The Historical Development of AMA Guides Impairment Ratings for Asthma

2013 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 6-10
Author(s):  
Stephen L. Demeter
Keyword(s):  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Board Of Trustees ◽  
Medication Usage ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Pulmonary Impairment ◽  
Forced Expiratory Flow ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
High Doses ◽  
Ventilatory Volume

Abstract In 1956, the Board of Trustees of the American Medical Association convened an ad hoc Committee on Medical Rating of Physical Impairment that published thirteen articles in JAMA between 1958 and 1970, including one on pulmonary impairment rating on November 22, 1965. That article rated pulmonary impairment by radiographic abnormalities, the historical description of the degree of shortness of breath, the results of at least two of three spirometric tests (forced vital capacity, forced expiratory flow in one second, and the maximal ventilatory volume), the maximal ventilatory volume, and oxygen saturation (if performed). Use of the examinee's history has come full circle from being part of the impairment rating process to being excluded to being reintroduced in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment, Sixth Edition. The concept that asthma is not easily rated using methods applicable to other pulmonary diseases was introduced in the fifth edition and was modified for use in the sixth edition. Since the publication of the fifth edition, several medications have been approved for treatment of asthma. Future editions likely will refine the medication usage table to reflect medications in clinical use at the time and, one hopes, also will eliminate the clumsy reference to “beclomethasone equivalents” and are likely instead to reference low, medium, and high doses of the inhaled corticosteroids.

The AMA Guides in Pennsylvania “Post-Protz”: Act 111 and Case Law Update

2020 ◽  
Vol 25 (3) ◽  
pp. 12-19
Author(s):  
Justin D. Beck ◽  
Judge David B. Torrey
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Disability Benefits ◽  
Permanent Disability ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Legal Questions ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract Medical evaluators must understand the context for the impairment assessments they perform. This article exemplifies issues that arise based on the role of impairment ratings and what edition of the AMA Guides to the Impairment of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) is used. This discussion also raises interesting legal questions related to retroactivity, applicability of prior precedent, and delegation. On June 20, 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down its decision, Protz v. WCAB (Derry Area Sch. Dist.), which disallows use of the “most recent edition” of the AMA Guides when determining partial disability entitlement under the Pennsylvania Workers’ Compensation Act. An attempted solution was passed by the Pennsylvania General Assembly and was signed into law Act 111 on October 24, 2018. Although it affirms that the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, must be used for impairment ratings, the law reduces the threshold for total disability benefits from 50% to 35% impairment. This legislative adjustment benefited injured workers but sparked additional litigation about whether, when, and how the adjustment should be applied (excerpts from the laws and decisions discussed by the authors are included at the end of the article). In using impairment as a threshold for permanent disability benefits, evaluators must distinguish between impairment and disability and determine an appropriate threshold; they also must be aware of the compensation and adjudication process and of the jurisdictions in which they practice.

Spine Impairment Evaluation: Sixth Edition Approaches

2009 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-5
Author(s):  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach ◽  
Christopher R. Brigham
Keyword(s):  
Functional Status ◽  
Spinal Injury ◽  
Current Medical ◽  
Clinical Testing ◽  
Medical Evidence ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Whole Person ◽  
Rating Process ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Class Assignment

Abstract Evaluators who use the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, should understand the significant changes that have occurred (as well as the Clarifications and Corrections) in impairment ratings for disorders of the cervical spine, thoracic spine, lumbar spine, and pelvis. The new methodology is an expansion of the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method used in the fifth edition, but the criteria for defining impairment are revised, and the impairment value within a class is refined by information related to functional status, physical examination findings, and the results of clinical testing. Because current medical evidence does not support range-of-motion (ROM) measurements of the spine as a reliable indicator of specific pathology or permanent functional status, ROM is no longer used as a basis for defining impairment. The DRE method should standardize and simplify the rating process, improve validity, and provide a more uniform methodology. Table 1 shows examples of spinal injury impairment rating (according to region of the spine and category, with comments about the diagnosis and the resulting class assignment); Table 2 shows examples of spine impairment by region of the spine, class, diagnosis, and associated whole person impairment ratings form the sixth and fifth editions of the AMA Guides.

