Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Health

Drug Makers Raise Prices Despite Promises of Cost Reform

David Mittleman — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 09:39:28 GMT

Drug makers pledged to help cut down healthcare costs by $8 billion a year, but now it doesn’t look like they are making good on that promise. Instead, in the last year alone, the pharmaceutical industry has raised their wholesale prescription drug prices by 9%. Instead of cutting down on costs, that raises the nation’s drug-related healthcare costs by $10 billion, and represents the highest annual rate of inflation on drug prices since 1992.

Originally, drug makers had touted their agreement with the White House and the Senate Finance Agreement chairman to trim $8 billion a year from the nation’s drug costs, or $80 billion over 10 years, by giving rebates to older Americans and the government. However, the recent increase in prices would essentially cancel out the savings for at least the first year of the plan, if not the entire 10 years.

Nevertheless, drug makers argue that there are valid business reasons for raising prices. Specifically, they argue that they are forced to raise their prices in order to invest in future research and development of new drugs, especially as patents expire on previous drugs. While drug makers claim their “reasons” for raising their prices, many Americans who do have drug insurance will be forced to pay out-of-pocket for the leftover cost of overpriced drugs that insurance won’t entirely cover.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Studies Link BPA to Erectile Dysfunction

David Mittleman — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:37:20 GMT

According to researchers Bisphenol-A or BPA can be dangerous to men’s reproductive health. BPA is a common compound found in most plastic containers (baby bottles, laptops, and microwave containers) and tiny amounts circulate in 90% of the bodies of most Americans. However, a team of Chinese and U.S. scientists argue that BPA has been linked to erectile dysfunction in men.

Six years ago De-Kun Li, a senior scientist at Kaiser Permanente’s research arm, became alarmed at a steady stream of scientific studies that showed that BPA altered the reproductive organs of rates and mice. However, there is another side to the debate. In fact, some statisticians, toxicologists and endocrinologists question which research animals are really relevant to humans and their subsequent diseases.

Li knew that he would have to find some human evidence to help overcome the defenses against the toxicity of BPA. He couldn’t obviously create a study that involved exposing humans to BPA, so he did the next best thing. Li found four factories in China where large quantities of BPA are generated. There he discovered that the men who were exposed to the highest levels of BPA had more sexual dysfunction. Furthermore, when compared to men that didn’t work at the factory, the factory workers had four times the rate of erectile dysfunction. Additionally, the factory workers complained of ejaculation problems seven times as much as their non-factory worker counterparts.

Nevertheless, the workers were exposed to BPA in a much different way than most consumers: they inhaled the BPA instead of eating from plastic containers that contain the compound. Thus, BPA is merely a contaminant in foods for regular consumers, and the compound must pass through the digestive track first. “Raw” BPA can still be found in the bloodstream of most average consumers, but not at the same concentration levels of the factory workers. The question is how much BPA is necessary to harm the male reproductive system? While this question goes unanswered, it is unlikely that manufacturers will change their regular habits of using BPA in their products.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Alcoholic Energy Drinks Come Under FDA Scrutiny

David Mittleman — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 10:02:36 GMT

Alcoholic energy drinks have gained in popularity, particularly among younger drinkers. But now, the drinks, marketed under flashy names like Evil Eye or Max Fury, are coming under the Food and Drug Administration’s scrutiny. The FDA has never approved of the addition of caffeine to alcoholic drinks, but the producers of these beverages claim that their products are safe. Nevertheless, the FDA is concerned that the addition of caffeine can mask the effects of alcohol, potentially leading to more instances of drunk driving, sexual assaults or other destructive behaviors.

The burden of proving that the caffeine-laden alcoholic beverages are safe falls squarely on the shoulders of the manufacturers. In a September 25^th letter to the FDA, a task force, consisting of the attorney generals of several states as well as several other state, city, and territorial law enforcement officials, stated that “there is a strong emerging consensus of scientific opinion that the combination of caffeine and alcohol…poses a serious public health risk”. Ultimately, the goal is to remove the caffeinated alcoholic beverages from the market. Since the FDA received the letter from the task force, they also issued a letter to the manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages. Manufacturers have 30 days to respond to the FDA.

So far, larger corporations such as Anheuser-Busch have already removed caffeine from their alcoholic energy drinks. However, other smaller companies such as Los-Angeles based Joose Beverage and Portland, Oregon-based Charge Beverages continue to sell alcoholic energy drinks infused with caffeine. The companies could still challenge the FDA’s request by arguing that their products have already been approved by the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax and Trade Bureau.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

RNC Fiasco: RNC Health Insurance Plan Covers Elective Abortions

David Mittleman — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 09:34:36 GMT

Recently, Devon Glass wrote about Representative Stupak’s decision to vote against abortion coverage in the healthcare reform legislation. Despite most Republicans' claims that they are and always have been vehemently against taxpayer dollars covering abortion procedures, it seems that they didn’t actually follow these convictions in practice.

