healthy4u

UnitedHealth CEO Continues to Prosper While His Company's Behavior Appears to Contradict its Mission Statement

Tis spring, the season in the US for legal settlements, government findings, and proxy statements revealing executive compensation.  Therefore, maybe there should be no surprise that we are seeing a series of cases in which health care corporate leaders continue to enrich themselves while their organizations' behavior raises ethical questions. Following on the <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/05/amgen-ceos-prosper-despite-or-because.html">Amgen example</a>, we now present the latest UnitedHealth example (in a post organized similarly.) The CEO Gets Richer Last week, the Associated Press (<a href="http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2013-04-25/business/38810785_1_medicare-advantage-insurer-compensation">via the Washington Post</a>) summarized UnitedHealth CEO Stephen J Hemsley's growing pile of money: <blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="mod-washingtonpostarticletext mod-tribunearticletextimpl mod-articletext" id="mod-a-body-first-para">UnitedHealth Group Inc. kept CEO Stephen J. Hemsley’s salary stable in 2012 but bumped up his total compensation for a year in which the nation’s largest health insurer grew earnings and enrollment and launched a major acquisition. The Minnetonka, Minn., insurer gave its top executive a compensation package valued at about $13.9 million last year, according to the company’s proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That’s up 4 percent from the $13.4 million total he received last year. Hemsley, 60, received a $1.3 million annual salary in 2012, like he has the past several years. He also received $7 million in stock awards, which is the same total as 2011. But his performance-based bonus climbed 7 percent to $5.3 million, and he received $287,443 in other compensation, up from $154,804 in 2011. Other compensation included savings plan contributions and a $125,000 Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act filing fee payment UnitedHealth made on behalf of the CEO so he could maintain and increase his stock ownership in the company.</div></blockquote> At the same time, Hemsley continued to cash in stock options which also added to his riches:   <blockquote class="tr_bq">Outside AP’s calculation of his 2012 total compensation, Hemsley also acquired 284,836 shares that had vested with a value of $15.3 million. He also exercised options to acquire 600,000 shares and realized a value of $12.5 million. Those options and stock awards had been previously given to the executive. The proxy said Hemsley directly owned UnitedHealth shares valued at about $140 million, as of March 1.</blockquote> The Mission Promises Much but the Company Delivers Less On one hand, the rate of rise of Hemsley's compensation at least seemed comparable to the company's financial performance: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Overall, UnitedHealth shares climbed 7 percent to close 2012 at $54.24, a smaller gain than the 13.4 percent advance from the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.</blockquote> On the other hand, the largess given to the CEO ought to be contrasted with the how UnitedHealth failed to deliver what its mission promised.   Most recently, a jury found the company failed to live up to its legal obligation (in the state of Nevada) to review the quality of the clinicians on its panel.  As <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-04/unitedhealth-units-told-to-pay-24-million-over-hepatitis-doctor.html">reported</a> by Bloomberg, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Two UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH)  units must pay $24 million in damages for failing to properly monitor a doctor who gave two colonoscopy patients hepatitis C by employing substandard medical practices, a Nevada jury ruled. Jurors in state court in Las Vegas deliberated about five hours over two days before finding officials of Health Plan of Nevada and Sierra Health Services were negligent in their oversight of Dipek Desai.  The former gastroenterologist has been blamed for infecting patients with hepatitis C by reusing vials of the anesthetic Propofol and failing to sterilize equipment. The panel ordered the two UnitedHealth units to pay $15 million in compensatory damages to Bonnie Brunson and her husband and $9 million to Helen Meyer. The two women contend they got hepatitis during colonoscopy procedures at Desai’s clinic. Their lawyers said earlier in the case they may ask the jury to award more than $1 billion in punitive damages. The verdict reflects 'what’s wrong with health insurance companies in the U.S.' Robert Eglet, Brunson’s lawyer, said in an interview after the verdict was announced. 'They put profit before patient safety.'</blockquote> Note that the state of Nevada does explicitly hold managed care organizations accountable for the clinical quality of its health care professionals' practice,   <blockquote class="tr_bq">Meyer and Brunson sued under a Nevada law requiring HMOs to file annual reports showing officials reviewed the quality of health services provided to their members. The women’s lawyers argued officials of the UnitedHealth units knew Desai had a reputation for sloppy practice before giving him a contract to handle colonoscopies and then didn’t check the quality of his work. At one point, Desai was a member of Nevada's Board of Medical Examiners,  which oversees the licensing of doctors in the state. The plaintiffs contend the insurer didn’t properly monitor Desai’s practices and procedures even though they received complaints about his practices. During the trial, witnesses said Desai adopted a cavalier attitude toward patient safety, speeding through procedures so he could see as many as 20 patients in a three-hour period. The women’s lawyers argued the insurers’ executives had an obligation to insure Desai was providing quality care to their HMO members and were required to vet his practices before hiring him.</blockquote> Also note that managed care organizations and other health insurers often boast about the quality of their provider panels. For example, see the UnitedHealth <a href="http://www.unitedhealthgroup.com/About/MissionValues.aspx">mission statement</a>: <blockquote class="tr_bq">- Our mission is to help people live healthier lives. Our role is to help make health care work for everyone.  - We seek to enhance the performance of the health system and improve the overall health and well-being of the people we serve and their communities. - We work with health care professionals and other key partners to expand access to quality health care so people get the care they need at an affordable price. - We support the physician/patient relationship and empower people with the information, guidance and tools they need to make personal health choices and decisions. </blockquote> It seems reasonable to interpret the italicized parts above as a statement of accountability for the quality of care provided by the health care professionals within the United network. To reinforce that accountability, a subsequent Bloomberg <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-09/unitedhealth-to-pay-500-million-over-hepatitis-doctor.html">story </a>added, <blockquote class="tr_bq">Two UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH) units must pay $500 million in punitive damages for failing to oversee a doctor blamed for giving colonoscopy patients hepatitis C through shoddy medical practices, a Nevada jury found. Jurors in state court in Las Vegas deliberated more than six hours yesterday before handing down the punitive-damages award against Health Plan of Nevada and Sierra Health Services for turning a blind eye to Dipak Desai's actions. </blockquote> Furthermore, the lofty UnitedHealth mission statement should be compared to two recent government findings. In the state of California, as<a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2013/may/01/business/la-fi-unitedhealth-rates-20130502"> reported</a> by the Los Angeles Times, <blockquote class="tr_bq">California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones said the nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc., is imposing unreasonable rate hikes on about 5,000 small businesses.  Jones said Wednesday that UnitedHealth couldn't justify the average annual increase of nearly 8%, which reflects both higher premiums and a reduction in benefits. He said the rate hike, which went into effect Wednesday, affects up to 45,000 small-business employees and dependents and represents $12.5 million in higher costs. 'At a time when small businesses are struggling to survive, UnitedHealthcare's rate increase is just one more unwarranted economic burden on California's small business owners and their employees,' Jones said. </blockquote> Such behavior seems to contradict the mission statement's assurance that the company will seek to provide health care at "an affordable price." Meanwhile, Bloomberg just published a <a href="http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-03/pentagon-blames-unitedhealth-for-failures-under-contract.html">story</a> about how UnitedHealth has been running an insurance program for US military families. <blockquote class="tr_bq">The Pentagon rebuked UnitedHealth (UNH) Group Inc, the nation’s largest insurer, after military families began experiencing long delays getting medical-care referrals from the company.  The backlogs occurred almost as soon as Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth took over a contract, valued as much as $20.5 billion, from TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp. It assumed responsibility on April 1 for the western region of the military’s health-care system, known as Tricare. UnitedHealth’s 'failure to meet contractor requirements' has prevented a large number of beneficiaries in one Tricare health plan from obtaining timely access to specialty care, Jonathan Woodson, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said in a memo yesterday to other military leaders. Woodson, calling the situation 'extraordinary,' said the Pentagon stepped in to grant a temporary waiver so the plan’s members in the western region could get specialty care without UnitedHealth’s authorization and not incur penalties.. </blockquote> This behavior seemed to contradict the mission statement's assurance that the company seeks to "expand access to quality health care." The Song Remains the Same  Of course, UnitedHealth actually has a very long record of preaching about its aspirational mission, while paying its top hired managers extraordinary amounts and contradicting that mission, and at times ethical norms. Our posts on UnitedHealth are here. Recently we wrote,  UnitedHealth would be the company whose CEO once was worth over a billion dollars due to back dated stock options, some of which he had to give back, but despite all the resulting legal actions, was still the ninth best paid CEO in the US for the first decade of the 21st century (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/despite-scandal-former-unitedhealth-ceo.html">here</a>). UnitedHealth would be the company whose then CEO made a cool $106 million in 2009 (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/can-1-billion-group-of-babies-provide.html">here</a>). Moreover, UnitedHealth would also be the company known for a string of ethical lapses: - as <a href="http://www.courant.com/business/hc-natbizdigbrf0530.art2may30,0,109447.story">reported</a> by the Hartford Courant, "UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest U.S. health insurer, will refund $50 million to small businesses that New York state officials said were overcharged in 2006." - UnitedHalth promised its investors it would continue to raise premiums, even if that priced increasing numbers of people out of its policies (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/05/commercial-managed-care-organizations.html">here</a>); - UnitedHealth's acquisition of Pacificare in California allegedly lead to a "meltdown" of its claims paying mechanisms (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/01/bungled-not-brilliant-results-of.html">here</a>); - UnitedHealth's acquisition of Sierra Health Services allegedly gave it a monopoly in Utah, while the company allegedly was transferring much of its revenue out of the state of Rhode Island, rather than using it to pay claims (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/03/unitedhealth-declares-health-care.html">here</a>) - UnitedHealth frequently violated Nebraska insurance laws (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/01/on-performance-on-one-supposedly.html">here</a>); - UnitedHealth settled charges that its Ingenix subsidiaries manipulation of data lead to underpaying patients who received out-of-network care (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/01/unitedhealth-and-ingenix-settles.html">here</a>). - UnitedHealth was accused of hiding the fact that the physicians it is now employing through its Optum subsidiary in fact work for a for-profit company, not directly for their patients (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/07/here-comes-your-new-doctor-brought-to.html">here</a>). Summary The US dysfunctional health care system has produced a long string of big corporations that promise warm and fuzzy health care yet deliver something less, all the while mightily enriching their top hired managers. Given the deadly serious nature of the health care system, these companies' promises, marketing, public relations and mission statements cannot be dismissed as fluff and puffery. Market fundamentalists and executive apologists have touted our system as market based. If patients must act as consumers, they cannot make good consuming decisions if they are awash with deceptive marketing and advertising. It is one thing for Hollywood to advertise blockbuster movies that are duds. It is another for health care corporations to advertise quality care and deliver bad care. As we have said far too many times, we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

