Each year, ACEP’s Council elects new leaders for the College at its annual meeting. When it meets October 3-4 in Chicago, the Council—which represents 53 chapters, 40 sections of membership, the Association of Academic Chairs of Emergency Medicine, the Council of Emergency Medicine Residency Directors, the Emergency Medicine Residents’ Association, and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine—will select a President-Elect.

Here’s how each of the three President-Elect candidates answered a question submitted by the Candidate Forum Subcommittee for publication in ACEP Now. Candidates in are listed in alphabetical order.

Candidates for ACEP President-Elect responded to this prompt:

How do you suggest ACEP navigate policy issues in a highly partisan political environment?

Heidi C. Knowles, MS, MD, FACEP

Current Professional Positions: Vice Chair, Chief of Operations, and Medical Director at Integrative Emergency Services at John Peter Smith Hospital, Fort Worth, Texas.

Internships and Residency: Emergency Medicine Residency, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston Memorial Hermann Hospital, Houston, Texas (2006);

Medical Degree: MD, University of Texas at Houston Medical School, Houston, Texas (2003)

Response: In the emergency department, I have never once asked patients who they voted for before I treated them. The person having a stroke, a heart attack, or a traumatic injury does not care whether the solution comes from the right or the left. They care about the outcome, and so should we.

That is why emergency medicine cannot afford to be a partisan specialty. We care for everyone who comes through our doors, regardless of politics, insurance status, geography, or circumstance. That gives us credibility that few others in health care can claim: Our advocacy is grounded in patients, not ideology. It lets us say things others cannot and still be believed.

I would apply one test to every position ACEP takes: not whether it pleases a party, but whether it protects patients and the physicians caring for them. Emergency physicians are often the first to see the consequences of policy decisions and the last line of defense when those decisions fall short. That perspective should guide our advocacy.

Whether the issue is patient access, physician safety, reimbursement, or the sustainability of our specialty, ACEP should remain focused on solving problems rather than choosing sides. On issues like these, I would build coalitions with anyone willing to help solve them, as I have throughout my career working to reduce boarding, improve consultant responsiveness, and strengthen the voice of emergency physicians.