Healthcare costs

[RICHARD]

As for tort reform and the lawsuits as the basis for driving up health care costs, that is one side of a story that the insurance companies want the public to believe. Med mal cases are the hardest to prevail upon and the most expensive to litigate.

Now, one C/A lawsuit for millions of dollar against a med manufacturer isn't why the rates go up for insurance?

What about the payouts against companies like Merck, Pzifer or J&J?

A MM case on it own, filed and litigated, even if the doc is cleared, raises his MP insurance.

Take the lawsuits that name a doctor, the med maufacturer, hospital or clinic..Now you have three entities answering to one lawsuit because the atty's. talk up the 'being wronged' angle to the people bringing the suit and go for the biggest and best payout.

The you have the 'out of court' settlement when it's deemed that throwing money at the plaintiffs is the cheapest way to go?

IT still costs money and the insurance companies have it right, Tort reform and award caps should be put into place for Dr.s, med manufacturers and implant makers.

[blue]

I saw an add tonight for 5 class action lawsuits against 5 different drugs.

Most of the big pharma break throughs used to come out of the USA. Lawsuits and regulations have curtailed the big break throughs greatly.

To the example of Canada, Canada tells the USA Pharma companies what they will pay per pill, if the drug companies wont sell for a lower price then they are allready selling the pills for, the Canadian Gov will break the pattent and produce the drugs in Canada with Canadian Companies and the US company is out all the money they spent in research in developement. Cheaper pills in Canada, but the US companies need to recur their costs for R&D and seak a profit for their shareholders so higher costs here in the USA.

[RICHARD]

I saw an add tonight for 5 class action lawsuits against 5 different drugs.

I would love to see the results of those trials!

[Edwina's Secretary]

As for tort reform and the lawsuits as the basis for driving up health care costs, that is one side of a story that the insurance companies want the public to believe. Med mal cases are the hardest to prevail upon and the most expensive to litigate. They are few and far between when you consider lawsuits in general. Your run of the mill auto accident cases are much more common and frankly none of us pay close to $1500 a month for auto insurance.

The health insurance companies are one of the most "impressive" lobbying voices in DC. I encourage you to look beyond their story.

When a lawsuit is filed against a big pharma it makes the news. Heck, when the jury verdict comes down...that might make the news. Summary judgments, dismissals and overturned verdicts rarely make the news. And occur frequently.

This is also true in employment law. I was involved in a case where the jury verdict of $6 million was the lead story on every news channel, radio station, newspaper. Months later when the judge overturned the verdict and ordered the former employee to pay the company's court cost - it did not even make a mention. People are not interested in that.

I won't argue whether tort reformed is needed or not - or whether it should be restricted to medical cases. I have mixed feelings on that.

What I will argue is that tort reform will not solve the problem of 50 million uninsured and therefore without access to adequate medical care.

[smokey the elder]

Up-front disclaimer: I work for a pharma company.

Even though Canada, etc. will try to break patents (actually easier than reverse-engineering; Drug Master Files, I believe, are held by the FDA and public) the product can still be dodgy. There are some drugs that even though they are considered equivalent, do not act that way in real patients.

p.s. I need to ask someone in Regulatory about the public/private status of DMFs.

In (strictly) my opinion, there is a lot of waste and "drag" in the American health care system. E-records coupled with HIPAA can lead to a whole load of unintended consequences. Here's a real-world example of how this can blow up:

Records in Pharma used to be strictly kept on paper; output from computers would be signed and dated and go into the permanent record. Someone had the bright idea to enable "electronic signatures" and this led to an invention of the devil called "21CFR Part 11". This rule, in existence for about 10 years or so, has probably cost my industry billions of dollars.

Caveat emptor!!

[RICHARD]

Records in Pharma used to be strictly kept on paper; output from computers would be signed and dated and go into the permanent record. Someone had the bright idea to enable "electronic signatures" and this led to an invention of the devil called "21CFR Part 11". This rule, in existence for about 10 years or so, has probably cost my industry billions of dollars.

Caveat emptor!!

Boom shaka lakka?

Invention of the devil?

I just went to the first webpage that came back on it and I laughed. WTF was that all about!


LOL,

When the EMR started to come in, my company created the Ministry of the EMR, an super secret company cell, their only job was to speak in 'programming language' while you speak to them in English!

The EMR project is an interesting one. There are med tracking software packages, coding software, lab software, central service....and on and on.

As the need for tracking systems came about, you had 4-5 to choose from for each need. Most of them are 'companies' who are really twoguys who wrote the thing in their garage and sell it from the back seat of their cars.

