tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-676188197451009472023-11-15T07:00:51.188-08:00Health ScareStarbuck's spends more money on health care than on coffee. General Motors spends more money on health insurance than on steel. 700,000 people go bankrupt every year because of medical bills. America spends 15% of its gross domestic product on health care. that's nearly 3 trillion dollars a year. Yet, 100,000 people die every year because of medical mistakes and America has the worst infant mortality rate in the industrialized world.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.comBlogger10125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-50785983295730001232010-01-24T18:48:00.000-08:002010-01-24T19:03:52.807-08:00Irradiated. Again.<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16radiation.html?_r=1">This</a> New York Times article profiles two cases, at two different hospitals, of patients being exposed to large, unsafe doses radiation while administering CT scans. According to the NY Times, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/16/us/16radiation.html?_r=1">"Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles disclosed that it had mistakenly administered up to eight times the normal radiation dose to 206 possible stroke victims over an 18-month period during a procedure intended to get clearer images of the brain." </a><br /><br />Click the above link to get the full story from the NY Times.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-78819909883541426532010-01-23T21:09:00.000-08:002010-01-23T22:34:47.785-08:00IrradiatedI just finished reading <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?pagewanted=1&hp"> this New York Times piece </a> which brings attention to the many radiation therapy errors that have occurred in New York state, as well as several other states, over the past decade. The mistakes seem occur despite, and maybe even partly because of, more advanced and complicated software. Though, the word "negligence" never appeared in the article, the errors in the patient treatment plans could have been caught if the radiation therapist teams had been more vigilant, tested their equipment before use, and more closely monitored the information on their computer screens, before or during the course of treatment. Some of the deadly doses of radiation administered in New York hospitals were given just weeks after the state had sent letters to the hospitals reminding them that, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?pagewanted=3&hp"> "Staffing levels should be evaluated carefully by each registrant to ensure that coverage is sufficient to prevent the occurrence of treatment errors and misadministrations."</a><br /><br />Here are just two examples among many that illustrate the severity of radiation errors: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/24/health/24radiation.html?pagewanted=1&hp">In June, The Times reported that a Philadelphia hospital gave the wrong radiation dose to more than 90 patients with prostate cancer — and then kept quiet about it.In 2005, a Florida hospital disclosed that 77 brain cancer patients had received 50 percent more radiation than prescribed because one of the most powerful — and supposedly precise — linear accelerators had been programmed incorrectly for nearly a year." </a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-9938903075815038822008-12-04T13:15:00.000-08:002009-06-14T11:14:46.350-07:00Illinois passes law that requires hospitals to adjust bills of uninsured patientsThis is awesome. As many of you probably don't know, most hospitals have Byzantine payment systems. For example, Mary, who is uninsured, goes to have her cholesterol levels checked at the local hospital. She is charged $250. Lucy, who is insured, also has her cholesterol levels checked at the same local hospital. She is billed $250. But then her insurance company tells the hospital "No you can't charge Lucy that much. That's above the 'allowed amount'. Instead, the hospital only asks Lucy to pay $100. So, the uninsured woman pays $250 out-of-pocket, the insured woman pays $100 out-of-pocket, the insurance company pays nothing, and the hospital profits greatly off of the uninsured woman. <br /><br />In most industries this would be called price discrimination and would be considered illegal, but not in the health care industry. So, the uninsured, often the least able to pay, have to pay more out-of-pocket as individuals. <br /><br />Well, at least in Illinois there is some relief. According to the <a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/09/25/illinois-law-compels-hospitals-to-give-uninsured-patients-a-price-break"> Wall Street Journal</a> Hospitals can now only charge the uninsured cost plus 35%. Not exactly a great deal, but it is something. Usually hospitals charge patients cost plus 150% and they accept as payment cost plus 2% from Medicare and cost plus 10%-15% from insurance companies and their policy holders.