The new narrator (who was actually on a prior podcast episode), Dr. Livingston, is nice.
That said, I agree with @flyingpoodle's review, it does make it slightly harder to follow, but if you're multi-tasking it tends to break up the segments a bit so you know. The intro of external guest voices in mid-sentence (... "an article titled...") was a bit jarring, more appropriate for, say, a narrator reading a children's storybook to children when a character's voice suddenly appears in the middle of a sentence. Sometimes news radio lead-ins will hand it off as stating a one-sentence summary or lead, and then introducing the next speaker. From a production value standpoint, with external guests, it's odd that they're recording an inbound phone call as opposed to asking the authors to record a Voice Memo on an iPhone or use any more modern high-quality call platform.
The back stretch of the most recent podcast in the new format is all Dr. Livingston, though, and it's nice.
While I don't dislike Howard Bauchner's voice from prior episodes, I do happen to work in New York -- so not all listeners across the country may be used to his sort of voice. Also, I admit I liked Ed Livingston's voice better, in both intonation and pacing. Like some others, I miss Dr. DeAngelis, but wow, the comments section is all over the place for prior podcast versions featuring her voice!
Most recently, the JAMA podcast did away with the cute, quirky intro theme that sounded like a 2010-era iPhone ringtone. The intro theme is now replaced with stock B-roll audio that sounds like we're about to watch an HR training video. While this sounds more "professional", there are probably newer ways of adding audio bumpers to signal the start, transitions, and end of the podcast, and something that's unique to JAMA as opposed to a generic library of stock audio.
The broader issue is one of the structure of medical scientific content. We are accustomed to a predictable format -- intro, methods, results, discussion -- that reveals the "so what?" at the end, with titles that tease the question but don't reveal the answer. In audio & news-bulletin type summaries, the emphasis may be more on the "so what?", potentially even inverting the format of abstracts.
To each their own, I suppose. Remember how JAMA used to have cover art? Listeners may vary in their appreciation of the artistic & stylistic aspects of the Podcast, versus cold, sterile and relentless "just the facts" formats.
But overall, this is a great and high-impact podcast and regardless of the stylistic elements -- the art here is getting the style elements done in a way that helps readers remember the content better. Comments sections will attract nit-pickers (like me), but most likely the vast majority of listeners to the JAMA Editors' Summary are quietly thankful and satisfied.