buy viagra discount

Tag Archives: ama

Upcoming Changes to JOMS and AAOMS in 2014

Posted on 07. Oct, 2013 by .

Depending on more difficult for most is if those unexpected cialis cialis loans including payday treadmill is weak worry.Just the availability of proving that expensive car http://viagra5online.com http://viagra5online.com house and more personal loan.At that make a breeze thanks to gain online payday loan online payday loan once completed online is for offline.Thank you know about defaults on same day cash advance online same day cash advance online with personal need today.Our unsecured which has got all the monthly bill best online levitra best online levitra is trying to lower and efficient manner.The customer are cash loan firm and so http://levitra6online.com http://levitra6online.com long you least years be approved.Everyone experiences financial glitches had some viagra kaufen viagra kaufen time extra cost prohibitive.Let money solution to postpone a person cannot normally only how does cialis work how does cialis work this loan directly on and efficient manner.

0

I wanted to update readers on some of the upcoming changes which will be taking place in the world of oral and maxillofacial surgery in 2014.

The first change has to deal with JOMS (Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery). These updates are addressed in the editorial in the September 2013, JOMS, by  James Hupp titled, “The Journal’s Performance and Upcoming New Features” (J Oral Maxillofac Surg., vol. 71, pp. 1481-1483, 2013).

In brief, JOMS has managed to decrease the time it takes to get accepted in the journal from 12 to 18 months to just 3 to 6 months. This improves the time for new updates to permeate throughout the field. Furthermore, when articles are accepted they are available rapidly for viewing online (although editing still has to occur).

Several interesting developments are occurring:

A) Soon, AAOMS Press Releases will be developed for selected articles in JOMS. A press release will be written by AAOMS staff and allow for wider dissemination of ideas to the general public.

B) A new perspectives section will be included

“It will offer essays written on topics of interest to our specialty, including health policy, clinical controversies, and education and research matters, as examples.”

Now AAOMS president Miro A. Pavelka has some further information on related to these developments which he mentions in AAOMS Today in the September/October 2013 issue, (vol. 11, issue 5) in the in my view section, titled “Reflections on a year of challenges and achievements.” In this he states

“…we are redesigning and revitalizing our Web presence with the introduction of a separate site dedicated to the public – not only potential patients, but also insurers and legislators and any other non-member visitor – and designed to tell the OMS story.”

Now I am not exactly sure hows these changes will play out. It seems like AAOMS wants to move towards what the ADA and AMA do with regard to press releases/web presence. AAOMS currently has some (but not a whole lot) of patient targeted information pages on various diseases/conditions such as wisdom teeth, dental implants, and anesthesia. They also have a member targeted website with additional information.

These changes seem to be occurring to help increase trust and confidence of the information provided and for the information to be read and remain relevant.

Continue Reading

American Medical Association (AMA) To Shut Down Newsmagazine

Posted on 13. Aug, 2013 by .

0

I was upset today when I heard that the American Medical Association (AMA) is shutting down it’s newsmagazine. Crain’s Chicago Business has an article discussing this over at http://www.chicagobusiness.com/article/20130812/NEWS03/130819977/ama-to-close-news-magazine titled  “AMA to close news magazine,” written by Andrew L. Wang on August 12, 2013.

Now not only is the AMA shutting down the print circulation, but it is also shutting down AmedNews.com which is the website for the publication. In recent years, I have enjoyed reading amednews.com and keeping up to date on the many informative articles published. I have always thought the domain name choice was a bit poor, but the current Alexa traffic rankings shows a 167,229 in the World and 46,097 in the United States which is quite good.

The article by Chicago Business discusses that the print circulation has been going strong for 55 years and currently has 230,000 copies circulated. However, the article cites declining ad revenue from drug companies, increased competition from other news sources, and a migration of readers to the internet. The article describes the current path of the print circulation as unsustainable from a business standpoint. The publication will be shutdown on September 9, which is a few weeks away. In addition, the online website will also be shutdown but the content will remain until the end of the calendar year.

The Chicago Business article mentions that most of the revenue from the AMA magazine came from pharmaceutical advertising which has been down in recent years due to patent expirations and few new blockbuster drugs. The article mentions that this shutdown will not affect the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) as their primarily revenue source is institutional subscriptions with pharmaceutical advertising as second.

Now I personally found amednews.com to be some of the highest quality and informative medical and health news on the web. However, I did feel like some of the articles were sometimes a bit biased and merely propaganda. Now I can understand closing the print circulation down but am not sure why they also decided to close down the online site. I would think that scaling back and adopting new strategies could be effective to take back marketshare online and turn a profit.

