AMA Guides® Newsletter - Issue Archive

Articles

1. Comparative Analysis: The State of Colorado Study, Part II

   Christopher R. Brigham, Kathryn Mueller, Douglas Van Zet, Debra J. Northrup, Edward B. Whitney, Martha M. McReynolds

   Pages 1–16

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2004.MarApr01

   Abstract

   [Continued from the January/February 2004 issue of The Guides Newsletter.] To understand discrepancies in reviewers’ ratings of impairments based on different editions of the AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), users can usefully study the history of the revisions as successive editions attempted to provide a comprehensive, valid, reliable, unbiased, and evidence-based system. Some shortcomings of earlier editions have been addressed in the AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, but problems remain with each edition, largely because of the limited scientific evidence available. In the context of the history of the different editions of the AMA Guides and their development, the authors discuss and contextualize a number of key terms and principles including the following: definitions of impairment and normal; activities of daily living; maximum medical improvement; impairment percentages; conversion of regional impairments; combining impairments; pain and other subjective complaints; physician judgment; and causation analysis; finally, the authors note that impairment is not synonymous with disability or work interference. The AMA Guides, Fifth Edition, contrasts impairment evaluations and independent medical evaluations (this was not done in previous editions) and discusses impairment evaluations, rules for evaluations, and report standards. Upper extremity and lower extremity impairment evaluations are discussed in terms of clinical assessments and rating processes, analyzing important changes between editions and problematic areas (eg, complex regional pain syndrome).
   Show more

2. Impairment Tutorial: Cervical Fusions: A Paradox in the Fifth Edition

   Robert H. Haralson

   Pages 4–4

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2004.MarApr02

   Abstract

   The AMA Guides to the Evaluation of Permanent Impairment (AMA Guides), Fifth Edition, presents an impairment paradox: Single-level fusions rating using the Diagnosis-related estimates (DRE) method often result in higher impairment values than do multilevel cervical spine fusions. In the AMA Guides, Chapter 15, The Spine, the definition of Cervical Category IV (alteration of motion segment integrity or bilateral or multilevel radiculopathy) changed from the definition in the fourth edition for Cervicothoracic Category IV (loss of motion segment integrity or multilevel neurological compromise) because of changes in the definition of “alteration of motion segment integrity,” which now also includes surgical arthrodesis. This applies only for single-level fusions because the AMA Guides, states the range-of-motion (ROM) method is used in situations when “there is alteration of motion segment integrity (eg, fusions).” The AMA Guides, Fourth Edition, rated impairment on the basis of the injury, not the surgical procedure, and the maximum whole person permanent impairment for a patient with a single-level, single-sided cervical radiculopathy who had a discectomy and fusion would be 15%, but the minimum award for a similar patient rated using the DRE method is 25%. The author reports that, for the reasons outlined, evaluators should rate all cervical fusions, including single-level fusions, using the ROM method.
   Show more

3. Questions and Answers

   Pages 4–5

   DOI: 10.1001/amaguidesnewsletters.2004.MarApr03