<?xml version="1.0" encoding="iso-8859-1"?>
<!-- generator="FeedCreator 1.7.2" -->
<rss version="2.0">
    <channel>
        <title>MedWorm Tags: american medical association</title>
        <description>MedWorm provides a medical RSS filtering service. Over 6000 RSS medical sources are combined and output via different filters. This feed contains the latest medical blog items that have been tagged with 'american medical association'.</description>
        <link><![CDATA[http://www.medworm.com/rss/search.php?qu=%22american+medical+association%22&t=%22american+medical+association%22&r=Exact&o=d&f=tag]]></link>
        <lastBuildDate>Sat, 03 Sep 2011 01:58:45 +0100</lastBuildDate>
        <item>
            <title>Do Physicians Have A Role In Controlling Healthcare Costs?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5169545&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fdo-physicians-have-a-role-in-controlling-healthcare-costs%2F2011.08.27</link>
            <description>The Role of Physicians in Controlling Medical Care Costs and Reducing Waste by the RAND Corporation and David Geffen, University of California Los Angeles School of Medicine, Santa Monica was just published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).  I do not think the JAMA should have published this article.
1.Why would the JAMA publish such an article?
2. Why are physicians blamed for all the waste in the system?
3. Why is it the physicians’ responsibility to eliminate waste when they are not the cause of the greatest percentage of the waste?
“The amount of money spent on medical care is increasing faster than the gross domestic product (GDP), and the federal deficit is increasing.”
The initial statement assumes that the government deficit is increasing because phy...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5169545</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Aug 2011 21:05:19 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5169545</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Study Shows Value of NLP in Pinpointing Quality Defects</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5159277&amp;cid=t_92666_113_f&amp;fid=34634&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FEmrAndHipaa%2F%7E3%2Fw2QBei4mkwo%2F</link>
            <description>For years, we&amp;#8217;ve heard about how much clinical information is locked away in payer databases. Payers have offered to provide clinical summaries, electronic and otherwise, The problem is, it&amp;#8217;s potentially inaccurate clinical information because it&amp;#8217;s all based on billing claims. (Don&amp;#8217;t believe me? Just ask &amp;#8220;E-Patient&amp;#8221; Dave de Bronkart.) It is for this reason that I don&amp;#8217;t much trust &amp;#8220;quality&amp;#8221; ratings based on claims data.
Just how much of a difference there was between claims data and true clinical data hasn&amp;#8217;t been so clear, though. Until today.
A paper just published online in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that searching EMRs with natural-language processing identified up to 12 times the number of pneumonia c...</description>
            <author>EMR and HIPAA</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5159277</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 25 Aug 2011 21:47:57 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5159277</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AMA Lambasts Critics Of Its Opt-Out Program</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5118998&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fg-WZvl9XAuY%2F</link>
            <description>The new president of the American Medical Association is lashing out at critics who claim the AMA has not done enough to persuade physicians to join its five-year-old Physician Data Restriction Program, InformationWeek reports. So far, less than 28,000 doc have joined the PDRP, which enables them to opt out of prescription data mining used in pharmaceutical marketing campaigns. 
Last week, a commentary in The New England Journal of Medicine commentary suggested the AMA had sabotaged the PDRP. As part of a discussion about the recent US Supreme Court decision to strike down a Vermont data mining law (read here), the authors pointed out that the AMA makes a great deal of money from selling its physician lists, which data miners combine with prescribing data. 
&amp;#8220;To date, few physicians (...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5118998</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 10 Aug 2011 12:37:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5118998</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Health Care Attorney Discusses The Use Of Disclaimers On Facebook Pages</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=5103336&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhealth-care-attorney-discusses-the-use-of-disclaimers-on-facebook-pages%2F2011.08.06</link>
            <description>This is the third part of a three part post addressing the legal concerns of social networking in the health care arena.
In part one, legal expert David Harlow, Esq., Health Care Attorney and Consultant at The Harlow Group, LLC in Boston, answered questions regarding “The Legal Implications for Doctors, Nurses and Hospitals Engaging in Social Media?”
In part two, Mr. Harlow answered questions related to the Pharma industry;  “Legal Concerns: What Steps can Pharma Take to Engage in Social Media?”
The third part addresses a question from a follower on Facebook about the use of disclaimers.
Q:  Barbara: A Healthin30 reader on Facebook writes:  “I’m looking for a good disclaimer to put on a couple of medical practices’ Facebook pages. The AMA social media guidelines aren’t h...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=5103336</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 06 Aug 2011 21:00:47 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">5103336</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AMA Votes To Discourage Commercial CME</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4968914&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FaEr37LbJgo4%2F</link>
            <description>The ongoing controversy over industry sponsorship of continuing medical education took a new turn this week when delegates to the American Medical Association annual meeting voted to restrict support from entities or individuals that have financial interests in the subject matter.
In other words, the delegates decided there should be little or no commercial support and those who are tapped to teach the material should not have any financial relationship with a drug or device maker. Danny Carlat, a psychiatrist who was once an industry speaker but now derides industry-sponsored CME, calls this vote &amp;#8220;huge&amp;#8221; (see here).
However, an AMA spokeswoman says not so fast, or words to that effect. In a phone conversation, she says the language adopted by the delegates is open to interpreta...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4968914</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 23 Jun 2011 13:23:12 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4968914</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>6 Steps to Get Anyone (Yourself Included) to Do Anything</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4852943&amp;cid=t_92666_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F05%2F21%2F6-steps-to-get-anyone-yourself-included-to-do-anything%2F</link>
            <description>I am not promising these things. 
A motivational coach, consultant, therapist, and award-winning faculty member at Yale School of Medicine is. A guy named Michael V. Pantalon. He has a bunch of credentials like publishing articles in the New England Journal of Medicine and the Journal of the American Medical Association, so I read though his book, Instant Influence: How to Get Anyone to Do Anything—FAST with curiosity. I have a lot of projects that I was hoping he could help me with.
I have not had enough time to accurately test-drive his recipe of influence; however, I think I’m coming with a bit of a handicap considering my strong urge to want to please people. I only have to hear a vague “I don’t really see it that way,” to abandon my way and go with someone else’s. However,...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4852943</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 21 May 2011 10:36:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4852943</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>JAMA Study Omitted Data On Alzheimer’s Drug?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4813669&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FVsf-59_lCGQ%2F</link>
            <description>In a blistering missive, the Public Citizen consumer group has charged that researchers with ties to Eli Lilly withheld important data from the Journal of the American Medical Association concerning their recent study of an imaging agent for Alzheimer&amp;#8217;s disease. Last March, the FDA declined to approve the drug over concerns that scans can be accurately read, but Lilly continues to seek approval.
