West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Malpractice

Prevention, Early Detection and Good Health

Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:03:59 GMT

A new study released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force has women and doctors confused and torn over recent recommendations regarding what age a woman should receive annual mammograms.

For years, the American Cancer Society, physicians, and other government organizations, have recommended that women receive annual mammograms at the age of 40 to prevent breast cancer, which seemingly aided in the early detection of the disease. Now, the task force, a government panel of doctors and scientists, are recommending that most women wait until age 50 to get mammograms and then have one every two years. The study states that beginning to test for breast cancer at age 40 saves few lives and can even harm patients. They point out that if a mammogram gives a false positive, it can lead to anxiety, unnecessary additional testing and biopsies, and exposure to radiation. Mammograms typically produce false-positives in about 10 percent of cases.

Opponents disagree and feel that these new guidelines will only confuse and scare women from seeking the recommended testing. The American Cancer Society posted a statement on its website stating that it would continue to recommend annual screening for all women, beginning at age 40. “It (the guideline) is very confusing and that’s one of the things we’re worried about is that women are already confused, scared, and worried about getting a mammogram because of what they may find out,” said American Cancer Society spokesperson Mary Kathryn Walker.

Breast cancer survivors are also angry about the new guidelines saying that if they didn’t receive mammograms in their 40’s, they wouldn’t be alive today. The American College of Radiology and other experts condemned the change saying the benefits of routine mammograms have been clearly demonstrated and continue to play a key role in reducing the number of mastectomies and deaths. Breast cancer is the most common cancer and the second leading cause of cancer deaths in American women.

The task force guidelines don’t apply to women at high risk for breast cancer, including those with genetic mutations that make them more susceptible to the disease.

Diana B. Petitti, vice chairman of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force says “We’re not saying women shouldn’t get screened. But we are recommending against routine screening. There are important and serious negatives or harms that need to be considered carefully.”

The task force’s guidelines also recommend against teaching women to do regular self-exams, something that that American Cancer Society has been touting for years. The practice was so heavily promoted at one time that the organization distributed cards that could be hung in the shower demonstrating the circular motion women should use to feel for lumps. Recently, the American Cancer Society and other medical groups have backed off promoting breast self-exams because of scant evidence of their effectiveness, even before the new task force guidelines were revealed.

Insurance companies are claiming that coverage will not likely change because of the task force guidelines. In the past, the guidelines issued by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, has influenced the stance Medicare and many insurance companies take on healthcare coverage. Opponents of the new guidelines fear that the findings could spur insurers to deny coverage of annual mammograms and breast tests given to women under 50. “Screening isn’t perfect, but it’s the best thing we have and it works,” says Dr. Carol Lee, a spokesperson for the American College of Radiology. She also suggested that cutting health care costs may have played a role in the recent decision, but task force vice chairman Petitti said the task force does not consider cost or insurance in its review.

Whether or not you believe women’s health is again under fire, it is important to know your family medical history and routine visits to your doctor are your best tools against any type of disease, including cancer. The new task force guidelines are just that, guidelines. Mammograms, like all medical interventions, have risks and benefits. These new guidelines will hopefully help spur conversations and assist women in making the best decision for their personal circumstances.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Rosalyn Sia Baker-Barnes

Tort Reform Lies and Illusions

John Hopkins — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 12:08:28 GMT

Is it okay with you if I limit your right to voice your opinion about the government? Good with you if you can not own a gun? You probably would appreciate me censoring what gets published in newspapers or talked about on your nightly news, right? You are happy to allow government to control what church you can or cannot attend?

You, of course, will not allow these rights to be taken away, but you will allow the right to trial by jury to be taken away, with little more than a thought, when lobbyists tell you (through your legislators) that tort reform is a good thing. You are happy to give up this fundamental right when told by the insurance lobby that tort reform is the only way to “save” the medical profession.

What these lobbyists and their political cronies really mean is that tort reform translates to higher insurance profits, with no down side for the insurance industry. It means lower exposure to the business of insurance, which means more money in insurance company profit margins.

When tort reform hearings were held in Florida, insurance company executives actually testified that tort reform would not lower malpractice insurance premiums for doctors. The same executives testified that frivolous lawsuits in medical negligence cases were extremely rare and did little to add to costs for malpractice insurance. They said that the very tort reform proposed (ultimately passed) would have little or no affect on availability of malpractice coverage or the cost of malpractice coverage.

