Universal Health Care Is The Best Tort Reform?

Posted 5 November, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial, Tort Deform

I made a Google search and could not find much on point. In fact, a search including the words Universal Health Care, tort reform and trial lawyer produces pages and pages and pages of editorials, blogs, news and opinion pieces on why Tort Reform is necessary to reduce health care costs. The obvious misinformation aside, I am amazed at the machinery that produces so much lies and misleading information for the benefit of the Insurance Industry. No wonder it has become almost axiomatic that Tort Reform will lead to reduce health care costs and premiums and happy doctors and better care and a chicken in every pot forever!

In any event, my search was to find out whether there was anything written on the effect of a Medicare for all type Universal Health Care on our Tort System and Trial Lawyers in general. It occurred to me that the right wingers should love the idea since I believe principally such a system would have a huge impact (and a negative one at that) upon the Trial Lawyers’ bottom line. Right now, Medicare pays a few cents on the dollar for medical bills and has an automatic right of recovery that attaches to all third party claims based on the payments made. Wouldn’t then a Universal Health Care System reduce the value of all cases by having fixed the cost of health care to a minimal amount? I think that would have a huge impact on how unintentional tort cases will be handled.

Testing my tweeter

Posted 3 November, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

Test!

Not Fair At All!

Posted 28 October, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial, Tort Deform

I came across this article that was published several years ago in USAToday ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/2005-01-30-tort-reform_x.htm ). It occurred to me that it is generally possible to fight reality-based inaccuracies. Facts are facts and are either true or false or in between. Facts can be verified and are supported by some sort of evidence-strong or weak. If there is no evidence to support it, then generally in a reality-based environment, those facts then don’t exist.

Myths on the other hand are not bound by any set of facts. Myths can be changed at will at any time to suit the proferrer’s needs. They are not based in reality. They are molded and designed to rely on the listeners’ prejudice and pre-dispositions for their existence. More uneducated the listener is the more believable myths become and the more believable they become, the harder it becomes to fight them. You can educate the listener, but then the myth will change in subtle ways and sometimes in not so subtle ways to provide alternatives and the game goes on.

Trial Lawyers have been losing the public relation game (some believe that the game has been lost for years) where the Consumer has come to view the Trial Lawyer as the Problem and not as their last line of defense against the corporations and other entities that profit from the their ignorance.

The McDonald’s Case and Cup Holders!

Posted 23 October, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial, Tort Deform

One way I illustrate my point about Trial Lawyers being the Consumer’s Last Line of Defense ™ is to talk to them about the relationship between the McDonald’s case and the presence of cup holders in cars. The McDonald’s case where a woman received 3rd degree burns over 6% of her body is consistently used by the media and other with specific agendas as one that illustrates the abuse of the Courts by the Trial Lawyers. It is ironic that the truth of the matter is the exact opposite.

“The installation of cup holders in automobiles increased significantly after Stella Liebeck v. McDonald’s Corporation, where a 79-year-old woman in Albuquerque, New Mexico ordered hot coffee from a McDonald’s restaurant. She then spilled the coffee on her lap and was seriously scalded. Facts of the case: she first went to McDs and asked for 1. them to pay her cleaning bill, 2. pay her doctor bill, and 3. apologize. In one of the largest corporate miscalculations of all time McD refused deal. She subsequently sued McDonald’s in a jury trial. Liebeck was awarded US$2.7 million in damages by the Jury, which was later reduced by the judge to US$640,000. The case was settled privately for an undisclosed sum.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cup_holder

The presence of cup holders in cars has provided increased safety for the Consumers. Far from being an abuse of the Courts, a trial lawyer and his efforts to properly prosecute a case for his client is mostly responsible for this increase in Consumer Safety.

Join my group: Your Last Line of Defense(tm) on Linkedin: http://www.linkedin.com/groups?gid=2381472&trk=hb_side_g

Public Option is Still Alive… So It Seems.

Posted 19 October, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Insurance, News

Senator Says Public Plan Is In, SGR Gets Attention

When the healthcare reform bill comes up for a vote in the Senate, it will contain a public plan, the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee said today.

“Yes, we’ll have a good strong, public option,” Sen. Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) told reporters Friday.

Harkin has been one of the main proponents of the public plan in the Senate, but Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, has said he doesn’t think the public option has enough votes to pass in the Senate.

Take The Money Out Of Medicine!

Posted 8 October, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial, Medicine, Tort Deform

Ortho Surgeons Frequently Omitted Required Disclosures

Orthopedic surgeons who received payments from device makers often failed to follow disclosure policies required by their chief professional society, researchers said.

Nearly 30% of manufacturers’ payments to board and committee members of the American Academy of Orthopedic Surgeons (AAOS) and to presenters at its 2008 annual meeting, went unreported, according to Kanu Okike, MD, MPH, of Harvard University and colleagues.

Some 20% of payments directly related to presentation topics went undisclosed, as did half of indirectly related and unrelated payments, Okike and colleagues found.

The group’s written policy requires disclosure of all payments — including non-cash remuneration such as travel, gifts, entertainment, and meals — from companies selling products related directly or indirectly to presentation topics.

The researchers suggested that, in light of their findings, the current disclosure system based on physician self-reporting may soon be replaced by mandatory reporting by companies making such payments.

How Much Profit is Enough Profit?

Posted 7 October, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Insurance, Tort Deform

The Insurance Hoax

A representative of State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., the largest home insurer in the U.S., came to the charred remnants of Tunnell’s home to tell her the company would pay just $220,000 of the estimated $306,000 cost of rebuilding the house.

“It was devastating; I stood there and cried,” says Tunnell, 42, who teaches accounting at San Diego City College. “I felt absolutely abandoned.”

Tunnell joined thousands of people in the U.S. who already knew a secret about the insurance industry: When there’s a disaster, the companies homeowners count on to protect them from financial ruin routinely pay less than what policies promise. Insurers often pay 30-60 percent of the cost of rebuilding a damaged home–even when carriers assure homeowners they’re fully covered, thousands of complaints with state insurance departments and civil court cases show.

Paying out less to victims of catastrophes has helped produce record profits. In the past 12 years, insurance company net income has soared–even in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the worst natural disaster in U.S. history. Property- casualty insurers, which cover damage to homes and cars, reported their highest- ever profit of $73 billion last year, up 49 percent from $49 billion in 2005, according to Highline Data LLC, a Cambridge, Massachusetts-based firm that compiles insurance industry data.

Read on

How To Get Rid of Trial Lawyers

Posted 25 September, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

Putting trial lawyers out of business – Anthony Tarricone

Let’s cut the wheat from the chaff: Tort reform will do nothing to fix health care. Forty-six states have already done it, and costs have continued to skyrocket. The Congressional Budget Office and Government Accountability Office have said tort reform will save practically no money, and they found no evidence of defensive medicine. Medical malpractice suits are less than 1 percent of all civil filings — and this has declined 8 percent during the past decade. The research is definitive and absolute, and those claiming otherwise are just trying to obstruct health care reform altogether.

More than 98,000 people die every year from preventable medical errors, according to the Institute of Medicine. That report is 10 years old, and estimates are the number has gotten significantly worse. This is the equivalent of two 737s crashing every day for a whole year. If planes were crashing like this today, would we focus on giving airlines immunity or making air travel safer?

So this is how you really put trial lawyers out of business: Just cut down on the errors. Fewer errors mean fewer complications — or fewer people who will need legal recourse. Electronic medical records, bar-coding equipment, tagging surgical instruments and routine operating room checklists are just a few measures that can decrease errors. And there are countless more that can corral this epidemic and make patient safety a priority once again.

