including those who survived as they likely continue to suffer some of the after effects of what transpired.

In the wake of these and other such stories, the Ontario government quite correctly limited the number of residents in ward beds at nursing homes. Many of Ontario’s nursing homes are very old buildings. The nursing home I’m honoured to be a medical director for has great ownership (private as it happens) and great staff, but the building itself if 52 years old and would not meet newer, more modern standards for nursing homes.

When my nursing home was built, having a ward bed (four residents to a room) was thought to be reasonable. Given that Covid is airborne (like most other respiratory illnesses!) the COVID19 Directive #3 (linked above) for nursing homes limited the number of residents to two per room. This made perfect medical sense at the time, and I certainly supported it then.

The reality however, is that health care is not limited to a single disease. We do have Covid of course, but we have a whole lot of other illnesses that we need to deal with. The Ontario Medical Association has estimated that a minimum of 16 million visits or procedures have been delayed as a result of the pandemic. We can’t keep delaying these. We need to address all the other health care issues that Ontarian’s have, and not just maintain sole focus on Covid.

Right now, I personally have two patients who are in hospital waiting for a nursing home bed. They are not acutely ill. They do not need aggressive medical treatment. They need a nursing home. But they can’t get one because of the massive shortage of nursing home beds. And while I strongly applaud the government for planning to build more beds, they won’t be here for 4-5 years.

At the nursing home I work at, normally 60 patients could be housed, but it’s now limited to 45 because of the rules implemented during the pandemic. I imagine it’s one of many nursing homes that has been limited. While opening up those closed beds (at all the homes) likely won’t be enough, it will help alleviate the stress on hospitals. This is particularly important given (as I write this) no one knows how bad the on coming Omicron wave will be.

But wait – are we not risking increased covid infections in the nursing homes by doing this? We would be increasing, for lack of a better phrase, population density in these homes. The answer is not as straightforward as one would think.

First we now know that three doses of the Covid19 vaccine provides the maximum amount of protection. Just about every resident of a nursing home has had three doses – as have staff. There will never, ever, ever be a vaccine (for any disease) that is 100% effective. But that fact that our most vulnerable patients have had three doses is incredibly reassuring.

Second, we would have to ensure that nursing homes have the funds to put in proper air purifiers (with Hepa Filters) in their facilities. I’m not asking for a complete re-vamp of the HVAC systems (that will take too long). But even small portable air purifiers will make a difference.

Third, we would need to ensure a rapid swab and immunization policy for staff and visitors of nursing homes to further reduce the risk of Covid entering a facility. Just tossing it out there but how about all staff get swabbed once a week regardless of vaccine status, and visitors twice a week?

Fourth, as one of the smartest people I know put it, a bed is just a piece of furniture. We have to ensure that the homes who are short on staff, now have the ability to hire extra staff to take care of the residents in these beds.

The health care system is a behemoth. It is also interdependent on all of its various parts working together. A shortage of nursing home beds, means more people in hospital waiting for nursing homes, which reduces the hospitals ability to provide acute care which leads to further backlogs and delays in medically necessary treatments.

We cannot make nursing homes 100% safe (we can’t make anything 100% safe). But re-opening currently closed nursing home beds in the safest possible manner, will be a small step in the right direction. It will also provide the hospitals with a little bit of extra capacity, should Omicron stress the system more.

Open Letter to Alberta Ophthalmologists

Dear Alberta Ophthalmologist,

I don’t practice in Alberta, and I certainly don’t know all the ins and outs of the Alberta Medical Association (AMA). But I, like every other physician in Canada, am horrified by what’s going on in your province. Your government has torn up a previously agreed to Master Agreement, and despite the attempts by the AMA to fairly negotiate with the government, your association has been ignored, insulted and treated with the most disrespect I have ever seen from a government, and I lived through the Eric Hoskins/Bob Bell years in Ontario!! That physicians are leaving work in your province is absolutely no surprise, and that patients will be the inevitable losers in all this, is entirely predictable.

However, I read with extreme concern when I read about the Eye Physicians and Surgeons Association of Alberta (EPSAA) offering to separate from the AMA and negotiate separately with the government. Sadly, I believe that whatever the internal political reasons behind this may be (let me take a stab in the dark and suggest it has to do with fee relativity and how you feel you are represented on that front), EPSAA is going to find itself played by the government, and you will all suffer after.

You see all of this mirrors exactly what Ontario went through a couple of years ago. We ourselves had something similar happen with the Ontario Specialists Association (OSA). They felt frustrated with the Ontario Medical Association (OMA) for reasons that are likely similar to yours. They thought, as EPSAA clearly does, that they would be better off negotiating separately with the government.

I warned the specialists that they were being played. In my blog, you’ll see I pointed out that in dealing with any militant government, they will use a split in the profession to divide and conquer, and that all physicians would lose out if they tried this.

The response from the Chair of the OSA, Dr. David Jacobs was to suggest that I was wrong in my concerns, particularly about our own Binding Arbitration Framework:

Full disclosure, I happen to like Dr. Jacobs. He’s passionate, smart, opinionated and when push came to shove, really helped the profession more than people give him credit for by publicly exposing the flawed 2016 Tentative Physician Services Agreement.