UnitedHealth CEO Continues to Prosper While His Company's Behavior Appears to Contradict its Mission Statement

Tis spring, the season in the US for legal settlements, government findings, and proxy statements revealing executive compensation. There...

Đọc thêm »

Amgen CEOs Prosper Despite (or Because of) Continuing Ethical Questions

This is becoming a familiar narrative on<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/"> Health Care Renewal</a>: top health care leaders continue to enrich themselves while their organizations' behavior continues to raise ethical questions. For our latest example we return to the ongoing adventures of biotechnology giant <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/Amgen">Amgen</a>. CEOs Get Richer An AP story (<a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amgen-ceo-20130408,0,1832506.story">via the LA Times</a>) documented the continuing enrichment of its current CEO: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Amgen Inc's new chief executive, Robert A. Bradway, received total compensation of $13.6 million in 2012, more than his predecessor, according to an analysis of a company regulatory filing. Bradway, who was promoted from chief operating officer to chief executive May 23, saw his compensation nearly double from $7.1 million in 2011. Last year Bradway, 50, was paid a salary of $1.26 million and received stock awards worth $8.57 million, incentive payments of $3.32 million and miscellaneous compensation totaling $420,059. That included nearly $314,000 in retirement plan contributions, $65,000 for personal use of company aircraft, more than $20,000 for his personal expenses and those of guests during business travel, and $15,000 for financial planning services.</blockquote> The former CEO also did very well in his final year in office. <blockquote class="tr_bq">Former CEO Kevin W. Sharer, who stepped down from his seat on Amgen's board when he retired Dec. 31, received compensation totaling $9.13 million last year. Sharer was paid a 2012 salary of $1.81 million and received stock awards worth $3.66 million, incentive payments of $2.31 million and miscellaneous compensation totaling $1.36 million. That included $801,000 in retirement plan contributions, nearly $262,000 for personal use of company aircraft, more than $38,000 for his personal expenses and those of guests during business travel, $15,000 for financial planning services and more than $255,000 for secretarial, information technology and travel support. Much of that support runs through 2017.</blockquote> You would think they could both afford financial planning on their own. Legal Settlements Pile Up Keep in mind that as we discussed in <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/12/amgen-settles-pleads-guilty-to.html">late 2012</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/01/how-revolving-door-and-other-aspects-of.html">early 2013</a>, Amgen pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding for promoting its epoetin drug Aranesp for unapproved indications, and settled allegations of giving kickbacks to physicians to increase the drug's use, among other charges, for a total of $762 million. Furthermore, soon after the CEOs' compensation was announced, tiny articles in local media announced two more settlements by Amgen. A small AP story (again <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-amgen-20130416,0,4959804.story">via the LA Times</a>) noted another settlement regarding allegations of unethical promotion of Aranesp: <blockquote class="tr_bq">The US Department of Justice<a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/crime-law-justice/u.s.-department-of-justice-ORGOV0000160.topic" id="ORGOV0000160" title="U.S. Department of Justice"></a> said Tuesday that biotech drug maker Amgen Inc. will pay $24.9 million to resolve claims it paid kickbacks to increase sales of its anemia<a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/physical-conditions/anemia-HEPHC0000047.topic" id="HEPHC0000047" title="Anemia"></a> drug Aranesp. The Justice Department said Amgen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc<a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/economy-business-finance/omnicare-incorporated-ORCRP011399.topic" id="ORCRP011399" title="Omnicare Incorporated">.</a> and PharMerica Corp., which sell drugs to long-term care providers such as nursing<a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/health/medical-specialization/nursing-HEMSP000015.topic" id="HEMSP000015" title="Nursing"></a> homes and hospitals, and Kindred Healthcare Inc., which runs long-term acute-care hospitals and nursing and rehabilitation centers. Amgen wanted the companies to switch Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to Aranesp from competing drugs and tried to get consultant pharmacists and nursing home staffers to encourage the use of Aranesp in patients who didn't have anemia associated with kidney failure, the Justice Department said. The Thousand Oaks company made payments based on the sales volume or market share of Aranesp, the agency said.</blockquote> Then a few days ago, a <a href="http://www.sfvbj.com/news/2013/apr/29/amgen-reaches-11-million-settlement-over-medicaid-/">story</a> in the San Fernando Valley Business Journal described yet another Amgen settlement:   <blockquote class="tr_bq">Thousand Oaks biotech Amgen Inc. has reached an $11 million settlement with 36 states over charges it inflated pricing data and caused Medicaid to overpay for six of its drugs, the New York State Attorney General said Monday. The charges allege Amgen inflated cost benchmarks for drugs used to treat kidney disease and cancer patients. The drugs involved were Aranesp, Enbrel, Epogen, Neulasta, Neupogen and Sensipar. Those benchmarks are used to set pharmacy reimbursement rates for drugs dispensed to state Medicaid beneficiaries.</blockquote> Keep in mind that all these recent settlements involved allegations of efforts made to oversell Aranesp.  As we noted previously, this drug carries a "black box" warning about serious and potentially fatal side effects.  The <a href="http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2011/103951Orig1s5173_103951Orig1s5258lbl.pdf">official Aranesp label</a> states (in a black box warning, in capital letters): <blockquote class="tr_bq"> ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE</blockquote> So the overselling of Aranesp not only appeared unethical, it seemed to put short term revenue ahead of patient safety, and could conceivably have lead to patients dying so that the company could make more money.    Summary So while the evidence mounts that health care organizations, and in this case, Amgen, continue to aggressively pursue short-term revenue even is their means of doing so endangers patients.  However, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/legal%20settlements">legal efforts</a> to challenge such reckless practices continue to fail to impose any negative consequences on those who personally profited from this behavior, and particularly those corporate executives who authorized and directed the bad behavior.  Moreover, while such evidence mounts, the top leaders of these organizations continue to pile up riches.  It seems that CEOs of health care organizations continue to prosper despite, or perhaps because of their organizations' continuing unethical and dangerous behavior. As we have said far too many times, we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

Amgen CEOs Prosper Despite (or Because of) Continuing Ethical Questions

This is becoming a familiar narrative on Health Care Renewal : top health care leaders continue to enrich themselves while their organizati...

Đọc thêm »

The Myth of the Tough Prosecutor as a Distraction from Health Care Corporate Executives' Impunity