H1N1 – Swine Flu Epidemic

Posted 21 September, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: News

Medical News: CDC Spells Out Process to Get Pandemic Vaccine to Patients

A minimum of 3.4 million doses of vaccine against H1N1 pandemic flu will be available in the first week of October, the CDC said.

Those doses — all in the form of a live attenuated nasal spray vaccine — may be supplemented by some injectable vaccine, according to Jay Butler, MD, the chief of the agency’s 2009 H1N1 vaccine task force.

“Additional vaccine may be available as well,” Dr. Butler told reporters, “but 3.4 (million) is the hard number that we have right now.”

After the first week of October, additional vaccine will become available, he said, eventually reaching 20 million doses delivered each week until the end of the year.

Butler cautioned that getting the vaccine to patients is likely to be logistically challenging, especially in the first days. “The flow of vaccine the first week or two may be slower than what we would like,” he said.

The U.S. has ordered 195 million doses of pandemic flu vaccine from five companies, and four of the vaccines have now been licensed by the FDA. (See FDA Approves H1N1 Vaccines)

To get them out, the government will use the same process employed by the Vaccine for Children program, which distributes medications to about 40,000 healthcare providers across the country, he said.

That network will be expanded by adding another 50,000 providers of various types.

But not all of those providers will have vaccine available for all patients immediately, he said. “There’s not a sudden appearance of vaccine in 90,000 refrigerators around the country,” Butler said.

The ordering process, he said, will begin with a request from a provider to the state health department, which will know from day to day how much vaccine is allocated to that state.

State allocations will be based on population.

Who Comes Up With These Policies?

Posted 15 September, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law, Insurance

Medicare Covers Transplants, But Limits Payments for Anti-Rejection Drugs

The story of Ms. Whitaker’s two organ donations — the first from her mother and the second from her boyfriend — sheds light on a Medicare policy that is widely regarded as pound-foolish. Although the government regularly pays $100,000 or more for kidney transplants, it stops paying for anti-rejection drugs after only 36 months.

The health care bill moving through the House of Representatives includes a little-noticed provision that would reverse the policy, but it is not clear whether the Senate will follow suit. The 36-month limit is one of several reimbursement anomalies — along with inadequate primary care payments and incentives that encourage unneeded care — that many in Congress hope to cure.

Ms. Whitaker, 31, who describes herself as “kind of a nerd,” has Alport syndrome, a genetic disorder that caused kidney failure and significant hearing loss by the time she was 14. In 1997, after undergoing daily dialysis for five years, she received her first transplant. Most of the cost of the dialysis and the transplant, totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars, was absorbed by the federal Medicare program, which provides broad coverage for those with end-stage renal disease.

Despite that heavy investment, federal law limits Medicare reimbursement for the immunosuppressant drugs that transplant recipients must take for life, at costs of $1,000 to $3,000 a month.

Patient Safety

Posted 14 September, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial, Medicine, Tort Deform

Medical Holocaust in U.S.: Who in the Health Cares?

Two million people in the U.S. died needlessly in the past ten years from preventable medical error and 200,000 more of us will die this year unnecessarily because half of the medical community won’t be washing their hands, or their equipment, or taking out catheters, or operating on the correct body part, or handing out the right medications, or infecting the patients with germs they have brought from hospital clothes worn out in the streets. How much money is spent because of these careless practices, as well as because of overuse, misuse, and abuse by our health care system?

Let’s have a true debate. What is the value of a human life? Is it worth a hand washing? Will it be possible to alleviate medical malpractice suits when the medical community adopts safety measures that have proven to lessen infections 70-100%? Will our government and the medical communities have a mandated discipline policy and transparency, rather than lie and deny? Why can’t we find out more about the costs of care, the error rates and deaths reported? Why hasn’t the Illinois law, co-sponsored by then State Senator Obama, for reporting infection and adverse events not been implemented as passed nearly six years ago? Why, after years of trying, is there no national law mandating patient safety in the USA?

If it were not for the heroes/heroines in the patient safety movement, those who have lost children, spouses, moms and dads in this senseless medical holocaust and the many brave doctors, nurses, health educators and workers, pioneering hospitals, journalists and media, this horror would continue to be our deep, dark, secret.

Their Lawyer Says Corporate Integrity is Their No. 1 Goal.

Posted 3 September, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Criminal, Medicine, News, Non-Law

Medical News: Pfizer Settles Fraud Charges for $2.3 Billion

Pfizer will pay the government $2.3 billion to settle criminal and civil charges that it promoted off-label uses for the disgraced painkiller valdecoxib (Bextra) and three other drugs.

The Justice Department said it was the largest healthcare fraud settlement in history.

More than half the settlement — $1.3 billion — involves Pfizer’s efforts to promote valdecoxib, a COX-2 inhibitor withdrawn from the market in 2005 because of cardiovascular and other risks.

Pfizer’s sales staff had urged doctors to prescribe the drug for surgical pain and to prevent deep vein thrombosis, according to court records from a criminal trial of a Pfizer manager earlier this year.

The other $1 billion covered charges that Pfizer improperly promoted the antipsychotic drug ziprasidone (Geodon), the antibiotic linezolid (Zyvox), and pregabalin (Lyrica), approved for epilepsy, fibromyalgia, and neuropathic pain.

The settlement will be shared between the federal government, state Medicaid programs, and whistleblowers. The latter include a Pennsylvania psychiatrist and at least one former Pfizer employee whose allegations helped launch the investigation.

Their complaints, which had been sealed until the settlement was reached, provided details on Pfizer’s alleged transgressions.

For example, according to one complaint, Pfizer pushed linezolid for several types of infections not named on its FDA-approved labeling, and also claimed it was superior to vancomycin without FDA approval.

Similarly, Pfizer was said to have promoted ziprasidone — approved only for schizophrenia or acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder — for depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism, and a host of other conditions.

In addition to promoting the off-label uses, Pfizer was also accused of paying kickbacks to doctors who prescribed the drugs.

Sales of ziprasidone, pregabalin, and linezolid in 2008 totaled about $2.5 billion, according to the consulting firm SDI Health.

Come See My Show

Posted 21 August, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Fun, News, Non-Law

Evanston artist to show photos at ‘THREE’

August 20, 2009
SRO: PEOPLE TO WATCH

“THREE,” the third annual fall show by artists at Margin Gallery and Collective, co-founded by Nima Taradji of Evanston, will open Sept. 4 at 1915 S. Halsted St., Chicago. Taradji also co-founded Hello Artichoke, another cooperative gallery in Los Angeles, where he worked as a commercial photographer, shooting celebrities in art, music and modeling. He later took a break from commercial photography to attend law school in Chicago. Besides the photographs of Taradji and others, “THREE” will include paintings, drawings, ceramics and metalwork. An artists’ talk will be held at 7 p.m. Sept. 4 and an opening reception between 6-10 p.m. Sept. 11. Gallery hours are 5-9 p.m. Fridays, 12-7 p.m. Saturdays and 12-5 p.m. Sundays. Visit www.margingallery.org.

Health Care Cost Has Nothing to do With Tort Reform

Posted 19 August, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Tort Deform

Tort reform doesn’t cut health costs

Sen. Mitch McConnell’s No. 1 idea for fixing what ails our health care system is to limit the rights of those maimed by medical malpractice.

But states that have enacted curbs on what McConnell calls “junk lawsuits” have yet to see the cost savings promised by McConnell and other proponents of tort reform.

On the contrary, Texas capped malpractice damages in 2003 only to experience a steep rise in health insurance premiums and medical costs.