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-44520244052042349672008-09-04T22:52:00.000-07:002010-01-23T22:39:32.311-08:00"one less [efficacy] statistic"I came across <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/health/policy/20vaccine.html?pagewanted=1&sq=gardasil&st=cse&scp=1"> an article </a> in the<i> New York Times</i>, which reviews the rush to mandate Gardasil, the vaccine against HPV, and the the fact that the longevity of immunity provided by this costly vaccine has yet to be proven. <br /><br />I had read about the strange side effects of the vaccine, which range from fainting, to paralysis, to death, in obscure blogs for over a year, but this is the first mainstream news article I have seen that gives voice to skeptics of Gardasil. <br /><br />The article questions the reason for the expedited application process and eventual approval of the vaccine by the CDC, which took only six months from start to finish. According to the <i>NY Times</i>, this process takes about three years for other vaccines. Let's just say there are some overt conflicts of interest. <br /><br />Virginia is the only state to mandate the vaccine as of yet, but many more have legislation in the works. However, some relevant facts should accompany the above statment,<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/20/health/policy/20vaccine.html?pagewanted=3&sq=gardasil&st=cse&scp=1"> "Merck has a growing economic interest in Virginia. In December 2006, Merck announced it would invest $57 million to expand its Elkton, Va., plant to make Gardasil, helped by a $700,000 grant from a state economic development agency that is part of the executive branch. Two months later, Gov. Tim Kaine, who has been mentioned as a possible Democratic vice presidential candidate, signed legislation requiring Gardasil for schoolgirls. Four months after that, Merck pledged to invest $193 million more in the plant to make drugs and vaccines, helped by a state grant of $1.5 million." </a><br /><br />Why should this vaccine be mandated at all? HPV is not infectious, like the flu or other deadly disease for which the public is vaccinated against. If someone who has it sneezes on you, you won't catch it. So, why should every prepubescent girl be required to get the vaccine in order to attend school? <br /><br />Doctors were also paid $4,500 by Merck, to give an hour long presentation about the vaccine and its benefits, which health-wise are uncertain and economically non-existent. You see, because the vaccines are so expensive and cervical cancer is already often caught and treated successfully, because of yearly pap smears given to most women, the "benefits" just aren't worth the cost, according to some health economists. <br /><br />Meanwhile, our government will spend millions to get girls vaccinated this year, thus diverting much needed funds away from other necessary, proven, preventive care.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com3tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-54832398742008050022008-09-02T11:19:00.000-07:002008-09-02T11:30:47.224-07:00bad fat, bad medicene, bad newsIn <a href="http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A01E0D6133FF934A25752C0A96E9C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1"> this article </a> by the New York Times, the effectiveness of cholesterol-lowering medications is called into question by prominent cardiologists. Cholesterol-lowering drugs are the largest category of prescription medication with annual sales of $40 billion.<br /><br />Eating oatmeal and exercising, in my unhumble opinion, is probably safer and more effective than these relatively poorly vetted drugs.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-84015791094105808832008-07-14T23:43:00.000-07:002008-07-15T00:01:16.925-07:00things are moving and shakingMy letter to the editor of Boise Weekly was published on July 9 and on July 13th the Idaho Statesman did an article on where the profits of the not-for-profits of the Treasure Valley go. I like to think My letter was the inspiration, but either way there is dialog about what should be expected of not-for-profit hospitals and questions about their generous mark ups on services rendered. Its sort of a split article. The <a href="http://www.idahostatesman.com/eyepiece/story/441142.html"> article </a> is pretty defensive of St. Luke's and St. Al's, but there is a box of additional information to the side of the main article, which contains some pretty incriminating stats and great links. <br /><br />I especially found the link to <a href="http://hospitalvictims.org">hospitalvictims.org</a> very informative and HELPFUL. The website is run by the Fairness Foundation and provides free information about <i>every</i> hospital in the United States and how much each individual hospital marks up the bill from its actual costs. The website provides tools for negotiating fair prices for the uninsured and under-insured, since they are often charged at least 2.5 times more than the insurance companies and the insured for the very same procedure. Righteous site, indeed.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-58565257673879758322008-07-09T21:16:00.000-07:002008-07-09T21:26:51.477-07:00published!<a href="http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A315403"> My editorial </a> about St.Luke's was published in the Boise Weekly. You can check it out below or read the perfectly punctuated version by clicking on the link above.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-1723089482849136692008-07-07T17:00:00.000-07:002008-07-08T21:55:48.641-07:00Do you know your child's cholesterol?The American Academy of Pediatrics released a statement today saying it suggests screening children for high cholesterol as early as age two. The AAP suggests that "cholesterol-lowering medications [LIPITOR] should considered" when treating a child, over the age of eight, with high LDL levels. Pfizer's LIPITOR patient information guide, states that the popular medication can cause "...serious muscle problems that can lead to kidney problems, including kidney failure." Liver problems are also listed as a "rare but serious" side effect. LIPITOR is the best selling drug in pharmaceutical history, with revenues of over $12 billion in 2007. Pfizer's patent on LIPITOR runs out in 2010. The new pediatric application could be grounds for a patent extension. <br /><br />I'll let you you digest these facts on your own. Remember though, the doctors are the ones prescribing children this drug.