Category: Health Care

Film about Health Care Reform and What Went So Wrong

There has been so much debate about health care reform, that now there is even a film about it. This film will be called Money Driven Medicine and is produced by Alex Gibney and is based on a book also called Money-Drive Medicine by Maggie Mahar. This film will show that the U.S. has spent more on health care when it becomes an emergency situation and less money on how to prevent diseases and sicknesses in the first place. It will talk about how we might receive more medical care, but not necessarily better medical care. Based on how the Health Care reform debate is going on now, this may be right. This country has many resources and all the technology for good medical care, but it seems as though we wait to use it until patients come in seriously ill with chronic problems or illness. If we spent more time preventing the abuse and injuries going on in nursing homes, or with consumer products, or even with driving safety than maybe we would not have to spend so much about expensive medicines and technology and there may not be as many medical malpractice lawsuits. So instead of focusing on more care, maybe the debate needs to focus on ways to prevent injuries, abuse, and sicknesses in the first place. If this country did that, maybe we could save enough money to get everyone health care and proper medical care. We need to focus more on patients and less on expensive medicines and equipment and how to cut costs. Without patients to care for, we won’t need all that, so patients need to come first. They should always be the first concern.

For more information on the film Money-Driven Medicine, you may visit: http://www.moneydrivenmedicine.org/about-mdm

If you feel that you or a loved one has been the victim of abuse or an injury that could have been prevented, please call a malpractice attorney right away. They will advocate for your rights and those of your loved ones to help you get proper medical care.

Health Care Reform versus Medical Malpractice Rights

There continues to be much debate about health care reform and how to achieve it for everyone. There have been people talking about and trying to push aside medical malpractice rights in favor of other medical rights and reform. The truth is that is two different topics and should be given two seperate debates. Health care reforms main goals are to make sure every person in this country has affordable health care coverage. That is great and even wonderful if it can happen, but it should not come at the expense of taking away other much needed rights of the same Americans we are trying to get medical coverage. If we get medical coverage for every person, but then take away their rights to file a complaint if injured while receiving  that medical care what are we as a country saying? Are we saying you can go to any hospital or doctor you want now because you are covered with insurance but we do not care if you are injured or we do not care how good that medical care is? This country needs medical coverage for everyone, we really do, but we also need to keep protecting the rights of those injured by medical errors and malpractice every year. Thousands of people with medical coverage still not receive proper medical care, due to errors, injuries, malpractice, and abuse. We as a country need good medical care, but we also need to protect our rights to voice our opinions and let them be heard if we are injured by a medical error. If health care reform pushes aside medical malpractice rights then we will just have yet another crisis on our hands. We need to think of people first and foremost and profits second. Medical coverage will not matter if the medical care is not good. This is why medical malpractice rights are still very important and cannot be pushed aside.

If you want to do your part to protect medical malpractice rights, write a letter to your congressmen or your editor and get the word out about how we still need these rights and they should not be taken away.

For more information on the health care reform and medical malpractice rights you may visit: www.peopleoverprofits.org

New Jersey Governor Signs bill concerning Patient Safety

 

When a Patient goes in to the hospital, they expect and deserve to receive the proper medical care and attention. Most patients believe they will be better when they leave the hospital than when they came in to the hospital. Unfortunately, there have been many times where a patient comes in with one illness or problem and leaves with a new and different illness because of medical malpractice.  For example, otherwise healthy patients have been known to leave hospitals with factures, punctures, transfusion reactions, drama from birth and even surgery done in the wrong place. This has caused many patients much more worry and pain than before they entered a hospital.