The tragic case of the Boston Marathon bombing illustrates how myth making about tough law enforcement obscures the impunity enjoyed by top health care executives. A "Tough to a Fault" Prosecutor A recent Reuters<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/22/us-usa-explosions-prosecutor-idUSBRE93L00X20130422"> article</a> touted the toughness of the prosecutor who will take on the case of the surviving accused Boston terrorist: <blockquote class="tr_bq">As the top federal law enforcer in Massachusetts, U.S. Attorney Carmen Ortiz has taken heat for being tough to a fault and coming down too hard on some defendants. But as she builds a possible death penalty case against suspected Boston Marathon bomber Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19, the unflinching approach that earned her opponents in the past could become a legal asset for the biggest case of her career, said attorneys who have faced off against her. 'The criticism lately has been that they've over-charged some people and been overly harsh,' said Peter Elikann, a Boston defense attorney.'I don't think that's relevant for Tsarnaev because no one is going to accuse any prosecutor of making too big a deal out of this case.'</blockquote> Similarly, an<a href="http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-04-23/marathon-bomb-prosecutor-seen-as-ready-for-marquee-case"> article</a> in Bloomberg included this: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Ortiz’s former bosses insist that she’s ready for her moment on the big stage. 'She’s tough-minded and exceptionally professional,' [former Massachusetts Attorney General Scott] Harshbarger said. </blockquote> One of the cases cited as an example of Ms Ortiz's toughness was her prosecution of electronic information freedom activist Aaron Swart.  As Rueters noted, <blockquote class="tr_bq">One of Ortiz's best-known cases to date was her prosecution of Aaron Swartz on wire fraud and hacking allegations for downloading millions of articles from an academic database. Swartz, a 26-year-old computer prodigy, hanged himself in his Brooklyn, New York, apartment in January, prompting friends and family to partly blame Ortiz's prosecution for his death.</blockquote> At the time, Ms Ortiz was criticized for being unreasonably harsh, but then as now toughness was touted as her style. Not So Tough on Corporate Crime However, as we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/01/the-tragic-case-of-aaron-swartz-unequal.html">pointed out then</a>, while Ms Ortiz was noted for being tough on individuals accused of various offenses, she was notably not so tough on individuals involved in alleged corporate health care wrong doing. In particular, as we wrote before, Ms Ortiz was involved in three settlements of notably bad behavior by large health care corporations, none of which involved prosecution of, or any penalties for the individuals at the corporations who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior. Forest Pharmaceuticals In September, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with Forest Pharmaceuticals became apparent (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/09/forest-pharmaceuticals-pleads-guilty-to.html">here</a>).   The company was accused of promoting its anti-depressant Celexa for use in adolescents and children.  Such drugs have since been shown to increase the risk of suicide by such young patients, and this drug was only approved for adults.  At the time, Ms Ortiz said, "Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public."  Although the offense may have lead to use of the drug by many adolescents and children, and hence may have lead to some of them attempting or committing suicide, the case was settled only with fines.  As is usual in such legal settlements, no individual corporate executive who authorized or lead the off-label and potentially dangerous marketing of the drug was arrested, or accused, and none suffered any negative consequences. GlaxoSmithKline In October, 2010, how Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with GlaxoSmithKline became apparent (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/10/glaxosmithkline-subsidiary-pleads.html">here</a>.)  The company was accused of selling drugs that were not what they appeared to be, apparently because the wrong drugs were put in labelled containers.  Obviously, taking one drug, like Paxil, GSK's anti-depressant which has a number of known adverse effects, including suicide risk for adolescents and children as noted above, when a patient is supposed to be taking a wholly different drug could lead to patient harm.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "We will not tolerate corporate attempts to profit at the expense of the ill and needy in our society -- or those who cut corners that result in potentially dangerous consequences to consumers."   Again, while the settlement involved a guilty plea by a GSK subsidiary, again no individual corporate executive who had authority over the drug manufacturing was arrested or accused, much less suffered any negative consequences. St Jude Medical In January, 2011, Ms Ortiz led the pursuit of a settlement with St Jude Medical (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/01/st-jude-medical-settles-again.html">here</a>).  The company was accused of paying kickbacks to doctors to implant its cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers.  Obviously, providing kickbacks to doctors may have lead them to plant devices in patients who did not really need them, yet the devices and the implantation procedures can have adverse effects.  At that time, Ms Ortiz said, "The United States alleges that St Jude solicited physicians for the studies in order to retain their business and/or convert their business from a competitor's product."  Again, as is usual, the settlement did not require any executive who authorized or directed the activities leading to the kickbacks suffered any negative consequences. Despite this, note that Bloomberg in its recent coverage of the Tsarnaev prosecution even tried to make Ms Ortiz failure to hold any individuals accountable for this health care corporate misbehavior seem like tough prosecution. <blockquote class="tr_bq">The office has been a leader in health-care fraud prosecutions, securing $4 billion in civil and health-care recoveries in 2012. Those included a $3 billion payment from GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK), which pleaded guilty to charges that it illegally promoted prescription drugs. </blockquote> Again, note that apparently being a "leader" in health care fraud prosecution involved pushing for big fines to be paid by the corporations involved in actions that may have harmed many patients, but no punishment for  the individuals who may have authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior, but being "tough" on Aaron Swartz involved pushing for a long imprisonment of someone whose alleged crime was not violent, and did not result in anyone being hurt. Summary As we have noted again and again and again, leaders of large health care organizations, particularly the largest health care corporations, seem to enjoy virtual impunity.  No matter how bad the behavior of the corporations which they are supposed to be leading, and no matter whether such behavior might have harmed patients, they almost never have to face any negative consequences, especially not fines they must pay themselves, much less prison time.  We have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/legal%20settlements">documented many legal settlements</a> of often egregiously bad alleged behavior that did not involve any penalties for top corporate leaders. One way corporate leaders thus escape accountability seems to be the cultivation of myths that distract the public from what is going on.  One such urban legend seems to be the toughness of government prosecutors.  If prosecutors are believed to be uniformly tough and uncompromising, then the public may be lead to believe either that they are tough and uncompromising on corporate crime    As we have said repeatedly, true health care reform would require making the leaders of health care organizations accountable, especially for the effects of their actions on patients' and the public's health.

The Myth of the Tough Prosecutor as a Distraction from Health Care Corporate Executives' Impunity

The tragic case of the Boston Marathon bombing illustrates how myth making about tough law enforcement obscures the impunity enjoyed by top ...

Đọc thêm »

Johns Hopkins: Thanks to EHRs, time with patients seems “squeezed out” of medical training, investigator says