In a letter published yesterday in JAMA, Public Citizen criticized the January 19 study, which examined whether brain scans using Lilly&amp;#8217;s Amyvid, an experimental dye to detect brain abnormalities, was effective. However, the consumer group charged the authors excluded data on the extent to which the scans could be intepreted accurately from one doctor to the next (here is the study and ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4813669</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 11 May 2011 13:26:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4813669</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Ties That Bind: Pharma Money &amp; Medical Societies</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4795056&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FgtIUt5aYG24%2F</link>
            <description>How closely tied are professional medical societies to drug and device makers? Just how much money do some receive? And how obvious is the spending at annual meetings? The answers - some have very close ties, get lots of money and the outlay can be enough to burst a blood vessel. Take the Heart Rhythm Society, which is holding its annual to-do in San Francisco this week.
For instance, Sanofi-Aventis shelled out a total of $351,00, which was divided this way: $110,000 on programs &amp; guides; another $110,000 on educational support; $96,000 for exhibit space; $25,000 for &amp;#8216;turndown service,&amp;#8217; and $10,000 for bag inserts and cards. Similarly, Johnson &amp;#038; Johnson spent $386,750. Here&amp;#8217;s how: $275,000 for exhibit space and lounge;s $36,000 on educational support; $25,000 for ban...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4795056</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 06 May 2011 13:44:32 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4795056</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>That Meta-Analysis May Have Overlooked Bias</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4566339&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FP09cTmu9FyE%2F</link>
            <description>In recent years, the meta-analysis has taken on new prominence. These are, of course, not new studies, but detailed reviews combining results of several studies in order to address a hypothesis. Perhaps one of the most high-profile examples was published in 2007 in The New England Journal of Medicine and determined the Avandia diabetes pill led to a greater chance of cardiovascular risk.
However, the meta-analysis has also been criticized as an imperfect beast, since sources of bias are not controlled by method, which is considered a weakness. A new study, though, has found another reason to take issue - most meta-analysis authors are not examining whether the authors of the underlying randomized, controlled clinical trials have disclosed conflicts of interest.
Specifically, of 29 meta-ana...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4566339</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 09 Mar 2011 13:59:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4566339</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Lying: A Way Of Life In The Medical Profession</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4560275&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Flying-a-way-of-life-in-the-medical-profession%2F2011.03.07</link>
            <description>In his last post, DrRich analyzed whether the young Wisconsin doctors who stood out on street corners proudly offering fake “sick excuses” to protesting teachers were engaging in an act of civil disobedience. DrRich respectfully kept an open mind on this question, but after careful deliberation concluded that it is very unlikely that their actions constituted classic civil disobedience as espoused by Thoreau or Gandhi.
Instead, these doctors were, in a professional capacity, lying. They did not lie in any truly malicious way, however. They lied because they have been trained to believe in a higher cause than mere professional ethics, namely, the cause of social justice. They lied in full confidence that telling lies to advance such a noble cause is a natural duty of the medical profess...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4560275</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Mar 2011 21:00:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4560275</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What ever you say , doctor !</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4536151&amp;cid=t_92666_112_f&amp;fid=34971&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorandpatient.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F03%2Fwhat-ever-you-say-doctor.html</link>
            <description>At the end of a consultation, I usually ask my patients - So what have you decided ? What would you like to do next ? After all, IVF is an elective treatment; and infertile couples have many choices. These are very personal decisions, which are best made by the couple themselves, rather than the doctor.Often, many patients will answer - Whatever you say, doctor !While it may seem very flattering that they are willing to allow me to make the decision for them, this is actually not a good answer , and I am unhappy when I hear this !I'd much rather have a patient who took the time and trouble to understand their options, so they could make the decision for themselves . The best decision is one you make yourselfI will not let them make the wrong decision - but when there are choices, patients ...</description>
            <author>The Patient's Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4536151</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Mar 2011 03:30:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4536151</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Most Docs Support Avastin Restriction: Survey</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4446031&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FkOSamOvJCZE%2F</link>
            <description>In a brief interview late last week, Roche ceo Severin Schwan complained that his best-selling Avastin cancer treatment is not viewed appropriately by investors. &amp;#8220;People talk as if Avastin is a problem, but it is a product with over six billion Swiss francs (in sales) and it still has growth potential,&amp;#8221; he told Dow Jones. &amp;#8220;Other companies would long for a problem like this.&amp;#8221; 
Well, sort of. It is certainly true that Avastin rings registers; worldwide sales last year totaled about $6.8 billion and rose 9 percent, which meant this one drug accounted for 14 percent of total Roche sales. But you may recall the FDA recently decided it wants to rescind the breast cancer indication for the drug, which is approved to treat bowel, lung, brain and kidney cancers. This means t...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4446031</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Feb 2011 20:14:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4446031</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Mystery Providers: Healthcare Professionals And Identification Badges</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4386272&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fmystery-providers-healthcare-professionals-and-identification-badges%2F2011.01.22</link>
            <description>So I’m in the exam room recently with a new patient. After some initial dialog with the child and family, I launched into the business of problem solving. Ten minutes into my history the mother politely asks: “I’m sorry, and you are?…”
I hadn’t introduced myself. I had left my ID badge at my workstation, and by order of some innocent distraction with the child or family, I hadn’t identified myself immediately on entering the room. This is rare.
Sometimes I assume people will know who I am. But I don’t wear a white coat and my stethoscope is concealed. I wear clothes only good enough to sustain the barrage of regurgitation, urine, full-frontal coughs, and sloppy hugs that mark a successful clinic day. A colleague once told me I dress like an algebra teacher. I haven’...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4386272</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 22 Jan 2011 20:00:56 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4386272</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medical Journals, Doctors And Ties To Hedge Funds</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4377789&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FaVe4cHW2HSM%2F</link>
            <description>In a move that some may consider long overdue, more than a dozen of the most prestigious medical journals will consider requiring doctors who submit studies to disclose any payments received from hedge funds and other large investors. The proposal is expected to be discussed at the next annual meeting of The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, which is scheduled for June, according to a spokeswoman for the New England Journal of Medicine.
The possibility follows ongoing concerns about conflicts of interest between researchers and the pharmaceutical industry and the extent to which undisclosed financial relationships may unduly influence medical research and, from there, medical practice. But the issue is also encompassing financial ties to large investors, given the growing...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4377789</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 Jan 2011 15:21:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4377789</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Physician Visibility In Public: I See Patients, And They See Me</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4322508&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fphysician-visibility-in-public-i-see-patients-and-they-see-me%2F2011.01.07</link>
            <description>In the movie &amp;#8220;The Sixth Sense,&amp;#8221; there was that kid who saw dead people. I’m like that. But I see patients and their parents instead. They’re all around me.
They’re watching at the grocery store when my kids act up. We meet during anniversary dinners, at Christmas Eve service, and on the treadmill at the Y. I bump into parents when buying personal effects and even during the early morning coffee run in my oldest sweats. I see patients.
The follow-up dialog between the parents might go something like this:
Dad: “Marge, don’t you think Billy’s colitis might be better managed by a doctor capable of pulling himself together?”