 New Jersey is now one  of the first States to take action on this problem  In fact the Governor of New Jersey signed a bill yesterday, August 31, 2009 that will require the Department of Health and Human Services to report safety measures for patients on a hospital by hospital basis. This bill will also help protect patients from being charged for a hospital’s medical error.  This bill means that each hospital and all their procedures will be checked and reported on annually and then additional safety indicators may be regulated by the Commissioner of Health and Senior Services. The Department of Heath and Senior Services will include the following patient safety indicators in their reports:

  • forgein body left during a procedure
  • post operative hip facture (a facture after surgery)
  • latrogenic pneumothorax
  • postoperative hemorrhage or hematoma
  •  postoperative deep vein thrombosis or pulmnary embolism
  • postoperative sepsis
  • postoperative wound hiscence
  •  accidental pucture or laceration
  • transfusion reaction
  • birth injuries
  • Obstetric trauma- vaginal delivery with instrument
  • Obstetric trauma- vaginal delivery without instrument
  • air embolism
  • surgery on the wrong side, wrong body part, or wrong person, or wrong surgery performed on a patient

This list consists of concerns and conditions that can happen to a patient if the hospital is not following safety regulations. Some of these are minor and some of them are very serious. Never the less, they are all very important are things that should “never” happen in a hospital. They are called the “never events” for this reason.

 The Commissioner may consider recommendations from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid, as well as the Commissioner requesting studies from the Quality Improvement Advisory Committee on how to get public reports on patient infections, bed sores,  ulcers, or falls by patients while in hospital care. 

This bill signed by the Governor yesterday on August 31, 2009 is another step towards better patient rights and patient care. After all, when you enter a hospital as a patient you should know that you are getting the best care possible. If you are not, you should be able to fight for your right to better patient care and services.

If you feel that your rights have been violated under this new bill, contact a New Jersey Malpractice lawyer,  right away for help regarding your rights.

 For more information regarding this bill and your rights you may visit:

New Jersey State Legislature

 

What Every Citizen Should Know About the Nursing Home Industry: A background

Deciding whether to put a loved one into a nursing home is the one of the most difficult decisions we must all face. In today’s fast paced society, however, it has become increasingly difficult to care for the elderly at home. Even more daunting, is choosing the right nursing home. Indeed, making a decision on a facility is difficult; with more and more nursing homes going up every year, the number of available options seems endless, even in some of the more remote sections of the country. Although on the surface many nursing homes may appear to be the same, there are dramatic differences between nursing homes, and unfortunately, many shortcomings. In order to have a better understanding of how nursing homes can be so dramatically different in quality of care, and to help you choose which nursing home might be best for your loved ones, you should first have a basic understanding of how nursing homes function in the United States.

First and foremost, it is important to constantly be aware that more than 80% of nursing homes in the Unites States are for-profit, publicly traded, corporations. This is in direct contrast to hospitals in the Unites States, which 87% of are non-profit operations. So how does this affect you and your family? Simple. In any publicly traded corporation, the final goal will always be profit. The Profits must come first. This is not just common practice, it is written into law. By law a publically traded corporations the most important, if not the only, obligation is to increase the profits of their shareholders. This set up has helped drive industrial and technological advancements at a staggering pace. However when it is applied to the practice of nursing homes and long term care, a problem arises.

By nature, medicine and long term care are extremely expensive. The cost to run hospitals and long term care, and nursing homes can reach staggering figures. In fact, it is estimated that at least $180 billion is spent on critical care alone in the United States each year. Although cost cutting is always a simple and desirable way to boost profits in any corporation, the nature of health care and long-term care simply does not allow for it. When dealing with the lives of human beings, there are large and unavoidable costs connected to providing their patients with the care they need to stay healthy with an acceptable quality of life. Unfortunately, this does not stop these corporate nursing homes from doing whatever they can to minimize their spending.

This cost cutting rears its ugly head in many forms in corporate nursing homes. Most apparent however, is the effect it has on the staff. Many for-profit nursing homes are dramatically under staffed, many of whom do not have the proper training to manage their positions in the first place. Lack of training, oversight, and personnel immediately translates into health risks to the patient. This includes, but is not limited to: bed sores, falls, under and over medicating, mixing up patients’ medications, unacceptable poor hygiene, physical abuse by staff, and lack of response to emergency situations. Incidents such as this are a daily occurrence. Fortunately however, you have the power to choose where to place your loved ones, and when the worst happens, you have the legal power to do whatever you can to rectify the situation.

