About AJMC
About the Journal

The American Journal of Managed Care is an independent, peer-reviewed publication dedicated to disseminating clinical information to managed care physicians, clinical decision makers, and other healthcare professionals. Its aim is to stimulate scientific communication in the ever-evolving field of managed care. The American Journal of Managed Care addresses a broad range of issues relevant to clinical decision making in a cost-constrained environment and examines the impact of clinical, management, and policy interventions and programs on healthcare and economic outcomes.

All original articles are subjected to rigorous peer review by leading clinical investigators, health services researchers, and clinical epidemiologists. Manuscripts are also evaluated to determine the real world relevance of the information they contain. In addition to original research, the journal publishes review articles, commentaries, trends from the field, editorials, and letters to the editor.

Founded in 1995, the Journal provides a forum for peer-reviewed literature on healthcare outcomes research. The American Journal of Managed Care is indexed in many of the top scientific databases, such as: MEDLINE/ PUBMED, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index Expanded. The Journal is mailed to nearly 39,000+ clinical decision makers in managed care, including physicians, hospital directors, and medical / pharmacy / formulary directors at managed care organizations.

The American Journal of Managed Care (ISSN 1088-0224 [print] & ISSN 1936-2692 [online]) is published monthly by Managed Care & Healthcare Communications, LLC, 666 Plainsboro Rd, Ste 300, Plainsboro, NJ 08536. Copyright ? 2008 by Managed Care & Healthcare Communications, LLC.

About the Editors

A. Mark Fendrick, MD
A. Mark Fendrick
Dr. Fendrick's research focuses on the clinical and economic assessment of medical interventions with special attention to the study of emerging technologies. He has performed analyses of interventions for several common conditions including: gallbladder disease, heartburn/gastroesophageal reflux disease, arthritis/inflammatory conditions, viral infections, coronary heart disease, pediatric vaccinations, and cancer screening. These analyses are supplemented by research describing how outcomes research data can be incorporated into clinical practice and how they impact health care systems.

Dr. Fendrick has authored over 100 articles and book chapters and has given several national and international presentations pertaining to outcomes research and economic evaluation of medical interventions. He is the Co-editor in chief of The American Journal of Managed Care and is an editorial board member for 3 additional peer-reviewed publications. He has collaborated with several government agencies and professional societies and has consulted for numerous health care companies. Dr. Fendrick has served on the Board of Directors of the International Society for Technology Assessment in Health Care (ISTAHC) and the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research (ISPOR).

Michael E. Chernew, PhD
Michael E. Chernew
Dr. Chernew is a professor in the Department of Health Care Policy at Harvard Medical School. One major area of his research focuses on assessing the impact of managed care on the health care marketplace, with an emphasis on examining the impact of managed care on health care cost growth and on the use of medical technology. Other research has examined determinants of patient choice of hospital and the impact of health plan performance measures on employee and employer selection of health plans.

Dr. Chernew is a member of the Commonwealth Foundation's Commission on a High Performance Health Care System. In 2000 and 2004, he served on technical advisory panels for the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services that reviewed the assumptions used by the Medicare actuaries to assess the financial status of the Medicare trust funds. In 1998, he was awarded the John D. Thompson Prize for Young Investigators by the Association of University Programs in Public Health. In 1999, he received the Alice S. Hersh Young Investigator Award from the Association of Health Services Research. Dr. Chernew is a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research and is on the editorial boards of Health Affairs and Medical Care Research and Review. He is also a senior associate editor of Health Services Research.

Editorial Board Members


A. Mark Fendrick, MD
Professor of Medicine and Health
Management and Policy
Schools of Medicine & Health
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI

Michael E. Chernew, PhD
Professor of Health Care Policy
Harvard Medical School
Harvard University
Boston, MA

Associate Editors

Seema S. Sonnad, PhD
The Value Institute at Christiana Care Health System
Wilmington, DE

Dennis P. Scanlon, PhD
Pennsylvania State University
University Park, PA

Editorial Board

Rajesh Balkrishnan, PhD
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI

Jan E. Berger, MD, MJ
Health Intelligence Partners
Northbrook, IL

Steven J. Bernstein, MD, MPH
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI

Jon B. Christianson, PhD
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis, MN

