North Carolina patients are the latest victims in the propaganda war that the insurance industry continues to wage. Last week, state lawmakers there approved a bill limiting damage recoveries in health care negligence cases. The bill caps damages in negligence cases involving a health care provider at one million dollars for those cases in which the healthcare providers agree to go to binding arbitration. In other words, the insurance industry was able to convince the legislators that victims of medical malpractice would be better off without a jury hearing their case. Few appeals would be allowed for anyone aggrieved by the arbitration process, making the court system a rare luxury, not a right, as envisioned by the Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution.

for full post, click here

Costly medical malpractice insurance is a real problem, particularly on Long Island. Unfortunately the solution most often touted – limits on jury awards – is bogus. The debate over the rise in the cost of premiums has to get beyond demonizing trial lawyers if solutions are to be found.

Nobody likes being sued. And trial lawyers are a tantalizing target for retribution. But it’s the people they represent – those injured due to medical negligence painstakingly proved in a court of law – who would be the victims of dollar limits on damages for pain and suffering.
for full story, click here

Since coming to SBA I’ve met hundreds of small business people around the country,” Preston said. “When I ask what Washington can do to help them, it is clear health care reform tops the list. They pay a significantly higher cost for medical coverage, which takes dollars away from investment, expansion, and job creation in our country.”
The healthcare discussion included entrepreneurs and small business workers and covered a wide range of topics including Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), equalizing tax treatment between individuals and corporations purchasing health care, and the need for greater competition among insurance providers.
Preston addressed the need for more affordable health care solutions for small business owners and the need for individuals to have affordable market-based solutions.
“Half of America’s private sector is employed by small businesses and a disproportionate share of that workforce is uninsured,” said Preston. “Yet small businesses are prohibited from joining together to leverage their buying power or in some cases from having the same tax advantages as large businesses. Addressing the issue of affordability with broadly accessible market-based solutions is the key to expanding coverage.”

That adds up to an economic crisis that must command the attention of the 18 candidates with serious aspirations to become the next president.

Today, we begin an occasional series on campaign issues with an examination of healthcare. The challenge for the nation and its candidates starts with two questions: Who should be covered? How can costs be contained?

First and foremost, any healthcare program must extend coverage to everyone. Securing affordable healthcare for all is, simply, the right thing to do. It’s also key to cutting excess costs.

Many states, including California, are already debating universal healthcare. The candidates should build on these efforts by requiring states to devise their own universal coverage solutions. The state-based approach offers room for regional flexibility and allows for innovation, hallmarks of federalism at its finest. But the federal government should not create this mandate without offering guidance and financial support.

As part of its direction to the states, the government should insist that businesses, individual taxpayers and the insured split the cost of coverage. Today, employers are the principal source of health insurance by default. In the future, they should be asked to choose between supplying coverage or contributing to funds that cover the uninsured; they should not have the option of paying nothing.
for full story, click here

Now in its 18th year, America’s Best Hospitals is widely considered the most authoritative hospital guide, this year screening over 5,462 hospitals and medical centers — virtually all short-term, acute-care hospitals in the United States. The guide ranks 173 hospitals and medical centers in 16 specialties: cancer; digestive disorders; ear, nose, and throat; endocrinology; geriatrics; gynecology; heart and heart surgery; kidney disease; neurology and neurosurgery; ophthalmology; orthopedics; psychiatry; rehabilitation; respiratory disorders; rheumatology; and urology. (Unlike past years, when pediatrics was included as a specialty in America’s Best Hospitals, pediatric hospitals will be ranked separately in the September 3rd issue of U.S. News & World Report, on newsstands Monday, August 27.) The rankings weigh three elements equally: reputation, death rate, and a set of care-related factors such as nursing and patient services.
for complete story, click here

Healthcare reform and providing care for uninsured patients are the leading concerns of medical students across the nation. Students also report extensive experience with healthcare technology and believe it will have the greatest impact on improving patient care. Results of the second annual Future Physicians of America survey released today, which was conducted by Epocrates, Inc., and Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc., captures the opinions of 1,000 medical students.
These future physicians are ready to see change in the U.S. healthcare system, from insurance coverage to technology use.