Mom: “Don’t be ridiculous, Frank. DrV’s bedhead has nothing to do with his ability to care for Billy. And besides, I’ve heard tha...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4322508</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 18:00:43 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4322508</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Family Physicians: Are They Paid Well Compared To Other Docs?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4322510&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Faverage-hourly-earnings-of-primary-care-relative-to-other-specialists-graph%2F2011.01.07</link>
            <description>Here&amp;#8217;s an interesting article, talking about stuff that&amp;#8217;s not new to anyone who has read my blog for the last three years. The current relative value unit (RVU) system is a scam, perpetuated by a super-secretive group of subspecialists each  inflating their own worth for the benefit of themselves, at the expense of primary care.

If you don&amp;#8217;t understand what I&amp;#8217;m talking about, first read about RVUs explained. Then come back and read this article put out by the National Institute for Health Care Management. It&amp;#8217;s titled &amp;#8220;Out of Whack: Pricing Distortions in the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule.&amp;#8220; In his essay, Dr. Robert Berenson shows how distorted primary care specialties are paid, relative to other specialties, in an all Medicare practice with t...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4322510</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 14:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4322510</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Dr Malpani's opinion on why Indian doctors should stop giving cuts</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4322562&amp;cid=t_92666_112_f&amp;fid=34971&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fdoctorandpatient.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F01%2Fdr-malpanis-opinion-on-why-indian.html</link>
            <description>There are major disadvantages to the cut system. For one, this system increases the cost to the patient. It also promotes malpractice, because family physicians often pressurise specialists to do surgery in order to maximise their revenue, which means that procedures are done, which are not always in the patient's best interests. Because this practice is hidden, it's never discussed openly, and this creates a lot of resentment amongst patients. The fact that doctors indulge in giving kickbacks is an open secret - and hiding this reality creates a lot of suspicion in the patient's mind. “This is one of the major reasons patients do not trust their doctors, and why the reputation of entire medical profession has taken such a beating in recent years,” says Dr. Malpani. (Source: The Patien...</description>
            <author>The Patient's Doctor</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4322562</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 07 Jan 2011 12:39:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4322562</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Psych Central by the Numbers, 2010</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4302886&amp;cid=t_92666_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2011%2F01%2F01%2Fpsych-central-by-the-numbers-2010%2F</link>
            <description>In October 2010, according to comScore Media Metrix, Psych Central had 820,000 unique U.S. visitors to the site, and in November 2010, we had 933,000 visitors. That puts us in the top 50 most-visited of all health websites on the Internet today &amp;#8212; a first for us! 
Combined with our international audience, Google Analytics tells us we reach over 1.5 million unique visitors each and every month. Astounding, considering our humble beginnings of indexing other psychology and mental health resources online 15 years ago. 
To put this in some context, more people visit Psych Central every month than any one of these sites:

The American Cancer Society

The American Psychological Association and the American Psychiatric Association combined

The American Medical Association

The American Diab...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4302886</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 01 Jan 2011 23:00:52 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4302886</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>How Preauthorization Impacts Care</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4233182&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fhow-preauthorization-impacts-care%2F2010.12.06</link>
            <description>The American Medical Association (AMA) had a press release [recently] announcing findings from their survey on the impact of insurance company preauthorization policies.
Surprisingly, they discovered that these policies use physician time and delay treatment. It&amp;#8217;s funny, because preauthorization policies were designed to save money. And I imagine they do, for the insurer, but they cost money for everyone else. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at Shrink Rap* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4233182</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 06 Dec 2010 23:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4233182</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Can Patients Choose A Good Doctor Online?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4205932&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fcan-patients-choose-a-good-doctor-online%2F2010.11.27</link>
            <description>The following op-ed was published on October 27th, 2010 in USA Today:
When I ask new patients how they found me, frequently they say on the Internet through search engines such as Google.
Out of curiosity, I recently Googled myself. Numerous ads appeared, promising readers a “detailed background report” or a “profile” of me. Among the search results was information about my practice, whether I was board certified, had any lawsuits against me, and reviews from online doctor rating sites. Thankfully, most were favorable, but some were not.
Can patients reliably choose a good doctor online?
People already choose restaurants, movies, and their college professors based on what they read on the Internet, so it’s inevitable that many will research their doctors on the Web as well. But t...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4205932</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 21:00:36 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4205932</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>American Medical News: “Welcome To Our Archives”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4205934&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Famerican-medical-news-welcome-to-our-archives%2F2010.11.27</link>
            <description>Via the American Medical Associations&amp;#8217;s American Medical News article &amp;#8220;Welcome to our archives&amp;#8220;:
Now, our extensive online archive, paired with search and article collections by topic, puts thousands of stories at your fingertips.
Add to that a growing collection of Web-only content, such as our interactive tool for tracking health-plan earnings and a &amp;#8220;Vault&amp;#8221; page that will take you directly to articles and multimedia on topics of enduring interest (www.amednews.com/vault). 
Most of that older content has been behind an access-control wall. By knocking down that barrier, we are making available 10 years of full content and several years more of selected earlier articles. All told, about 15,000 articles now can be searched and read.
We invite our readers to vis...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4205934</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 27 Nov 2010 17:00:23 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4205934</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The AMA’s Policy On Professionalism In The Use Of Social Media</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4190153&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-amas-policy-on-professionalism-in-the-use-of-social-media%2F2010.11.22</link>
            <description>A new policy on professionalism in the use of social media was [recently] adopted by the American Medical Association (AMA). The AMA Office of Media Relations was kind enough to share a copy of the policy:
The Internet has created the ability for medical students and physicians to communicate and share information quickly and to reach millions of people easily. Participating in social networking and other similar Internet opportunities can support physicians’ personal expression, enable individual physicians to have a professional presence online, foster collegiality and camaraderie within the profession, provide opportunity to widely disseminate public health messages and other health communication. Social networks, blogs, and other forms of communication online also create new challe...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4190153</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 22 Nov 2010 15:00:18 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4190153</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Light Shed On The Corruption Of The RUC</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4133714&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Flight-shed-on-the-corruption-of-the-ruc%2F2010.11.03</link>
            <description>Interesting [recent] front-page article in the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) about the American Medical Association&amp;#8217;s (AMA) Relative Value Scale Update Committee (RUC). From the WSJ:
Three times a year, 29 doctors gather around a table in a hotel meeting room. Their job is an unusual one: divvying up billions of Medicare dollars.
The group, convened by the American Medical Association, has no official government standing. Members are mostly selected by medical-specialty trade groups. Anyone who attends its meetings must sign a confidentiality agreement. [...]
