Protect Consumer Justice » medical care

Lack of testing leads to medical device recalls

jg — Tue, 15 Feb 2011 23:39:48 +0000

New York Times: A study published in The Archives of Internal Medicine found that “most medical devices that were the subject of high-risk recalls from 2005 to 2009 had been cleared through a regulatory pathway that requires little, if any, testing,” reports Barry Meier. The devices include external heart defibrillators and mechanical ventilators. One of the authors of the study told Meier, “This is an area where the [U.S. Food and Drug Administration] has failed the public.”

No related posts.

Metrolink crash should spark reform of damages cap

scott — Thu, 26 Aug 2010 09:57:57 +0000

Nearly two years ago a Metrolink engineer was busy texting when his commuter train hurtled through a red stop light and into the path of an oncoming freight train, killing the engineer and 24 others, and injuring 135 people — the worst crash in Metrolink’s history.

Under the federal Amtrak Reform and Accountability Act of 1997, the most Metrolink and Connex Railroad, which had been contracted to operate Metrolink’s trains, can be liable for in damages from that incident is $200 million — which, in fact, the two entities told a judge Wednesday they are willing to pay to settle the outstanding claims.

That comes out to an average of $1.3 million per victim, before legal fees. A paltry sum given the apparent gross negligence of the engineer, and the medical bills and other damages incurred by those who lost family members, or who were injured themselves.

The proposed settlement in the Metrolink crash could lead to a court challenge over the liability cap, which would be good, Better, though, would be for lawmakers to follow up on their previous criticisms and remove the limit. As we’re seeing in the Gulf oil disaster, such limits only benefit the guilty.

No related posts.

Author of New York Times series on medical radiation to speak at medical seminar

jg — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:57:51 +0000

New York Times investigative reporter Walt Bogdanich will be one of the featured speakers at a seminar Sunday, July 18, as part of the American Association of Physicists in Medicine annual meeting in Philadelphia. Bogdanich, who has written extensively about medical radiation accidents at facilities across the country, will be part of a special symposium on “Medical Radiation and Patient Safety.” According to the event organizers, “Recent technical failures and human errors will be addressed in light of…efforts to provide better education and accreditation for staff, consistent systems for reporting medical errors, and a more comprehensive assessment of medical technologies by the FDA.”

No related posts.

Searchable database of disciplinary actions, malpractice judgments against California doctors

jg — Wed, 07 Jul 2010 20:14:15 +0000

This searchable database on the Sacramento Bee website makes it possible to find California Medical Board disciplinary actions against state doctors. Also, according to The Bee’s Phillip Reese, the database “shows California doctors with prior felony convictions, malpractice judgments, malpractice settlements, disciplinary records in other states and administrative citations.”

No related posts.

Legislative panel supports radiation protection

eric — Wed, 30 Jun 2010 22:24:01 +0000

An Assembly committee approves Padilla measure on a bipartisan vote, but lobbyists for hospitals and radiologists warn that provisions could put scare in patients who can be helped. No related posts.

A (small) victory for medical patients, and ethics

scott — Thu, 24 Jun 2010 17:20:01 +0000

The University of Michigan Medical School has decided that it will no longer accept cash from drug companies to underwrite courses designed to keep doctors’ medical licenses current — a small but welcome step in trying to reduce the influence of Big Pharma over how doctors treat patients.

It would seem to be a no-brainer to keep some distance between the folks who profit from selling drugs and training the doctors in a position to prescribe those drugs, but that’s the way the post-doctoral education system works, the New York Times reports today.

Millions of dollars are involved, which naturally has led to some heated gnashing of teeth over whether doctors sitting through pharmaceutical-financed courses would tend to look kindly on the drug companies’ wares when it comes time to writing prescriptions. From the article:

But Dr. Michael Steinman, an associate professor of medicine at the San Francisco V.A. Medical Center who has studied the use of medical education as a marketing strategy, said that companies face an inherent conflict of interest. “The course providers have a subtle and probably unconscious incentive to put on courses that are favorable to industry because they know where their bread is buttered,” he said.

[...]

Proponents of industry support for such courses point to a few studies in which the majority of doctors who attended the programs reported that they perceived the events to be free of commercial bias.

But Dr. Steinman, who conducted one of the studies, said that related research in social science demonstrates that people who receive gifts often feel obliged to return the favor. “Industry wouldn’t be paying billions of dollars to do this stuff if it didn’t benefit them,” he said.

No kidding. Maybe the medical school leaders need a remedial course in ethics, and the corrupting influence of money.

No related posts.

Supreme Court adds weight to arbitration and weakens access to courts

scott — Tue, 22 Jun 2010 14:13:27 +0000

Missed in all of the hullabaloo over the U.S. Supreme Court‘s decision Monday chipping away at First Amendment rights in the name of fear, was this present to corporations and businesses that short-circuit the legal system by forcing employees to give up legal rights in order to hold a job.

In a nutshell, the court held in Rent-A-Center West v. Jackson that private arbitrators get to decide if the agreement under which they are appointed was unfair. That’s like giving a cop the right to determine whether an arrest he or she has made was legitimate. That’s what courts are for. Beyond being absurd on its face, the decision is a further erosion of individuals’ abilities to challenge the fairness of their arbitration agreements.

Where is the fairness in a system that allows employers — in this case, Rent-A-Center — to require potential employees to give up their right to turn to the courts when they feel wronged, as a condition of employment? Or, by extension doctors who force patients to agree to arbitration in the event something goes wrong in their treatment? What’s the option — pass up the treatment?

This might not seem like a big deal when the economy is humming and people are free to choose from among jobs, and can spurn such requirements. Or if the health care system were healthier and people had choices. But in times like these, when job applications come in by the reams for single openings, forcing new hires to forgo legal rights for the sake of a paycheck spotlights just how coercive this activity is. And it’s wrong.

No related posts.