Despite my warning, he and the OSA persevered on their path however, and held a poll at the end of November, 2018 that suggested that up to 8 specialties wanted to separate from the OMA. And what was the first thing the government did in response to this? They of course, took away the Binding Arbitration Framework for EVERY PHYSICIAN in Ontario. It didn’t even take them two weeks to do that.

Now I would like to think I have a reputation for being very pro physician’s rights. Frankly, I hope to build on that more and convince those of you who may not feel that way that I am pro physician. But to be honest, I didn’t actually blame the Ontario government for trying to take away Arbitration. The reality is that when you are in a tough, difficult negotiation, you always look for weakness in the other side. The government sensed weakness, and so acted on it. Just like the Alberta government will on this move.

Thankfully however, the broader OMA as a whole immediately started a massive advocacy campaign that did result in the government realizing that the profession was maybe not as divided as they had hoped, and arbitration was returned. But the whole mess delayed the hearings that were in progress by a couple of months, and the effects of the delay were clearly felt in the shortened timelines for implementing the eventual Arbitration award.

I also need to point out that your current health minister, Tyler Shandro, is a……..um…….interesting piece of work. I seriously believed that I would never see a health minister as bad as Eric Hoskins from Ontario, ever. But while Hoskins was all kinds of awful and incompetent, at least he never went to a physicians house to berate them, causing that physician to fear for his families safety. Nor did Hoskins ever use his authority to access confidential information on physicians to call them.

Do you really think that Shandro will deal fairly with ophthalmologists, just because you propose to separate from the AMA?

I understand that you are unhappy with the AMA. I certainly spoke to many specialists (and family physicians!) who were unhappy with the OMA. But I guarantee you right now, that if you take this step, and fail to learn from the lessons in Ontario, you will be worse off than before.

The best way to fight a militant, un-co-operative government that seeks to vilify you is to stick together with your colleagues. You may not like what some of them say or do, but I guarantee you that you will be better off with them, rather than trying to do it against politicians and health care bureaucrats who have shown they don’t really care about you. To those politicians and bureaucrats, you are not partners (no matter what they say), you are simply tools and pawns to be used to promote an overall agenda.

I hope you don’t learn that lesson the hard way, like we did in Ontario.

Yours truly,

An Old Country Doctor…….

“Smokey” Thomas Fails His Members

Authour’s Note:  Once again, I would like to state that while I am President-Elect of the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), I have not spoken with any of the Family Doctors in Owen Sound about this situation.  I did email them to ask permission to write this.  All of my thoughts are strictly based on reports in the media, and news releases (all of which are hyperlinked).

Last week I had suggested that Ontario Public Services Employees Union (OPSEU) President Warren “Smokey” Thomas should change his approach on how he dealt with physicians in union disputes.  Sadly, Smokey has doubled down on his tactics.  In doing so, not only has he utterly and completely failed his members, but he risks endangering health care in Owen Sound.

In Owen Sound (population ~ 21,000) there are 22 family doctors who have organized themselves into a Family Health Organization (FHO).  The FHO is a fairly common payment model that consists essentially of a salary and performance bonuses.  Like all other payment models the FHO models experienced years of deep cuts to their budgets during the desultory tenure of Premier Kathleen Wynne.  Cuts to physician payments, mean cuts to patient services.  Hence, the FHO focused on controlling expenses as best it could.

The staff at the FHO chose to unionize (which is their right) but unfortunately chose to do so under OPSEU, and became Local 276.  OPSEU and Smokey have absolutely no experience in dealing with intimate small office settings, and the necessary collegiality that is essential to providing high quality front line care.  As a Family Doctor, you MUST trust everyone from the receptionist, to the nurse and even the cleaning staff.  While disagreements occur, and are often healthy, the trust cannot be compromised, or patient care will suffer.

Smokey and OPSEU’s lack of experience showed almost immediately. Their bargaining team agreed to a contract and recommended it for approval to the FHO staff in May.  That’s right folks, OPSEU actually reached an agreement.  But the agreement was rejected by the FHO staff, a clear repudiation of OSPEU’s leadership.

This appears to be when Smokey went off the rails.  He (and OPSEU) could have taken a hard look at themselves and asked a simple question – “How could we be so out of touch with the members we represent, to have endorsed a deal they rejected off hand?”. But they didn’t.  Instead, in what seems to be an effort to prove to their members that they really are relevant, they doubled down and started hurling insults and threats.   Doctors were “punch drunk with greed” they screamed.

The FHO staff then went on strike, and the results appear to be disastrous for them.  Firstly, OPSEU should have told them that doctors office are not factories that make sprockets and cogs.  They provide essential medical services and they cannot be shut down.  The physicians continued to work, with legally allowable replacement staff (albeit at reduced levels).  All a picket line would do is harass patients, and that won’t win you public support.

Reports of harassment and even a serious medical event involving a replacement worker appeared, although it’s unverified.  Again, instead of stopping to think “What exactly are we accomplishing here?” Smokey, doubled down, increased his insults to physicians, demanded that the Health Minister and Owen Sound Town Council get involved (he failed miserably).  He also made a ludicrous allegation that physicians were “private and for profit”. Has Smokey not read the Canada Health Act?  Physicians haven’t been private since 1984.