The RUC, as it is known, has stoked a debate over whether doctors have too much control over the flow of taxpayer dollars in the $500 billion Medicare program. Its critics fault the committee for contributing to a system that spen...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4133714</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 03 Nov 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4133714</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medical Journals Have Their Own Conflicts Of Interest</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4125283&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2Fz4r5rINz09I%2F</link>
            <description>Much attention has been paid to conflicts of interest relating to the pharmaceutical industry, but where do medical journals fit in this equation? A new study notes that journals also have vested interests that warrant disclosure. Specifically, industry-supported clinical trials can boost a journal&amp;#8217;s so-called impact factor by generating greater distribution of reprints that increase citation rates and, of course, revenue. The trials are often supported by drugmakers, which purchase reprints.
What is an impact factor? The researchers defined it this way: a measure of a journal&amp;#8217;s importance based on how often its articles are cited. This is not just about prestige, of course, but the potential for greater circulation (there is a formula contained in the study, which was publishe...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4125283</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 01 Nov 2010 12:41:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4125283</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Institute of Medicine Report Recommends That Nurses Assume Physician Role</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=4045040&amp;cid=t_92666_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F10%2Finstitute-medicine-report-recommends-nurses-assume-physician-role%2F</link>
            <description>A report released yesterday by the Institute of Medicine is recommending that nurses take the leadership in redesigning the healthcare system in the United States and that they assume a practice role identical to physicians, including without supervision prescribing medications, admitting patients to the hospital, assessing patient conditions, ordering and evaluating tests, and doing invasive procedures. Not surprisingly, the American Medical Association disagrees. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=4045040</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 08 Oct 2010 01:50:35 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">4045040</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Non-Profits And Industry Money: Who Gets What</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3943025&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FciVEK-I929s%2F</link>
            <description>Last December, the Senate Finance Committee’s Chuck Grassley sent letters 33 medical advocay groups, including the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society, the American Heart Association and American Academy of Family Physicians for details about the money they and their board members received from drug and device makers (background here).
The move came several months after Grassley and his staffers discovered that the National Alliance on Mental Illness received sizeable pharma donations while also conducting lobbying efforts with drug makers and pushing legislation that benefits these companies. Since then, NAMI has posted that sort of info on its web site (look here). But what about the others?
Well, The Chronicle of Philanthropy has done an update by checking in wit...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3943025</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 07 Sep 2010 15:14:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3943025</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>JAMA Editor Catherine DeAngelis Is Leaving</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3925084&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FHa5z-LE_Be8%2F</link>
            <description>After a decade of running one of the world&amp;#8217;s most prestigious medical journals, Catherine DeAngelis is leaving her job as editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association next year to join Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, where she will develop a Center for Professionalism in Medicine and the Related Professions, including nursing, public health, business and law.
“This program, based in ethical professional conduct, will be a culmination of education, training and experience. It is the logical next step for me based back in my academic home,” DeAngelis says in a statement, which notes she was vice dean for Academic Affairs and Faculty at Hopkins School of Medicine before going to JAMA and is a professor of pediatrics there. 
During her te...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3925084</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 01 Sep 2010 22:45:53 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3925084</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The Improbable, Unsinkable Glucosamine</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3854522&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fthe-improbable-unsinkable-glucosamine%2F2010.08.10</link>
            <description>Glucosamine is widely used for osteoarthritis pain. It&amp;#8217;s not as impossible as homeopathy, but its rationale is improbable. As I explained in a previous post:
Wallace Sampson, one of the other authors of this blog, has pointed out that the amount of glucosamine in the typical supplement dose is on the order of 1/1000th to 1/10,000th of the available glucosamine in the body, most of which is produced by the body itself. He says, “Glucosamine is not an essential nutrient like a vitamin or an essential amino acid, for which small amounts make a large difference. How much difference could that small additional amount make? If glucosamine or chondroitin worked, this would be a medical first and worthy of a Nobel. It probably cannot work.”
Nevertheless, glucosamine (alone or with chondr...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3854522</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 10 Aug 2010 17:00:34 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3854522</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Patient Safety: Doctors Must Report Each Other’s Incompetencies</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3794774&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fpatient-safety-doctors-must-report-each-others-incompetencies%2F2010.07.27</link>
            <description>Recently, JAMA published a study concluding that doctors are hesitant to report incompetent physicians or those who were impaired. According to the article:
&amp;#8220;&amp;#8230;more than a third of docs don’t think they’re responsible for reporting those who aren’t fit to practice, according to the results just published in JAMA. And only 69 percent of the docs who knew about an impaired or incompetent colleague reported them.
To those who advocate that the medical profession self-police, the numbers aren’t encouraging. (more&amp;#8230;)

			
			*This blog post was originally published at KevinMD.com* (Source: Better Health)</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3794774</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 27 Jul 2010 15:00:41 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3794774</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Public Service: Does Having An Opinion Disqualify You?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3790706&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fpublic-service-does-having-an-opinion-disqualify-you%2F2010.07.26</link>
            <description>Many conservatives are up-in-arms about President Obama&amp;#8217;s decision to appoint Don Berwick, a pediatrician and renowned expert in quality improvement and patient safety, to lead the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). They object to Dr. Berwick&amp;#8217;s views on a range of issues, and to Obama&amp;#8217;s decision to use his office&amp;#8217;s authority to appoint Dr. Berwick while the Senate was out on a short Independence Day holiday recess. As a &amp;#8220;recess appointment,&amp;#8221; Dr. Berwick was able to take office without Senate hearings and confirmation, but he can only serve through the end of the 111th Congress &amp;#8212; that is, until the end of 2011 &amp;#8212; unless ratified by the Senate.
Berwick, though, also has many supporters. Maggie Mahar articulates the &amp;#8220;pro&amp;#8221...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3790706</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 26 Jul 2010 12:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3790706</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Emergency Medicine Dilemma: Risk Malpractice Or Overtesting?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3726596&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Femergency-medicine-dilemma-risk-malpractice-or-overtesting%2F2010.07.05</link>
            <description>Emergency physicians are in a dilemma. Risk missing a diagnosis and be sued, or be criticized for overtesting.
Regular readers of this blog, along with many other physicians’ blogs, are familiar with the difficult choices facing doctors in the emergency department.
The Associated Press, continuing its excellent series on overtesting, discusses how lawsuit fears is a leading driver of unnecessary tests. Consider chest pain, one of the most common presenting symptoms in the ER:
Patients with suspected heart attacks often get the range of what the ER offers, from multiple blood tests that can quickly add up in cost, to X-rays and EKGs, to costly CT scans, which are becoming routine in some hospital ERs for diagnosing heart attacks …
… and the battery of testing may be paying off: A few...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3726596</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 05 Jul 2010 20:00:59 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3726596</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>SGR: Tired Of Congress Hitting The 6-Month “Snooze” Button</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3706675&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fsgr-tired-of-congress-hitting-the-6-month-snooze-button%2F2010.06.28</link>
            <description>I have not a single thing I want to write about today. I am weary of the obvious topic: the “passage” of the 6-month extension on the SGR, but do feel I need to comment.