Healthcare reform and providing care for uninsured patients are the leading concerns of medical students across the nation. Students also report extensive experience with healthcare technology and believe it will have the greatest impact on improving patient care. Results of the second annual Future Physicians of America survey released today, which was conducted by Epocrates, Inc., and Gerson Lehrman Group, Inc., captures the opinions of 1,000 medical students.

for full story, click here

House vote for a major prescription drug safety and FDA reform bill is good news for Americans who have been kept in the dark about dangerous drug side effects, and Consumers Union is urging conference committee members to not weaken consumer protections in the bill before sending it to the President.
“The House has taken a major step forward in protecting consumers and putting the pharmaceutical companies on notice by passing the first major drug safety reforms in 45 years,” said Jim Guest, president of Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports. “Now it’s up to a small group of House and Senate members to reconcile the two drug safety reform bills, and it is vital they keep the strongest safety provisions in the bill sent to the President.
“As we approach the third anniversary of the news that Vioxx may have caused thousands of Americans to have heart attacks or strokes, it is well past time for Congress to deliver to the President a bill that will help prevent such future drug safety disasters,” Guest added.

According to the data, while nearly all of the 4,500 U.S. hospitals scored somewhere near the national average in terms of mortality rates, there were significant discrepancies in their relative rates of success at treating heart attacks and heart failure.  For heart failure, 38 hospitals scored well above the national average, and 35 scored worse.  Heart attack statistics show that 17 hospitals perform better than most, and 7 perform significantly worse.HHS has published the data in an effort to improve patients’ ability to make educated health care decisions, and to improve the quality of the nation’s health care by compelling individual hospitals to compete publicly on the basis of quality outcomes.  Comparison data had been released by the government many years ago, but the results were widely criticized as inaccurate, skewed in favor of those hospitals that didn’t perform inherently risky procedures and that served populations with relatively few unhealthy or indigent patients.  Newer, more sophisticated methods of data collection and analysis have produced this new national scorecard.  Both the government and the American Hospital Association have spoken in support of the current research methods and the findings.

To compare hospitals based on this new outcomes data, visit the HHS Hospital Comparison Website.

Aidan was born March 24, 2003, at Verdugo Hills Hospital under the care of Dr. Steven Wayne Nishibayashi, who also was listed as a defendant in the case.

According to the lawsuit, Aidan exhibited several risk factors for kernicterus, a neurological disorder that can cause mental retardation, cerebral palsy and hearing loss, when he developed jaundice shortly after birth. The jaundice was a sign of the buildup of bilirubin, a yellow bile pigment, produced in greater quantities than a baby’s liver can excrete.

The hospital and the doctor, the plaintiff’s attorneys argued, should have been alert to that possibility and given him appropriate medical treatment to reduce the bilirubin buildup.

Aidan’s parents were concerned just days after his birth because he became lethargic and was barely feeding, said Aidan’s attorney, Luan K. Phan, but they were told that the jaundice would go away by itself. Phan said the hospital gave the parents a pamphlet that said jaundice did not produce a serious medical risk. Instead, Phan said, Aidan wound up in an emergency room at another hospital, where two attempts to remove the buildup through blood transfusions failed.

Aidan’s condition “was never on the radar of the doctors and nurses” at Verdugo Hills Hospital, Phan said.Aidan, now 4, requires constant medical attention, said Phan, whose firm employs Aidan’s father.

“He has normal intelligence, but he can’t walk. He can’t talk, can’t feed himself. He can’t control a single muscle and it was all preventable,” Phan said.  California has a $250,000 cap on medical malpractice awards. It was unclear how the limit would affect Monday’s jury award.

for full story, click here