Then the sys chosen had to be integrated into the Main System.

Hand it off to the IT people from the hosp and IT "people" from sys seller and pray.


-----------------

The next huge thing coming out of this is another Dot.com style boom in EMR sales and development. The winner will be the one that can design an Microsoft-Styled platform that can talk to any other system with the least amount of BS.

That is where the money will lie in the next 10 years.

[RICHARD]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31946805...rts/?GT1=43001


While this story does not have anything to do with health care, it exposes the basic flaw of the security for any comp/data gathering systems-

On Wednesday, Michelle Cawthra testified that she deposited unclaimed tax refunds and other money in Randell's bank accounts over two years by forging documents and creating fake businesses. She said she frequently used computer passwords of other workers so she wouldn't be detected.

Any system administrator that has access to passwords can get in and pretty much do anything want .... Your medical records may not be worth any money, but think of the gossip, it's worth it's weight in gold.

[Edwina's Secretary]

I have handled confidential records - personnel records which include medical info - for 30 years.

Papers gets left in the copier, on the desk, in the wrong folder. File cabinets don't get locked. Some people just are nosy.

Paper or electronic - if people want to find something out they will.

Having had it both ways I see no difference in security - electronic or paper!

The only difference I do see is electronic is more likely to be legible than a scribbled paper note. And date stamped!

[RICHARD]

The OctoMom hospital just got nailed with another 185k on top of the 250k they were originally fined for records snooping by employees!

I love the feeling of having my med recs secure.

Who cares about WHAT I buy at the store with my discount card!

[Edwina's Secretary]

I love the feeling of having my med recs secure.

Sorry - they never have been and I doubt they ever will be!

Just the facts....

[cassiesmom]

We were just talking about this at lunch. (Disclaimer: I'm a nurse, and I work in the insurance world.)

When I did workers' compensation, the employers that had the highest risk were placed into a pool, and each workers' compensation insurer was assigned a few of them. I don't know how risk was defined... high claim costs? high number of injuries? risky job tasks? or what.

Why couldn't each state pool its uninsured and parcel them out among each of the large health insurers? They all make such whopping profits that it should be no problem for them to write a reasonable policy to offer people who wouldn't otherwise have access to coverage. Not a bare-bones policy that would leave people underinsured, nor a mega-bells and whistles policy. But a reasonable policy that doesn't leave people stranded and bankrupt.

[RICHARD]

Why couldn't each state pool its uninsured and parcel them out among each of the large health insurers? They all make such whopping profits that it should be no problem for them to write a reasonable policy to offer people who wouldn't otherwise have access to coverage. Not a bare-bones policy that would leave people underinsured, nor a mega-bells and whistles policy. But a reasonable policy that doesn't leave people stranded and bankrupt.

Talk to the president about that. You know as well as I do that the HCR overhaul is nothing but blowing smoke up everyone's rear end to to make people feel better.

The insurance will be a freaking band aid and no one will ever get the health care that they deserve.


Long live the 12 dollar aspirin!

[blue]

I have handled confidential records - personnel records which include medical info - for 30 years.

Papers gets left in the copier, on the desk, in the wrong folder. File cabinets don't get locked. Some people just are nosy.

There are reasons companies have policies for restricted access to copy and printer rooms. More reasons for companies to keep records of who accesses those rooms. Yet even more reasons why companies keep records of who looks at what files and when. Finaly the security policies companies have implimented for employies who dont lock up their files and cabinets. Physical security is easier to impliment then computer security, its just not cheap and convinient.

Paper or electronic - if people want to find something out they will.

Things electronic can be compromised with less effort then things kept paper. On the other hand things on paper can make compromising the electricly kept files that much easier.

Having had it both ways I see no difference in security - electronic or paper!

Most people wouldnt volunteer they have violated secure and private documents in such a cavileer manner.

The only difference I do see is electronic is more likely to be legible than a scribbled paper note. And date stamped!

Peoples privacy is more important then your convenience.

[Edwina's Secretary]

You know as well as I do that the HCR overhaul is nothing but blowing smoke up everyone's rear end to to make people feel better.

I am not sure everyone "knows" that! Except you of course....

And Cassiesmom..how nice to hear the opinion of someone who actually works in the heathcare/insurance industry!

[blue]

I am not sure everyone "knows" that! Except you of course....

RICHARD, you didnt say everyone "knows" but that ES "knows", or am I crazy?

Maybe I need a smoothie.