Medicare spending rose 24 percent in the three years after punitive damages were capped at $250,000, according to the Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy.

One of the most expensive health-care markets in the country is the Texas city of McAllen. Only Miami, which has much higher labor and living costs, spends more per person on Medicare.

Boston surgeon Atul Gawande visited McAllen and wrote an account for The New Yorker, “The Conundrum: What a Texas town can teach us about health care” that’s required reading for anyone trying to understand this admittedly baffling topic.

One night at dinner with six local doctors he asked why the average cost per Medicare enrollee had soared from $4,891, about the national average in 1992, to almost twice the national average of $15,000 per enrollee in 2006.

For perspective, the per capita income in McAllen is only $12,000.

Several of the physicians said doctors practiced defensive medicine to protect themselves from the city’s especially aggressive lawyers; they ordered extra tests and procedures which drive up costs.

But what about the strict limits on malpractice damages. Haven’t lawsuits gone down?

“Practically to zero,” one of the docs said.

What’s finally revealed is that doctors in McAllen are heavily invested in medical technology and imaging and surgery centers. They order lots of tests and procedures because they directly profit from them. They think of what they do as a business.

The critical choice facing this country is whether health care will continue to go the way of McAllen or whether it can be guided toward a Mayo Clinic model in which doctors work together to deliver the best care with the fewest tests and procedures.

We should all hope the Mayo model wins because the outcomes for patients are far better. Also, at the current rate, health care costs will soon eat up so much of the federal budget that this country will no longer be able to afford to defend itself.

The Texas experience with malpractice is not unique. Researchers at the University of Alabama at Birmingham surveyed 27 states that have limits on non-economic damages and discovered no savings for health care consumers.

McConnell is offering a few other of what he calls “common sense” ideas. He favors some insurance reforms, such as covering pre-existing conditions, and incentives for living a healthful lifestyle.

He also says individuals buying insurance should be entitled to the same tax deductions as companies buying insurance for their employees.

McConnell acknowledges that health care reform is necessary, but his prescription is mostly a placebo.

To read the NewYorker article, “The Conundrum: What a Texas town can teach us about health care,” go to www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande.

Death Panels

Posted 19 August, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial, Insurance, Tort Deform

Roger Ebert’s Journal

“Death panels” is such an excellent term. You know exactly what it means, and therefore you know you’re against them. Debate over. This term more than anything else seems to have unified the opposition to the Obama health care proposals. It fuels the anger that has essentially shut down “town hall” meetings intended for the discussion of the issues.

Of course the term is inspired by a lie. There are no conceivable plans to form “death panels” or anything like them. The Obama plan, which has some bipartisan support, doesn’t seek or desire to get involved in any decisions about who should live and who should die. But now we hear “death panel” repeated so often that the term has taken on a sort of eerie reality, as if it really referred to anything.

I think we’re all in favor of counseling and palliative care being available to the terminally ill. As a man who has been very near death myself in the last few years, I have made it clear to my wife and physicians that I have no desire for my life to be prolonged unreasonably by artificial means. To be kept alive by mechanical methods after any meaningful form of life remains to me is a horrifying thought. It would make a parody of the fullness of my life, to myself and others.

All I desire is that extreme measures simply be discontinued. This does not involve anyone “pulling the plug” on me, or having to feel responsible for my death. It means that my body is being allowed to come to the end of its natural duration, and that I will die. I am content to die. People have been doing it for long time.

It’s only in recent decades that the technology has existed to prolong the “signs of life” indefinitely. Doctors for ages have reached a point where they inform families, “there is no more that can be done.” In these modern times that is much more that can be done, but to what end? To prolong a life that has been emptied of purpose, activity, accomplishment, joy? To extend the suffering of our loved ones? To receive treatment that is potentially more expensive than everything that has gone before? What is the purpose?

Of course I am in favor of life-saving intervention when it was appropriate. Some days after my first jaw surgery for cancer, it appeared to be a success. The cancerous area had been removed, my jaw had been reconstructed using my fibula bone, the wound had been closed, my appearance was acceptable, my tongue and vocal equipment was still functional, and there was reason to believe I would be able to speak–perhaps not on television any longer, but well enough to be understood by anyone caring to try.

I was actually in the process of being returned home. My body from the neck down was perfectly healthy. Suddenly, catastrophic bleeding began. A carotid artery near the surgery site ruptured. It was sheer good chance that this happened at the hospital and not at home, where I would certainly have died.

It was touch-and-go. The bleeding seemed impossible to stop. The affected tissue had been weakened by radiation. Only within the last year has my wife informed me that at one point it appeared I had died. She sensed I was still alive, and asked the doctors to keep working. I am happy that they did. The bleeding was finally staunched, my breathing was maintained with a tracheotomy, I was in critical care, but I lived and am here today to write this.

Of course I am happy that heroic measures were made to save my life. It was still worth living. I had a sound mind in an (otherwise) sound body. I received excellent medical treatment, which we all have a right to. I had good insurance coverage. I am not willing to say that the millions of Americans who cannot afford insurance would have been left to die, but throughout the course of their lives they would have lacked much medical care they needed. And we’ve all heard stories of hospital refusing admission to people without coverage. I think it would be difficult to check into many hospitals for cancer surgery if you had no insurance.

The notion of “universal health care” does not mean “socialized medicine.” It means just what it seems to mean. America is the only developed nation on earth that does not provide it. Why does it inspire such virulent opposition? Who is behind it? It is opposed mostly from the far right, whose enthusiasm seems to be encouraged by financial support from some (not all) insurance companies. Those companies have priced American insurance out of the reach of millions.

One result has been that our national life expectancy ranks 42nd among all developed nations. We spend more on medical care than any other nation, and get less than 41 of them. These figures are pretty clear.

I don’t pretend to know if this information is available to the angry people who have shouted down their representatives at town hall meetings. I think I do know where their anger is fed. The drumbeat of far-right commentators fuels it. Their agenda is not health care, but opposition to the Obama administration. It takes the form of demonizing Obama. It uses the tactic of the Big Lie to defame him. An example of this is the fiction, “he wants to kill your grandmother.” Another is the outrageous statement that he is a racist who hates white people. A person capable of saying that is clearly unhinged and in the grip of unconditional hatred.

This brings us full circle to the term “death panels.” As nearly as I can determine, it first gained circulation when it was used by Sarah Palin. She employed it on her Facebook page. It is a term of genius, as demonstrated by how quickly it has entered into common usage.

There’s something a little…too perfect…about it. Did it spring into her mind in an instant, while she was typing away on Facebook? It has the feel of having been coined or crafted. She would have been the ideal conduit for it. As a sitting governor, it would have been inappropriate for her to make policy statements on her Facebook page. As a private citizen, she remains as visible as before, and every change on her Facebook page is subjected to minute scrutiny. Now she is reportedly adding Twitter to her means of self-expression.

These are ideal platforms. While a speech must create a context for a political claim, the nature of such net outlets allow her to toss out zingers that seem, but are not, complete ideas. If one were a right-wing strategist, one could think of no better conduit for the term “death panels” than Sarah Palin’s Facebook page. There it achieved instant publicity, and it was not what she said about “death panels” but the fact that she said it that achieved notoriety.

I’m not saying she coined the term. For all I know, it appeared for the first time elsewhere. She is responsible for its fame. Whether she coined it or heard it and merely passed it on, it rang a loud bell with her, and fit nicely into her anti-Obama agenda. What did it mean? Why should she ask? It refers in real life to policies that she herself has advocated. But her interest was not in health care. It was in Obama.