Question:  Who would have thought it?  That there is yet another potentially deadly unintended consequence of <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/">bad health IT</a> and health IT <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html">hyper-enthusiasm</a>? Suggested answer:  anyone who truly understands the issues at the intersection of medicine, information science, information technology, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_informatics">Social Informatics</a> - which probably excludes 95% of the health IT "experts", pundits and opportunists. Which only goes to show how dense such people can be - as the medical trainees of today will be treating them, their families, and their children in the future: <blockquote class="tr_bq"> <div class="Boxed" id="detailInteriorDate"><div class="Copy">Johns Hopkins Medicine</div><div class="Copy">Release Date: 04/23/2013 </div></div> <div class="Boxed" id="detailInteriorSubTitle"><div class="Copy"><a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/doctors_in_training_spend_very_little_time_at_patient_bedside_study_finds">Time with patients seems “squeezed out” of training, investigator says </a></div><div class="Copy"></div></div>Medical interns spend just 12 percent of their time examining and talking with patients, and more than 40 percent of their time behind a computer, according to a new Johns Hopkins study that closely followed first-year residents at Baltimore’s two large academic medical centers. Indeed, the study found, interns spent nearly as much time walking (7 percent) as they did caring for patients at the bedside.</blockquote> I can honestly say much if not most of my time in training, several decades ago, was spent at the bedside. <blockquote class="tr_bq">Compared with similar time-tracking studies done before 2003, when hospitals were first required to limit the number of consecutive working hours for trainees, the researchers found that interns since then spend significantly less time in direct contact with patients. Changes to the 2003 rules limited interns to no more than 30 consecutive hours on duty, and further restrictions in 2011 allow them to work only 16 hours in a row. “One of the most important learning opportunities in residency is direct interaction with patients,” says <a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/fellowship/current_fellows.html">Lauren Block</a>, M.D., M.P.H., a clinical fellow in the <a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/gim/index.html">Division of General Internal Medicine</a> at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and leader of the study published online in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. “Spending an average of eight minutes a day with each patient just doesn’t seem like enough time to me.”</blockquote> An understatement, as most critical information comes from the H&P and ongoing patient interaction - not from cybernetics.  Further, that's probably all the time a butcher spends processing a slab of meat... <blockquote class="tr_bq">“Most of us went into medicine because we love spending time with the patients. Our systems have squeezed this out of medical training,” says <a href="http://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/doctors/results/directory/profile/0019344/leonard-feldman">Leonard Feldman</a>, M.D., the study’s senior author and a hospitalist at The Johns Hopkins Hospital (JHH). For the study, trained observers followed 29 internal medicine interns — doctors in their first year out of medical school — at JHH and the University of Maryland Medical Center for three weeks during January 2012, for a total of 873 hours. The observers used an iPod Touch app to mark down what the interns were doing at every minute of their shifts. If they were multi-tasking, the observers were told to count the activity most closely related to direct patient care. The researchers found that interns spent 12 percent of their time talking with and examining patients; 64 percent on indirect patient care, such as placing orders, researching patient history and filling out electronic paperwork; 15 percent on educational activities, such as medical rounds; and 9 percent on miscellaneous activities. </blockquote> Researching the history is made more complex by today's low-usability EHR systems, so much so that I personally know of cases (through my legal work) where trainees and even attendings did not know the patient's history.  In the past, this would have been considered a severe medical faux pas. <blockquote class="tr_bq">The researchers acknowledge that it’s unclear what proportion of time spent at the bedside is ideal, or whether the interns they studied in the first year of a three-year internal medicine training program make up the time lost with patients later in residency. But 12 percent, Feldman says, “seems shockingly low at face value. Interns spend almost four more times as long reviewing charts than directly engaging patients.”</blockquote> Not to be critical of the Hopkins piece, it is excellent - but academics often use disclaimers and softeners in their conclusions as a custom and tradition.  At a blog I can be more direct:  12% is shockingly low.  No "seems" is actually necessary. <blockquote class="tr_bq">Feldman says questions raised by his study aren’t just about whether the patients are getting enough time with their doctors, but whether the time spent with patients is enough to give interns the experience they need to practice excellent medicine. </blockquote> Personally, I would really be nervous under the care of graduates who'd only spent a tenth of their clinical hours actually seeing, speaking to and examining patients, and a majority of their time frittering around with computers. <blockquote class="tr_bq">With fewer hours spent in the hospital, protocols need to be put in place to ensure that vital parts of training aren’t lost, the researchers say. “As residency changes, we need to find ways to preserve the patient-doctor relationship,” Block says. “Getting to know patients better can improve diagnoses and care and reduce medical errors.” </blockquote> As opposed to getting to know the (needlessly complex and confusing) EHR better, which adds little. <blockquote class="tr_bq"> The researchers say better electronic medical records may help reduce time spent combing through patient histories on the computer. </blockquote> After several decades of the health IT industry being in business,  it's sad that an organization of the (deserved) stature of Johns Hopkins has to provide remedial education 101 to that industry in 2013. Perhaps that's the most important finding of all in this study. <table align="center" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" class="tr-caption-container" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto; text-align: center;"><tbody><tr><td style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNAEBZdGCqLpgyopzxpqBtlbkLnV5mikUGkEG5suqe1In_rW838Xj0an0yDmxP3jhB9DBUYLrm8C6_gdvqyOfVSc9XS0YGgpjksJjTXbug-QzW5iCNM75DvwXUGD5qbwVHw9G-y9UyR872/s1600/wizard_of_id.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;"><img border="0" height="146" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgNAEBZdGCqLpgyopzxpqBtlbkLnV5mikUGkEG5suqe1In_rW838Xj0an0yDmxP3jhB9DBUYLrm8C6_gdvqyOfVSc9XS0YGgpjksJjTXbug-QzW5iCNM75DvwXUGD5qbwVHw9G-y9UyR872/s400/wizard_of_id.jpg" width="400" /></a></td></tr><tr><td class="tr-caption" style="text-align: center;">There's some wisdom in this comic strip.  Click to enlarge.</td></tr></tbody></table> -- SS

Johns Hopkins: Thanks to EHRs, time with patients seems “squeezed out” of medical training, investigator says

Question: Who would have thought it? That there is yet another potentially deadly unintended consequence of bad health IT and health IT h...

Đọc thêm »

