Did ama lobby to remove nursing form pld

1. What the question likely means: scope‑of‑practice and “removing nursing” as a policy target

Readers who ask whether the AMA “lobbied to remove nursing” are often referring to AMA efforts to restrict nurse practitioners’ independent practice or to roll back legal changes that expand nursing roles; the AMA has actively lobbied against scope‑of‑practice expansions, arguing such moves risk patient safety and increase costs ^[1]. AMA policies and model positions have been used to support state‑level lobbying against laws that let advanced practice nurses provide care without physician supervision or collaboration ^[2].

2. Documentary evidence the AMA lobbies on scope of practice

Several analyses and institutional histories document the AMA’s sustained, intense lobbying on scope‑of‑practice issues; Harvard’s Petrie‑Flom Center reports the AMA “continues to lobby intensely against allowing other clinicians to perform tasks traditionally performed by physicians” and frames that lobbying as a major part of its recent advocacy ^[1]. The AMA has defended its stance by emphasizing training differences and alleged safety concerns ^[1].

3. Examples of AMA policy language and tactics in sources

A policy brief compiled by state groups shows AMA language asserting that advanced practice registered nurses (APRNs) should be subject to physician oversight and that the AMA will “develop a plan to assist…the state and local medical societies in identifying and lobbying against laws that allow advanced practice nurses to provide medical care without the [physician]” ^[2]. That is explicit evidence the AMA uses organizational policy to support lobbying against certain nursing practice expansions ^[2].

4. What the sources do not show — limits of the available record

The sources provided do not contain any mention of an AMA campaign to “remove nursing form pld” (that exact wording), nor do they document the AMA seeking to eliminate nursing as a profession, education program, or licensing category. If you mean a particular form, policy item, or legislative provision abbreviated “pld,” available sources do not mention it (not found in current reporting).

5. Broader historical context: past AMA influence on workforce policy

Separate reviews of health‑policy history note the AMA played a role in limiting physician supply historically (e.g., lobbying on medical school and residency caps) and later reversed some positions, illustrating the organization’s capacity to shape workforce rules through advocacy ^[3]. That broader record helps explain why current AMA activity on scope of practice attracts scrutiny and concern from nursing groups and health‑access advocates ^{[1] [3]}.

6. Competing viewpoints and hidden agendas to consider

The AMA frames its opposition to scope expansions as patient‑safety and quality concerns ^[1]. Opponents argue the AMA’s lobbying protects physician economic interests and limits access to care, especially in underserved areas; academic commentary and reviews explicitly criticize the AMA’s scope lobbying as protecting professional turf and contributing to workforce shortages ^{[1] [3]}. State advocacy documents show the AMA explicitly offers to help state societies lobby—an action aligned with protecting physician prerogatives ^[2].

7. How to follow up — what reporting would settle this question

To resolve whether the AMA lobbied on a particular “form pld” or a discrete legislative item, examine primary documents: AMA lobbying disclosures, state‑level correspondence around the specific bill or form, and contemporaneous statements from nursing groups (not provided here). The current set of sources documents AMA opposition to scope‑of‑practice expansion but does not mention the specific phrase you used ^{[2] [1]}.

If you can clarify what “form pld” refers to (a piece of legislation, a regulatory form, or an acronym), I will search the provided materials again and summarize any direct evidence or rebuttals found in the sources.