“Death panels” is an example of a meme. A meme is a word, phrase, saying, idea or belief that passes from one mind to another. The Domino Effect. Alligators in the sewers. Blondes have more fun. Tax and Spend. The New Frontier. When the going gets tough, the tough get going. Swiftboating. Where’s the beef? The King of Beers.

A meme succeeds because it survives and reproduces. It works. It has utility. It can define an issue in the desired way. It is almost impossible to refute, because it seems to open and close the subject simultaneously. Even a single adjective is fatal to it. It admits of no qualifiers: “When the going gets tough, the tough, if they want to live to fight another day, reevaluate the situation.” How’s that for a lousy meme?

I saw a documentary last year about Lee Atwater, the strategist for the Reagan and George H. W. Bush campaigns, the mentor of Karl Rove and George Bush. The man was a brilliant creator of memes. Among his coinages were “Whitewater,” which inspired a $70 million federal investigation into a $28,000 financial loss. He made “Willie Horton” a code term. He got many people to believe “Michael Dukakis opposed the Pledge of Allegiance.” He was capable of outrageous invention, as when about the Willie Horton ad he said with a straight face: “I don’t think a lot of Southerners even noticed there was a black man in that ad.”

Atwater might have been proud of “Death panels.” Those two little words have derailed the town hall meetings, by stirring up such unruly dissent that legislators have been shouted down by their own constituents. The town halls were designed to promote rational discussion of health care, a dialogue between lawmakers and their constituents. They have failed. Now those two words threaten to derail the public option provisions of the Obama plan.

Do you know what the “public option” is? It would be the establishment of a federal fund to provide health insurance for those who cannot afford it or qualify for it. I have the feeling that if Jay Leno went Jaywalking among the protesters at a town hall meeting, even among those holding signs opposing the public option, he would find few able to define the term.

If you lack insurance coverage, are you opposed to the public option? If your premiums have increased so much that you can’t afford them, do you oppose it? If you have a “preexisting condition” that disqualifies you from insurance, do you oppose it? If it would provide you with equivalent insurance at a lower cost, do you oppose it? Most Americans, even those angry people at town hall meetings, now approve of MediCare. The public option would essentially make a system like MediCare available to the general population.

Would it replace private health insurance? Not at all. It would provide an option. Who opposes it? Do the math. The insurance companies do. It would provide price competition for their extremely profitable businesses. Price competition. It’s the capitalist way. Besides insurance companies, who else opposes it? The unwavering opponents of all things Obama.

Having arrived at a qualifying age thanks to the love and care of my wife and doctors, I am writing this as the beneficiary of the excellent heath care my insurance plan covered (until my illness exhausted its provisions). I am now covered under MediCare. I continue to get the same treatment as before–and as, for that matter, all members of the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives do, no matter what their age or political party. You should try it sometime.

Fight back against health insurance lies

Posted 7 August, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

I Will Believe it When I See It.

Posted 7 August, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Federal, News, Non-Law, law politics

FDA Chief Promises Tougher Stance on Food and Drug Safety

FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg, MD, vowed that the agency would be more aggressive in enforcing food and drug safety regulations and quicker to act when a company breaks the law.

In a speech at the Food and Drug Law Institute, Hamburg said that some FDA enforcement actions over the past several years have been “hampered by unreasonable delays” and that there has been a “steep decline in enforcement.”

“In some cases, serious violations have gone unaddressed for far too long,” Hamburg said. “These include violations involving product quality, adulteration, and misbranding, false, misleading, or otherwise unlawful labeling, and misleading advertising.”

The new FDA — the one Hamburg took the helm of just eight weeks ago — will be much more aggressive and visible. “The FDA must be vigilant, the FDA must be strategic, the FDA must be quick, and the FDA must be visible,” she said.

Specifically, she said, the agency will do the following:

* Create a clear timetable for companies to respond to FDA inspection findings, generally no more than 15 days after the inspection. If the company fails to respond, the agency will issue a warning letter or take other enforcement action.
* Streamline the warning letter process by limiting legal review of letters to those that might actually present major legal issues, and prioritize the follow-up process on warning letters.
* Rely more on local, state, and international officials in food safety situations that require quick action.
* Be prepared to act “swiftly and aggressively” when dealing with significant public health concerns, possibly even before a formal warning letter is issued. The agency will no longer issue multiple warning letters before dealing with a violation, Hamburg said.
* If a company has corrected whatever issues were raised in a warning letter, the FDA will publicly clear the company on its Web site. Hamburg called it a “close out process.”

By beefing up its enforcement efforts, Hamburg said the FDA will ensure that “violations are taken seriously, that warning letters and enforcement actions occur in a timely manner, and that steps are taken to protect consumers in cases where immediate enforcement action is not possible.”

Since Hamburg took the helm of the FDA, the agency has been aggressive in cracking down on the makers of misleading or potentially dangerous products.

For instance, the FDA recently issued 65 warning letters to Web sites hawking phony products that supposedly prevent, diagnose, or treat the H1N1 (swine flu) virus — including a “virus killing” shampoo. According to Hamburg, 80% of the Web sites contacted by the FDA have removed the products.

Where 10 such products were popping up every day, the FDA is now aware of about two new ones a week.

Also, the FDA last week sent warning letters to companies that sell dietary supplements containing anabolic steroids, and posted a public health advisory warning consumers to avoid body-building supplements that contain androgen, estrogen, and progestin-related ingredients.

Quotable

Posted 3 August, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Tort Deform

do you like the health plan they are proposing?

[...] Tort reform?!?! Really? And how exactly do you propose that we hold companies liable for making decisions that cost human lives? You know what actuaries do, right? They tell Ford that statistics demonstrate only 3500 of their new model cars will explode bc of the glitch they just found.

And, since there is no way to know which ones they are, the cost of recalling ALL would be 50 million. Whereas, thanks to tort reform, the cost of letting 3500 cars explode will be a maximum of only 5 million. What decision do you suppose they will make? Please, shareholders would sue the living tar out of any officers who chose to spend 50 million when they could have spent 5! Putting a cap on human life or injury is always a bad idea. Anyone who says otherwise need only consider their son or daughter in the exploding car.

When we are making decisions to limit the financial accountability a company may face, we must ALWAYS remember that money is the ONLY method we have to keep them in check. Business is amoral, necessarily so. In our country, healthcare is a business, so the same is true. Tort reform fails to consider this reality, thereby GUARANTEEING families will lose their fathers, and mothers; parents will watch their children die because it is cheaper for companies than recalling defective products.

450,000 Doctors Can’t be Wrong

Posted 30 July, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

Medical Malpractice Has No Bearing on Health Care Costs

Posted 14 July, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Insurance, Tort Deform

Malpractice Lawsuits Are ‘Red Herring’ in Obama Plan (Update1)

Protecting doctors from lawsuits may do more to gain political cover for President Barack Obama’s health-care overhaul than to rein in medical costs.

While Obama vowed to address physicians’ malpractice worries in a speech yesterday, annual jury awards and legal settlements involving doctors amounts to “a drop in the bucket” in a country that spends $2.3 trillion annually on health care, said Amitabh Chandra, a Harvard University economist. Chandra estimated the cost at $12 per person in the U.S., or about $3.6 billion, in a 2005 study. Insurer WellPoint Inc. said last month that liability wasn’t driving premiums.

Obama told an American Medical Association meeting in Chicago yesterday that his efforts to cut costs and increase coverage couldn’t succeed without freeing doctors from the fear of lawsuits. While that may be what his audience needed to hear, the evidence that malpractice drives up health-care costs is “debatable,” said Robert Laszewski, an Alexandria, Virginia, consultant to health insurers and other companies.