Medical and Legal Issues Raised by the Protz Decision Issued by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 22 (4) ◽  
pp. 12-13
Author(s):  
LuAnn Haley ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Workers Compensation ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Complex Concept ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Compensation Claims ◽  
Recent Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Definition Of

Abstract Pennsylvania adopted the impairment rating provisions described in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) in 1996 as an exposure cap for employers seeking predictability and cost control in workers’ compensation claims. In 2017, the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania handed down the Protz decision, which held that requiring physicians to apply the methodology set forth in the most recent edition of the AMA Guides reflected an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power to the American Medical Association. The decision eliminates the impairment-rating evaluation (IRE) mechanism under which claimants were assigned an impairment rating under the most recent edition of the AMA Guides. The AMA Guides periodically are revised to include the most recent scientific evidence regarding impairment ratings, and the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition, acknowledges that impairment is a complex concept that is not yet defined in a way that readily permits an evidence-based definition of assessment. The AMA Guides should not be considered standards frozen in time simply to withstand future scrutiny by the courts; instead, workers’ compensation acts could state that when a new edition of the AMA Guides is published, the legislature shall review and consider adopting the new edition. It appears unlikely that the Protz decision will be followed in other jurisdictions: Challenges to using the AMA Guides in assessing workers’ compensation claims have been attempted in three states, and all attempts failed.

Errata

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 5-5
Keyword(s):  
Psychotic Disorders ◽  
Pain Syndrome ◽  
Vestibular Disorders ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Neurologic Disorders ◽  
Upper And Lower Extremities ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Extensive List ◽  
Mental And Behavioral Disorders

Abstract Although most chapters in the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, instruct evaluators to perform impairment ratings by first assigning a diagnosis-based class and then assigning a grade within that class, Chapter 13, The Central and Peripheral Nervous System, continues to use a methodology similar to that of the fifth edition. The latter was criticized for duplicating materials that were presented in other chapters and for producing different ratings, so the revision of Chapter 13 attempts to maintain consistency between this chapter and those that address mental and behavioral disorders, loss of function in upper and lower extremities, loss of bowel control, and bladder and sexual function. A table titled Summary of Chapters Used to Rate Various Neurologic Disorders directs physicians to the relevant chapters (ie, instead of Chapter 13) to consult in rating neurologic disorders; the extensive list of conditions that should be addressed in other chapters includes but is not limited to radiculopathy, plexus injuries and other plexopathies, focal neuropathy, complex regional pain syndrome, visual and vestibular disorders, and a range of primary mood, anxiety, and psychotic disorders. The article comments in detail on sections of this chapter, identifies changes in the sixth edition, and provide guidance regarding use of the new edition, resulting in less duplication and greater consistency.

Sixth Edition: the New Standard

2008 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-12
Author(s):  
Christopher R. Brigham ◽  
Robert D. Rondinelli ◽  
Elizabeth Genovese ◽  
Craig Uejo ◽  
Marjorie Eskay-Auerbach
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
World Health ◽  
International Classification Of Functioning ◽  
Revision Process ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Impairment Ratings ◽  
Health Organization ◽  
Impairment Severity

Abstract The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Sixth Edition, was published in December 2007 and is the result of efforts to enhance the relevance of impairment ratings, improve internal consistency, promote precision, and simplify the rating process. The revision process was designed to address shortcomings and issues in previous editions and featured an open, well-defined, and tiered peer review process. The principles underlying the AMA Guides have not changed, but the sixth edition uses a modified conceptual framework based on the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF), a comprehensive model of disablement developed by the World Health Organization. The ICF classifies domains that describe body functions and structures, activities, and participation; because an individual's functioning and disability occur in a context, the ICF includes a list of environmental factors to consider. The ICF classification uses five impairment classes that, in the sixth edition, were developed into diagnosis-based grids for each organ system. The grids use commonly accepted consensus-based criteria to classify most diagnoses into five classes of impairment severity (normal to very severe). A figure presents the structure of a typical diagnosis-based grid, which includes ranges of impairment ratings and greater clarity about choosing a discreet numerical value that reflects the impairment.

