Page 9 - WCMS2Q22

other counties on 3 more; Wayne submitted 6; St. Clair 3. The Medical Student Section submitted 19 resolutions; the Resident and Fellow section, 1; 5 specialty societ- ies, 1 each.
Reference committees in their reports recommended approval of 19 resolutions, amendment (and approval) of 34, referral of 2, and disapproval of 7; 1 was withdrawn because the author was unable to attend the meeting. At the 2nd meeting of the House, the reports of the Refer- ence Committees were accepted with 2 exceptions: 2 resolutions that had been approved by reference com- mittees were extracted, reconsidered, and referred to the Board for further study. Overall, 83% of the resolutions succeeded in being approved, amended, or referred.
What Did the Resolutions Ask For?
I have not done an in-depth analysis of resolutions coming from the various sources, but some themes were apparent. The Medical Student Section resolutions, in general, asked for action to correct of large societal problems and inequities. For example, student resolu- tions asked for improved pharmaceutical testing for children, a permanent child tax credit, improved care for persons in prison or jail and after release, and for using Medicaid funds to correct social inequities contributing to poor health.
Resolutions from Kent County tended to focus on narrower physician and patient care delivery problems, insurance issues, issues related to prescribing, and board certification concerns. One particularly physician-fo- cused resolution called for “Celebrat(ing) Michigan Physicians” as being “incredible and unique” and calling for a public awareness campaign to promote how “awesome” we are. Of course, it was approved. A more practical and pertinent resolution from Kent County called for needed changes in the structure and function of the MSMS Judicial Commission. Washtenaw County delegates strongly supported this resolution based on our recent, disappointing interactions with
this commission.
Several multi-county-introduced resolutions focused on ongoing transparency issues with how MSMS shares information about our unified members with the coun- ties. Resolutions aimed at addressing this problem called for bylaws amendments to clarify how eligibility and assignment to county societies is managed; re-establish- ment of the MSMS Committee on Membership, to help enhance recruitment and retention efforts by the state and counties in a more unified manner; and for MSMS to include county participation at the outset of any large group physician recruitment efforts. The Board Action Report recommendation to “take no action” on a resolu- tion calling for transparent dissemination of member information to the county medical societies, which was abruptly curtailed in October 2020, was actively disput- ed. This led to its being extracted at the 2nd meeting of
Volume 74 • Number 2 Washtenaw County Medical Society BULLETIN 9
Health & Fitness