By Stephen Tharp, MD
AMA Delegation Chair
The 2020 AMA Interim Meeting was held in San Diego – well, almost. With Covid-19 breathing down our necks and masks, we held a complete meeting on two virtual platforms. This was an incredible accomplishment and demonstrated the dedication of the AMA speaker and vice speaker of the House of Delegates (HOD).
Our meeting was limited to urgent business only and still filled the allotted four days of meeting time. I would refer doctors to www.ama-assn.org for a review of actions taken by our House of Delegates. Search the website for “Top 10 stories from the November 2020 AMA Special Meeting.” This update can be viewed by both members and non-members of the AMA.
The virtual AMA meeting was held using two virtual platforms. The primary platform was a Zoom-style meeting managed by Bruce A. Scott, MD, speaker; and Lisa Bohman Egbert, MD, vice speaker. It was actually very much like our in-person assemblies, since with over 700 people attending, our best view has always been the large projection screens located throughout the large meeting room. Traditional reports were given by Susan Bailey, MD, our president; and James Madara, MD, executive vice president and CEO, who also conducted an interview with Anthony Fauci, MD, Director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases.
The first challenge was deciding on resolutions that were not recommended for consideration by the Resolutions Committee. The second electronic platform was used for voting. Delegates were given a unique identification number used for any voting or speaking. We were told prior to the meeting that it would be easier if we had two devices capable of internet communication, but we could do it with just one device. Not only were two devices needed, but it really required at least one computer for efficient interaction. Fortunately, I had two computers, but one person I knew was unable to vote and monitor the proceedings simultaneously because all that was available in his location was his smartphone. We could see the speaker and vice speaker on the Zoom platform, and we could use the Lumi platform to speak or vote. Alternate delegates could speak, but only if they had a delegate code from one of our delegates. This code could not be used by two people simultaneously.
We utilized eight reference committees to review reports and resolutions. Members were invited to make comments using the online resources prior to the meeting. These were all reviewed by the relevant reference committee. Testimony was accepted during all reference committees. AMA members could speak during the committee meeting but needed to have a delegate code. A request to speak was sent through the Lumi system and acknowledged by the chair, who would then invite the person to speak. The reference committees were scheduled to meet two at a time. The process was orderly but did take a little longer than our usual reference committee meetings.
When the HOD convened, we used the same system to extract items from the Reference Committee Reports and to vote on the floor of the House. We were able to conduct business using Zoom and Lumi, but we could not use either to communicate within our delegation. For that, we resurrected GroupMe on our phones (Thanks, Rhonda!) from earlier meetings.
Our experience was very enlightening. I think we were able to come together, make important decisions and continue the work of the AMA. It was not as satisfying as the usual meetings but allowed us input into AMA policy and priorities. Perhaps most importantly for me, it demonstrated that remote input is feasible and gives us a chance to bring more ISMA members into the conversations at both the ISMA and the AMA.