Impairment Rating and Spinal Cord Injuries: Revisiting the Guides

2010 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 1-7
Author(s):  
Richard T. Katz
Keyword(s):  
Spinal Cord ◽  
Spinal Cord Injuries ◽  
Functional Independence ◽  
Outcome Data ◽  
Multiple Organ ◽  
Loss Of Function ◽  
Sixth Edition ◽  
Organ Systems ◽  
Cord Injury ◽  
Impairment Ratings

Abstract This article addresses some criticisms of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides) by comparing previously published outcome data from a group of complete spinal cord injury (SCI) persons with impairment ratings for a corresponding level of injury calculated using the AMA Guides, Sixth Edition. Results of the comparison show that impairment ratings using the sixth edition scale poorly with the level of impairments of activities of daily living (ADL) in SCI patients as assessed by the Functional Independence Measure (FIM) motor scale and the extended FIM motor scale. Because of the combinations of multiple impairments, the AMA Guides potentially overrates the impairment of paraplegics compared with that of quadriplegics. The use and applicability of the Combined Values formula should be further investigated, and complete loss of function of two upper extremities seems consistent with levels of quadriplegia using the SCI model. Some aspects of the AMA Guides contain inconsistencies. The concept of diminishing impairment values is not easily translated between specific losses of function per organ system and “overall” loss of ADLs involving multiple organ systems, and the notion of “catastrophic thresholds” involving multiple organ systems may support the understanding that variations in rating may exist in higher rating cases such as those that involve an SCI.

CLINICAL AND SPIROGRAPHIC FEATURES OF BRONCHIAL ASTHMA IN SCHOOLCHILDREN DEPENDING ON THE DIFFERENT REGIMENS OF BASIC ANTI-INFLAMMATORY THERAPY

2020 ◽  
Vol 73 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Olena Koloskova ◽  
Tetiana Bilous ◽  
Galyna Bilyk ◽  
Kristina Buryniuk-Glovyak ◽  
Olena Korotun ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Bronchial Asthma ◽  
Inhaled Corticosteroids ◽  
Persistent Asthma ◽  
High Specificity ◽  
Clinical Feature ◽  
Clinical Group ◽  
Comparison Groups ◽  
Anti Inflammatory ◽  
High Doses ◽  
Persistent Bronchial Asthma

The aim: To study the clinical and spirographic features persistence of the bronchial asthma in schoolchildren against the background of the alternative daily doses of inhaled corticosteroids to increase the effectiveness of anti-inflammatory therapy for this disease. Materials and methods: A complete comprehensive clinical-paraclinical examination of 65 schoolchildren with persistent asthma was conducted. According to the average daily dose of inhaled corticosteroids (ICS) the patients were divided into two clinical groups. The first (I) group consisted of 46 children who received ICS in the regimen of low-to-medium equipotent doses (253.95±9.98 μg per day), and the second (II) comparison group was formed of 19 patients who controlled the pBA using high doses of ICS (494.74±5.56 μg per day). Results: The patients of the І clinical group compared to patients of the ІІ group have a higher risk of the mild bronchial obstructive syndrome during asthma attacks. In assessing the level of control of persistent bronchial asthma using the CIA-scale, it was found that in II group cases of the controlled course of the disease were observed almost two times less than in children of the I group of comparison. In conducting spirography in children of comparison groups, it was shown that the ratio of indices of bronchospasm (FEV1/ FVC) was worse in patients receiving high doses of ICS. Conclusions: So, сharacteristic clinical feature of asthma controlled by high doses of ICS is more severe nature of bronchial obstructive syndrome during the period of exacerbation (OR=1.9-3.0). In the management of persistent bronchial asthma, the Gensler index which has high specificity (94.4%) and accuracy (92.2%) should be used for disease control verification.

2003 Guidelines for Liposuction Surgery

2003 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-12 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
American Academy ◽  
Cosmetic Surgery ◽  
Ad Hoc ◽  
Board Of Trustees ◽  
Advisory Council ◽  
American Society ◽  
Liposuction Surgery

A joint Ad Hoc Committee of the American Society of Lipo-Suction Surgery (ASLSS) and the American Academy of Cosmetic Surgery (AACS) was formed to create the following guidelines for liposuction surgery. The members of this committee include: Jim E. Gilmore, MD; Robert W. Alexander MD, DMD; Ronald A. Fragen, MD; Dee Anna Glaser, MD; Kevin Pinski, MD; and Jacob Varon, MD. The ASLSS Advisory Council reviewed the guidelines in May 2002. These revised guidelines were presented to and passed by the AACS Board of Trustees on October 3, 2002.

Aerobic Exercise Does Not Reverse Pulmonary Impairment Caused By High Doses Of Nandrolone Decanoate

2010 ◽  
Author(s):  
Walter Zin ◽  
Ana Gabriela Ledo Santos da Silva ◽  
Pablo Bateman ◽  
Igor Salvador ◽  
Marcelo Ribeiro ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aerobic Exercise ◽  
Nandrolone Decanoate ◽  
Pulmonary Impairment ◽  
High Doses
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document