Yet another story describing wrong-side surgery. Although not surprising in their incidence, one would think that the rate of wrong-side surgical procedures is on the decline in this country, or at the very least, leveling off. Can the quality assurance admonitions of healthcare organizations occur soon enough?
A patient having heart pacemaker surgery at Abbott Northwestern Hospital was burned on her face, lips and shoulder when a fire burst out from under the sterile drapes covering her body. Doctors and nurses immediately doused the fire and completed the surgery, according to a state investigative report made public Monday.
State health investigators found that the hospital violated safety and procedural policies that contributed to the June 24 incident. The unidentified patient, who was lightly sedated, woke up when the fire ignited and “was very frightened,” according to the report. She suffered first- and second-degree burns, and was kept in the hospital for two days after the accident.
Just how healthy is the healthcare marketplace? If you ask the insurance companies, business couldn’t be brisker, even if it involves fraudulent activity cloaked within the invisibility of the homeless. Just ask the CEO of a Los Angeles County hospital.
FBI agents arrested Rudra Sabaratnam, 64, the owner and top executive of a hospital, and Estill Mitts, 64, the operator of a homeless “assessment center” in the city’s Skid Row area. They enticed homeless people with the promise of payments to act as hospital patients, an indictment alleges. The homeless people are said to have received medical treatment, and the government was billed for the services. The unnecessary hospital treatments were then billed to Medicare and Medi-Cal in a scheme that began in August 2004 and lasted until about October 2007, the indictment states.
In an effort to assuage the increasing antipathy of medical lobbyists and physicians against the recent GOP-led campaign to enforce Medicare reimbursement cuts to healthcare providers, Republican leaders recently held a private meeting with top healthcare thought leaders to mend a relationship which has increasingly favored Democrats as of late. The last time Republicans seemed as though they were in the good graces of the medical leadership community was in 2003, when George W. Bush held his own against those in the medical provider cohort who were being bruised by unfair tort practices nationwide. That was also the year in which bold GOP initiatives were easily passed and yielded, among other things, a complete overhaul in how the government, Pharma, and patients later obtained prescription medications — under Medicare Part D.
However, recent spikes in the number of uninsured and a general sense of healthcare management malaise on the part of legislators on both sides of the ideological divide have made a tenuous relationship even more fragile. Can the Republicans make it up to physicians this time?
In the run-up to the 2006 midterm elections, doctors and the groups that represent them gave 62 percent of their combined $52.4 million war chest to Republicans, compared with 37 percent to Democrats, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. That breakdown mirrors previous cycles since Bush entered the White House. But since 2006, doctors and related groups have given Democrats 53 percent of their combined $53 million in campaign contributions, according to the watchdog group. The switch is even more stark for the AMA. In the run-up to the 2006 election, the AMA’s political action committee gave Republicans 70 percent of its campaign cash, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. In 2004, the AMA’s PAC contributed 80 percent of its total donations to Republican lawmakers and candidates. Since 2006, that PAC has directed 53 percent of its contributions to Democrats.
If the current state of re-election possibilities continues to wane for the GOP, don’t bet on it. | LINK
There’s no easy money. That’s the mantra echoed in an interesting piece today in the NYT. Critics of Barack Obama’s healthcare financing plan are beginning to question the senator’s rationale for major policy points behind his pledge to “bring down premiums by $2,500 for the typical family”. They also contend that the presidential candidate has no essential timeline with which to carry out his audacious initiatives. Potential roadblocks:
The heatlhcare debate just got a little more interesting. | LINK
A congressional committee will investigate health insurers’ practice of canceling coverage when policyholders get sick, its chairman said Thursday.
The problem first came to light in California, but witnesses testifying before the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee suggested that it was more widespread. The problem affects the individual insurance market, in which 14 million Americans, including nearly 3 million Californians, purchase medical benefits on their own. In light of proposals to expand the individual market, the committee’s chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman (D-Beverly Hills), said the individual market demanded more scrutiny, especially of cancellation practices.
Could this really be true?
Access to health care in the United States continues to elude more and more Americans, a new survey shows. […] “Despite the best efforts of millions of talented and dedicated health-care professionals, this latest scorecard demonstrates that we are losing ground,” Karen Davis, president of the Commonwealth Fund, said during a Wednesday teleconference.
One of the Twin Cities’ largest healthcare networks is in 11th hour renewal negotiations with one its third parties over reimbursement issues. A rarity among insurers and their preferred provider organizations (PPOs), contract negotiations running up to the last minute can only mean one thing for its disputing sides — we’re drawing a line, and if you don’t meet us there, Sayonara! | LINK
Michelle Hoyte, a former employer of the American Red Cross, was concerned. So much so in fact that she invited a team of auditors to visit one of the service organization’s Philadelphia operations. She then became a whistleblower and was subsequently terminated. If you believe her version of events, it is because the organization’s senior leadership was essentially neglecting strict safety standards by refusing to recall over 500 units of blood products collected by improper methods.
Blood collection is big business for the Red Cross, whose ability to steward the distribution of donated blood in this country far outstrips its logistical acumen in coordinating continental and worldwide disaster relief efforts. Apparently, the drive for revenue from its well known association with blood donation is trumping concerns over its ability to protect the public; consequently, the FDA is setting its regulatory sights on the Red Cross. | LINK
Did you know that there are researchers who study medical intimidation? Apparently, the data obtained from such studies is grist for the improvement mill for an increasing number of healthcare organizations. Doctors and other medical providers with poor bedside manner will have to keep those behaviors in check as many organizations are now adopting behavioral “codes of conduct”. It appears to be a well-deserved addition to the quality improvement of many provider organizations.
[T]he Joint Commission, a national hospital accrediting agency, warned Wednesday that there’s mounting evidence that such disruptive behaviors are tied to medical errors that can cause patient harm — and that hospitals across the country should no longer tolerate it.
Starting in January, the agency will require hospitals to establish codes of conduct that define inappropriate behaviors and create plans for dealing with them. Suggested actions include better systems to detect and deter unprofessional behavior; more civil responses to patients and families who witness bad acts; and overall training in “basic business etiquette,” including phone skills and people skills for all employees.
Here they are. Quick and dirty as I have a BBQ to attend!
Minnesota-based insurer UnitedHealth is lowering its earnings forecast for the year, citing — among other reasons — increased payouts to Medicare Part D beneficiaries, as well as court settlement costs stemming from lawsuits over its stock options practices.
[T]he company also said it agreed to pay $895 million to settle a class action lawsuit with the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) and Alaska Plumbing and Pipefitting Industry Pension Trust. The 2006 suit filed in the U.S. District Court in Minnesota related to historical stock options practices.
What is a patient (um, healthcare consumer) to believe today? If it wasn’t enough for them to wade through their insurance plans to determine what is and what isn’t covered, now they have to contend with headlines like this:
A new “health report card” has found that diabetics are much more likely to get their disease under control at some Minnesota clinics than others. […] “The data show that where you go for health care matters just as much as what you eat and whether you exercise,” said Jim Chase, executive director of MN Community Measurement, a nonprofit group.
Really? The problem with trying to glean meaningful information from stories such as this is that the reader is left to wonder what the article isn’t saying. A blanket statement such as this is rarely reflective of the sensationalism it is designed to provoke. But that doesn’t matter to healthcare organizations’ CEOs, their payers, and their advertisers. Because, after all, this is a healthcare market and choice is king — assuming one is insured enough to choose. | LINK
_______________________
_______________________