“Medical malpractice dollars are a red herring,” Chandra said in a telephone interview. “No serious economist thinks that saving money in med mal is the way to improve productivity in the system. There’s so many other sources of inefficiency.”

Obama, appealing for doctors’ support for health-care legislation, said he would “explore a range of ideas” to reduce the effect of lawsuits, without giving specifics. While he opposes caps on jury malpractice awards, Obama said he recognized the legal threat spurs doctors to perform unnecessary tests and procedures — so-called defensive medicine.

‘Fear of Lawsuits’

Making U.S. care more efficient will be harder “if doctors feel like they are constantly looking over their shoulder for fear of lawsuits,” the president said.

Read on…

Don’t Dorget Your Drink!

Posted 14 July, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Medicine

A Couple Drinks a Day May Keep Dementia Away

Drinking one or two alcoholic beverages a day — but no more than that — appears to protect older adults from developing dementia, researchers reported here at the International Conference on Alzheimer’s Disease.
Action Points

These “moderate drinkers” who are 75 years of age or older had a lower risk of developing dementia than people who had more than two drinks a day and those individuals who abstained from any alcohol completely, Dr. Sink and her colleagues found.

However, Dr. Sink said that despite the findings of the study she would not recommend that anyone who was a nondrinker begin to use alcohol to try to prevent dementia.

Read on…

Elderly Abuse Is A Very Real IssueA

Posted 13 July, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law, Medicine, Tort Deform

When Caregivers Harm: Problem Nurses Stay on the Job as Patients Suffer

California's registered nursing board can take years to act on complaints. Spencer Sullivan, pictured above, received too many painkillers after a neck surgery and wasn't adequately monitored, according to nursing board records. However, the board didn't revoke the license of the nurse held responsible until six years later. Click to read more about Sullivan and view an audio slideshow.(Liz O. Baylen / Los Angeles Times)


Nurse Owen Jay Murphy Jr. twisted the jaw of one patient until he screamed.

He picked up another one – an elderly, frail man – by the shoulders, slammed him against a mattress and barked, “I said, ‘Stay in bed.’ “

He ignored the alarms on vital-sign monitors in the emergency room, shouted at co-workers and once hurled a thirsty patient’s water jug against the wall, yelling, “How do you like your water now?” according to state records.

Murphy’s fellow nurses at Kaiser Permanente Riverside Medical Center finally pleaded with their bosses for help. “They were afraid of him,” a hospital spokesman said.

Under pressure, Murphy resigned in May 2005. Within days, Kaiser alerted California’s Board of Registered Nursing [2]: This nurse is dangerous.

But the board didn’t stop Murphy from working elsewhere, nor did it take steps over the next two years to warn potential employers of the complaints against him. In the meantime, Murphy was accused of assaulting patients at two nearby hospitals, leading to convictions for battery and inflicting pain, board and court records show.

Even Murphy, who has since taken classes to curb his anger, was surprised the board didn’t step in earlier.

Read on…

Universal Health Care is Possible and Doable

Posted 6 July, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial

HELP Is on the Way – NYTimes.com

[...] So fundamental health reform — reform that would eliminate the insecurity about health coverage that looms so large for many Americans — is now within reach. The “centrist” senators, most of them Democrats, who have been holding up reform can no longer claim either that universal coverage is unaffordable or that it won’t work.

The only question now is whether a combination of persuasion from President Obama, pressure from health reform activists and, one hopes, senators’ own consciences will get the centrists on board — or at least get them to vote for cloture, so that diehard opponents of reform can’t block it with a filibuster.

This is a historic opportunity — arguably the best opportunity since 1947, when the A.M.A. killed Harry Truman’s health-care dreams. We’re right on the cusp. All it takes is a few more senators, and HELP will be on the way.

The Usage Of Vicodin And Percocet et. al. Is Questioned

Posted 6 July, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

Acetaminophen Leading Culprit in Drug-Induced Liver Injury

Acetaminophen leads the list of drugs implicated in liver damage requiring transplantation, although antiepileptics are more lethal, according to a new study.
Action Points

Analysis of records from a transplant database found that patients with acetaminophen-induced injury were also more likely to be on life support than patients with liver failure caused by the next most common culprits, antituberculosis drugs, antiepileptics, and antibiotics (82%, versus 44% to 70%, P <0.0001), according to Ayse L. Mindikoglu, MD, of the University of Maryland in Baltimore and colleagues.

Patients whose liver failure was caused by acetaminophen also had a higher mean serum creatinine (3.21 mg/dL versus 1.31 to 1.86 mg/dL, P<0.0001), and a greater requirement for dialysis prior to transplantation (27% versus 3% to 10%, P<0.0001), the investigators reported in the July issue of Liver Transplantation.

Their report was issued just days after an FDA advisory panel recommended a “black box” warning for prescription combination drugs that contain acetaminophen. The panel also recommended that the maximum single adult dose be reduced from 1,000 mg to 650 mg, and that the maximum daily dose be reduced from its current level of 4,000 mg. (See FDA Panel Backs ‘Black Box’ Warning for Acetaminophen Prescription Combos)

As potentially hazardous to the liver as acetaminophen may be, the risk of death following liver transplantation was highest among patients whose liver injury was caused by antiepileptics, Dr. Mindikoglu found. In fact, the risk attributable to antiepileptics increased by a factor of 4.13 for patients under 18 and 1.03 for older patients.

The findings emerged from a retrospective cohort study of the United Network for Organ Sharing database, which includes almost all liver transplants in the U.S.

The records show that between October 1987 and December 2006, there were 661 liver transplantations for drug-induced injury.

A total of 567 were adults. The median age was 36, and the majority were female and white.

The implicated agents were:

* Acetaminophen in 265 (40%)
* Antituberculosis drugs in 50 (8%)
* Antiepileptics in 46 (7%)
* Antibiotics in 39 (6%)

Median survival for the whole cohort was 14.4 years, and one-year estimated survival probabilities were:

* Acetaminophen 76%
* Antituberculosis drugs 82%
* Antiepileptics 52%
* Antibiotics 82%
* Other drugs 79%

Comparison of outcomes according to age showed no overall significant differences in survival rates between pediatric and adult patients (P=0.56).

Two-year survival probabilities were 0.06 for children and .074 for adults.

But a marked difference was seen in survival following acute liver failure resulting from the use of antiepileptics, with a one-year survival of only 27% for children, compared with 75% for adults.

The high rate of death among pediatric patients with antiepileptic-induced liver failure may relate to valproic acid-induced hyperammonemic encephalopathy and carnitine depletion, the investigators suggested.

Patients whose liver failure related to antiepileptic use also had a greater frequency of retransplantation than the other groups (24% versus 4% to 9%).

Males were 1.4 times more likely to die than females, while a doubling of the serum creatinine increased mortality risk by 1.19. Patients on life support were 2.08 times more likely to die, the researchers reported.

Cox stepwise regression analysis found that independent pretransplant predictors of death were a requirement for life support, liver failure from antiepileptic drugs before age 18, and elevated serum creatinine.

The researchers proposed that those independent predictors could be used in a prognostic model for predicting post-transplant outcomes.

In an accompanying editorial, Paul H. Hayashi and Paul Watkins of the University of North Carolina wrote that this is the first study to propose a mathematical model to predict survival after transplantation for acute liver failure.

“Their attempt at modeling falls short of immediate usefulness, but the identification of poorer outcomes for children with antiepileptic [drug-induced acute liver failure] is intriguing and points out the need for more focused research,” the editorialists wrote.

