References to “two recently noted decisions by the Executive Committee” by Judith Schachter in her letter are extremely puzzling. No such decisions were ever made by the Executive Committee.
The first, the “decision to bypass the Committee on Confidentiality … to send Denise Nagel to represent us in Washington” seems to be based on a series of incorrect assumptions. The situation was the following:
Nagel, because of her national prominence on privacy issues, was personally invited by the advisory committee to the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna Shalala, to testify on guidelines for implementing the Administrative Simplification amendment. This is a major committee whose recommendations will almost certainly have direct impact on our practices. The American was not invited to testify. Therefore, the issue was not who should represent us, but whether we wanted to be represented at all. Paul Mosher of the Joint Committee on Confidentiality (JCC), and Warren Procci of the Committee on Government Relations and Insurance (CGRI) were contacted as soon as we knew of the opportunity, and Nagel's testimony was forwarded as soon as it was received, one day prior to the hearing, but still with time for modifications to be made, or for a recommendation for The American to withdraw.
Nagel's testimony did not deal specifically with psychoanalysis but was directed to the heart of the bill — the creation of a unique health identifier for the health records of every American, which some have referred to as the “national tattoo.” Testifying also for the Coalition for Patient's Rights (CPR) and the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, Nagel's testimony was a powerful moral statement calling on the committee to preserve the basic right to privacy. We should be thankful to Nagel for her efforts on our behalf. The complete text of Nagel's testimony is available on The American's Web site.
Since December 1995, The American and the CPR have worked together closely and successfully. A coordinating committee consisting of Marvin Margolis, the chair of CGRI (Procci), and the president of CPR (Sam Rubin) has assured maximum combined effectiveness. As usual, this committee was consulted. It was fully supportive of this action. It should also be pointed out that Nagel is a consultant to CGRI and that Procci is a member of JCC.
Obviously, both The American and CPR have labored long and diligently to achieve a major voice for psychoanalysis on Capitol Hill. Both have separately and together brought many psychoanalysts to speak to representatives in Washington. We have used whatever opportunity was available to further the protection of psychoanalytic practice and to raise the profile of The American in Washington, which of course, was the whole point in this case.
We are operating under the mandate of the five principles agreed to by The American and CPR and passed by Council in Philadelphia in May of 1994. In order for The American to effectively meet the many challenges facing us, officers and chairs must have the latitude to act quickly when necessary to carry out approved policy.
The second point, a sweeping charge, that “our officers, in December of 1996, knew of the intention of IPS to file a letter of intent with CORPA…,” followed by the statement that December debates in Board and Council “have been undermined by this failure to inform….” (IPS refers to Independent Psychoanalytic Societies and CORPA refers to Committee on Recognition of Post-Secondary Accreditation.). This is also a straightforward matter that could have been cleared up by a discussion between Schachter and any of the officers of the Executive Committee. Prior to the meetings of Council, Board, or Meeting of Members, no officer had any indication that the IPS was considering submitting a letter of intent to CORPA.
Acting in concert with the other organizations of the Consortium we have agreed to send a letter to IPS asking them to withdraw their letter. Our support of the Consortium letter is based on the passage by both Council and Board of the Consortium bylaws. It is within the spirit of these bylaws that the attainment of exclusive accreditation privileges by a solitary psychoanalytic group does not serve the best interests of the profession of psychoanalysis or of the public.
It is a relief to be able to agree with Schachter in one area, at least—the importance of member involvement and empowerment. It is for this very reason that we have initiated many innovations and included as many members as possible in the decision-making process. It should encourage all of us to know that the last Steering Committee meetings were the most hopeful and exciting in many years.
Sincerely, Marvin Margolis, President
Robert L. Pyles, President-elect