There are no objective studies that correlate tort reform with lowering of so called defensive medicine; demonstrating that a tort crisis even exists; or showing any benefit to tort reform except to insurance companies.

See what the insurance companies and tort reform advocates have said in the past. They claim to be experts and none of them have the temerity to claim that tort reform works:

Representative of the Ohio Health Insurance Company testifying before the Wyoming Legislature: Tort reform will not lower rates. (Casper Star Tribune, May 4, 2003)

Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi: “[T]ort reform does not provide a magical ‘silver-bullet’ that will immediately affect medical malpractice insurance rates.” (Medical Assurance Co. of Mississippi)

Patricia Costante, chairman and CEO of the MIIX Group of Insurance Companies: When asked by New Jersey Assemblyman Paul D’Amato whether, if caps are enacted in New Jersey, her insurance company will not raise premiums and will, in fact, reduce them, she said, “No, we’re not telling you that.” (Meeting of the New Jersey Assembly Joint Committee of Banking)

American Insurance Association: “[T]he insurance industry never promised that tort reform would achieve specific premium savings.”

Sherman Joyce, President, American Tort Reform Association: “We wouldn’t tell you or anyone that the reason to pass tort reform would be to reduce insurance rates.”

Victor Schwartz, General Counsel, American Tort Reform Association: “[M]any tort reform advocates do not contend that restricting litigation will lower insurance rates, and ‘I’ve never said that in 30 years.’”

Dick Marquardt, Washington Insurance Commissioner: It was “impossible to attribute stable insurance rates to tort-law changes or the damages cap,” since rates also improved in states that did not pass tort reform.

Chairman of Great American West Insurance Company: “[T]ort reform ‘will not eliminate the market dynamics that lead to insurance cycles,’ and ‘we must not over-promise—or even imply—that insurance cycles will end when civil justice reform begins.’

Connecticut State Lawmaker: “[T]he insurance industry now says [tort reform] measures will have no effect on insurance rates. We have been disappointed by the response of the insurance industry. The reforms we passed should have led to rate reductions because we made it more difficult to recover, or set limits on recovery. But this hasn’t happened.”

State Farm Insurance Company (Kansas): “[W]e believe the effect of tort reform on our book of business would be small. … [T]he loss savings resulting from the non-economic cap will not exceed 1% of our total indemnity losses.… [I]n our sample of liability claims, no claim was found that would have been affected by the joint and several restriction.” And any savings due to alternative payment methods would be “negligible.” (Letter from Robert J. Nagel, Assistant Vice President, State Filings Division, to Ray Rather, Kansas Insurance Department)

Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. (Florida): After Florida enacted what Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. characterized as "full-fledged tort reform," including a $450,000 cap on non-economic damages, Aetna did a study of cases it had recently closed and concluded that Florida’s tort reforms would not effect Aetna’s rates. Aetna explained that “the review of the actual data submitted on these cases indicated no reduction of cost.”

St. Paul (Florida): St. Paul’s found “a total effect of about 1% savings” from Florida’s 1986 tort reforms, but that even this 1% might be inflated. St. Paul concluded that “the noneconomic cap of $450,000, joint and several liability on the noneconomic damages, and mandatory structured settlements on losses above $250,000 will produce little or no savings to the tort system as it pertains to medical malpractice.”

General Accident Insurance Company (Washington State): “Given that liability losses constitute such a low proportion of business owners’ losses, GA feels it is prudent to continue with its original proposal of a 10 percent increase in base rates.” (The Seattle Times, July 1, 1986. The Times wrote that “the highly touted tort-reform legislation enacted by the Legislature early this year is not lowering liability-insurance rates as promised, according to preliminary filings made with the state insurance commissioner.”)

Allstate Insurance Company (Washington State) In asking for a 22% rate increase following passage of tort reform in Washington State, including a cap on all damage awards, the company said, “our proposed rate would not be measurably affected by the tort reform legislation.” (The Seattle Times, July 1, 1986)

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Propaganda Spews as Tort Reformers Smell Blood

John Hopkins — Mon, 14 Sep 2009 11:13:28 GMT

When President Obama gave mention in his speech the other night for the potential need of investigating whether any tort refom is necessary for the implementation of health care reform-- I was surprised. I was surprised because I am sure he has seen the same statistics that I have over the last several years. Those statistics clearly demonstrate that a tort crisis in medical malpractice does not exist and, in fact, has never exsted.