They also observed that drug-induced liver failure, while a rare event, “has wide implications for all of us who take and prescribe medications,” and that in coming years significant advances can be expected in understanding of factors such as genetic predisposition.

The investigators noted that their study had limitations, “as expected from any retrospective database analysis,” such as the fact that they were unable to estimate numbers of patients who died before transplantation or spontaneously recovered.

Because they Can…

Posted 24 June, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

Insurers Wrongfully Charged Consumers Billions

Health insurers have forced consumers to pay billions of dollars in medical bills that the insurers themselves should have paid, according to a report released today by the staff of the Senate Commerce Committee.

The report is part of multi-pronged assault today on the trustworthiness of private insurers by Commerce Committee Chairman John D. Rockefeller IV (D-W.Va.). It comes at a time when the insurance industry is battling efforts to offer consumers a public alternative to private health plans.

Music is Treatment for Almost Anything…

Posted 23 June, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

Music Keeps Rhythm for Heart and Lungs

Cardiovascular and breathing rates consistently fall into step with musical crescendos and rhythms, according to a controlled clinical trial that may give impetus to new musical therapies.

Contrary to the conventional view of music as an intensely personal medium, researchers found that the same piece of music had similar cardiovascular effects on all subjects.

Taking advantage of these interactions may open the way to standardized treatments for blood pressure control and rehabilitation, Luciano Bernardi, MD, of Pavia University in Pavia, Italy, and colleagues wrote in the June 30 issue of Circulation.

Young v. Old Views of Medicine…

Posted 17 June, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

AMA: Delegates Still Mulling Position on Obama Healthcare Reform Plan

A day after President Barack Obama made his case for support of healthcare reform that would include a public plan option to the American Medical Association, it’s still not clear if the AMA is buying his message.

At issue is a resolution from the Kansas State Medical Society that asked the AMA to “express its opposition to ‘public option’ proposals which could result in the elimination of the private health insurance system.”

Obama would like the government to run a Medicare-like insurance option alongside private plans, all of which would be purchased through an insurance clearinghouse called the “exchange.”

But Republicans in Congress are sharply opposed to the idea, calling it a “government takeover,” that would drive private insurance companies out of business.

Last week, the AMA began to signal its opposition to a public plan and immediately found itself enmeshed in controversy as other organized medicine groups criticized the position.

A day after voicing its objections to a public option, the AMA was forced to issue a second statement — this time rebuking The New York Times for its reporting of the AMA stance.

AMA outgoing president Nancy Nielsen, M.D., Ph.D., said the AMA wouldn’t support a public plan option that requires physician involvement and pays Medicare rates.

As the public plan option was debated in a reference committee on Sunday, AMA members streamed to the “pro,” and “con” microphones in equal numbers.

There was a notable age gap, with the youngest members speaking against the resolution that would place the AMA squarely against Obama’s public plan option, while the AMA’s old guard took the contrarian’s role.

Those who opposed the Kansas resolution said it would send a message of resistance at a time when the AMA should be working with the president.

“It does give the appearance of drawing a line in the sand,” said Jacob Ryan, a member the medical student section.

“We can’t let anyone claim we weren’t part of the solution,” he said.

But another AMA member took a different stance.

“This sends the message that we’re opposed to it, and gives [us] a stronger stand to negotiate,” said Peter Lund, M.D., a urologist from Erie, Pa., who is a member of that state’s delegation.

On both sides, the AMA members said they support a system in which there are multiple insurance options — so much so that the reference committee report characterized the debate this way: “Both sides are vehemently agreeing.”

The delegates will vote on the reference committee report later today or tomorrow.

Although it is always difficult to predict which way the AMA’s diverse house will vote, in general the delegates take their lead from the reference committee, which has recommended a substitute resolution stating that the AMA supports ” ‘public option’ alternatives that are consistent with AMA principles of pluralism, freedom of choice, freedom of practice, and universal access for patients.”

But, in matters of healthcare reform the delegates have often balked at following reference committee resolutions, and another likely scenario would be a return to the original Kansas resolution.

Swine Flu is Still Out There…

Posted 12 June, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

WHO Declares First Flu Pandemic in 41 Years

The novel H1N1 influenza is now a full-blown pandemic, the World Health Organization said today, the first in 41 years.

“The scientific criteria for an influenza pandemic have been met,” WHO Director-General Margaret Chan, M.D., said in a Geneva press conference.

Those criteria include sustained community transmission in at least two regions of the world, but say nothing about the severity of the outbreak, Dr. Chan said.

Indeed, on the basis of available evidence, she said, the pandemic will be “of moderate severity.”

“The overwhelming majority of patients experience mild symptoms and make a rapid and full recovery, often in the absence of any form of medical care,” Dr. Chan said.

Although there have been 144 deaths, she said, “we do not expect to see a sudden and dramatic jump in the number of fatal infections.”

That said, Dr. Chan noted, influenza is highly variable and can “change the rules without rhyme or reason,” so a sudden increase in severity can’t be ruled out.

Agency officials added that the severity of a pandemic also depends on the population it attacks. In this case, poorer countries and those with a younger population might be harder hit, according to Keiji Fukuda, M.D., an assistant director-general of the agency.

The jump to phase six is no surprise, according to new CDC Director Thomas Frieden, M.D. “It was expected on the basis of the data,” he told a press conference today.

The main implication of the WHO declaration is that the virus is continuing to spread and is “likely here to stay,” he said.

But for the U.S., he said, there are few practical implications. “We have been acting as if it’s a pandemic for some time,” Dr. Frieden said, and no new initiatives are planned.

World-wide, WHO has had official reports of nearly 30,000 cases, Dr. Chan said, but that number is almost certainly an underestimate, since about half of those cases have been reported in countries — like the U.S. and Canada — with highly developed public health and surveillance systems.

The change to phase six of the agency’s pandemic preparedness scale was widely expected, as the disease continued to spread from its origins in North America.

UN officials were at pains earlier in the week, however, to emphasize that most cases of the disease are mild and that increasing the pandemic level would not mean the outbreak is causing more severe disease.

A change to phase six “does not mean that the severity of the situation has increased and that people are getting seriously sick at higher numbers or higher rates than they are right now,” Dr. Fukuda said.

Dr. Chan said it’s very likely that a second wave of the virus will hit northern hemisphere countries in the fall, and urged them to remain vigilant, even if the current outbreak appears to be waning, as it is in Mexico.

In the U.S., the CDC said, most areas of the country are seeing only a few cases of the flu, with the exceptions of New England and the New York/New Jersey region, where flu-like illness remains above baseline values.

For the U.S., Mexico, and Canada — the countries hardest hit so far — the change to phase six means relatively little, a cross-section of experts agreed.

The declaration “merely confirms the obvious — that there is community transmission worldwide,” said Pascal James Imperato, M.D., of the SUNY Downstate Medical Center in New York.

“The raising of the pandemic level is a response to statistics,” said Richard Bradley, M.D., of the University of Texas Medical School in Houston. “For us in the U.S. there is no major significance or effect of the level being raised.”

In essence, he said, “it’s been pandemic all along, nothing is different. Don’t panic. The virus is still mild.”

“Not much, if anything, will change in the U.S.,” agreed William Schaffner, M.D., of Vanderbilt University School of Medicine in Atlanta.

“The U.S. public health structure already is performing enhanced surveillance for influenza throughout the summer,” he said, and hospitals, health departments, and other agencies are revising their pandemic plans.

But, he said, other national governments, especially in the developing world, may respond by enhancing their own planning.

“This is not a surprise,” said Christian Sandrock, M.D., of the University of California Davis School of Medicine, but he said the announcement may lead to better planning for the fall flu season “when we will see these cases in higher numbers.”