WellPoint's Former Manager-Queen Got $20.6 Million and Its Nobility Got Millions

Score another for our new would be royalty, that is, for the hired managers who run big corporations.  Early this month a few scattered reports came out showing just how much even apparently failed executives of big health care organizations can make on their way out the door.  A New Fortune for the Abdicating Queen of WellPoint Last year we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/08/duchess-of-wellpoint-abdicates-likely.html">discussed</a> the abdication of Angela Braly, the former queen of giant insurance company WellPoint.  We then speculated about how much she might abscond with.  Now the Associated Press has <a href="http://bigstory.ap.org/article/outgoing-wellpoint-ceo-made-over-20m-last-year">reported</a>: <blockquote class="tr_bq"> The compensation paid to outgoing Wellpoint Inc. CEO Angela Braly last year rose 56 percent, even as the company's shares slid on lower enrollment in its Blue Cross Blue Shield health plans. Braly, who resigned in August, received 2012 compensation valued at $20.6 million, according to an Associated Press analysis of the company's annual proxy statement. Most of the increase came from stock options. Braly, 51, became CEO in 2007. She received a $1.2 million salary last year, up slightly from $1.1 million in 2011. Her compensation included a performance-related bonus of nearly $1.4 million. More than 85 percent of Braly's compensation came from stock options and awards, which totaled $17.8 million. That total was up from about $10 million the year before. She also received $179,618 in other compensation, including $3,700 spent on security measures for her and her family due to concerns about her safety 'as a result of the national health care debate,' according to the proxy, which was filed Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.</blockquote> Despite Bad Financial Performance and Investors' Losses Remember, though, that Braly was asked to leave: <blockquote class="tr_bq"> investors had grown frustrated with the company's performance, leading Braly to resign last August. </blockquote> In particular, in terms of financial performance <blockquote class="tr_bq">shares fell 8 percent last year to close 2012 at $60.92, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index rose more than 13 percent. WellPoint's 2012 earnings were nearly flat compared to 2011. The insurer earned $2.65 billion, or $8.18 per share, last year, as total revenue climbed 1.6 percent to $61.71 billion.</blockquote> A slightly different <a href="http://www.ibj.com/wellpoint-brass-given-doule-digit-pay-bumps-while-stock-price-falls/PARAMS/article/40583">analysis</a> by the Indianapolis Business Journal came up with similar results, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> WellPoint’s membership growth came mainly from its acquisition <a href="http://www.ibj.com/wellpoint-buying-1-800-contacts-for-about--900m/PARAMS/article/34779" target="_blank"></a>of Virginia-based Amerigroup Corp., which operates Medicaid managed care plans for states. The rest of WellPoint’s existing business lost customers during 2012. And while WellPoint has boosted earnings per share by continuing to buy back shares, overall profit was unchanged last year compared with about $2.6 billion in 2011. WellPoint raised its dividend in 2012 and acquired 1-800-Contacts Inc. But its stock price fell 8 percent to close the year at $60.92 per share. Even taking into account dividends, WellPoint shares lost 6.3 percent of their value during the year.</blockquote> So while the nominal owners of the company, the investors, lost money on their investments, the CEO who presided over this loss left with a huge pile of cash. The Royal Court of WellPoint Also Prospered Incidentally, the Indianapolis Business Journal also showed that WellPoint executives who did not leave generally got big increases in their compensation, again while the company owners to whom they ostensibly report lost money, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> WellPoint Inc.’s top brass all enjoyed double-digit bumps in 2012 compensation, according to a proxy released April 2, even though the stock price fell and the company admittedly did not meet its financial goals. The Indianapolis-based health insurer’s board of directors approved higher salaries and larger potential stock awards heading into 2012 after most of its top executives saw their pay hold steady or decline in 2011. The company’s performance merited its executives receiving only 83 percent of their target stock awards. But because the board had already established larger pools of stock to award to executives, the value of those awards still rose over previous years. Bonus amounts fell in 2012 compared with the previous year. The extra cash and stock drove up Chief Financial Officer Wayne DeVeydt's overall pay 11.9 percent to nearly $4.4 million. Ken Goulet, executive vice president of WellPoint's commercial insurance business, saw his total compensation rise 18.2 percent to nearly $4.4 million. And Lori Beer, executive vice president of information technology, enjoyed a 17.9-percent boost. She earned $3.2 million, although that was still below the nearly $4.5 million she received in 2010. John Cannon, the general counsel, saw his compensation more than double to nearly $6.5 million. But that was partly because WellPoint hiked his salary by $350,000 and gave him a $500,000 bonus for agreeing to serve as interim CEO after the August resignation of former CEO Angela Braly.</blockquote> Despite Angry Policy-Holders and Ethical Missteps So the compensation given the outgoing CEO and some of the remaining top hired managers seemed wildly out of proportion to the company's financial results.  Could the generosity they received be based on how well the company performed in other dimensions?  That, of course, seems equally improbable. The Los Angeles Times <a href="http://www.latimes.com/business/money/la-fi-mo-wellpoint-ceo-pay-20130403,0,6503087.story">noted</a>, <blockquote class="tr_bq"> Braly had also caught the ire of consumers and even President Obama<a class="taxInlineTagLink" href="http://www.latimes.com/topic/politics/government/barack-obama-PEPLT007408.topic" id="PEPLT007408" title="Barack Obama"></a> in 2010 for trying to raise rates by up to 39% in California. The national outrage that ensued helped Obama win approval for his healthcare overhaul in Congress.</blockquote> Furthermore, as we have discussed again and again, most recently <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/08/duchess-of-wellpoint-abdicates-likely.html">here</a>, WellPoint has a very sorry record of ethical misadventures.   (The updated list is at the end of this post.)  So one could certainly not justify the huge payments given WellPoint hired managers by their upstanding ethical leadership. Summary In a new book just published by Robert A G Monks, entitled <a href="http://www.governmentcapture.com/citizens-disunited/">Citizens Disunited</a>, the author describes one of the biggest problems affecting the US economy and society as the rise of "manager-kings."  Clearly, Angela Braly could be called the former "manager-queen" of WellPoint.  The company seemed to be run primarily for the benefit of the queen and her court, while its investors lost money, its customers became outraged, and it stumbled from one ethical quandary to another. In the eighteenth century, British colonial subjects in North America succeeded in a revolution that lead them out from under the rule of a British King.  How many examples do we have to have before there is action to repudiate the rule of our new manager-kings and queens?  And to turn health care back into a calling meant to put patients' and the public's health first, rather than a feudal society meant to benefit its nobility? As we have said again, again, again,... True health care reform would decrease the size and scope of health care organizations, and make their leaders accountable to ownership, when appropriate, and to the community at large for patients' and the public health.  Appendix: WellPoint's Ethical Misadventures <ul><li>settled a RICO (racketeer influenced corrupt organization) law-suit in California over its alleged systematic attempts to withhold payments from physicians (see 2005 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/07/wellpoint-settles-rico-law-suit.html">here</a>).</li><li>subsidiary New York Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield misplaced a computer disc containing confidential information on 75,000 policy-holders (see 2007 story <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/14/business/14insure.html">here</a>).</li><li>California Anthem Blue Cross subsidiary cancelled individual insurance policies after their owners made large claims (a practices sometimes called rescission).  The company was ordered to pay a million dollar fine in early 2007 for this (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/03/wellpoint-fined-1-million-for-canceling.html">here</a>).  A state agency charged that some of these cancellations by another WellPoint subsidiary were improper (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/07/more-than-half-of-wellpoints-policy.html">here</a>).  WellPoint was alleged to have pushed physicians to look for patients' medical problems that would allow rescission (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/02/wellpoint-halts-attempts-to-have.html">here</a>).  It turned out that California never collected the 2007 fine noted above, allegedly because the state agency feared that WellPoint had become too powerful to take on (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/07/wellpoint-settles-but-has-it-become-too.html">here</a>). But in 2008, WellPoint agreed to pay more fines for its rescission practices (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/07/fines-re-statements-and-more-fines-just.html">here</a>).  In 2009, WellPoint executives were defiant about their continued intention to make rescission in hearings before the US congress (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/06/managed-care-executives-will-not-limit.html">here</a>).</li><li>California Blue Cross subsidiary allegedly attempted to get physicians to sign contracts whose confidentiality provisions would have prevented them from consulting lawyers about the contracts (see 2007 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/11/physicians-and-contracts-cautionary.html">here</a>).</li><li>formerly acclaimed CFO was fired for unclear reasons, and then allegations from numerous women of what now might be called Tiger Woods-like activities surfaced (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/01/more-managed-care-management-mumbo.html">here</a>).</li><li>announced that its investment portfolio was hardly immune from the losses prevalent in late 2008 (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/10/if-this-is-how-wellpoint-has-managed.html">here</a>).</li><li>was sanctioned by the US government in early 2009 for erroneously denying coverage to senior patients who subscribed to its Medicare drug plans (see 2009 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/01/wellpoint-sanctioned.html">here</a>).</li><li>settled charges that it had used a questionable data-base (built by Ingenix, a subsidiary of ostensible WellPoint competitor UnitedHealth) to determine fees paid to physicians for out-of-network care (see 2009 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/02/wellpoint-settles.html">here</a>).  </li><li>violated state law more than 700 times over a three-year period by failing to pay medical claims on time and misrepresenting policy provisions to customers, according to the California health insurance commissioner (see 2010 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/02/argument-over-insurance-rate-hikes.html">here</a>). </li><li>exposed confidential data from about 470,000 patients (see 2010 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/06/wellpoint-dont-know-much-about-computer.html">here</a>) and settled the resulting lawsuit in 2011 (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/10/still-more-ehr-chaos-pandemonium-bedlam.html">here</a>).</li><li>fired a top executive who publicly apologized for the company's excessively high charges (see 2010 post here).</li><li>California Anthem subsidiary was fined for systematically failing to make fair and timely payments to doctors and hospitals (see 2010 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/12/health-insurers-sanctioned-fined.html">here</a>).</li><li>management was accused of hiding the company's political contributions from the company's own stock-holders (see 2012 posts <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/04/some-of-wellpoints-owners-stockholders.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/05/wall-street-journal-defends-hired.html">here</a>).</li><li>settled charges that its Anthem subsidiary cheated former policy-holders out of money owed when that company was converted from a mutual insurance company (see 2012 post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/06/huge-insurance-company-wellpoint.html">here</a>)</li></ul>