I am tired of this. I am tired of being jerked around by congress. I am tired of congress hitting the 6-month snooze button and somehow feeling that they are doing something good. This is procrastination, not a solution. Reassurances that something will be done are starting to be irrelevant. The problem is becoming the frustration, anger, and exhaustion that congress is thrusting upon doctors and patients, not the pay cut itself. The idea of no longer having to deal with the passive-aggressive tactics of congress is becoming increasingly appealing –- and if it&amp;#8217;s this way for me, I&amp;#8217;m sure it&amp;#8217;s the s...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3706675</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 28 Jun 2010 16:00:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3706675</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Physical Activity For Weight Loss? Not For Most Middle-Aged Women</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3701673&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fphysical-activity-for-weight-loss-not-for-most-middle-aged-women%2F2010.06.26</link>
            <description>Talk about a cruel trick of nature! A study funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) shows that physical activity prevents weight gain in middle-aged and older women ONLY IF THEY ARE ALREADY AT IDEAL WEIGHT. Did you read that? It means that the recommended guidelines advocating 150 minutes of exercise a week isn&amp;#8217;t sufficient to prevent weight gain in most middle-aged women.
The Harvard-associated researchers assessed weight changes associated with various levels of physical activity on 34,079 women who had been followed since 1992 in the Women&amp;#8217;s Health Study. They stratified women as &amp;#8220;inactive&amp;#8221; (less than 150 minutes a week of moderate level physical activity), &amp;#8220;intermediatel...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3701673</comments>
            <pubDate>Sat, 26 Jun 2010 22:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3701673</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>For Medicare Patients, “The Doctor Is Out”</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3683618&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Ffor-medicare-patients-the-doctor-is-out%2F2010.06.21</link>
            <description>In a last-minute shocker, the Senate voted Thursday against postponing a scheduled 21-percent cut in Medicare reimbursement to physicians and other healthcare providers. Sixty senators were needed to end filibuster debate and stop the cuts under Senate rules. Fifty six voted in favor, while 40 opposed. There was no Republican support. (And, of course, no support from Senator Lieberman, who is a Republican in disguise.)
Another consequence of the vote is that tens of thousands of Americans who have exhausted their jobless benefits would not be eligible for more. In addition, new taxes on wealthy investment managers would not be imposed, along with an increase in liability taxes on oil companies, leading Democrats to contend that Republicans were protecting Wall Street and the oil industr...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3683618</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 20:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3683618</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Congress Acts On Doc Fix: Music To Doctors’ Ears</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3683619&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fcongress-acts-on-doc-fix-music-to-doctors-ears%2F2010.06.21</link>
            <description>Leading members of the Senate Finance Committee came to an agreement Thursday night on a six-month &amp;#8220;doc fix,&amp;#8221; paving the way for physicians to be reimbursed a little more for seeing Medicare patients instead of a lot less. (This is now separate from the rest of the legislative package it had been part of, which is still under debate.)
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid warned that without passage, there&amp;#8217;d be &amp;#8220;havoc in America.&amp;#8221; But the American Medical Association (AMA) continued its attack on anything less than a permanent solution. The AMA compared it to fiddling while Rome burns. What tune are members of Congress playing?
A) Stayin&amp;#8217; Alive by the Bee Gees
B) Doctor, Doctor! by the Thompson Twins
C) Time to Get Ill by the Beastie Boys
(The Hill, Politico, ...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3683619</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3683619</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>American Medical Association Calls for Ban On Shackling Women During Childbirth</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3678502&amp;cid=t_92666_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F06%2Famerican-medical-association-calls-ban-shackling-women-childbirth%2F</link>
            <description>The AMA house of delegates has called for a ban on shackling women in labor, calling it dehumanizing and in most cases unnecessary. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3678502</comments>
            <pubDate>Sun, 20 Jun 2010 05:36:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3678502</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Senate Rejects “Doc Fix”, Medicare Reimbursements To Be Cut 21%</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3671581&amp;cid=t_92666_83_f&amp;fid=34856&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Finsidesurgery.com%2F2010%2F06%2Fsenate-rejects-doc-fix-medicare-reimbursements-cut-21%2F</link>
            <description>In a move that will have far reaching ramifications for senior healthcare, the Senate rejected the so called &amp;#8220;doc fix&amp;#8221; that would have staved off a 21% cut in Medicare reimbursements scheduled to take place on June 1. The American Medical Association blasted the decision, saying that it will cause up to 30% of primary care doctors to drop Medicare patients from their practices. (Source: Inside Surgery)</description>
            <author>Inside Surgery</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3671581</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 18 Jun 2010 06:03:27 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3671581</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Doc Fix Blamed On Doctors</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3625502&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=39187&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fgetbetterhealth.com%2Fdoc-fix-blamed-on-doctors%2F2010.06.02</link>
            <description>The American Medical Association will launch a multi-million-dollar ad campaign tomorrow to heighten pressure on Congress for a doc-fix bill. The American College of Physicians (ACP) reacted by calling for doctors to contact their member of Congress directly to let their voices be heard. Robert Centor, FACP, called for doctors to protest as well. (American Medical Association, American College of Physicians, DB&amp;#8217;s Rants)
Meanwhile, a Florida medical society predicts a crisis in that senior-laden state. The society cited but did not name eight primary care doctors who&amp;#8217;ve stopped accepting Medicare patients this year, and 12 cardiologists who left private practice for employment elsewhere because of already reduced payments. Unbelievably, business columnist Steven Pearlstein sorte...</description>
            <author>Better Health</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3625502</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 02 Jun 2010 18:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3625502</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Avandia, Clinical Trials And Independent Analysis</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3399175&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FPYSdjFHtfzw%2F</link>
            <description>In a stern editorial, the editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association write that industry-sponsored research should be analyzed by researchers without ties to the drugmaker that is developing the medicine being studied. And they argue at least one study author must indicate that she or he &amp;#8220;had full access to all of the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.&amp;#8221;
The missive was prompted by the recent US Senate Finance Committee report, which concluded that GlaxoSmithKline tried to undermine the scientific steering committtee on its own study of its Avandia diabetes pill and failed to acknowledge the drug increased the risk of heart problems. The editorial also pointed to commentary in the same J...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3399175</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 24 Mar 2010 13:03:08 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3399175</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Comparative effectiveness research: do we need to reevaluate research ills?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3350270&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FDisruptiveWomenInHealthCare%2F%7E3%2FORzKd2YOkW0%2F</link>
            <description>Editor&amp;#8217;s note: The Disruptive Women in Health Care blog recently compiled an ebook exploring the issue of Comparative Effectiveness Research (CER) from a variety of viewpoints and perspective. We invite you to download the ebook or read the original posts.
By Liz Scherer. Comparative effectiveness research (CER): it’s the buzzword of the new decade.  In fact, Congress recently passed legislation to provide more than $1B to support CER  in hopes of improving utilization of existing therapies while simultaneously holding down healthcare costs. The ultimate goal of CER goes even further and paints a rosy vision of patient-centered care and personalized medicine.
