BACKGROUND: Physician involvement in political advocacy has become increasingly important in recent years. This study aims to explore the types of involvement and barriers to involvement in political advocacy among American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members, identify issues considered most important by ASES members, and assess demographic factors that might correlate with involvement in political advocacy efforts among ASES members.
METHODS: This survey was conducted by the ASES Political Advocacy Committee over a two-week period in June 2021. The survey collected demographic information including sex, ethnicity, years in practice, practice type, political affiliation, and level of current involvement in political advocacy. Additional questions consisted of thoughts regarding current health care policy issues and the role of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)/ASES regarding such policy issues.
RESULTS: We received 297 responses for a total response rate of 27%. Of those who responded, 24.6% identified as Democrat, 33% identified as Republican, and 42.4% identified as Independent. There was no difference in political affiliation between membership groups. Physician Reimbursement (82%), Medical Liability Reform (50%), and Physician Ownership (50%) were the most important issues identified among respondents. Physician Ownership, Physician Reimbursement and GME and Student Loan Reform were most important to those in early practice, while Quality and Research was most important to those with greater than 25 years of practice experience.
CONCLUSIONS: There is strong agreement among surgeons regarding the most important political advocacy issues. The efforts of the AAOS and ASES should focus on these areas. Additionally, the vast majority of respondents felt that advocacy efforts had a positive impact on patients and surgeons.

Medical humanitarian organizations are increasingly the primary healthcare providers for unauthorized migrants in high-income countries. Existing studies of medical humanitarianism in the Global North reveal tensions between principles of traditionally apolitical humanitarianism and human rights. In practice, these tensions translate into organizational debates about prioritizing direct service provision to meet immediate needs or advocacy to effect long-term systemic change. Informed by these debates, this paper asserts the importance of immigration and health policy contexts as central to shaping the relationship between healthcare provision and political advocacy within medical humanitarian NGOs. Drawing from twelve months of fieldwork with medical humanitarian NGOs in Arizona, I analyze data from ethnographic participant observation and interviews with volunteer healthcare providers at a medical humanitarian organization I call Community Clinic of Phoenix (CCP), a free clinic for uninsured, undocumented immigrants. I find that, in the context of Arizona\'s anti-immigrant rhetoric and policies, CCP employs medical humanitarianism as both a discourse and a model of care to challenge immigrants\' exclusion from health coverage and criminalization through immigration enforcement. The clinic\'s emphasis on immigrant health justice shapes their critiques of the structural failures of U.S. immigration and health systems, their approach to providing equitable access to quality healthcare for uninsured immigrants, and their work to create broad social change for immigrant rights and health justice. Driven by their mission of \"not replicating a free version of a broken system,\" the clinic\'s healthcare provision amid a climate inhospitable to immigrants demonstrates the importance of both conceptualizing and practicing medical humanitarianism as healthcare advocacy.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Washington Committee was formed in 1975 to establish a means for neurosurgery to influence federal health care policy. In response to growing federal health care legislation and regulation, the Washington Committee expanded from its original six members in 1975 to 35 invited liaisons and members by 2020. The Washington Committee, through the Washington Office, expanded political lobbying capacity into numerous important areas of health care policy, including Current Procedural Terminology coding and Medicare reimbursement, Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, healthcare quality oversight, emergency medical services, treatment guidelines, treatment outcome registries, medical liability reform, research funding, and information dissemination. Over 45 yr, the Washington Committee has become an indispensable resource for shaping public policy affecting neurosurgery training, research, and practice.

The American Association of Neurological Surgeons/Congress of Neurological Surgeons Washington Committee was formed in 1975 to establish a means for neurosurgery to influence federal health care policy. In response to growing federal health care legislation and regulation, the Washington Committee expanded from its original six members in 1975 to 35 invited liaisons and members by 2020. The Washington Committee, through the Washington Office, expanded political lobbying capacity into numerous important areas of health care policy, including Current Procedural Terminology coding and Medicare reimbursement, Federal Drug Administration (FDA) regulation, healthcare quality oversight, emergenc medical services, treatment guidelines, treatment outcome registries, medical liability reform, research funding, and information dissemination. Over 45 yr, the Washington Committee has become an indispensable resource for shaping public policy affecting neurosurgery training, research, and practice.

This article explains and gives examples of the importance of political advocacy for hand surgeons at the federal and state levels. Two health care leaders who are also hand surgeons, one now serving as a state Senator and one a former President of the American Medical Association, give their perspective on participation in the political process. The article covers avenues for advocacy for hand surgeons as individuals and as members of medical organizations, including suggestions about effective communication with legislators. There is discussion of the unique role of the American Society for Surgery of the Hand in representing hand surgeons.