Mark E. Cowen, MD, SM
St Joseph Mercy Hospital
Ann Arbor, MI

Jennifer Elston-Lafata, PhD
Henry Ford Health System
Richmond, VA

William E. Encinosa, PhD
Agency for Healthcare Research & Quality
Rockville, MD

Alan M. Garber, MD, PhD
Harvard University
Cambridge, MA

Anne K. Gauthier, MS
National Academy for State Health Policy
Washington, DC

Teresa B. Gibson, PhD
Arbor Research Collaborative for Health
Ann Arbor, MI

Dana Goldman, PhD
University of Southern California
Los Angeles, CA

Clifford S. Goodman, PhD
The Lewin Group
Falls Church, VA

Richard A. Hirth, PhD
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI

George J. Isham, MD
Minneapolis, MN

Sachin H. Jain, MD, MBA
CareMore Health System
Los Angeles, CA

Peter I. Juhn, MD, MPH
Express Scripts
St. Louis, MO

Charles N. Kahn III, MPH
Federation of American Hospitals
Washington, DC

Harlan M. Krumholz, MD
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, CT

Tracy A. Lieu, MD, MPH
Kaiser Permanente
Oakland, CA

Ariel Linden, DrPH
Linden Consulting Group
Ann Arbor, MI

Bryan R. Luce, PhD
Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institue
Washington, DC

David Mirkin, MD
New York, NY

Penny E. Mohr, MA
Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute 
Washington, DC

Brenda R. Motheral, BPharm, MBA, PhD
Pharmacy Benefit Management Institute
Plano, TX

Debabrata Mukherjee, MD
Texas Tech University
El Paso, TX

Andrew F. Nelson, MPH
HealthPartners Research Foundation
Minneapolis, MN

Joshua J. Ofman, MD, MSHS
Amgen, Inc.
Thousand Oaks, CA

L. Gregory Pawlson, MD, MPH, FACP
Stevens and Lee
Lancaster, PA

Scott D. Ramsey, MD, PhD
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
Seattle, WA

Patricia Salber, MD, MBA
ZIA Healthcare Consultants
San Francisco, CA

Cary Sennett, MD, PhD
Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America
Landover, MD

Dean G. Smith, PhD
University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, MI

Sarah A. Spinler, PharmD
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
Philadelphia, PA

Glen Stettin, MD
Express Scripts
St. Louis, MO

Sean Tunis, MD, MSc
Center for Medical Technology Policy
Baltimore, MD

Arthur Vercillo, MD, FACS
Excellus BlueCross BlueShield
Syracuse, New York

Andrew Webber
Maine Health Management Coalition
Portland, ME

Editorial Philosophy

The Clinical category includes manuscripts that examine the health and/or economic impact of specific medical interventions. The merit of clinical manuscripts is judged on the significance of the clinical question, the strength of the study design, and the potential impact of the results on clinicians' practice or health plan policies. We are not of the opinion that the only acceptable study design for clinical articles is a randomized trial. We encourage the submission of studies that use other established methodologies, such as observational studies, decision analysis, and meta-analyses. For example, we hope to continue to attract high-quality studies that use computer simulation methods. Given the hypothesis-generating value (instead of hypothesis testing) of decision analysis, we would like to emphasize the importance of highlighting sensitivity analyses when uncertainly exists regarding the value of certain model inputs. We feel that in many cases the results of sensitivity analyses are more meaningful to decision makers than the base case results. Although rare exceptions may exist, we strongly recommend that papers submitted to this category compare the effect of an intervention to available alternatives (eg, avoid placebo comparators when other treatments are available). Such studies are increasingly desirable relative to purely descriptive papers that report outcomes attributable to one clinical strategy. The use of such comparative studies by managed care organizations, pharmacy benefit managers, and others has grown rapidly over the past few years and should only continue into the future.

Manuscripts in the Managerial category address the clinical or economic impact associated with managerial interventions implemented by clinicians or health plans to alter the care delivery process. These include a wide range of studies such as those examining the influence of changes in benefit design, referral rules, formulary requirements, reimbursement policy, and disease management programs on the quality and cost of care. Studies may report empirical results or provide conceptual analyses of issues relevant to managerial interventions or health plan design. As with the clinical manuscripts, our evaluation will focus on the importance of the issue and credibility of the findings, which depend on the quality of the research design and analysis. Several of the most influential AJMC manuscripts published to date fall into this category. It is our hope that we continue to be a leading forum to publish rigorous evaluations of interventions aimed to improve the quality of clinical care or promote the efficient use of healthcare resources.

Policy articles address the influence of the regulatory environment on the quality, delivery and financing of healthcare. Manuscripts that assess statutes such as the Employee Retirement Income Security Act or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act would fit into this category, as would papers that inform policy issues such as analysis of potential Medicare prescription drug benefit plans, Food and Drug Administration regulation and behavior, or the recommendation for a national smallpox vaccination program. These articles might also provide analysis of managed care topics in a context relevant to policy makers, such as determinants of healthcare cost growth or the impact of managed care penetration on clinical outcomes. It is our opinion that a much-needed dialogue between clinical decision makers and policy makers has not been adequately established. Thus, we intend to focus more attention to the policy arena, particularly as it impacts the day-to-day practice of clinical medicine.