WellPoint's Former Manager-Queen Got $20.6 Million and Its Nobility Got Millions

Score another for our new would be royalty, that is, for the hired managers who run big corporations. Early this month a few scattered repo...

Đọc thêm »

SILVERSTEIN v. ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: MOTION TO PROHIBIT COMMENTARY ABOUT THIS LITIGATION TO ANY PUBLIC CONTEXT: Do computers have more rights than patients?

Herein is an issue of potential <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship">Internet censorship</a> and/or attempted <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint">prior restraint</a> of the rights of a citizen to express him/herself freely: At my post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/04/hospital-defense-maliciousness-aided.html">Hospital defense maliciousness, aided and abetted by attorneys who ignore the ABA and Pennsylvania's Ethical Rules of Conduct Regarding "Candor Towards the Tribunal</a>" I wrote about how a defense attorney in a case I unfortunately am substitute plaintiff in, that involving EHRs and the injury and the death of my mother, violated the requirement under the Code of Conduct of lawyers to exhibit candor before the tribunal, and perhaps 18 Pa.C.S. §4904 relating to unsworn falsification to authorities as well. As also mentioned, the lawfirm was displeased, but did not respond to my offer to consider amending any factually erroneous assertions at that post. Now here is their response: <table border="1" cellspacing="0" class="ChamaeleonGrid" rules="all"><tbody><tr class="AlternatingGridItem"><td>4/19/2013</td><td>Motion</td><td>BY ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL MOTION TO PROHIBIT COMMENTARY ABOUT THIS LITIGATION TO ANY PUBLIC CONTEXT WITH MEMORANDUM OF LAW WITH SERVICE ON 04/19/2013</td></tr></tbody></table> The Motion text is <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/Silverstein%20-%20Def%27s%20Motion%20to%20Prohibit%20Commentary%20about%20this%20Litigation%20%2800262678%29.pdf">here</a> in PDF (it is a public document available to anyone on the Montgomery County, PA Prothonotary website). The court has yet to rule on this new motion and Substitute Plaintiff's (me) replies. I will, of course, abide by the Court's decision. First: I note that I have been writing about issues of court process, not the substance of the case's actual issues.   I think citizens have a right to know about process in their courtrooms.  I am also Joe Public, exercising my rights to freedom of expression; I am not an attorney breaking some rule of case publicity.  I am not even the suit's initiator.  What rule(s) am I breaking, exactly, I'd like to know from the Defense. Further, in my opinion, considering that multiple authorities including the Institute of Medicine of the National Academies (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/iom-report-on-health-it-safety-nix-fda.html">link</a>), FDA (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoking-gun-internal-fda-memorandum-of.html">link</a>), Joint Commission (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/12/joint-commission-sentinel-events-alert.html">link</a>), ECRI Institute (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/peering-underneath-icebergs-water-level.html">link</a>), National Institute of Standards and Technology (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/10/nist-on-ehr-mission-hostile-user.html">link</a>), AHRQ-Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality at HHS itself (<a href="http://healthit.ahrq.gov/HealthITHazardManagerFinalReport">link</a>) and others have written about risks of health IT to patients and the need for far more study and data on the issue, in my view there is a compelling public interest in being informed about the progress of this lawsuit. We have not reached the day yet, I hope, when computers have more rights than patients. I note that if the involved lawfirm, Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman Goggin, would stick to the Rules of Conduct for attorneys, it would seem they have nothing to fear. I note the remarkable statement about "unjustified and malicious personal attacks against Moving Defendant and defense counsel", i.e., pointing out exactly what they did.  Namely, fail to provide the required Candor towards the Tribunal regarding the undisclosed 2008 Stroud v. AMH decision on COM's, known to them (same hospital, same counsel) at the time multiple, frivolous contrary claims about COM's to harm my mother's case were made to the courts from 2010 to just recently in 2013.  In fact, that statement itself may be an example of legal misconduct - rendering false charges and certifying them in writing to a court as true.  I note that I didn't write the <a href="http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/204/chapter81/s81.4.html">Rules of Professional Conduct for attorneys</a>; attorneys did, including Rule 3.3: "Candor before the Tribunal" whose obvious violation and my pointing it out is certainly not an "unjustified and malicious personal attack." As far as "fair trials" go - their stated concern in this latest filing - the defense should have thought about that before breaking the aforementioned Rule of Professional Conduct, causing numerous delays.  (I wonder how many med mal cases with proper paperwork are stalled more than 2 years before Discovery even begins - the case was filed 7/16/2010.) It seems to me that my mother deserved to be alive at the time of her fair trial ("<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_delayed_is_justice_denied">Justice delayed is justice denied</a>.")  I would certainly like to know if the Defense thinks otherwise. -- SS Apr. 19, 2013 Addendum: As noted at Wikipedia regarding what appears to be a <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prior_restraint">Motion for Prior Restraint</a>: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Prior restraint is often considered a particularly oppressive form of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship" title="Censorship">censorship</a> in Anglo-American jurisprudence because it prevents the restricted material from being heard or distributed at all. Other forms of restrictions on expression (such as actions for <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libel" title="Libel">libel</a> or <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel#Criminal_libel" title="Slander and libel">criminal libel</a>, <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander" title="Slander">slander</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation" title="Defamation">defamation</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contempt_of_court" title="Contempt of court">contempt of court</a>) implement criminal or civil sanctions only after the offending material has been published. While such sanctions might lead to a <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chilling_effect_%28term%29" title="Chilling effect (term)">chilling effect</a>, legal commentators argue that at least such actions do not directly impoverish the <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marketplace_of_ideas" title="Marketplace of ideas">marketplace of ideas</a>. Prior restraint, on the other hand, takes an idea or material completely out of the marketplace. Thus it is often considered to be the most extreme form of censorship. The <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Supreme_Court" title="United States Supreme Court">United States Supreme Court</a> expressed this view in <a class="mw-redirect" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_Press_Assn._v._Stuart" title="Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart">Nebraska Press Assn. v. Stuart</a> by noting:</blockquote> <blockquote class="tr_bq"><blockquote class="templatequote"><div class="Bug6200">The thread running through all these cases is that prior restraints on speech and publication are the most serious and the least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights. A criminal penalty or a judgment in a defamation case is subject to the whole panoply of protections afforded by deferring the impact of the judgment until all avenues of appellate review have been exhausted. Only after judgment has become final, correct or otherwise, does the law's sanction become fully operative.</div></blockquote><blockquote class="templatequote"><div class="Bug6200">A prior restraint, by contrast and by definition, has an immediate and irreversible sanction. If it can be said that a threat of criminal or civil sanctions after publication 'chills' speech, prior restraint 'freezes' it at least for the time.</div></blockquote></blockquote> <blockquote class="tr_bq">Also, most of the early struggles for <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press" title="Freedom of the press">freedom of the press</a> were against forms of prior restraint. Thus prior restraint came to be looked upon with a particular horror, and Anglo-American courts became particularly unwilling to approve it, when they might approve other forms of press restriction.</blockquote> -- SS

