New USA Today/Kaiser/Harvard Poll Finds the Public Sees Real Benefits From Prescription Drugs, But Feels that They Cost Too Much and that Drug Companies Care Too Much About Profits
A new poll, the third in a series conducted jointly by USA Today and public opinion researchers at the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Harvard School of Public Health, finds Americans greatly value prescription drugs’ potential benefits for their families, but most believe they cost too much money and many struggle to pay for needed medicines.

for results of the poll, copy and paste this link:
http://www.kff.org/kaiserpolls/pomr030408pkg.cfm

By 2017, consumers and taxpayers will spend more than $4 trillion on health care, accounting for one of every $5 spent, the federal government projects.

The 6.7 percent annual increase in spending — nearly three times the rate of inflation — will be largely driven by higher prices and an increased demand for care, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said Monday. But other factors in the mix include a growing and aging population. The first wave of baby boomers become eligible for Medicare beginning in 2011.

With the aging population, the federal government will be picking up the tab for a growing share of the nation’s medical expenses. Overall, federal and state governments accounted for about 46 percent of health expenditures in 2006. That percentage will increase to 49 percent over the next decade.

copy and paste this link for the full article:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/nation/5569497.html

The prices of brand-name medications have continued to increase despite calls from all three major presidential candidates for pharmaceutical companies to make their products more affordable, the Wall Street Journal reports. Wholesale prices for the 50 brand-name medications with the most sales increased by an average of 7.82% in 2007, compared with increases of 6.73% and 6.22% in the previous two years, according to Delta Marketing Dynamics. The overall U.S. economy had an inflation rate of 4.1% in 2007.

In some cases, pharmaceutical companies have increased the prices of brand-name medications scheduled to lose patent protection to prompt patients to switch to similar, newer products that will have patent protection for a number of years. William Little, president of Delta, said, “Companies are under great pressure to deliver revenue, and it’s becoming increasingly difficult to do so as generics displace profitable brands.”

for full story, copy and paste this link:
http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/health2008dr.cfm?DR_ID=50532

One in every 10 patients admitted to six Massachusetts community hospitals suffered serious and avoidable medication mistakes, according to a report being released today by two nonprofit groups that are urging all hospitals in the state to install a computerized prescription ordering system.

more stories like this
Blue Cross offers incentive for computerized prescription system at hospitals
Report: 1 in 10 patients in 6 community hospitals get drug error
Report: law succeeding in reducing hospital visits by uninsured
CHANGING NYC: Hospital, Greenwich Village at crossroads
Report on death of discharged patient cites hospital deficiencies
The report is the first large-scale study of preventable prescription errors in community hospitals, and its author, Dr. David Bates of Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, said he was surprised that these mistakes were so frequent in these community hospitals. Previous studies in large academic hospitals that also lacked computerized systems found such medication errors occurred less than half as often, he said.

for full article, copy and paste this link:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/14/1_in_10_patients_gets_drug_error/

An article in this week’s New England Journal of Medicine, entitled “A Pivotal Medical-Device Case” raises an important issue about the fairness of our civil justice system. Here is the link to the article.
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/1/76?query=TOC.

The issue raised by the article is not a new one, but the Defendant is asking the the United States Supreme Court to give broad and sweeping new protection to companies who manufacture defective and dangerous medical devices, even if those devices kill or seriously injure patients. The case discussed in the article is Riegel v. Medtronic, in which the patient was seriously injured because the balloon utilized in a coronary angioplasty surgery ruptured. The Plaintiff in the lawsuit claims that the balloon device was defective. The legal issue is now whether the injured patient is deprived of a legal remedy simply because the Food and Drug Administration had approved the device for use.

The history of medical device liability in this country is not generally known to the public. Some remember the Dalkon shield cases of the 1970’s, in which thousands of women either died or were seriously injured as a result of defective IUD devices. Following those cases, Congress gave the FDA authority to regulate the design and approval of medical devices. Yet, an injured patient has still retained the right to access to the justice system if injured by a defective product, even though the FDA has approved the product. The question before the Supreme Court in Riegel is whether the intent of Congress in granting such authority to the FDA, was to completely remove from the justice system the ability to adjudicate cases claiming that a medical device is defective. So, ask yourself if you would like for the FDA, with all of its political ramifications and lobbying influence, to determine whether an injured patient can have access to the justice system.

Recent news has pointed out the influence of pharmaceutical and medical companies, and their lobbyists, on the FDA approval process and on doctors’ decisions regarding drugs and medical devices. http://www.americastunnelvision.com/editable/medication_error.html. The Supreme Court is now considering whether that influence, with all of its attendant dangers, will deprive patients injured by medical devices of their day in court. Although this case has not received the coverage it deserves in the press, it is vitally important for the rights of injured patients.

Michael Townes Watson, author of America’s Tunnel Vision—How Insurance Companies’ Propaganda Is Corrupting Medicine and Law. www.StopMedicalError.com.

 The talk in Albany and Manhattan is all of Governor Spitzer’s political impotence, but with one bold policy stroke Mr. Spitzer is about to show he is more powerful than the Washington Democratic leadership, not to mention President Bush.

Earlier this month, when President Bush vetoed a bill that the Democratic Congress had passed to saddle federal taxpayers with the health insurance costs of families earning more than $80,000 a year, the Democrats in Washington erupted in paroxysms of handwringing and moral posturing. “In a country as wealthy as ours, it is immoral to deny health care to our children. President Bush cares more about politics than our nation’s kids,” huffed a statement from Dr. Howard Dean’s Democratic National Committee.

for full editorial, click here

Health insurance contracts–and government plans like Medicare and Medicaid–rightly contain provisions that can be used to deny payment for unnecessary or inappropriate treatment. If they didn’t have these limitations every quack in America would be feeding at the reimbursement trough.

But what these provisions should not do is ever deny a legitimate attempt to save someone’s life. The insurer has the burden to act responsibly and, if the family disagrees with the call, provide an independent and fast third-party appeals process for what can be life and death decisions.
for full blog post, click here

The modest spending increase that Congress approved for a popular children’s health insurance program will maintain coverage for those already enrolled. But many lacking insurance will have to look elsewhere.Few expected such a result when 2007 began. Democrats proposed a huge spending increase on the federal-state partnership known as the State Children’s Health Insurance Program. Many Republicans embraced the idea. Meanwhile, states all over the country were drawing up plans to expand health coverage.

for full story, click here

The flier from Hillary Clinton’s campaign declares in bold letters: “What’s being said about Obama’s health care plan.” Obama’s plan is “incomplete,” “wrong” and “could leave as many as 15 million poor without any guarantee,” the flier quotes from articles in The New York Times and on CBS News.

In response, a glossy mailer shows Obama surrounded by men and women in scrubs. “Everyone in this race has a universal plan for health care - including Senator Clinton,” Obama is quoted as saying. The mailer accuses Clinton of misleading attacks.

The battle for the Democratic nomination for president is being fought over health care, as Clinton, Obama and John Edwards in particular have seized on the issue to showcase their differences. But independent policy experts say that while there are differences among the plans - particularly over the issue of mandates - they are far outweighed by the similarities.

for full story, click here

Pat Lawrence’s bustling catering business in San Francisco is so small she doesn’t think she can afford health insurance. So when her face suddenly became paralyzed one morning as she was baking muffins, she went to the Internet for a diagnosis — not to a doctor or a hospital.

for full story, click here