However, perhaps these goals are loftier than originally imagined.  Newly- published data appearing in this week’s JAMA...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3350270</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 10 Mar 2010 13:31:25 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3350270</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Antidepressants Don’t Help Mild Depression: Study</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3146213&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FnGXJMDUMiE4%2F</link>
            <description>The ongoing debate over antidepressants and links to suicides prompts the medical community - notably, psychiatrists - to say the pills serve a needed purpose. Without the drugs, the argument goes, many patients may be in worse shape (background here). A new analysis in the Journal of the American Medical Association suggests the pills don&amp;#8217;t do much for those with mild or moderate depression.
An analysis of randomized trials indicates that, compared with placebo, the &amp;#8220;magnitude of benefit&amp;#8221; of varies with the severity of symptoms, and may provide little benefit for those with mild or moderate depression. But the pills do appear to provide a substantial benefit for the severely depressed, according to the JAMA review. The article goes on to say there is little evidence anti...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3146213</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 05 Jan 2010 21:06:33 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3146213</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Grassley Wants Payment Data From AMA &amp; Others</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=3067312&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2FVaK7NxxlzzY%2F</link>
            <description>As part of an ongoing probe into conflicts of interest, the Senate Finance Committee&amp;#8217;s Chuck Grassley has sent letters to the American Medical Association, the American Cancer Society and 31 other medical advocacy groups for details about the money they and their board members received from drug and device makers, The New York Times reports.
Such funding is often considered proprietary, but critics contend the influence leads them to lobby on behalf of industry, the Times writes. An AMA spokesman tells the paper industry funding comprised less than 2 percent of its budget (see AMA letter) and an American Cancer Society spokesman wrote the Times to say it “holds itself to the highest standards of transparency and public accountability, and we look forward to working with Senator Gra...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=3067312</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 23:19:02 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">3067312</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Medication Adherence and Medicare’s Part D Prescription Drug Program</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2939292&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=38368&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.medicaretoday.org%2Fpdfs%2F2009survey.pdf</link>
            <description>Mary R. Grealy is president of the Healthcare Leadership Council, a coalition of chief executives of the nation’s leading health care companies and organizations.  She is also the author of Prognosis:  A Healthcare Blog which explores the nexus at which healthcare policy meets healthcare practice.
If only it were an urban legend that senior citizens in the United States were cutting their physician-prescribed pills in half or ignoring their medications altogether in order to have enough money for food and utilities, but one doesn’t need academic studies to know that this kind of economically-forced non-adherence has too often been the case in our country.
After Congress passed the Medicare Modernization Act (MMA), creating the Part D prescription drug program, the Healthcare Leadersh...</description>
            <author>Disruptive Women in Health Care</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2939292</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 29 Oct 2009 10:36:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2939292</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama at the AMA: The cost of inaction is greater</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2510324&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2Fx7HC0AHQTk8%2Fremarks-of-president-barack-obama-to.html</link>
            <description>(Some key excerpts: the entire speech can be seen here.) Today, we are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care – almost 50 percent more per person than the next most costly nation. And yet, for all this spending, more of our citizens are uninsured; the quality of our care is often lower; and we aren’t any healthier. In fact, citizens in some countries that spend less than we do are actually living longer than we do.Make no mistake: the cost of our health care is a threat to our economy. It is an escalating burden on our families and businesses. It is a ticking time-bomb for the federal budget. And it is unsustainable for the United States of America.......But let there be no doubt – the cost of inaction is greater. If we fail to act, premiums will climb higher, benefits will ...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2510324</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:08:46 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2510324</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The AMA doesn't speak for me</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2477684&amp;cid=t_92666_93_f&amp;fid=35707&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2Fhemodynamics%2F%7E3%2FKRy326ddr-0%2Fama-doesnt-speak-for-me.html</link>
            <description>I've started a Facebook group:&quot;I'm a doctor, and the AMA doesn't speak for me&quot;I hope my colleagues will consider joining.One of the group members linked to this article:Abraham Verghese on the AMA (Source: hemodynamics)</description>
            <author>hemodynamics</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2477684</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:54:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2477684</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Remarks of President Barack Obama to the American Medical Association</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2477563&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=35052&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FWomensBioethicsBlog%2F%7E3%2Fx7HC0AHQTk8%2Fremarks-of-president-barack-obama-to.html</link>
            <description>Chicago, IllinoisJune 15, 2009From the moment I took office as President, the central challenge we have confronted as a nation has been the need to lift ourselves out of the worst recession since World War II. In recent months, we have taken a series of extraordinary steps, not just to repair the immediate damage to our economy, but to build a new foundation for lasting and sustained growth. We are creating new jobs. We are unfreezing our credit markets. And we are stemming the loss of homes and the decline of home values.But even as we have made progress, we know that the road to prosperity remains long and difficult. We also know that one essential step on our journey is to control the spiraling cost of health care in America.Today, we are spending over $2 trillion a year on health care ...</description>
            <author>Women's Bioethics Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2477563</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 02:12:38 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2477563</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Obama’s Health Care Speech</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2477538&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=36438&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FCato-at-liberty%2F%7E3%2Fe8IFYO4hqEg%2F</link>
            <description>In his speech to the American Medical Association today, President Obama repeatedly denied that he supports &amp;#8220;socialized medicine&amp;#8221; or &amp;#8220;government-run&amp;#8221; health care. 
But what is important is not the terminology, but under the proposal supported by the president, government would control more and more of our health care decisions. Government would compel Americans to purchase health insurance, controlling its content, how much we pay, and the relationships between insurers, doctors, and patients. Government bureaucrats would determine whether Americans receive certain medical services.  
There may be no better salesman than Barack Obama, but his product is deeply flawed. The so-called &amp;#8220;Public Option,&amp;#8221; or government-run plan, that President Obama supports wo...</description>
            <author>Cato-at-liberty</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2477538</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Jun 2009 17:13:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2477538</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>ePrescribing Through Online AMA Platform</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2376320&amp;cid=t_92666_113_f&amp;fid=34634&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeedproxy.google.com%2F%7Er%2FEmrAndHipaa%2F%7E3%2FobYqjBTwwQE%2F</link>
            <description>I was recently sent a news release about DrFirst offering their ePrescribing services to physicians through a new online American Medical Association (AMA) platform. Here&amp;#8217;s a short description of the new AMA platform:
DrFirst is the first company to announce that it is offering its services through the new AMA online platform. The platform, which is currently in beta testing, is aimed at providing physicians access to information, products, services and resources that can facilitate medical practice and ease adoption of evolving health information technologies. The AMA aims to launch its new platform in early 2010.
