AMA upbraids cynics of data-mining option

Assertions that challenge the American Medical Association's commitment to its data-mining alternative are “unfounded speculation that ignores the facts,” said AMA president Dr. Peter Carmel.

AMA has an “ongoing multi-year campaign” to promote its Physician Data Restriction Program, Carmel reminded InformationWeek Healthcare.

He was responding to a NEJM commentary saying that the group's conflicting interests have undermined the PDRP. The opt-out program has been advertised in journals, and AMA has sent information to half a million physicians in each of the past three years.

As to why only 28,000 (or 4% of physicians) have signed up, “perhaps [it's] because the AMA's financial interests cut against strongly promoting the program,” authors Michelle Mello, of Harvard School of Public Health, and Noah Messing, of Yale Law School, wrote in a NEJM commentary.

They added, as part of an article reviewing the reasoning behind Supreme Court's decision to strike down a Vermont data-mining law: “The AMA realizes substantial revenue from the sale of physicians' professional data, and widespread physician opt-out would reduce the usefulness of the data to [data-mining firms].”

Critics prefer to “hurl reckless accusations at the AMA than admit that physician awareness” has had little impact on enrollment, responded Carmel.

This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed in any form without prior authorization. Your use of this website constitutes acceptance of Haymarket Media's Privacy Policy and Terms & Conditions