What the tort reformers will do to create a foundation for their propaganda was driven home when I received a copy of an article published in the Summit Daily News and written by Ken Gansmann. In his article, Mr. Gansmann cites a study conducted in 2006 by the Harvard School of Public Helath and Mr. Gansmann claims this study demonstrates that "about 40 percent of medical malpractice lawsuits filed in America were without merit". Having read the study when it originally came out and because I do not recall the study saying anything remotely similar to what Mr. Gansmann claims, I went back and took a look at some of the findings in the study:

"...portraits of a malpractice system riddled with frivolous lawsuits are overblown"
"...most malpractice claims involve medical error and serious injury..."

In fairness, the researchers did almost cite the 40% figure, which Mr. Gansmann claims represents the medical malpractice cases "without merit". What the researchers actually said was:

"The reviewers found that almost all of the claims involved a treatment-related injury. More than 90% involved a physical injury, which was generally severe (80% resulted in significant or major disability and 26% resulted in death). The reviewers judged that 63% of the injuries were due to error. The remaining 37% lacked evidence of error, although some were close calls."

The legitimate studies, which Mr. Gansmann and other tort reformers want to use to substantiate a tort reorm need, simply do not support their claims. In fact, there are no statistics that would substantiate any need to limit the constitutional rights of people to walk through the courthouse doors.

Once again, with tort reformers, it is smoke and mirrors, but no real substance. I hope the people asking for my vote read the actual studies.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Tragedy at Tenet Hospital Results in Forced Birth

John Hopkins — Thu, 20 Aug 2009 17:17:31 GMT

This story is about as tragic as it gets. It is about a system of procedures that systemically fails a patient. A series of serious errors that are as unimaginable as could happen without actually intending them to happen. It is about a little baby and a young mother.

Tesome Sampson went to Tenet Hospital corporation's St. Mary's Hospital, in West Palm Beach because she was pregnant with and required strict bed rest in order to assure the health of her unborn child. She was told by the physicians of St. Mary's that she would only be there for a short stay and staying there would help to keep her unborn daughter safe until she reached maturity enough to be born.

Tesome Sampson did what every patient does; she placed her faith and trust in the health care providers at St. Mary's. In this case, however, Tesome not only placed herself in the trusted hands of these helath care providers, she also placed the safety of her unborn child in their hands.

For the next (9) days, Tesome was on constant bed rest in St. Mary's hospital. A physician gave orders for administration of a drug called vaginal progesterone. Progesterone is a drug used to assist in preventing pre-term birth. The entry in the record was not clear and instead of progesterone, the hospital pharmacy filled and the nurse administered Prostin. Prostin is used most often to induce abortions in pregnant women.

The health care providers provided an abortion medication for a pregnant woman; the pharmacist filled an abortion medication for a pregnant woman; and the nurse administered an abortion medication to a pregnant woman. All of these people acted without once asking whether the medication was correct or verifying what medication was actually ordered.

Within minutes of the health care providers administering Prostin to Tesome, she began to experience severe abdominal cramping and cried out in agonizing pain. She was told that she needed to have a bowel movement and was moved to the bathroom.

As a result of the gross negligence of these health care providers and an obvious sytemic breakdown within the hospital, this young mother aborted her premature child into the toilet. This young mother was forced to deliver her first child at 24 weeks of age; much too young to survive undamaged.

This young child, Traniya, has suffered permanent and irreversible brain damage, anemia of prematurity, cholestatic jaundice, hydrocephalus of the brain requiring multiple shunts, bronchopulmonary dysplasia, osteopenia of prematurity, hypothyroxinemia of prematurity, seizures, apnea, sepsis, retinopathy of prematurity and necrosis of her bowels.  Because of her lack of development she must be fed through a tube which often becomes infected.

Mom, Tesome, stands vigil by the side of young Traniya, who is currently hospitalized and has already incurred several millions of dollars in medical care costs.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins