Lansing Personal Injury Lawyer - Reform

Let's Get Real About Lawsuits and Corporate America and Organized Medicine

David Mittleman — Wed, 02 Dec 2009 10:11:39 GMT

While browsing the blogging world I discovered a post by Joanne Doroshow on the The Huffington Post with which I completely agreed. Ms. Doroshow was taking on the hypocrisy of Corporate America and Organized Medicine when it came to their positions on access to the courts.

It boils down to this. When it's injured people who want access to the courts to protect what little rights they have left after "tort reform", corporate America and organized medicine blast the anti-litigation propoganda for all to hear. We hear about frivolous lawsuits, costs of litigation, and the threats to commerce.

But... when it's corporate America and organized medicine that want access to the courts to rack up money on even the most absurd claims, the anti-court propoganda disappears. Most likely, these corporate entities are suing smaller, weaker entities to squeeze them out of money over things most of us would probably shake our head over.

So here's the truth. When you hear television ads and see online postings talking to you about frivolous lawsuits and greedy plaintiffs, remember who is sending you the message. It's probably a corporate entity that's been suing over the craziest claims, but doesn't want injured persons without million dollar bank accounts to have access to the courts.

Is that hypocrisy? If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck....

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

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

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

Kansas Supreme Court Called to Protect Patients From Tort Reform

David Mittleman — Mon, 02 Nov 2009 16:35:06 GMT

Kansas, like Georgia, will be visiting the problem of tort reform this year as it decides whether or not caps on damages in medical malpractice cases violates a patient's rights after he or she has been injured by a doctor's negligence.

The legal battle surrounds a wrongly removed ovary. Amy Miller of Eudora, Kansas, went to have her right ovary removed. Dr. Carolyn Johnson unfortunately removed the left ovary instead. Ms. Miller filed a lawsuit and a Kansas jury comprised of her peers returned a verdict for $759,680.

However, because of laws in Kansas that place limits on damages for pain and suffering (noneconomic damages) in medical malpractice, the Judge in the case stripped $150,000 of the verdict that had to do with future noneconomic loss.

Attorneys for Ms. Miller argue that Kansas's law on medical malpractice caps violates Kansas's constitutional guarantees to a jury trial.

In addition to the Constitutional violation, her attorney argues that it violates the seperation fo powers by allowing the Legislature to unnecessarily take away a power vested to the judiciary and juries.

Most important, however, is the fact that caps on noneconomic damages do nothing but place the greatest limitations on the people who have been injured the most. Follow us as we let you know how these pivotal cases are decided across the country.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

The Doctor Is In and He Says Tort Reform Isn't the Cure

David Mittleman — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 16:26:12 GMT

Even doctors are starting to speak out about our insurance crisis. I recently read a post online by Rahul K. Parikh, M.D. that had me nodding my head. Dr. Parikh went straight to task and took on the proponents of "tort reform" (Crooked Justice) with the following line:

"There's nothing "sure or quick" about changing medical liability laws that will improve healthcare or its costs. Defensive medicine adds very little to healthcare's price tag, and rising malpractice premiums have had very little impact on access to care."

Why does he get it? It's because he's willing to look at the facts and put people first, not profit, not even his own profit. First, he noted that no matter how you look at it, malpractice lawsuits aren't the major factor in rising health care costs. As Dr. Parikh put it:

malpractice costs account for less than 2 percent of healthcare spending. Saving 2 percent of the over $2 trillion we spend on healthcare isn’t going to bend the cost curve.

Second, malpractice lawsuits are not frivolous. By and large, if you're willing (both as a client and a lawyer) to go through the incredible expense of suing a doctor or hospital, something truly significant has probably happened to you. Dr. Parikh reviewed a Harvard study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. He nails it on the head when he says:

Most of the suits were not frivolous: Almost two-thirds of cases involved errors by doctors.
Seventy-three percent of injuries in which a doctor committed an error resulted in payments. Seventy-two percent of cases in which there was an injury not due to physician error did not result in payment. Those conclusions do not paint the picture of a medical-legal system burdened by ambulance-chasing lawyers and their litigious clients.

Yes, that's right. Lawsuits were more likely to result in payment when the doctor made an error. Lawsuits were more likely to result in no payment if there was no error. Where's the frivolity? It's PR propoganda.

What isn't propoganda is the following. Tort reform will not save lives. Giving doctors and hospitals less incentive to improve practices and maintain care at high levels only puts us in jeopardy. Maybe that's what the doc meant when he wrote:

So for those who push tort reform as a panacea for a sick healthcare system, working to prevent injuries is a much more noble pursuit than writing up baseless arguments for the back pages of a newspaper.

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

Medical Negligence Law Equals Accountability, Tort Reform Equals Insurance Greed

David Mittleman — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:14:42 GMT

There's some smoke and mirrors going on at the Congressional Budget Office and it's designed to take away your rights as a patient and to diminish the value of the 7th Amendment. We're in the middle of an insurance crisis, and all anyone wants to talk about is a medical crisis that the evidence is showing doesn't really exist.

The Congressional Budget Office recently released a report that was heralded as signaling a need for "tort reform", aka "erasing patient's rights." Yet, its own math just doesn't add up to the rhetoric. Even if all the most stringent medical malpractice liability reforms were enacted, it would only reduce the cost of health care by one half of one percent (0.5%). To put it this way, it would reduce the cost of health care by the amount Americans spend on dog and cat food each year.