I find the concept of the AMA offering a platform for doctors interesting. Does anyone else know anything about this platform? On face it just sounds like the AMA trying t...</description>
            <author>EMR and HIPAA</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2376320</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 18:52:05 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2376320</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>JAMA and DeAngelis Respond But DeAngelis Should Resign</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2287231&amp;cid=t_92666_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2F23%2Fjama-and-deangelis-respond-but-deangelis-should-resign%2F</link>
            <description>In an attempt to whitewash their own actions and responsibility to uphold the highest standards of academic publishing, Catherine D. DeAngelis and Phil B. Fontanarosa &amp;#8212; editors of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) &amp;#8212; published an editorial defending their handling of a conflict of interest and blasting the professor who brought it to their attention. In a classic example of shooting the messenger, it&amp;#8217;s my opinion that DeAngelis and Fontanarosa absolve themselves of all blame, and suggest that any reports where they called Lincoln Memorial University Assistant Dean of Students and Professor Jonathan Leo Ph.D., a &amp;#8220;a nothing and a nobody&amp;#8221; were &amp;#8220;erroneous.&amp;#8221; (In other words, the editors of JAMA are apparently suggesting that the Wall...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2287231</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:38:13 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2287231</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>What Was JAMA and Catherine DeAngelis Thinking?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=2287238&amp;cid=t_92666_109_f&amp;fid=34750&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fpsychcentral.com%2Fblog%2Farchives%2F2009%2F03%2F19%2Fwhat-was-jama-and-catherine-deangelis-thinking%2F</link>
            <description>While I was down in Austin at SXSW this past week, there was a rare glimpse into the big egos that run the journal business in the world. As you may know, publishing research articles is a business, and because it involves prestigious reputations &amp;#8212; both on the journal and academia side &amp;#8212; there is a lot of ego involved. Lots.
So imagine if you&amp;#8217;re sitting at the head of one of the world&amp;#8217;s most prestigious and respected journals, the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA), and an academic &amp;#8212; not from Harvard or Yale, but from Lincoln Memorial University &amp;#8212; calls you on the carpet for failing to conduct a very good peer-review on a peer-reviewed paper appearing in JAMA:

Jonathan Leo, a professor of neuroanatomy at Lincoln Memorial University, wrot...</description>
            <author>World of Psychology</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=2287238</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 19 Mar 2009 14:58:03 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">2287238</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Physical and mental exercise to prevent cognitive decline</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1976343&amp;cid=t_92666_122_f&amp;fid=36582&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FSharpBrains%2F%7E3%2F459178021%2F</link>
            <description>We offered some Brain Fitness Predictions in our Market Report , including...
&amp;quot;7. Doctors and pharmacists will help patients navigate through the overwhelming range of available products and interpret the results of cognitive assessments. This will require significant professional development efforts, given that most doctors today were trained under a very different understanding of the brain than the one we have today.&amp;quot;
The American Medical News, a weekly newspaper for physicians published by the American Medical Association, just published an excellent article along those lines:
Steps to a nimble mind: Physical and mental exercise help keep the brain fit
-- Neuroscience is uncovering techniques to prevent cognitive decline.
A few quotes:
- It's an example that highlights a wave...</description>
            <author>SharpBrains</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1976343</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 20 Nov 2008 05:09:40 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1976343</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Merck Wants It Both Ways With Study Author?</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1782897&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F387682768%2F</link>
            <description>Last month, a group of doctors published a report in the Annals of Internal Medicine that labeled a Vioxx study known as Advantage as a seeding study, a reference to a trial that is actually conducted for marketing purposes, rather than prove a scientific point.
In response, Jonathan Edelman, executive director at Merck&amp;#8217;s research labs, published an open letter in which he chastised the authors for failing to reach out to the drugmaker. &amp;#8220;It is unfortunate that the authors and journal editors chose not to contact Merck before finalizing these publications. Had any of these individuals contacted Merck, factual errors could have been avoided,&amp;#8221; he wrote. (Back story).
However, in an August 22 e-mail to Merck lawyer Ted Mayer, one of the JAMA authors, Brown University&amp;#8217;s ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1782897</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 09 Sep 2008 13:52:09 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1782897</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>The AMA Decides Not To Ban CME Funding</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1522437&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F313156450%2F</link>
            <description>UPDATE as of 4 pm: The American Medical Association&amp;#8217;s house of delegates this afternoon decided a proposal to rid medical education of industry funding needs more review. The controversial proposal was made by the AMA&amp;#8217;s Council on Judicial and Ethical Affairs to end pharma funds for residency positions and clinical fellowships; educational programs, such as live or web-based CME; physician speakers’ bureaus; and travel, lodging, and amenities for CME participants.
Other recommendations include a ban on industry gifts, meals and detailing at med schools, and an unspecified effort to secure non-commercial funding sources. One exception was suggested for training in new diagnostic or therapeutic devices and techniques, because industry reps may have to play an educational role a...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1522437</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:05:21 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1522437</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AMA Data Mining Plan Is A Dud… Adriane Explains</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1475420&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F299922906%2F</link>
            <description>To appease legislators and some doctors who objected to data mining, which is the practice of gathering and selling prescription data, the American Medical Association created the Prescription Data Restriction Plan. But the program remains contentious, according to Adriane Fugh-Berman an associated professor in the physiology and biophysics department at Georgetown University Medical Center, who also heads out PharmedOut, an independent, publicly funded project that examines pharmaceutical promotion practices.
As she noted in a recent paper, docs must opt-out, not sign up. So far, though, less than 2 percent of all US docs have registered - and she notes that those who have opted out aren&amp;#8217;t the ones targeted for marketing. Moreover, only sales reps and their immediate superviors are ...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1475420</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 28 May 2008 15:45:07 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1475420</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Doctor, Doctor: A Bad Case Of Loving Your Data</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1407329&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F280156273%2F</link>
            <description>A US Senate committee is probing an American Medical Association program that allows docs to opt-out of having their prescribing data sold to drugmakers. Known as the Physician Data Restriction Program, the effort is controversial because the AMA has a financial stake and has also been criticized for not establishing a program that encourages docs to participate, rather than have to opt out.
And so Herb Kohl, a Wisconsin Democrat who chairs the Special Committee on Aging, and Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, sent a letter to AMA president Ron Davis asking for info on how the program conducts outreach, protects patient privacy and responds to complaints about drugmakers, along with other details. 
“To say the least, we are troubled by any attempt to persuade physicians to prescribe a dr...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1407329</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 29 Apr 2008 15:28:10 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1407329</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Judge Quashes Pfizer Bid For Peer Review Files</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1307873&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F253188495%2F</link>
            <description>A federal judge in Chicago last Friday denied Pfizer&amp;#8217;s efforts to obtain confidential peer review documents related to Celebrex and Bextra from the New England Journal of Medicine, according to Science magazine.
In January, Pfizer filed a motion asking for peer-review documents it had subpoenaed from 11 studies on the drugs published by the NEJM, and also sought rejected studies, arguing the manuscripts might contain data that could be useful for its defense. The drugmaker is currently being sued in federal court in San Francisco by patients who claim the painkillers caused heart problems and wants the material for its defense.