When the worst happens to a loved one in a nursing home, contact an attorney immediately. The status quo of dramatic cost cutting in the nursing home industry will not change until it is no longer profitable to continue cutting costs and quality of care. By bringing a suit against a nursing home or long term care facility, you are demanding they change their way of business by punishing them financially for their neglect. By contacting an attorney who specializes in nursing homes, you are doing your part to make sure what terrible things happened to your loved ones do not happen to someone else.

Contact a Nursing Home Attorney in PA
Contact a Nursing Home Attorney in NJ

Don’t Let Them Fool You – Health Systems can be Held Liable for Incidents at their Hospitals

Here’s an interesting legal tactic for you: In a negligence case brought against the system, the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center is apparently asserting that it doesn’t run hospitals, despite describing itself as an “integrated global health enterprise” in its own press releases. – Anne Ziegler, FierceHealthCare.com

Central to what might be the most interesting negligence trial in quite some time is the untimely death of Rose Lee Diggs. Ms. Diggs, an 89 year-old woman was being treated at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. Without any hospital staff noticing, and without any proper means to prevent her from doing so, Ms. Diggs got out of her bed, wondered down the hall, up the stairs, and to the roof of the hospital, where she would later be found dead. The suit, which contends that hospital staff delayed in reporting Mrs. Diggs missing and tried to remove evidence from the scene, names both UPMC Health System, and UPMC Presbyterian Shadyside as defendants.

However, in what might be one of the most interesting defense tactics I have seen yet, attorneys for the University of Pittsburgh Health System have asserted that even if there was a wrongdoing in the case of Mrs. Diggs, that the system would not be responsible. Its attorneys have taken the position that each hospital and healthcare facility within its system are independent, not-for-profit corporations which are solely liable for the negligence that occurs at their facility.

Although clever, this argument does not hold under law. In any lawsuit in which the hospital is held liable for malpractice and/or negligence, the Health System which funds, organizes, and operates that facility is also held liable. Of course, the final decision in this case regarding whether or not University of Pittsburgh Health System can be held liable will be up to the Judge hearing the case. Lets just hope she sides with the legal precedent, and common sense.

Legal Side Effects or Legal Remedy?

In May’s issue, Kate Wilcox stated that a recent U.S. Supreme Court’s decision left drug companies “wide open for lawsuits” because it allowed juries to hold negligent drug companies accountable for harm they cause. The principles expressed by the Supreme Court in the Wyeth decision require federal regulations to improve transparency and public participation in the FDA regulatory process. Also, the decision recognized the state civil justice system provides an additional protection against billion dollar pharmeceutical companies when government regulations fail, and therefore agencies must limit their attempt to preempt state law, except in cases when Congress has explicitly stated its intent to do so. The decision upholds laws that are much needed, especially in light of the long standing practice of pharmaceutical companies to sponsor and pay for the, “research,” of the drugs they make. This practice allows the companies to market the drug’s positive effects while concealing the dangerous side effects that harm patients. The Court’s decision upholds important constitutional rights afforded to all citizens in this country and should be welcomed by a journal that promotes scientific study.

Contact an Attorney in PA
Contact an Attorney in NJ

New Jersey Senator Lends an Ear to the Victims of Insurance Company Tactics

“As far as Kia Moore is concerned, the health insurance system miserably failed her and her 20-month-old son. Xavier Hylton was born at Our Lady of Lourdes Medical Center in Camden with two malfunctioning kidneys and requires daily dialysis treatments as he awaits a transplant. He had grown enough to medically qualify for that transplant by March, but Moore said the procedure was delayed at least six months by a struggle over insurance coverage. Today, she said, her son should already have a functioning kidney and be on his way to living a near-normal life.” (Maryann Spoto, The Star-Ledger)

Last week, citizens of New Jersey who have fallen victim to the ruthless tactics of insurance companies were given time to fume their anger to US Senator Bob Menendez. The stories Senator Menendez would hear would appall him, and only add to his arsenal to bring to Washington with the hopes of sparking health care reform. Although invited, no representatives from the insurance agencies were present for the meeting.