BACKGROUND: This study assessed the current political standings and active political engagement of American Shoulder and Elbow Surgeons (ASES) members along with the political process as it relates to health care policy.
METHODS: This survey study involved 552 ASES members. The survey was open for 2 weeks. Responses were received from 254 of the 552 members (46%), and their answers were analyzed.
RESULTS: Six (2%) of the responding members were solo practitioners, 100 (39%) belonged to a private practice, 106 (42%) were providers at academic institutions or residency training programs, 25 (10%) were employed by a hospital, and 17 (7%) categorized themselves as other. Email was the preferred method of communication. Of all responding members, 110 (43%) stated they had contributed to the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgery Political Advocacy Committee in the last 12 months. Four (10%) of the responding members have a relationship with an elected official, and 220 (87%) would be willing to become a key contact and reach out to a legislator.
CONCLUSIONS: Moving forward, this survey can be used to better shape the political advocacy efforts of the ASES and potentially other subspecialty societies. The response that \"a high percentage of members would like to be more involved\" suggests the need for a program to help further educate and facilitate the membership on political advocacy.

Dramatic improvements have occurred in the overall health of our children driven by rigorous research translated into clinical practice. However, all is not well for too many, not only for their health but for other outcomes of their lives. These outcomes reflect poorly on how professional groups in child life and health have advocated effectively at the political level for the needs of children and for the services to support them. Professional staff in child health, including those involved in neonatal care, must become more effective in translating research into political advocacy for the best interests of children. A scientific approach to political advocacy is needed that is equivalent in its rigour to the best of bio-medical research. Above all, the care of the newly born infant should not be seen in isolation, but in the overall context of childhood and the services to support children today.

Exclusionary practices in dominant market-based systems are recognized as contributing to global health inequities. Undocumented immigrants are particularly vulnerable to unequal access to healthcare. Humanitarian NGOs strive to respond meaningfully to these health inequities among migrants and undocumented immigrants. Few studies describe the work of humanitarian NGOs that advocate for the right to health of undocumented immigrants in high-income countries. This paper discusses immigration, health, and human rights while examining solidarity, spirituality, and advocacy using a U.S.-based example of medical humanitarianism: the \'Our Lady of Guadalupe Free Clinic.\' In 2011, the Free Clinic began in the basement of a Catholic parish in Minnesota in response to the lack of access to medical services for undocumented immigrants. Run by a local grassroots organization, it is held every six weeks and offers free primary healthcare to Latino immigrants and the uninsured. In this article, we examine the tricky relationship between humanitarianism and human rights in the U.S. Using ethnography, we draw on participant observation and interviews with 30 clinic volunteers, including health professionals, administrators, language interpreters, and spiritual leaders. The study was conducted September 2012-December 2013 in southern Minnesota. We examine how notions of solidarity, spirituality, and advocacy structure faith-based medical humanitarianism in the U.S. and explore the underlying tensions between the humanitarian mandate, spiritual teachings (social justice, solidarity), and political advocacy. Examining a moment of \"crisis\" in the Clinic, our study shows that volunteers experience the alliance between spirituality and advocacy with uneasiness. While a spiritual calling may initially motivate volunteers to serve, an embrace of human rights advocacy is important in a sustained effort to provide humanitarian medical care to individuals who fall outside of the political and moral community in the U.S.

Due to the expanding role of pharmacy in health care, it is imperative that pharmacy professionals work together to advocate for the profession. An English-language only literature search was conducted of the PubMed and Medline databases using the key words advocacy, grassroots, political action committee, lobbying, politics, political action, legislation, letter writing, pharmacy, pharmacist, Capitol Hill. Up-to-date information regarding pharmacy-specific advocacy was limited and difficult to locate. Information from the literature search was supplemented with interviews of professionals actively engaged in advocacy, personal experience, and Web sites of national pharmacy organizations. This primer ignites the fire for political advocacy within pharmacy professionals by reinforcing the significant impact that advocacy has on the profession and by providing information on how to become involved. The primer provides a comprehensive \"pocket guide\" of resources combined into an easy-to-use reference for pharmacy professionals and outlines a structured approach on how to become a pharmacy advocate, ranging from a minimal level of involvement to master political activist, and to promote interest among pharmacy professionals to become more engaged with advocacy. Even a small act of advocacy or volunteerism can transform a spark into a raging fire.