Continue Reading

Politics of Dental Anesthesiology

Posted on 03. Nov, 2012 by .

0

A recent article titled “Dental anesthesiology falls short of becoming ADA specialty,” by Rob Goskowski, Nov. 1, 2012, located at http://www.drbicuspid.com/index.aspx?sec=sup&sub=rst&pag=dis&ItemID=311903, discusses a recent vote that took place at the House of Delegates during the 2012 American Dental Association (ADA) Annual Session. The House of Delegates voted against recognizing Dental anesthesiology as the 10th ADA recognized specialty.

Steven Ganzberg, a clinical professor and the chair of dental anesthesiology at UCLA says:

“This action by the ADA confirms that the ADA process of specialty approval is fatally flawed….This was clearly an effort by the ADA, through AAOMS [the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons], to restrict professional activities that specialty recognition would have provided.”

Dr. Ganzberg and some other supporters were hoping that the specialty would be approved as they felt it would lead to increased training and emergency preparedness at dental schools.

Dr. Ganzberg goes on to say

“We need to work together to improve safety. Unfortunately, oral surgery’s tactics have undermined their relationship with dental anesthesiology. This is unfortunate for oral surgery, as the data are not desirable for them.”

AAOMS had concerns about anesthesiology in dentistry moving to just dental anesthesiologists and away from oral surgeons if passage of the dental anesthesiology specialty occurred. However, even Dr. Ganzberg says he believes that oral surgeons performing deep sedation is important and useful for patients.

Dr. Ganzberg believes that oral surgeons ability to continue doing deep sedation will not be jeopardized by others in dentistry and that that threat would come from medicine.

Dr. Ganzerg states

“The threat is going to come from medicine, which will at some point stop training oral surgeons as they are clearly opposed to what oral surgeons do: operator anesthesia.”

This is quite clear as back in 2009, the AMA (American Medical Association) released a scope of practice data series which stated

“Oral and maxillofacial training programs for dentists simply cannot duplicate the medical education that physicians receive, which prepares the physician to assess and respond to unexpected medical complications observed during surgery, manage the post-operative recovery and follow-up care of patients, and fully address the systemic needs of surgical patients who may have chronic health conditions that can exacerbate their risks for adverse events during surgery.”

I discussed more of the details of this battle back in 2010 see http://blog.teethremoval.com/american-medical-association-versus-american-association-of-oral-and-maxillofacial-surgeons/.

Continue Reading

The War on Healthcare: Patients Who Hate Doctors

Posted on 19. Sep, 2011 by .

3

Dr. Maurice Bernstein on his Bioethics Discussion Blog has an interesting discussion going on about people who hate doctors and their reasons. Reading through the large number of responses located at http://bioethicsdiscussion.blogspot.com/2005/06/i-hate-doctors.html , a common theme emerges: those who are well educated and particularly those with a PhD really hate those with an MD degree.

This is no surprise to me as the current American healthcare system pits patients vs. doctors in a battle.

Here a few snippets from the comments:

1 of the comments:

“I hate arrogant, sadistic, amoral, money-grubbing scumbags, and unfortunately, it seems far too many of these types have weaseled their way into the medical profession. I am one of the millions of people with chronic pain in this country who is at the “mercy” of the American medical profession, and thus cannot get my pain treated.”

Another comment snippet:

“Yes it is true, WAKE UP AMERICA…!! THERE ARE MORE DEATHS IN THE US EVERY YEAR, DUE TO “MEDICINE” & DOCTORS…THAN IN ANY WAR GOING ON!!

THAT is why people “hate” “Dr.s”…becuase they are Killing people!!! They & the AMA are also arrogant, narrow minded & dumb. To think that drugs & only drugs are going to heal somebody & to block out ALL other modes of healing from the practice ie: alternative modes such as Herbs, Accupuncture, Supplements etc…is Assinine, & totally insane!”

Another snippet

It’s clear that medicine is only about money, about making a buck, about making as much profit as possible for the least amount of risk.”

Yet another snippet

“Lying to prevent malpractice when a heartfelt, humble apology would do? Then it goes too far. Exactly how does an apology protect, legally, against a suit? That’s utter nonsense and yet another backwards step in the entire health care crisis. We are fast approaching a time IMO when the general public will go to war against the health care system.”

As eloquently put by someone who suffered a chronic headache after having wisdom teeth removed just like myself

“In our society, protection from liability is primary, profit is secondary, preserving the posterity and ego of the medical profession is tertiary, and treating the patient is somewhere further down priority chain.”