“It’s no secret to anyone that our health care system is badly in need of reform,” Menendez said. “There are few things more important to the families in this state than fixing it, making sure in this great nation of ours that no one goes to sleep without health coverage, that no one has to choose between paying for heat in the winter and paying for medication that keeps them alive.”

Senator Menendez called the meeting in light of a new health care system proposal authored by Senator Max Baucus of Montana. Central to the Baucus proposal is the creation of a Health Care Exchange composed of a nationwide group of private insurance companies that would be prohibited from discriminating against pre-existing conditions.

Currently, under the existing set up, patients who visit emergency rooms due to lack of coverage end up being burdens of the tax payer. In Camden alone, more tha $460 million has been spent over the past five years on charity cases. Because the proposal would require every resident to obtain health insurance, it also provides for federal subsidies for families and small businesses unable to afford coverage through the exchange.

This new proposal has received the plaudits of Jeffery Brenner, a local Camden physician. Brenner advocates a system that brings those emergency room patients into the system for follow-ups so they can receive the appropriate care and are less of a financial drain on the system.

“Somehow we lost sight of the fact that the purpose of the home-care delivery system is to heal the sick, care for wounded and prevent illness,” he said. “It’s not to make physicians wealthy or pharmaceutical representatives wealthy or stockholders or insurance companies wealthy. The patient should be at the center of the system and indeed should be our top priority.”

Until serious reform has occurred however, the best ally a patient can have when dealing with their insurance carrier is an experienced attorney.

Contact an attorney in NJ
Contact an attorney in PA

Supreme Court Overrules Public Safety

A Supreme Court ruling last year has begun to show its true colors, as many federal cases against Medical Technology Corporations will go unheard. In February of 2008, the high court decided to restrict the legal options for patients who claim they have been injured by a defective device. If the Food and Drug Administration has approved the device after, “rigorous review,” than a suit cannot be filed under state laws.

This unjust ruling will prevent many individuals who have been subject to hard due to faulty design from collecting the compensation they need to maintain a reasonable quality of life.

Devices that are not properly engineered can have catastrophic effects when implanted in a patient. Janet Moore, of the Star Tribune, provides us with an example:

“Make it stop,” Liz Fossum remembers thinking.

For about an hour early that November morning two years ago, Fossum’s implanted defibrillator repeatedly shocked her heart — 54 times all told. It felt like a horse was kicking her in the chest.

The 68-year-old grandmother from Golden Valley now knows that part of her heart device, an insulated wire made by Medtronic Inc., had been recalled by federal regulators because a small number had malfunctioned, occasionally causing unnecessary shocks.

Unfortunately for people like Ms. Fossum, there is little she can now do under the new law. Several Hundred cases had been filed against Sprint Fidelis, all of which were subsequently dismissed as a result of the Supreme Court decision. Obviously, all those affected by the faulty product were outraged by the Supreme Court’s decision to protect corporate interests over the interests of the public.

This new decision has left consumers without any means to remedy the harmful situation they were put in by a lack of vigilance on the part of the FDA. Henry Waxman, a Representative from California, believes that the Supreme Court puts too much faith in the FDA testing process. He stated that, “The Supreme Court assumed that FDA approval ensures medical devices are safe, but many recent stories of patients harmed by faulty devices have proven those assumptions false.”

Waxman along with New Jersey Representative Frank Pallone plan to introduce legislation that would circumvent the Supreme Court ruling and protect Americans from dangerous medical devices. Until that time however, citizens must remain vigilant. If you are in need of or considering the possible use of a medical device, please research all companies and available options fully. Until the government decides to protect consumers again, self-education is the best defense.

If you have been subject to a faulty medical device, please contact an attorney immediately. There are several possible options, which may allow you the compensation you deserve.