The Methods category is comprised of papers that introduce innovative methodological approaches or describe advances to existing health services research techniques. We expect submissions in this area to report on topics such as quality of life assessment, risk-adjustment methods, or approaches to measure health plan quality. Advances in quantifying resource utilization, such as accounting for lost worker productivity, would also be welcome. Since we are not inclined to publish highly technical articles, papers in this category must be written in a straightforward style that would be viewed as relevant by our readers.

With this outline loosely describing the types of articles we are looking for, it is also worth pointing out the types of articles that we are less inclined to publish. Studies that simply report the clinical and/or economic ramifications of a specific disease (ie, a "burden of illness" study) are of minimal interest to us, unless they convincingly discuss how an intervention may directly impact the burden. Our lukewarm attitude extends to studies that examine a specific treatment using a "before and after" design and that do not include a meaningful comparator or control group.

Peer Review

We have implemented a peer review process that takes advantage of our different backgrounds, and perhaps more importantly, emphasizes our commitment to publishing papers highly relevant to our readers. Consistent with our new classification system, Mark will take responsibility in overseeing the Clinical submissions and Mike will oversee papers that fall into the other 3 categories. Upon submission, each manuscript is assessed by one of us, the editorial staff, and/or an editorial board member to determine whether the content is appropriate for the AJMC readership. Once a paper passes this initial step, 3 additional reviewers will be selected. As a general rule, 2 reviewers will be chosen to evaluate the methodological rigor and technical quality of the manuscript. We recently implemented a system where we include a third reviewer to explicitly evaluate the relevance of the article for the AJMC readership. Thus, to be accepted for publication, manuscripts must pass both hurdles, technical quality and relevance. In managing this process we will strive to maintain an expedited turn-around time for reviews (4-6 weeks).

Editorial Board

We continue to add individuals to our editorial board, going to great lengths to reach out beyond the ivory towers of academia to the healthcare management sector, to research groups within managed care plans, and to the health policy community. We have structured the board to include clinicians, health services researchers, and decision makers, and it is our expectation that with their dedication and hard work our aims will be achieved. In addition to their oversight, we have charged to our editorial board members to identify potential authors and assist us in the peer review process.

Further Outreach

We will continue to strive to reach key clinical decision-makers, an important component of the founding mission of the AJMC. We believe that we offer contributors unparalleled access to more than 48 000 members of this important community. We offer reduced subscription rates in specific circumstances (eg, students), and are in the process of making the AJMC available in every library in schools of medicine, public health, pharmacy, and nursing. We intend to make every effort to increase our presence in the research settings, both inside and outside of academic institutions.

As ever, we remain keenly interested in hearing from our readers. We welcome motivated individuals to contact us if interested in playing a role in this endeavor. We intend to regularly publish invited expert commentary on relevant but potentially controversial topics in an attempt to stimulate discussion via our Letters to the Editor section.

The most important takeaway message is crystal clear: no matter how successful we are in publishing relevant, high-quality articles, a sound business plan is essential to sustain the Journal. As with many healthcare journals, a substantial amount of our fiscal support is provided by advertising and supplemental issues. Given our current distribution pattern, the Journal could not continue without these activities. In light of this, we want you to know that the editorial and marketing activities of AJMC are completely separate. No individual involved in the editorial process knows how any given editorial decision will affect the Journal's business activities. Likewise, all editorial decisions are and will remain apart from the business side of the publication.

Supplemental issues of AJMC provide the Journal with significant revenue. Guidelines for supplements that aim to minimize bias and stress full disclosure are in place and are published in each supplement. Like all editors in the healthcare field, we are concerned about biases in the studies induced by industry funding. Similar to other journals that adhere to the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, we require full disclosure of conflict of interest of all authors and detailed information regarding funding of submitted research. The articles in the supplements are peer-reviewed under the supervision of a guest editor chosen by the sponsor of the activity.

As part of our efforts to expand our content, we will continue to publish "Special Issues" that will allow us to address relevant topics in more depth. Papers published in special issues will undergo the same peer-review process as manuscripts published in the regular issues of AJMC. Special issues differ from the regular issues only in that they require separate funding. We feel that if we choose the topic correctly, these special issues will provide an attractive mechanism for the research and policy community to reach a wide spectrum of interested readers.

We ask for your support and counsel to help keep us on our intended path. Please let us know your thoughts on our proposed direction and if you are motivated to do so, help us to attain the high expectations we have set for The American Journal of Managed Care.

Where We're Indexed

Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL)

Current Contents/Clinical Medicine

Current Contents/Social & Behavioral Sciences

EMBASE/Excerpta Medica


Health Economic Evaluations Database (HEED)

International Pharmaceutical Abstracts

Physiotherapy Evidence Database (PEDro)


Science Citation Index Expanded

Social SciSearch

Social Sciences Citation Index