The Center for Justice and Democracy has released its own response to the CBO report and its conclusions are stunning - the CBO report on Medical Malpractice is flawed through and through. First, the report failed to indicate that 100,000 people die every year from medical negligence in hospitals alone, a figure determined by the Harvard School of Public Health. That is more than the annual combined fatalities in the U.S. from motor vehicle accidents, AIDS, and fires. MORE.

Second, the study failed to really analyze its own factual findings. Defensive medicine, a hot-button issue, is being cited as a response to the fear of medical malpractice lawsuits. But the CBO report found that defensive medicine only really happens with Medicare patients, due to the payment structure of fee-for-services. Defensive medicine was not found in private managed health care systems. Well, the same rules of medical malpractice apply to doctors regardless of their patient's age, so medical malpractice isn't what is causing defensive medicine. To the extent defensive medicine exists at all, it can be controlled by simply managing care correctly as opposed to taking away patients' rights and possibly killing more people.

Most importantly, the CBO ignores its own findings that Tort Reform (Crooked Justice) could increase patient deaths due to medical negligence by as much as 4,800 patients per year. Apparently, three studies was insufficient data to really consider the consequences.

Tort Reform will not make health care cheaper. It will not make you healthier.

Tort Reform would make it more likely that the next time you go to a hospital or doctor, the doctor treating you or your loved one will have less of an incentive to perform his duties reasonably. That's a risk we just can't afford.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Why Do Doctors Always Think They Are Entitled To Special Treatment?

David Mittleman — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 09:59:00 GMT

I recently wrote a letter to the editor of the Lansing State Journal on just this topic. The truth is, it's not just my friend and anesthesiologist Dr. Kenneth Elmassian, who takes this viewpoint - the local Michigan State Medical Society (MSMS) and the national American Medical Association (AMA) group that want to place doctors above the law. They have a problem with defensive medicine because of their faulty assumption on its connection to health care costs. They also want to single out doctors and give them blanket immunity that doesn't exist with any other type of private individual.

Frankly, it is my choice and right as a patient to want defensive medicine for me and my family. I don't want doctors cutting corners if the technology is available. We are not in the midst of a medical or legal crisis. WE ARE IN AN INSURANCE CRISIS. WE NEED INSURANCE REFORM.

The Constitution of the United States makes the right to a jury trial in civil matters a protected right by virtue of the 7th Amendment. If a jury can decide the factual disputes in all other negligence cases, and if a jury can decide whether a person commited a crime that can be punishable by loss of libery (incarceration), then a jury can certainly decide fair and adequate damages when a doctor harms a patient, and they and their families are affect for the rest of their lives!

Doctors put their pants/skirts on just like WE do!

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman

Most Vulnerable Continue to Suffer While Healthcare Debate Carries On

David Mittleman — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 14:58:36 GMT

The National Eye Institute has devised several amazing devices to essentially remedy blindness. In fact, the New York Times recently reported on an amazing device that consists of 67 electrodes that are surgically implanted in the eye, a camera that is strapped to the bridge of the nose, and a video processor that is strapped to the wrist. This might sound like a funny invention, but it has helped the woman featured in the NYT article, 56-year-old Barbara Campbell who lost her sight to eye disease, to see once more.

Similarly, the Brain Port is just as unique and innovative as the last invention—except it uses the tongue to “replace” the eye. Dr. Paul Bach-y-Rita came up with the idea of sensory substitution, or replacing one sense with another, but to do the same thing. His concept was based on the idea that sight does not come from the eye alone. Instead, the eye receives visual information, which it then sends as electrical impulses to the brain for interpretation. Specifically, the Brain Port is a head-mounted camera that collects white, gray, and black pixels of visual information. A computer in the device then transmits the information via electrical vibration to the tongue. Essentially, a blind person can “see” with their tongue.

Sadly, there are many blind people who will never get an opportunity to benefit from these amazing devices. It obviously isn’t because these technologies aren’t available. Instead, it is primarily a fault of how ill equipped our current healthcare system is to evenly distribute currently available treatments.

For a moment, let’s forget remedying already-lost eyesight. What about preserving eyesight in those who can still see a little, and could be helped by continued treatments? Monique Zimmerman-Stein is one of these people. She and her two daughters, age 9 and 10, are plagued by a genetic condition called Stickler’s Syndrome. This syndrome causes joints to dissolve and retinas to detach. Monique began losing her eyesight at age 16, but has received injections to help her retain some of her sight. However, her two daughters have also suffered from Stickler’s-related complications and procedures, including a tracheotomy, arthritis, and lost vision. Unfortunately, the Zimmerman-Stein’s health insurance is not enough to cover all of their complicated medical procedures. In fact, Monique and her husband spend $90 a week on Blue Cross Blue Shield, which only covers 80% of their bills. They are swimming in medical bills that are yet unpaid. They have tried to pay what they owe—including taking a second mortgage out on their home (which they later lost to foreclosure), sold furniture, cashed in on life insurance policies, borrowed $50,000 from a family member, and got some creditors to forgive a portion of their debt. As a result, Monique has decided to forgo her eye treatments to preserve her eyesight, and instead will dedicate all of the family’s little money to her daughters’ medical expenses.

In his September 9 address to Congress, President Obama urged lawmakers to set a limit on the amount that anyone would have to pay out-of-pocket for their healthcare. A lifetime maximum would help many people, especially those like Monique who need serious and continued medical care, to keep their heads above water. I pose this question: what good is it to limit health care to those who are already healthy and happen to have health insurance or the money to pay out-of-pocket? The most vulnerable need help and this isn’t best accomplished by our current healthcare system.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by David Mittleman