Apparently, ten of the 30 FHO staff got wise to what a lousy job Smokey and OPSEU were doing, and actually quit their jobs.  Yet another opportunity for OPSEU to reflect on their own failures as a bargaining agent.  But yet again, Smokey lashed out, this time by asking the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO) to get involved.

Let’s be clear, the letter written by OPSEU is a collection of hearsay without naming any one physician. As such, it cannot possibly be investigated by the CPSO.  If they were to do so, it would diminish the already poor standing the CPSO has in the eye of most physicians, and would send a pall over the entire profession. They would almost certainly faced increased calls from physicians to lose self-regulation if there was anything other than a cursory “thank you, but this is outside of our purview” type response.

But the reality also is that a letter to regulatory body like this takes you beyond any hope of restoring trust in your team.  It’s the one thing that has potential to destroy careers. It’s the one action that essentially screams “irreconcilable differences”.  By going down this road, in what seems to be a desperate attempt to prove his worth, Smokey has caused a toxic meltdown to the point where there is no hope of a resolution.

The members of OPSEU Local 276 would do well at this point to really ask themselves if this is the kind of leadership they signed up for.

Nothing Wrong With Advocating For Physicians

Authour’s note:  This opinion piece of mine was published in the Medical Post.  However, many physicians are unable to access that as you need a dedicated account.  I’ve reproduced it here.

The Canadian Medical Association (CMA) has been embroiled in controversy this past year.  It first started with the announcement of “Vision 2020”, the new strategic plan for the CMA. What’s the first priority of the plan? “Consistently bring a patient perspective to the work of the CMA.”  The second priority?  “Engage in courageous, influential and collaborative dialogue and advocacy.”

This all sounds nice, and politically correct and oh so socially conscious.  Except for one thing.  The CMA is supposed to represent physicians and their needs.  That’s the whole reason for its existence.  Instead, physician representation is third on the priority list, and even there, it’s couched in phrasing like “based on empowering and caring for patients, promoting healthy populations and supporting a vibrant medical profession.”

From the perspective of the CMA’s leaders, I suppose the needs of the general membership don’t really matter.  The recent sale of MD management to ScotiaBank has provided the CMA with a significant amount of revenue.  So much so that they likely don’t even need members anymore.  It’s worthwhile noting that the first $15 million from the sale has been earmarked for a building for health care innovation, as opposed to, you know, a program to look at the alarmingly high burnout rates of physicians.  Certainly the changes made at CMA Governing Council (no more motions to direct the organization) prevent the CMA Board paying attention to silly little things, like the duly elected representatives of physicians across the country.  (NB – it would be unfair of me not to acknowledge that at least the General Membership will be able vote on all the Board members for the CMA.  However, I’m curious to see what the criteria are for becoming a candidate for CMA Board).

There is similar pressure to advocate for patients and health care policy, being placed on the Ontario Medical Association (OMA), particularly on social media.  Recently the OMA has been asked by various physicians to:

– sign letters opposing the separation of children from parents of migrants

– condemn the changes to sexual education curriculum made by Premier Doug Ford’s government

– speak out against the pause to Vaping rules, also made by Doug Ford’s government

– express concerns about the health care for trans gender patients

– and a bunch more.

There are merits to all of those causes (the separation of children from parents is the one I feel strongest about – it’s just child abuse). There is also the argument that physician’s organizations should use their authority to advocate for social issues, as it increases our standing in the eyes of the public and makes us “leaders”. This enhanced standing will supposedly help us when we advocate for ourselves.  The cynics, especially those of us burnt by the previous Ontario government will strongly disagree with this.

But here’s the thing, there are so many good causes out there to advocate for.  And they will keep coming.  How should the OMA, which unlike the CMA, continues to need broad member support, choose?

There is already disagreement about vaping rules/sex ed curriculums and so on.  What happens when the OMA is presented with information about the poor health care Rohingyan women receive?  Or the damage the contaminated water in Flint Michigan has caused?  Or if you want controversy, how about the malnutrition and mental health issues suffered by Palestinian children?  The OMA is supposed to represent 40,000 members with a diverse range of views, not just those who are motivated by one particular issue.

Many Provincial and Territorial Medical Associations (PTMAs) offer media training and advocacy courses.  The OMA for example, has long been asking physicians to become advocates.  Perhaps rather than criticizing on social media, those who feel passionately about various issues can receive the training to allow them to become leaders in their areas of interest.  They can then directly get their message across to the public and work for whatever their cause is.  They are still doctors, and they will still be seen in the public’s eye as doctors taking a lead on health care issues.

As for the PTMAs is it really too much to ask that they focus on membership advocacy first and foremost?  There is absolutely nothing wrong with advocating for meaningful action on high burnout rates, fair contracts and improved working conditions with less interference from bureaucracy.  It’s what these organizations are supposed to do.  The simply reality is that you cannot have a high functioning health care system without happy, healthy and engaged physicians.  Surely advocating for the same is not unreasonable.