NEJM argued that releasing the info would compromise its anonyous peer review process, a position supported in an affidavit by the editor-in-chief of Science,...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1307873</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 17 Mar 2008 19:35:24 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1307873</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Avandia And Actos Linked To Heart Risks</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1087709&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F198889436%2F</link>
            <description>Yet another study suggests problems with Avandia. This time, however, Actos also gets tagged. An article published in this week&amp;#8217;s edition of the Journal of the American Medical Association concludes the two drugs pose a significantly greater risk of heart attack, congestive heart failure and death in older patients compared with other diabetes meds. (This is the abstract).
This is only the latest difficulty for Glaxo, which has seen Avandia sales plummet this year following a controversial meta-analysis last spring that linked the drug to an increased risk of heart attacks. The FDA allowed the pill to remain on the market, but slapped a second Black Box warning on the labeling. The troubles facing the med, which was once a best seller, is now cited as a key reason for Glaxo&amp;#8217;s p...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1087709</comments>
            <pubDate>Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:30:55 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1087709</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>AMA Reaffirms The Right To Off-Label Prescribing</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1015065&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F181716640%2F</link>
            <description>The big physicians group meets this weekend in Honolulu to review and decide a variety of policies, such as ensuring affordable health insurance for patients with expensive medical conditions; trends in employer-sponsored health insurance; guidelines for evaluating state proposals for health system reform and ethical considerations regarding umbilical cord blood banking.
Along the way, the AMA delegates will also vote on resolution 918, which essentially continues an earlier policy that permits docs to prescribe off-label when they see fit. Although drugmakers can get into hot water for off-label promotions, off-label prescribing by doctors is, of course, a widely accepted practice. To learn more about the AMA position, though, you can read the resolution here.
Share / E-mail (Source: Phar...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1015065</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 16:41:17 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1015065</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pharmalot… Pharmalittle… Good Morning, Everyone</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=1013516&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F181621977%2F</link>
            <description>And so the sun shining brightly on the nation&amp;#8217;s medicine chest this morning. We apologize for the late start, but unforeseen events arose. We are now catching up and want to bring you these items to help you start your own day&amp;#8230;.
GPC Biotech Posts A Loss And Will Cut Jobs (Bloomberg News)
India&amp;#8217;s Biocon Plans Biosimilars For The US And Europe (The Business Standard)
The American Medical Association Meets This Week To Review Policy (AMA web site)
Share / E-mail (Source: Pharmalot)</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=1013516</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:05:15 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">1013516</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Pfizer Strikes Deal With Sermo’s Online Doctor Forum</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=950974&amp;cid=t_92666_150_f&amp;fid=35777&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Ffeeds.feedburner.com%2F%7Er%2FPharmalot%2F%7E3%2F169921944%2F</link>
            <description>Big pharma finally found social networking. For those who aren&amp;#8217;t familiar with Sermo, this is an online forum created two years ago by a Boston doc, whose site encourages other docs to swap insights as they chatter with each other online. Sermo profits by charging investment firms to view postings that could serve as tip-offs to side effects and other market-moving medical trends. In May, Sermo struck a deal with the American Medical Association, which can survey the collective wisdom of the site&amp;#8217;s 30,000 members.
Now, Sermo is cutting a deal with Pfizer, and both companies insist they will create guidelines so that any info that is exchanged is on the up-and-up - full disclosure in any and all Pfizer postings. The terms weren&amp;#8217;t disclosed, but for Sermo, this is a big ste...</description>
            <author>Pharmalot</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=950974</comments>
            <pubDate>Mon, 15 Oct 2007 10:46:06 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">950974</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Arthritis drug could prevent diabetes</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=733633&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=34867&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thediabetesblog.com%2F2007%2F07%2F13%2Farthritis-drug-could-prevent-diabetes%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Type 2, Drugs, ResearchA major study of patients with rheumatoid arthritis (RA) is just out. It found that those treated with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) - brand name: Plaquenil - an antimalarial drug also prescribed for RA, are much less likely to develop Type 2 diabetes. The study was conducted over a period of more than twenty years and analyzed the treatment of 4,905 adult patients with RA. Bottom line: relative risk for T2 diabetes declined by up to seventy-seven percent in patients who took HCQ for four years. Wow. But that's not all. The researchers also say the RA patient who did develop diabetes were less likely to need medications for blood sugar control. Moreover, according to Mary Chester M. Wasko, a rheumatologist and professor of medicine at the University of Pittsb...</description>
            <author>The Diabetes Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=733633</comments>
            <pubDate>Fri, 13 Jul 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">733633</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Byetta, Januvia declared safe and effective...for now</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=729827&amp;cid=t_92666_87_f&amp;fid=34867&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thediabetesblog.com%2F2007%2F07%2F12%2Fbyetta-januvia-declared-safe-and-effective-for-now%2F</link>
            <description>Filed under: Type 2, Drugs, Research, Daily NewsDiabetes drugs Byetta and Januvia have been declared safe and effective...for now...by researchers from Boston's Tufts-New England Medical Center. Both medications effectively reduce blood sugar by around one percent or less. This compares with older drugs like metformin, which can cause a drop of as much as two percent. On the other hand, the newer drugs are popular (and this has received tons of publicity over the last year or two) because they don't routinely cause weight gain like the older drugs and, in fact, they can even promote weight loss.The Tufts announcement came with a caveat, however: these drugs have not been around long. This means their long-term safety is not known. As far as side effects go, one author of the study, Anastas...</description>
            <author>The Diabetes Blog</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=729827</comments>
            <pubDate>Thu, 12 Jul 2007 04:00:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">729827</guid>        </item>
        <item>
            <title>Blogging and the AMA</title>
            <link>http://www.medworm.com/index.php?rid=397038&amp;cid=t_92666_86_f&amp;fid=34466&amp;url=http%3A%2F%2Fclinicalevidence.blogspot.com%2F2007%2F01%2Fblogging-and-ama.html</link>
            <description>The newsletter of the American Medical Association, AMNews, included an article last week, &quot;Bloggers' Grand Rounds: The evolution of medicine's netroots,&quot; that focused on medical blogging - includes brief interviews with , Nicholas Genes, the founder of the Grand Rounds collection of &quot;the best posts in medical blogging,&quot; and several other prominent physician bloggers. The article also includes a brief section of common-sense tips for physician readers interested in blogging, including:- Never disclose information or details that identify patients.- Tell readers you're masking identities and consider including a disclaimer to that effect.- Ask your hospital, practice or other employer about its policy on blogging.- Advise readers that you are not offering medical advice. If readers ask for ...</description>
            <author>Clinical Evidence, Searching Tidbits, and Other Minutiae</author>
            <type>blogs</type>
        <comments>http://www.medworm.com/rss/comments.php?id=397038</comments>
            <pubDate>Wed, 10 Jan 2007 20:01:00 +0100</pubDate>
            <guid isPermaLink="false">397038</guid>        </item>
    </channel>
</rss>