SILVERSTEIN v. ABINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL: MOTION TO PROHIBIT COMMENTARY ABOUT THIS LITIGATION TO ANY PUBLIC CONTEXT: Do computers have more rights than patients?

Herein is an issue of potential Internet censorship and/or attempted prior restraint of the rights of a citizen to express him/herself fre...

Đọc thêm »

Healthcare computing 'glitch' time again: 15 patients possibly given wrong antibiotic after lab error at Regina General Hospital

Just another computer "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/glitch">glitch</a>", that innocuous euphemism for a catastrophe-promoting IT defect, this time causing patients to receive the wrong antibiotics: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Regina Leader-Post April 17, 2013 <a href="http://www.leaderpost.com/patients+possibly+given+wrong+antibiotic+after+error+Regina+General+Hospital/8252890/story.html#ixzz2QsfL7BoJ">15 patients possibly given wrong antibiotic after lab error at Regina General Hospital</a>  Fifteen patients in southern Saskatchewan were potentially treated with the wrong antibiotic stemming from a lab error at Regina General Hospital, the Regina Qu'Appelle Health Region announced Tuesday. According to the RQHR, lab reports between late January and late March erroneously deemed Clindamycin would effectively treat the patients' infections when those bugs were actually resistant to the drug.  [The biological bugs, not the cybernetic bugs, that is - ed.] Only one of the 15 patients suffered adverse effects. The 15th patient, an adult male, experienced short-term negative effects but has since been switched to another antibiotic. Citing patient confidentiality, the health region would not elaborate on the man's condition. Dr. Jessica Minion, a medical microbiologist in the General Hospital's laboratory, said a computer glitch caused the faulty reports between Jan. 23 and March 28. </blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"></div><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> Need I add that this "glitch" could very easily have killed people? <blockquote class="tr_bq">Minion added she and other medical staff will now cross-check lab reports against lab tests after a change has been made within the computer system.</blockquote> Wait - if the "glitch" is fixed, why is cross-checking still needed?  Doesn't sound like there's much confidence in this computing system... <blockquote class="tr_bq">The lab became aware of the problem on March 28 when the doctor treating the man who experienced problems notified the hospital, Minion said. Lab staff then sifted through records and determined a total of 15 people had been prescribed Clindamycin since the erroneous reports began Jan. 23. </blockquote> Clindamycin itself is not an innocuous drug, with many potential serious <a href="http://www.drugs.com/sfx/clindamycin-side-effects.html">side effects</a>. <blockquote class="tr_bq">"It was a very identifiable mistake that was being made in the computer system, and there is a very clear trail of who exactly it affected," she said. "So we are quite confident that we have identified everybody that would have been affected."</blockquote><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> Only by the grace of God, none of those affected are six feet (2 meters) under, either due to their primary infections or drug adverse events from a drug they should never have been given. At least this time the oft-heard refrain "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/Patient%20care%20has%20not%20been%20compromised">but patient safety was not compromised</a>" was not proffered. </div><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;"> </div><div style="background-color: white; border: medium none; color: black; overflow: hidden; text-align: left; text-decoration: none;">-- SS</div></div>

Healthcare computing 'glitch' time again: 15 patients possibly given wrong antibiotic after lab error at Regina General Hospital

Just another computer " glitch ", that innocuous euphemism for a catastrophe-promoting IT defect, this time causing patients to re...

Đọc thêm »