American Journal of Managed Care
The American Journal of Managed Care is a leading peer-reviewed journal dedicated to issues in managed care. The website provides healthcare news to stakeholders across various platforms and has other titles such as The American Journal of Accountable Care, which focuses on innovative healthcare delivery models facilitated by the 2010 Affordable Care Act. AJMC's Evidence-Based series brings together stakeholder views from payers, providers, policymakers, and pharmaceutical leaders in oncology and diabetes management. The site covers a range of primary topics including new reports on women's health outcomes in states with abortion bans, the impact of ultraprocessed food consumption on children's cardiometabolic risk, telehealth debates, STD rise among older adults, PFAS limits in water and more. The site does not show any significant biases or conflicts of interest but does have some instances of deceptive practices.
88%
The Daily's Verdict
This news site has a mixed reputation for journalistic standards. It is advisable to fact-check, scrutinize for bias, and check for conflicts of interest before relying on its reporting.
Bias
88%
Examples:
- The article uses alarming language such as 'alarming rate' to create an emotional response in readers without providing any context or explanation for why these rates are rising.
Conflicts of Interest
100%
Examples:
- The Biden administration is accused of not effectively intervening.
Contradictions
92%
Examples:
- Massachusetts, Vermont, and Rhode Island rank at the top for women's health care access, quality, and outcomes according to the Commonwealth Fund scorecard.
- The Commonwealth Fund scorecard ranks Mississippi, Texas, Nevada, and Oklahoma among the poorest-performing states overall for women's health care access, quality, and outcomes.
- The report reveals disparities in women's health and reproductive care across the United States.
Deceptions
75%
Examples:
- The article only mentions COVID-era payment changes for telehealth, implying that this is a new development when it has been ongoing since at least 2018. This selective reporting creates a false sense of urgency and importance around the issue.
- The article states that PFAS limits will mitigate health risks, but it fails to mention that there is still ongoing debate about the long-term effects of exposure to these chemicals. This misleading information could lead readers to believe that PFAS limits are a definitive solution when they may not be.
- The article uses alarming language such as 'alarming rate' to create an emotional response in readers without providing any context or explanation for why these rates are rising.