Contact an Attorney in New Jersey
Contact an Attorney in Pennsylvania

Cigarette Companies and Their Red Handed Researchers

In 2006, a study by Dr. Claudia I. Henshke of the Weill Medical College at Cornell University shocked the medical professional world by reporting that the widespread use of CT scans could help prevent 80% of lung cancer deaths. The study was published in the renowned New England Journal of Medicine, and sent shock waves of hope through the medical profession. Unfortunately, the good news would be tainted by the discovery of a crippling conflict of interest: The study was funded almost entirely by the cigarette industry.

After Ms. Henshke reported her study to the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education, an investigation revealed a long string of deceivingly named non-profit funding, leading all the way back to big tobacco. After its startling discovery, the council wrote to the Journal, explaining its concern over the validity of Ms. Henshke’s findings.

The study failed to disclose that Dr. Henshke’s work had been underwritten in part by a $3.6 million grant from the parent company of the Liggett Group, a cigarette maker, something the journal editors said they had been unaware of.

The council’s criticism was received quickly by the Journal, who quickly moved into damage control mode. A letter in response from the Journal stated, “When we published Dr. Henschke’s article in 2006 it was not routine NEJM editorial policy to publish details about… funding. Since that time our thinking on this issue has evolved.” The journal now asks authors to disclose all royalties related to their research, and it publishes the information with the studies. The letter was signed by Dr. Jeffrey M. Drazen, the journal’s editor in chief, as well as Corinne Broderick, executive vice president of the medical society.

The New England Journal of Medicine has taken the proper steps to remedy this immoral conflict of interest. Unfortunately, not every journal has taken the hint. When reading a medical study that might effect your decision making process, remember to read the fine print. Don’t let your well being be effected by corporate influence on greedy doctors.

Contact an Attorney in NJ

Contact an Attorney in PA

Sleepy Doctors Increase Harm to Patient by 700%, and Death Up by 300%

It doesn’t take a genius to know that without the proper amount of sleep, job performance drastically decreases. Sleep deprived workers in any profession increases the risk of error, and injury. When sleep deprivation occurs in the practice of medicine however, lives can be lost. So why is it that in a majority of hospitals around the country, studies have found that resident doctors are simply not getting enough sleep to provide proper care to their patients?

According to recent study by the Institute of Medicine, doctors in training should work no longer than 16 hours in a row without a five-hour nap to reduce risk to patients. The study was performed after increasing alarm amongst researchers who observed a majority of hospitals allowing 30-hour shifts without a required amount of sleep. To make things worse, Resident doctors, who are under paid and overburdened with student loans, usually end up having to supplement their income by moonlighting at other hospitals.

When the individual in charge of your well-being has not slept for 30 hours, they become a danger to themselves, and that danger passes on to you. According to a study by the Public Library of Public Medicine, it has been found that, “…sleep-deprived doctors are at high risk of making mistakes that injure or kill patients. When residents reported working five marathon shifts in a single month [30 straight hours or more], their risk of making a fatigue-related mistake that harmed a patient increased by 700%, and the risk of an error that resulted in a patient’s death shot up 300%.”

Figures of this size are unacceptable. The recent study demanding 5 hours of sleep per 16 hours of work is indeed a step in the right direction, however it is not enough to solve an epidemic problem in our health care system. Simply put, at current rates, residents are not getting enough sleep to properly care for patients. Although all residents have only the highest of intentions, they can easily make mistakes when hospitals force them into these marathon shifts.

If you or a loved one is currently in the care of a hospital, and you suspect they have been have not received proper care due to a sleep-deprived staff, please inform the hospital immediately. Hopefully mistakes and accidents can be avoided by bringing it to the hospital’s attention. If you suspect wrongful death or injury due to a sleep deprived hospital staff however, please do not hesitate to contact an attorney. You may be entitled to compensation.

Find a Medical Malpractice Attorney in PA

Find a Medical Malpractice Attorney in NJ