Dr. Sandrock said “money and planning from a government level will be improved with this declaration,” although he cautioned it could also cause “misunderstanding and panic.”

Julie Gerberding, M.D., the former director of the CDC, said the main actions suggested by the WHO under phases five and six are identical. But she noted that some countries may have tied their national responses to the different levels, so that going to phase six might lead to “significant local, regional, or national impact.”

But she agreed with other experts that “technically, we have been in phase six for some time.”

Stephen Morse, Ph.D., of Columbia University Medical Center, said the declaration is “essentially just acknowledging the facts that already exist on the ground.”

Like other experts, he cautioned that the term “pandemic” says nothing about the severity of the disease. “As far as I can tell, nothing has really changed dramatically since yesterday,” Dr. Morse said, adding that WHO held off so long to avoid what he called “perceptual” impacts.

That was probably the right decision, according to Philip Alcabes, Ph.D., of CUNY Hunter College in New York City. Dr. Alcabes is the author of Dread: How Fear and Fantasy Have Fueled Epidemics from the Black Death to Avian Flu.

“WHO was right to be cautious about raising the threat barometer to six,” Dr. Alcabes said.

But he said officials were being disingenuous when they said the delay was to avoid panicking the public.

“In general, people don’t panic about disease outbreaks,” Dr. Alcabes said. “The problem, of which WHO is abundantly aware, is that governments do panic.”

In other words, he said, governments often use the threat of disease as a rationale for political acts, such as the “unnecessary” Chinese quarantines or the slaughter of pigs in Egypt.

“In the context of other disease outbreaks, we’ve seen border closings, travel warnings, and nutty investigations of airline passengers,” he said. “All of that is politics, masquerading as public health.”

In the long run, he said, WHO should abandon the pandemic-threat scale altogether.

“That day is probably a ways off, though,” Dr. Alcabes said. “It will take political will on the part of a lot of countries’ governments — including ones that still imagine they can ward off disease by shutting borders (or killing pigs).”

On the other hand, the move to phase six puts “everyone on the same page,” according to Gregory Poland, M.D., of the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., with the goals of:

* Communicating to individuals, health systems, and governments that there is a pandemic and altering them to be ready for potentially rapid changes and to put plans into action
* Enabling global communication and coordination
* Allowing vaccines, antiviral drugs, masks, medical assistance, and other resources to be moved to poorer countries

Among other things, the move puts pressure on governments and health officials to get ready, Dr. Poland said.

Just Like Wine…

Posted 22 May, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: General Law

Older Population Might Have Immunity to H1N1 Swine Flu

Older adults might have some pre-existing immunity to the 2009 H1N1 (swine) flu virus, according to the CDC.

Serological tests showed that some adults, particularly those over 60, had antibodies effective against the new strain, Jacqueline Katz, Ph.D., of the influenza division of the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, and colleagues wrote in the May 22 issue of Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report.

But Anne Schuchat, M.D., interim deputy director for the CDC’s science and public health programs, cautioned against reading too much into the finding.

“We don’t know yet what that will mean in terms of actual immunity or clinical protection,” she said on a conference call with reporters.

As the worldwide H1N1 flu outbreak progresses, epidemiological evidence continues to point to a disproportionate number of infections in school-age children and younger adults.

Of the cases reported to the CDC, 64% are in 5- to 24-year-olds and just 1% are in individuals older than 65, an unusual pattern compared with seasonal influenza.

This has led to speculation that older individuals have at least some degree of pre-existing immunity, possibly from years of immunization with seasonal flu vaccines. They contained different H1N1 viruses than the current outbreak strain, or previous infection.

“The study we’re reporting today provides a little clue that’s consistent with that clinical observation,” Dr. Schuchat said.

She noted, however, that genetic testing has found that the new H1N1 virus is not a close relative to any of the other H1N1 viruses that have circulated among people.

The tests also confirmed that seasonal flu vaccine is likely to have “little or no immune benefit” in protecting against the new virus, as many researchers had suspected.

Seasonal vaccines from the past four flu seasons induced some cross-reactive antibody response to the new virus, but probably not enough to stave off infection.

“CDC does not believe that seasonal influenza vaccine would provide any meaningful protection against this novel H1N1 strain,” Dr. Schuchat said.

Agency researchers analyzed 359 stored serum samples from individuals ranging from 6 months to 64 years, before and after vaccination during flu seasons since 2005-2006. The samples were obtained during U.S. and European vaccine studies.

Both before and after vaccination, children up to 9 years had no level of cross-reactive antibody to the new virus.

Before vaccination, in up to 9% of adults ages 18 to 64, and in 33% of those older than 60, cross-reactive antibody to the new H1N1 virus was present at levels that have been associated with a 50% reduction in the risk of influenza infection or disease.

This pre-existing immunity possibly results from previous exposure to H1N1 viruses more similar to the new virus than to current seasonal H1N1 viruses — either through vaccination or infection.

After receiving a seasonal flu shot, up to 25% of 18- to 64-year-olds and 43% of individuals over 60 had cross-reactive antibody to the new virus.

Dr. Schuchat discounted the apparent booster effect following vaccination, noting that the results were based on a relatively small number of specimens and an unconventional test of antibody response to influenza.

Free Drugs for A Year to Unemployed

Posted 15 May, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: News

Pfizer Offers Year of Free Meds to Unemployed

Drug giant Pfizer said unemployed people who have been taking its branded products could receive them free for up to a year in a new program — with some exceptions.

The program, called MAINTAIN, will provide access to more than 70 Pfizer drugs including atorvastatin (Lipitor), celecoxib (Celebrex), pregabalin (Lyrica), and sildenafil (Viagra).

But the program excludes biologics, most cancer drugs, and other of Pfizer’s most expensive products.

Individuals who became unemployed after Jan. 1 of this year are eligible for the program and may sign up through Dec. 31.

Other eligibility requirements include having taken the branded Pfizer drug for at least three months prior to losing a job, having no other prescription drug coverage, and being able to attest to financial hardship.

Income prior to becoming unemployed is not a factor, Pfizer said. But participants who regain employment or prescription drug coverage will have to start paying again.

A stock analyst quoted by the Associated Press pointed out that the program is likely to prevent some current Pfizer drug customers from switching to generic equivalents.

The company said it was taking signups today, although the program would not be fully operational until July 1.

Pfizer said signups and additional information on the MAINTAIN program would be available at Pfizer Helpful Answers or by calling 866-706-2400 toll-free.

Containing the Swine Flu

Posted 13 May, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: News

Europe Tries to Contain H1N1 Flu With Drugs

In an effort to contain the H1N1 (swine) flu outbreak, European countries are using antiviral drugs “very aggressively” to prevent transmission, a World Health Organization official said.

But WHO is cautioning that most cases of the disease appear to be mild ones that won’t need hospital care or antivirals, according to Nikki Shindo, M.D., who leads the agency’s clinical team that’s responding to the outbreak.

Dr. Shindo added that there’s no evidence yet of how well the medications — oseltamivir (Tamiflu) and zanamivir (Relenza) — work against the novel H1N1 strain.

In contrast, in the U.S. and Mexico — where the H1N1 outbreak can no longer be contained — officials are using antivirals mainly for treatment of people in high-risk groups or who have severe disease.

“The circumstance in the U.S. are very different from the circumstances in a number of European countries,” according to Anne Schuchat, M.D., of the CDC’s Science and Public Health Program.

“We don’t have a situation where we can contain the virus’s geographic distribution, and our focus is on reducing illness and death and mitigating the impact this virus has,” Dr. Schuchat said.

