Because of its vast potential for affecting psychoanalytic practice, national health care reform has been our core concern over the past year. We have struggled long and hard to understand the impact of various reforms and have arrived at several important principles. At the center is the patients right to contract with the analyst of his or her choice. We are agreed also that it is essential to protect the analysis from invasive processes that would disrupt it. In addition, a majority agree that analysts who wish to be part of managed care networks should have the right to be included as so-called willing providers. For the first time in our history, members of The American are going to Washington, aided and informed by two lobbyists, and are meeting with key members of congressional committees to inform them of our positions and concerns. We have targeted the right issues for our patients and our practices. Now we are working cooperatively to ensure the future of psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.
What has this issue done for The American? First, it has given many members an opportunity, individually and collectively, to have a voice in shaping our policies. Each society has conducted meetings and made grass roots opinions known to the leadership through the Committee on Societies, which has referred health reform information to the societies and collected their opinions prior to the meetings in December and May. One local society, Southern California, made an impact through letters to the membership about its concerns. A year ago, the Coalition for Patients' Rights was formed by a small group of members of The American. CPR has had a major impact on our membership, and on The American's position on health care reform, by striking exactly the right note for psychoanalytic practice: the patient must be free to contract with the professional of his choice inside or outside any health care plan. These examples demonstrate that the collective voice of all the societies, the individual voice of one society, and the initiative of a group of members have all influenced our leadership's position on health care. The leadership listened to the membership and responded with our future at stake. While this may seem to you an ordinary event, a natural process that is highly desirable, it is also an indication of the fundamental health of our organization.
We have much to do in assuring our patients and educating communities about the efficacy and safety of psychoanalytic treatment. While we have been very successful in promoting standards of training in our institutes, we have neglected practice issues. Marvin Margolis has presented us the Michigan example. We need to pay close attention to this society's success. The lessons are clear. Community outreach leads to revitalization of the analytic society and to an increase in the size of analytic practices.
In the fifteen years that I have attended Executive Council meetings, I have seen a great change. Today the Council is vital, well-informed about the crucial issues we now face, and aware of its importance as the deliberative body of the membership. When members ask what is being done to help their careers, the answers are clearer than they were. The Council exists to promote the practice of the membership and is performing in an increasingly responsible way.