Explore the vast range of titles available.

Fixing Medical Prices explores the activities of a largely unknown but highly powerful committee affiliated with the American Medical Association (AMA) that advises Medicare on the relative value of different medical services. Unwittingly or not, its recommendations set off a chain reaction that impacts all Americans. Medicare follows most of its fee recommendations, which are modeled by private insurers and federal and state programs. The book adds a new perspective to debates about the cost of healthcare, interest group influence on public policies, the role of experts in policymaking and regulation, and the past and future of the medical profession.-- Provided by publisher

As AI becomes more sophisticated, new risks are emerging. In this News and Perspectives article, JMIR Correspondent Shalini Kathuria Narang reports on the American Medical Association's response to the rising issue of physician deepfakes.

America's market-based health care system, unique among the nations of the world, is in large part the product of an obscure, yet profound, revolution that overthrew the medical monopoly in the late 1970s. In this lucid, balanced account, Carl F. Ameringer tells how this revolution came into being when the U.S. Supreme Court and Congress prompted the antitrust agencies of the federal government—the Federal Trade Commission and the Justice Department—to change the rules of the health care system. Ameringer lays out the key events that led up to this regime change; explores its broader social, political, and economic contexts; examines the views of both its proponents and opponents; and considers its current trajectory.

America's market-based health care system is the product of a revolution that overthrew the medical monopoly in the late 1970s. This book tells how this revolution came into being when the US Supreme Court and Congress prompted the antitrust agencies of the federal government to change the rules of the health care system

To update key recommendations of the American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR) testing in breast cancer guideline. A multidisciplinary international Expert Panel was convened to update the clinical practice guideline recommendations informed by a systematic review of the medical literature. The Expert Panel continues to recommend ER testing of invasive breast cancers by validated immunohistochemistry as the standard for predicting which patients may benefit from endocrine therapy, and no other assays are recommended for this purpose. Breast cancer samples with 1% to 100% of tumor nuclei positive should be interpreted as ER positive. However, the Expert Panel acknowledges that there are limited data on endocrine therapy benefit for cancers with 1% to 10% of cells staining ER positive. Samples with these results should be reported using a new reporting category, ER Low Positive, with a recommended comment. A sample is considered ER negative if < 1% or 0% of tumor cell nuclei are immunoreactive. Additional strategies recommended to promote optimal performance, interpretation, and reporting of cases with an initial low to no ER staining result include establishing a laboratory-specific standard operating procedure describing additional steps used by the laboratory to confirm/adjudicate results. The status of controls should be reported for cases with 0% to 10% staining. Similar principles apply to PgR testing, which is used primarily for prognostic purposes in the setting of an ER-positive cancer. Testing of ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) for ER is recommended to determine potential benefit of endocrine therapies to reduce risk of future breast cancer, while testing DCIS for PgR is considered optional. Additional information can be found at www.asco.org/breast-cancer-guidelines .

TikTok was an important channel for consumers to access and adopt health information. But the quality of health content in TikTok remains underinvestigated. Our study aimed to identify upload sources, contents, and feature information of gallstone disease videos on TikTok and further evaluated the factors related to video quality. We investigated the first 100 gallstone-related videos on TikTok and analyzed these videos' upload sources, content, and characteristics. The quality of videos was evaluated using quantitative scoring tools such as DISCERN instrument, the Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA) benchmark criteria, and Global Quality Scores (GQS). Moreover, the correlation between video quality and video characteristics, including duration, likes, comments, and shares, was further investigated. According to video sources, 81% of the videos were posted by doctors. Furthermore, disease knowledge was the most dominant video content, accounting for 56% of all the videos. The mean DISCERN, JAMA, and GQS scores of all 100 videos are 39.61 (SD 11.36), 2.00 (SD 0.40), and 2.76 (SD 0.95), respectively. According to DISCERN and GQS, gallstone-related videos' quality score on TikTok is not high, mainly at fair (43/100, 43%,) and moderate (46/100, 46%). The total DISCERN scores of doctors were significantly higher than that of individuals and news agencies, surgery techniques were significantly higher than lifestyle and news, and disease knowledge was significantly higher than news, respectively. DISCERN scores and video duration were positively correlated. Negative correlations were found between DISCERN scores and likes and shares of videos. In GQS analysis, no significant differences were found between groups based on different sources or different contents. JAMA was excluded in the video quality and correlation analysis due to a lack of discrimination and inability to evaluate the video quality accurately. Although the videos of gallstones on TikTok are mainly provided by doctors and contain disease knowledge, they are of low quality. We found a positive correlation between video duration and video quality. High-quality videos received low attention, and popular videos were of low quality. Medical information on TikTok is currently not rigorous enough to guide patients to make accurate judgments. TikTok was not an appropriate source of knowledge to educate patients due to the low quality and reliability of the information.

This article summarizes the report of the American Medical Association’s (AMA) Council on Ethical and Judicial Affairs (CEJA) on ethical practice in telehealth and telemedicine. Through its reports and recommendations, CEJA is responsible for maintaining and updating the AMA Code of Medical Ethics (Code). CEJA reports are developed through an iterative process of deliberation with input from multiple stakeholders; report recommendations, once adopted by the AMA House of Delegates, become ethics policy of the AMA and are issued as Opinions in the Code. To provide enduring guidance for the medical profession as a whole, CEJA strives to articulate expectations for conduct that are as independent of specific technologies or models of practice as possible. The present report, developed at the request of the House of Delegates, provides broad guidance for ethical conduct relating to key issues in telehealth/telemedicine. The report and recommendations were debated at meetings of the House in June and November 2015; recommendations were adopted in June 2016 and published as Opinion E-1.2.12, Ethical Practice in Telemedicine, in November 2016. A summary of the key points of the recommendations can be found in Appendix A (online), and the full text of the opinion can be found in Appendix B (online).