The priority for antiviral drugs is “where we think the treatment will make a difference,” she added.

Pandemic Vaccines May Not Arrive in Time!

Posted 29 April, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Medicine, News

Pandemic Vaccines May be Too Little, Too Late

If the swine flu outbreak develops into a pandemic — and that’s a big if — the earliest the public would see a vaccine against the disease would be September, a researcher said here at the conference on Influenza Vaccines for the World.

And that’s if the government asks industry to start production today, said Klaus Stohr, D.V.M., vice president and global head of Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics and former head of the World Health Organization’s global influenza program.

“What we have seen the last two or three days is that the current pandemic vaccine system is not ideal not only in terms of timing . . . but also in terms of vaccine production,” he said.

A Lot to Consider in Healthcare Reform

Posted 17 April, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Medicine, News, Tort Deform

Few Hospitals Meet Mortality-Reducing Quality Goals

Most hospitals in the 2008 Leapfrog Group quality survey did not meet standards shown to reduce mortality, researchers said.

Of the 1,282 hospitals taking part in the voluntary survey, which represents 48% of urban medical centers, many are falling short of mortality-reduction measures and are not delivering care efficiently, the nonprofit’s annual report said.

“As the Obama administration and Congress consider healthcare reform options, it is clear we have a long way to go to achieve hospital quality and cost-effectiveness worthy of the nation’s $2.3 trillion annual investment,” said Leapfrog CEO Leah Binder.

The new survey comes just weeks after the Journal of the American Medical Association published a study showing that adherence to National Quality Forum safety standards — including hand washing and having a competent nursing staff — do not result in lower mortality rates. (See: Hospital Mortality Not Linked to Safe Practices Score )

But the new survey focuses on factors that are known to reduce mortality, such as physician staffing levels in intensive care units and meeting prescription order-entry standards, said Binder.

Hospitals are not doing a good job of following recognized protocols for high-risk procedures, procedures that can reduce the risk of death significantly, said Barbara Rudolph, Ph.D., of the Leapfrog Group.

The State of Economy Doesn’t Help Either!

Posted 15 April, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Medicine, News

More Americans Report Frequent Mental Distress

State of mind may have a lot to do with state of residence — people who live in Hawaii have the lowest “frequency of mental distress” (6.6%), while Kentucky residents have the highest (14.4%), according to the CDC.
Action Points

* Explain to interested patients that this report is an analysis of self-reported survey data, which need to be cautiously interpreted because the findings are subject to a number of limitations.

But overall, more Americans have been experiencing more bad days in recent years — 10.2% of adults reported frequent mental distress in the period from 2003-2006, up from 9% in 1993-2001, wrote Matthew M. Zack, M.D., M.P.H., of the division of adult and community health at the National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion at the CDC in Atlanta, and colleagues.

Those findings, published online today by the American Journal of Preventive Medicine,emerged from an analysis of responses from 2.4 million adults collected by the ongoing, random-digit-dialed telephone surveys conducted by the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The analysis was performed in 2007 and 2008.

Dr. Zack and colleagues used 14 mentally unhealthy days as the threshold to define frequent mental distress.

The final analysis included results from 3,112 counties representing all 50 states and Washington, D.C.

“For the 1993-2001 period, the smoothed [frequent mental distress] prevalence was less than 8% in 989 (31.8%) of the 3,112 counties analyzed and was ≥12.0% in 148 (4.8%) of counties,” they wrote.

By comparison, in 2003-2006, “the smoothed [frequent mental distress] prevalence was <8% in 494 counties (15.9%) and ≥12.0% in 502 (16.1%) of the counties.”

The researchers excluded counties in which there were fewer than 30 responses to this question: “Now thinking about your mental health, which includes stress, depression, and problems with emotions, for how many days during the previous 30 days was your mental health not good?”

Among the findings:

* During 1993-2001, 15 states had at least one county where the prevalence of frequent mental distress was ≥12.0% and by 2003-206 that number had doubled to 30 states.
* The prevalence of frequent mental distress tended to decrease in contiguous parts of the upper Midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan), and to increase in the Four Corners area (Utah, Arizona, Colorado, and New Mexico), the Mississippi Valley (Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Mississippi, and Alabama), and the central Appalachian region (Pennsylvania, Maryland, West Virginia, Ohio, Kentucky, and Virginia).
* Alabama and Kentucky were the only states that remained in the top five for frequent mental distress prevalence in both time periods — 9.8% and 12.7% for Alabama in 1993-2001 and 2003-2006 and 14.4% in both time periods for Kentucky.
* In addition to Hawaii, other states with low rates of mental distress were South Dakota, Iowa, Nebraska, and North Dakota.

The authors pointed out that the survey has a number of limitations, including the fact that “risk factors do not respect state boundaries.” Moreover, states that have large urban populations “tend to reflect the [frequent mental distress] prevalence in those areas due to their sheer numbers, potentially obscuring the detection of high or low [frequent mental distress] prevalence in less-populated areas of the state.”

Additionally, they said, because the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System excludes homeless persons, people who reside in institutions, households without landlines, and those who are unable to complete the survey because of language problems, the survey might underrepresent people with frequent mental distress.

Moreover, the prevalence rates might reflect factors such as age, gender, race/ethnicity, employment status, occupation, educational background, natural disasters and a number of other factors that were not controlled for in the study.

Nonetheless, the authors concluded that because the data do indicate “potentially unmet health and social service needs, programs for public health, community mental health, and social services whose jurisdictions include areas with high [frequent mental distress] levels should collaborate to identify and eliminate the specific preventable sources of this distress.”

No financial disclosures were reported by the authors.

Primary source: American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Source reference:
Moriarty DG, et al “Geographic patterns of frequent mental distress U.S. adults, 1993-2001 and 2003-2006″ Am J Prev Med 2009;

We Have Come a Long Way…

Posted 8 April, 2009 by Nima Taradji
Categories: Editorial, Tort Deform

Tort Reform Sounds Good, Smells Bad

When I came to the bar in 1959, there were a whole series of immunities, bars, evidentiary rules and canons of ethics that prevented injured people from having their day in court. These roadblocks originated around 1840 with the rise of the Industrial Revolution. At that time, the courts recognized the natural tension between the litigious nature of Americans and our burgeoning system of free enterprise. So, they set out to help big business by preventing injured people from suing.

For instance, you couldn’t sue the government because of “sovereign immunity.” Certain charitable institutions were granted immunity from lawsuits.

The law of “privity,” which meant you had to have direct contact with the party you were suing, effectively granted immunity to manufacturers of defective products. If you bought a car, and it blew up and killed your family, you couldn’t sue anyone, unless you could prove it was the dealer’s fault.

Until the 1960s, there was no uninsured motorist coverage to protect you in case you were hit by someone with no auto insurance. Then, in the 1970s, we added underinsured motorist coverage in case someone with too little insurance hit and injured you. Even with all of that insurance, if you and your wife were in a car accident and you were at fault, she couldn’t recover any compensation from your insurance company because of “spousal immunity.” You would have to bear the financial burden of your wife’s recovery.

A lawsuit on behalf of an infant had to be brought within two years after birth, regardless of the circumstances; wrongful death suits had to be rifled within 12 months, before enough investigation could be done; and recoveries that included loss of future income had to be reduced to present worth. The deck was stacked against the average person.

But with the rise of the consumer movement in the 1960s, the courts recognized the injustice of making victims bear the cost of their injuries. The great changes in liability law that ensued came about because capable and dedicated trial lawyers recognized that the law is never settled until it is right and it is never right until it is just.

Today’s “tort reformers” want to return us to the late 19th and early 20th century.