Upcoding and misrepresenting clinical information constitute fraud, cost a lot, and can result in patient harm and unnecessary procedures and prescriptions.
AMA J Ethics. 2020;22(3):E221-231. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2020.221.
Streamlining US health care business has raised unique privacy concerns. Bills and explanations of benefits contain protected health information that could be disclosed to someone other than the patient.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(3):279-287. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.3.pfor4-1603.
Cynthia E. Schairer, PhD, Caryn Kseniya Rubanovich, MS, and Cinnamon S. Bloss, PhD
Questions about data privacy need to be addressed when research institutions negotiate with companies developing mobile health applications. Commercial terms of use and data sharing notifications should be reviewed before use in human subject research settings.
AMA J Ethics. 2018;20(9):E864-872. doi:
10.1001/amajethics.2018.864.
The meaning of “disability” has shifted with US public policy changes over time. People with disability are protected under civil rights law, and open questions remain about whether and when policy-level interventions and reasonable accommodations create equal opportunity.
AMA J Ethics. 2016;18(10):1025-1033. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2016.18.10.pfor2-1610.
Bias toward allopathic medicine in the research funding and publication of study results makes it difficult for physicians and others to find accurate data about the efficacy of non-Western, nonallopathic treatments.
Clinical trials for the blood substitute PolyHeme exposed the possibility for ambiguous interpretation of the FDA’s waiver of informed consent for emergency research.
The 2015 proposed changes to the Common Rule for human subjects research protections, which are a response to novel methods of data collection and analysis, clarify and broaden the scope of informed consent processes, identify exemptions, and make changes to Institutional Review Board requirements.
AMA J Ethics. 2015;17(12):1147-1151. doi:
10.1001/journalofethics.2015.17.12.hlaw1-1512.
U.S. courts have ruled that device manufacturer representatives’ presence in the operating room does not make them responsible for the supervision of physicians or liable for the practice of unauthorized medicine.
Institutional review boards (IRBs) have the responsibility to ensure the protection of human-research subjects and are legally liable if they fail to do so.