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.aap.org/advocacy/releases/july08lipidscreening.htm">American Academy of Pediatrics Press Release </a><br /><a href="http://www.pfizer.com/files/products/ppi_lipitor.pdf"><br />LIPITOR Patient Information </a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.forbes.com/2008/03/21/pfizer-lipitor-closer-markets-equity-cx_mp_0321markets16.html"> Forbes</a>Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-49686040858158678822008-07-01T12:41:00.000-07:002008-07-09T23:19:13.724-07:00Dear Sir,<div style="text-align: left;">This is a letter I wrote in response to an article in the Boise Weekly titled "Poor Farm Boise<span style="font-style: italic;">--County charity funds fill hospital coffers"</span> It was a great article.<a href="http://www.boiseweekly.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A314980"> Read it.</a><br /></div><br />Dear Editor,<br /><br />Nathaniel Hoffman's article "Poor Farm Boise" was spot on (BW, News, June 25, 2008). I was proud that he called out the normally sacrosanct hospitals, such as St. Luke's, that profit from the distress of the poor and the sick.<br /><br />St. Luke's is, technically, a not-for-profit hospital, which enables them to be exempt from county, state and federal taxes. In order to maintain this tax-exempt status they must provide some sort of a community benefit and then publish the benefits provided in an annual report. According to the 2006 annual report, St. Luke's (Boise/Meridian) profited over $46 million.<br /><br />Of course, this $46 million is not labeled as profit in the report, but instead, "The excess of available income over expenses in support of our mission." I think this label rivals "correctional facility" as one of the most ineffective euphemisms ever concocted. The report goes on to state that St. Luke's provided $27 million in unreimbursed care for Medicare patients. Basically, that $27 million is composed of the difference between the initial hospital charges, which are always inflated, and how much Medicare pays after it adjusts the cost.<br /><br />I pose two questions to St. Luke's: how much unreimbursed care did you provide for your cronies, the insurance companies? Whatever the amount, I am certain that it dwarfs the discounts given to Medicaid or Medicare. Why not charge everybody one fair and reasonable price? As Paul Woods points out in Hoffman's article, lots of time and energy are wasted in haggling a fair price. <br /><br />Christian HatchettAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-67618819745100947.post-71224917440385349362008-06-29T15:57:00.000-07:002008-07-09T23:23:04.881-07:00Basic HygieneI was combing through the health section on cnn.com when I came across an article titled <i>Don't Let a Hospital Kill You</i>,<br />which offers tips on how to avoid hospital acquired infections which kills about 100,000 Americans every year. I have been aware of this problem for a while, but even I was shocked at the matter-of-fact attitude of the author, Elizabeth Cohen, a CNN health correspondent. However, I was mostly disgusted by the lack of common sense, decency, and basic hygiene in American health clinics.<br /><br />tip # 4:<br /><br /><b>Ask where that syringe has been</b><br /><br /><a href="http://www.cnn.com/2008/HEALTH/05/01/ep.avoiding.infection/index.html"><i>"Doctors offices sometimes reuse syringes -- it's unusual, but it happens </i>." </a><br /><br />This sentence is a little too nonchalant. Its like saying, "Sometimes times I kill people and bury them in my back yard-- its unusual, but it happens."<br /><br />"WTF?! its <i> "unusual"</i>?! Let me give you some examples of appropriate forms of the word unusual: Its unusual for me to skip breakfast in the morning. Its unusual for me not to check my myspace for a week. Its unusual for Chris to put his dirty clothes in the clothes hamper. Its unusual for George Bush to give a speech with out botching it. All of these are unusual. So, CNN, let me rephrase that sentence for you.<br /><br />"<i>Doctors offices sometimes reuse syringes -- it's fucked up, but it happens </i>."<br /><br />The article goes on to explain that...<br /><i>"there have been 14 documented outbreaks of hepatitis since 1999 because of reused syringes. The recent outbreak in Nevada, where 50,000 people will be notified that they might have been infected at a colonoscopy clinic, is one example.</i><br /><br /><i>It's not an easy question to ask, but when someone's heading at you with a syringe, ask if this is the first time it's been used.</i><br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;"><i>Dr. Thomas Frieden, commissioner of the New York City Department of Health, suggests phrasing it like this: "I read in the paper that some doctors are reusing syringes. I can't imagine anyone would do that.Do you?" </i></span><br /><br />More pressure needs to be put on health care providers to follow basic hygiene. American's pay nearly $3 trillion a year on health care, the care we receive should reflect that, but often expensive care doesn't mean better care.<br /><br />So watch keep your head on a swivel in a doctors office, make them open a new syringe in front of you, write your representatives and let them know that it is unacceptable for 100,000 people to die every year because of hospital acquired infections that can be prevented by following basic hygiene standards.Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06298985241647407175noreply@blogger.com0