According to recent reports just released this morning, the Republican National Committee has just decided that it will remove abortion coverage from the insurance plan that it offers to its employees. Apparently, the RNC’s insurance plan with CIGNA has covered elective abortions since 1991, although the party opposes abortion rights.

Chairman Michael Steele recently stated: “money from our loyal donors should not be used for this purpose." Luckily, the RNC’s actions will finally line up with its supposed convictions on one of the most hotly contested political issues of today.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Women are second class citizens in Bart Stupak's America

Devon Glass — Sun, 08 Nov 2009 09:24:45 GMT

History was made last night as the House of Representatives passed a health care reform bill, and now it's up to the Senate to pass one as well. The bill passed does have a public option and will help control health care expenses in the coming decades. This bill was not passed without significant compromise, but one of the compromises made me really angry.

Representative Bart Stupak, who is from Michigan, decided his vote was contingent on being able to offer an amendment to the health care reform bill to prevent any federal money used in the new health care exchange from paying for abortion services. Nevermind that abortion is one of the most common surgical procedures performed in the United States. Nevermind that abortion is legal, and has been, for more than 30 years in the United States. Nevermind that access to abortion services is supported by the majority of Americans. To Bart Stupak, all of this is meaningless because he does not support abortion and since he gets to vote on this health care bill and you don't, his opinion matters more than yours. The price for Bart Stupak's support for health care reform is simple, sacrificing women's rights.

I find it interesting that, as a man, Bart Stupak gets to decide what medical services should be afforded to woman in this country. Rep. Stupak will never personally need to have an abortion, so I guess from his perspective it's okay to limit peoples access to abortion services. The effect of his amendment will not outlaw abortion, but it will make it tougher for people who need an abortion to pay for it. Since the new health care exchange won't be permitted to provide coverage for abortion services with federal money, anyone who gets insurance through the new health care exchange will need to pay out of pocket for an abortion or additional insurance to cover abortion services. I don't know about you, but my understanding is that most woman don't plan on having abortions so it's going to be difficult to convince them to pay extra for a service they don't believe they will need in the future.

To add insult to injury, the woman who are purchasing insurance on the new health care exchange are likely receiving assistance to pay for the insurance. This means it's unlikely they can afford to purchase additional insurance to cover abortion services. In effect, this will make abortion services something that only rich women can afford, creating a tiered health care system for women. Is that what we want when we are working to expand health care to cover most, if not all, of Americans?

I can only speculate what goes through Bart Stupak's mind when deciding to expand health care but limit health care options for women. This reminds me of the discussion between Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Sen. Jon Kyl about providing maternity care, which I've provided below. The thing is, there are lots of services that I don't use when I have health insurance, but we all pay because we don't know when we may need those services in the future. I may not need dialysis coverage now, but if I go into renal failure in the future I'm going to be glad I have it. The money I spend to pay for health insurance covers everyone who has health insurance and it should not be up to me or Bart Stupak or anyone else what services someone else gets to receive. It should be a decision made by the patient and their doctor. End of story.

Abortion may be something that people feel icky about, but it's a legal medical procedure that more than 1 million women utilize every year. It should not be a political bargaining chip to convince someone to support health care reform. I think we should look at passing an amendment that erectile dysfunction treatment should not be covered by any insurance offered on the new health care exchange. The reasoning is simple, if old men didn't get boners they would not impregnant the women they are having sex with, therefore no abortion needed. However, I don't think you would get much support for such an amendment because it discriminates against men, but I don't see the difference between not providing coverage for abortion and not providing coverage for erectile dysfunction. Maybe Bart Stupak can explain the difference if you call his office and ask him really nice, he can be reached at (202) 225 4735.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Jj6pqajvB8

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Devon Glass

RI Hospital Fined for Fifth Wrong-Site Surgery, Ordered to Install Cameras in Operating Rooms

David Mittleman — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:26:54 GMT

Recently, I wrote about Rhode Island Hospital’s fifth wrong site surgery since January 2007, where doctors operated on the wrong finger of a patient. After conducting an investigation, the Rhode Island Health Department has levied a fine of $150,000 against the Hospital, citing that the surgical team violated safety policies when it performed the incorrect operation on October 22^nd.

According to investigation reports, the surgical team failed to mark the correct fingers and also failed to follow the rules for a “time out”, which is a pause before beginning a surgery to verify the patient, and ensure the correct procedure and operating site. Furthermore, the Hospital also failed to follow new error-prevention protocols instituted in Rhode Island on July 1.

Along with the fine, Rhode Island Hospital will also be required to install video cameras and audio equipment in all its operating rooms within 45 days. All surgeons will be taped at least twice a year. However, the Hospital can decide if it will inform the doctors in advance that they will be monitored during a particular surgery. Moreover, the Health Department will also require the Hospital to assign a clinical employee who is not part of the surgical team to observe all surgeries at the hospital for at least one year to ensure that doctors are marking sites to be operated on and taking a time out prior to starting a surgery.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Hospitalized Uninsured Children More Likely to Die When Compared to Insured Children

David Mittleman — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 16:35:07 GMT

Researchers at John Hopkins University recently made a horrific discovery: uninsured children who are hospitalized are more likely to die than children with government or private health insurance. In fact, the researchers estimated that approximately 37.8%, or 17,000 child deaths could have been avoided if the more children had health insurance coverage.