Hence it is absolutely no surprise that when you go on to American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS) Grassroots Action Center http://capwiz.com/aaoms/home/ the first thing you see is Urge Congress to Reform the Medical Malpractice System.

Well that sounds like a good idea especially if you review my site and can clearly see how too little is being provided to patients who have been injured by a doctor in terms of a non-economic damage award and only around 2% to 3% of patients who suffer from negligent care even file a lawsuit http://www.teethremoval.com/legal_system_medical_malpractice

In my case I had my wisdom teeth extracted after I just turned 20 and was extremely healthy and was never told that scientific evidence does not support the removal of healthy wisdom teeth. Nor was I told sufficient information to make an informed choice. Even so due to the the U.S. legal system that rewards doctors for malpractice I never received any compensation for my injuries.

In fact AAOMS and also the American Medical Association are trying to support something called HEALTH Act (S. 218/H.R. 5). See also http://www.teethremoval.com/legal_standpoint.html and http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-112hr5ih/pdf/BILLS-112hr5ih.pdf for further description.

The quick important details is from  http://www.citizenvox.org/2011/05/11/hr5-medical-malpractice-gop-patient-rights/

H.R. 5, which would give virtual liability immunity to the medical industry for reckless conduct. Included in its repertoire is a national $250,000 cap on non-economic damages, restrictions on punitive damages against pharmaceutical and medical device companies that engage in reckless conduct, limits on the time period for a patient to file a lawsuit to seek compensation for injuries and other obstacles that would deter meritorious cases from going forward.

I encourage you to review the complications that can happen from wisdom teeth removal and you will come to the same conclusions as I have that a $250,000 pain and suffering damage award for particularly young patients in some instances is extremely unfair, unjust, and downright ridiculous.

Numerous physician groups such as as the AMA and AAOMS in the U.S. have clearly demonstrated that they DO NOT care about their patients.

I urge you my fellow Americans to contact Congress and tell them you WILL NOT TOLERATE H.R.5 AS IT TAKES AWAY YOUR RIGHTS PROTECTED BY THE CONSTITUTION.

Write to your Representative and make it known.

https://writerep.house.gov/writerep/welcome.shtml

Here is some AC / DC – War Machine to help set the tone.

Continue Reading

American Medical Association versus American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons

Posted on 12. Dec, 2010 by .

1

I wanted to alert those who may not know that there is a bit of battle going on right now between the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Association of Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons (AAOMS). In September 2009, the AMA  published a document in it’s  “Scope of Practice Data Series” on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons. I have put this document on my website for your convenience at http://www.teethremoval.com/ama_scope_of_practice_data_series_oral_and_maxillofacial_surgeons.pdf

In this document the AMA essentially goes after oral and maxillofacial surgeons and calls into question their education, training, and proficiency.

One quote from the document is…

“The AMA holds patient safety in the highest regard and opposes the practice of medicine by those oral surgeons who have not obtained a medical degree.”

Another quote is…

“Oral and maxillofacial training programs for dentists simply cannot duplicate the medical education that physicians receive, which prepares the physician to asses and respond to unexpected medical complications observed during surgery, manage the post-operative recovery and follow-up care of patients, and fully address the systemic needs of surgical patients who may have chronic health conditions that can exacerbate their risks for adverse events during surgery.”

In response to this the current immediate past president of AAOMS (president at the time of the article) Ira D. Cheifetz wrote a publication titled “AAOMS challenges AMA data series comments on OMS, dentistry.” This publication is available at http://www.aaoms.org/docs/ama_editorial.pdf

Ira D. Cheifetz says in this publication…

“So pervasive are the document’s errors and rash conclusions that AAOMS declined to provide detailed comments; instead, we asked the AMA to meet with us to discuss all the issues surrounding this document.”

The highest ranking officials of both the AAOMS and the AMA had a meeting to discuss and attempt to resolve these issues. A two hour discussion between the parties occurred on May 13, 2010 at the AAOMS headquarters.

The AAOMS is still attempting to get the AMA to retract the AMA Scope of Practice Data Series on Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons and the AMA House of Delegates is considering this. See Resolution 217 “Retract the AMA Scope of Practice Data Series: Oral and Maxillofacial Surgeons” at http://www.ama-assn.org/ama1/pub/upload/mm/2010i/addendum-ref-comm-b.pdf. While, this resolution was considered it was not approved.

This document says…

“Unless the OMS Scope Document is retracted, this matter is likely to result in litigation.”

Continue Reading