The researchers analyzed data from 23 million children’s hospitalizations in 37 states from 1988 to 2005. According to the data, when the researchers compared uninsured children with insured children, the uninsured faced a 60% increased risk of dying.

While the study was not meant to identify why uninsured children were more likely to die, the researchers did find a potential culprit for the increase in deaths amongst uninsured children. Specifically, uninsured children were more likely to access health care through the emergency room, which suggests that many uninsured children were in advanced stages of illness prior to seeking medical attention. Furthermore, uninsured children were hospitalized for less time than insured children: on the average, uninsured children were hospitalized for less than a day when they died, as compared to insured children who spent a full day in the hospital prior to death. Currently, an estimated 7 million children are uninsured in the United States.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Rhode Island Hospital Operates on the Wrong Site for Fifth Time Since 2007

David Mittleman — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:20:25 GMT

A surgeon at a Rhode Island Hospital committed malpractice by mistakenly operating on the wrong part of a patient’s hand. Now, health officials are investigating how this mistake could have occurred. But even more alarming is that this isn’t the first time this happened: the same Rhode Island Hospital has a history of operating on incorrect body parts. In fact, this is the hospital’s fifth wrong-site surgery since 2007.

According to Timothy Babineau, the hospital president, the surgeon operated on the wrong finger last Thursday. The patient was meant to have surgery on two fingers, but instead underwent a procedure on the joint of a different finger. So far, the hospital has not released the name of the patient or the surgeon involved in the incident. The hospital also says that it will investigate what went wrong alongside the Rhode Island Department of Health.

Rhode Island Hospital was fined $50,000 after brain surgeons operated on the wrong side of the brain in three separate cases in 2007. The fourth case of wrong-site surgery involved a child who needed a cleft palate surgery. In that case, the wrong side of the child’s mouth was operated on.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cUMgyoVIqNE

Our office has recently and successfully handled a case in which the wrong finger was operated on and received a substantial settlement for our client in the matter. If you feel a doctor has committed malpractice in a similar fashion against you, do not hesitate to contact us to discuss your case.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

American Cancer Society Not Changing Screening Guidelines Despite Rumors (Part I)

David Mittleman — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:34:05 GMT

The Chief Medical Officer of the American Cancer Society, Otis Brawley, recently warned against over-screening for prostate and breast cancers. While Brawley stated that he does not want his message to confuse people into thinking that all screening is bad, he did argue that the American Cancer Society may have exaggerated the health benefits of screening.

While Brawley does feel that breast cancer screening is particularly important for women over 50, he finds that over-screening is still troubling. This is particularly true for prostate cancer because many prostate tumors never develop into something dangerous. Furthermore, for patients who receive “false positives” the experience can be devastating and produce great anxiety, at the very least. Moreover, many of these same patients choose to undergo further testing, such as surgical biopsy, which is an invasive procedure. However, Brawley describes over-screening as “not new”—it originally developed in the 1970s.

Nevertheless, since the release of the controversial NY Times article outlining Dr. Brawley’s position, the American Cancer Society has issued a statement clarifying their position on cancer screenings:

The American Cancer Society stands by its recommendation that women age 40 and older should receive annual mammograms, and women at high risk should talk with their doctors about when screening should begin based on their family history.

Mammograms work and women should continue to get them. Mammography has helped avert deaths from breast cancer, and we can make more progress against the disease if more women age 40 and older get an annual mammogram. Seven clinical trials tell us that screening with mammography and clinical breast exam do reduce risk of breast cancer death. This test is beneficial in that it saves lives, but it is not perfect. It can miss cancers that need treatment, and in some cases finds disease that does not need treatment. Understanding these limitations will help researchers develop better screening tests.

The society has, since 1997, recommended that men talk to their doctor and make an informed decision about whether or not prostate cancer early detection testing is right for them. This recommendation also still stands.

While recent studies indicate the advantages of screening for some cancers have been overstated, there are advantages, especially in the case of breast, colon and cervical cancers.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Insurance Companies Might Have to Play by the Same Rules As Other Industries After All

David Mittleman — Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:15:00 GMT

I've been saying for months that we're not in a medical or health care crisis, we're in an INSURANCE CRISIS. It looks like the folks at Congress know what I'm talking about.

Congress seems poised to end a 50-plus year vacation insurance companies have enjoyed from federal anti-trust regulation. Bills are making their way through committees in both the House and Senate that would strip the insurance industry of its exemption from federal anti-trust laws.

This important move by Congress will increase competition and prevent price-fixing, all of which helps the American consumer times these tough financial times. The insurance companies, not surprisingly, are crying wolf over the prospect of no longer being able to gouge Americans with unfair policies and pricing structures.

Senator Harry Reid put it best when he said: "It's time to level the playing field for American healthcare consumers and make the insurance industry play by the same rules that other industries live by."

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman