Tuesday, May 20, 2008
Why Doctors Are Heading for Texas
When Sam Houston was still hanging his hat in Tennessee in the 1830s, it wasn't uncommon for fellow Tennesseans who were packing up and moving south and west to hang a sign on their cabins that read "GTT" – Gone to Texas. Today obstetricians, surgeons and other doctors might consider reviving the practice. Over the past three years, some 7,000 M.D.s have flooded into Texas, many from Tennessee. Why? Two words: Tort reform.
In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down.
The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.
Now many of the newly arriving doctors are heading to rural or underserved parts of the state. Four new anesthesiologists have headed to Beaumont, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio has experienced a 52% growth in the number of new doctors.
But if tort reform has been a boon – and it is likely one of the reasons the state's economy has thrived in recent years – it was not easy to enact. In one particularly grueling fight in the legislature in 2003, an important piece of a reform bill went down to a narrow defeat in the state Senate after a single Republican switched his support to vote against it. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was so incensed that he bolted out of his office in the Capitol, sprinted into the Senate chamber, and vaulted a railing to come face to face with the defecting senator.
That confrontation fizzled, however, and before long Texas succeeded at enacting two simple but effective reforms. One capped medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000, changed the burden of proof for claiming injury for emergency room care from simple negligence to "willful and wanton neglect," and required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claimant.
This has allowed doctors and hospitals to cut costs and even increase the resources devoted to charity care. Take Christus Health, a nonprofit Catholic health system across the state. Thanks to tort reform, over the past four years Christus saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.
The second 2003 reform cleaned up much of the mess surrounding asbestos litigation by creating something called multidistrict litigation (MDL). This took every case in the state involving a common injury or complaint, like silicosis or asbestosis, and consolidated it for pretrial discovery in one court. One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" – a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.
More change sailed through the legislature in 2005; tort reform had become popular with voters and lobbying against it was ineffectual. The 2005 reform created minimum medical standards to prove an injury in asbestos and silica cases. Now plaintiffs must show diminished lung capacity in addition to an X-ray indicating disease.
In sum, these reforms have worked wonders. There are about 85,000 asbestos plaintiffs in Texas. Under the old system, each would be advancing in the courts. But in the four years since the creation of MDLs, only 300 plaintiffs' cases have been certified ready for trial. And in each case the plaintiff is almost certainly sick with mesothelioma or cancer. No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness.
In the silica MDL, there are somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 plaintiff cases. In the four years since the cases were consolidated under the MDL, 47 plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed to trial based on a medical report indicating diminished pulmonary capacity. Of those 47, the court has certified 29 people as having diminished lung capacity. This, too, is less than 1% of all the "silicosis" claims made in Texas. No one has proven the real cause of his illness to be silica, as no case yet has been certified for trial.
Before the asbestos and silica MDLs were created, nonmalignancy plaintiffs settled with defendants for anywhere between $30,000 to $150,000 per case. No one knows how many bogus cases were settled in the state with large cash payments. Lawyers who specialized in defending those cases say there were tens of thousands.
The full costs of large settlements and runaway malpractice suits may never be known. But it is clear that the costs were paid for by consumers through the increased price of goods, by pensioners through diminished stock prices, and by workers through lost jobs. Another group often overlooked is those who are priced out of health care, or who didn't receive charity care because doctors were squeezed by tort lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits hit the uninsured the hardest.
Texas recently became home to more Fortune 500 companies than New York and California. Things are trending well for the Lone Star State. Anecdotally, we can see that while doctors are moving in, trial lawyers are packing up and heading west. They're GTC -- Gone to California.
Source
Australia: Waiting lists up as public hospital surgeons sent on compulsory leave
More "administrator" madness
QUEENSLAND'S top surgeons are being forced to down scalpels for up to six months to take leave - leaving their patients having to wait even longer for operations. Queensland Health has allowed doctors to rack up months of leave but now demands they take it all, despite the impact on blown-out surgery wait lists. Elective surgery lists have blown out by 15 per cent and consultations by 50 per cent in the past three years.
The revelation came after another horror day for Health Minister Stephen Robertson yesterday, with the release of a damning audit revealing hundreds of Queensland Health staff were living in unsafe accommodation. The embattled department was also forced to apologise to a Gold Coast woman who spent three hours in labour on the floor of a hospital storeroom because there was no bed for her.
One senior consulting surgeon who treats hundreds of patients a month called the forced leave irresponsible and life-threatening. "This is just going to balloon the waiting lists for operations and consultations," he said. "They could just give us a payment, or just get off our backs. We have a job to do."
Salaried Doctors Queensland president Don Kane said Queensland Health was more concerned about clearing leave than cutting wait lists. The union, which represents 2000 doctors, blamed health managers for failing to provide backup so doctors could take leave at appropriate times. "It should never have been allowed to get to this stage," he said. "This is pretty typical."
Queensland Health said the payout or partial payout of leave for all public servants was banned. Queensland Health acting director-general Andrew Wilson said it was important doctors took leave for their wellbeing and that of patients. Dr Wilson said it was better to have doctors take heavy leave as a "large block" so a replacement doctor could be employed for a longer period. He failed to explain why managers had allowed huge amounts of leave to mount.
The surgeon said his supervisor had badgered him and other surgeons to take large blocks of leave. The discussions had been conducted verbally because doctors were never supposed to accumulate that much leave and the bureaucrats wanted nothing in writing, he said. "For any of us to take that length of time off, it's going to delay the work and de-skill the surgeons," he said.
Queensland Health said it was able to fill the leave gaps without disruption to the waiting list, but the surgeon disagreed. "There are plenty of patients who will fall through the cracks,' the surgeon said.
Source
When Sam Houston was still hanging his hat in Tennessee in the 1830s, it wasn't uncommon for fellow Tennesseans who were packing up and moving south and west to hang a sign on their cabins that read "GTT" – Gone to Texas. Today obstetricians, surgeons and other doctors might consider reviving the practice. Over the past three years, some 7,000 M.D.s have flooded into Texas, many from Tennessee. Why? Two words: Tort reform.
In 2003 and in 2005, Texas enacted a series of reforms to the state's civil justice system. They are stunning in their success. Texas Medical Liability Trust, one of the largest malpractice insurance companies in the state, has slashed its premiums by 35%, saving doctors some $217 million over four years. There is also a competitive malpractice insurance industry in Texas, with over 30 companies competing for business. This is driving rates down.
The result is an influx of doctors so great that recently the State Board of Medical Examiners couldn't process all the new medical-license applications quickly enough. The board faced a backlog of 3,000 applications. To handle the extra workload, the legislature rushed through an emergency appropriation last year.
Now many of the newly arriving doctors are heading to rural or underserved parts of the state. Four new anesthesiologists have headed to Beaumont, for example. Meanwhile, San Antonio has experienced a 52% growth in the number of new doctors.
But if tort reform has been a boon – and it is likely one of the reasons the state's economy has thrived in recent years – it was not easy to enact. In one particularly grueling fight in the legislature in 2003, an important piece of a reform bill went down to a narrow defeat in the state Senate after a single Republican switched his support to vote against it. Republican Gov. Rick Perry was so incensed that he bolted out of his office in the Capitol, sprinted into the Senate chamber, and vaulted a railing to come face to face with the defecting senator.
That confrontation fizzled, however, and before long Texas succeeded at enacting two simple but effective reforms. One capped medical malpractice awards for noneconomic damages at $250,000, changed the burden of proof for claiming injury for emergency room care from simple negligence to "willful and wanton neglect," and required that an independent medical expert file a report in support of the claimant.
This has allowed doctors and hospitals to cut costs and even increase the resources devoted to charity care. Take Christus Health, a nonprofit Catholic health system across the state. Thanks to tort reform, over the past four years Christus saved $100 million that it otherwise would have spent fending off bogus lawsuits or paying higher insurance premiums. Every dollar saved was reinvested in helping poor patients.
The second 2003 reform cleaned up much of the mess surrounding asbestos litigation by creating something called multidistrict litigation (MDL). This took every case in the state involving a common injury or complaint, like silicosis or asbestosis, and consolidated it for pretrial discovery in one court. One judge now makes all pretrial discovery and evidence rulings, including the validity of expert doctor reports, for all cases. This creates legal consistency and virtually eliminates "venue shopping" – a process by which trial lawyers file briefs in districts that they know will be friendly to frivolous suits. Trials still occur in plaintiffs' home counties.
More change sailed through the legislature in 2005; tort reform had become popular with voters and lobbying against it was ineffectual. The 2005 reform created minimum medical standards to prove an injury in asbestos and silica cases. Now plaintiffs must show diminished lung capacity in addition to an X-ray indicating disease.
In sum, these reforms have worked wonders. There are about 85,000 asbestos plaintiffs in Texas. Under the old system, each would be advancing in the courts. But in the four years since the creation of MDLs, only 300 plaintiffs' cases have been certified ready for trial. And in each case the plaintiff is almost certainly sick with mesothelioma or cancer. No one else claiming "asbestosis" has yet filed a pulmonology report showing diminished lung capacity. This means that only one-third of 1% of all those people who have filed suit claiming they were sick with asbestosis have actually had a qualified and impartial doctor agree that they have an asbestos-caused illness.
In the silica MDL, there are somewhere between 4,000 and 6,000 plaintiff cases. In the four years since the cases were consolidated under the MDL, 47 plaintiffs have filed a motion to proceed to trial based on a medical report indicating diminished pulmonary capacity. Of those 47, the court has certified 29 people as having diminished lung capacity. This, too, is less than 1% of all the "silicosis" claims made in Texas. No one has proven the real cause of his illness to be silica, as no case yet has been certified for trial.
Before the asbestos and silica MDLs were created, nonmalignancy plaintiffs settled with defendants for anywhere between $30,000 to $150,000 per case. No one knows how many bogus cases were settled in the state with large cash payments. Lawyers who specialized in defending those cases say there were tens of thousands.
The full costs of large settlements and runaway malpractice suits may never be known. But it is clear that the costs were paid for by consumers through the increased price of goods, by pensioners through diminished stock prices, and by workers through lost jobs. Another group often overlooked is those who are priced out of health care, or who didn't receive charity care because doctors were squeezed by tort lawyers. Frivolous lawsuits hit the uninsured the hardest.
Texas recently became home to more Fortune 500 companies than New York and California. Things are trending well for the Lone Star State. Anecdotally, we can see that while doctors are moving in, trial lawyers are packing up and heading west. They're GTC -- Gone to California.
Source
Australia: Waiting lists up as public hospital surgeons sent on compulsory leave
More "administrator" madness
QUEENSLAND'S top surgeons are being forced to down scalpels for up to six months to take leave - leaving their patients having to wait even longer for operations. Queensland Health has allowed doctors to rack up months of leave but now demands they take it all, despite the impact on blown-out surgery wait lists. Elective surgery lists have blown out by 15 per cent and consultations by 50 per cent in the past three years.
The revelation came after another horror day for Health Minister Stephen Robertson yesterday, with the release of a damning audit revealing hundreds of Queensland Health staff were living in unsafe accommodation. The embattled department was also forced to apologise to a Gold Coast woman who spent three hours in labour on the floor of a hospital storeroom because there was no bed for her.
One senior consulting surgeon who treats hundreds of patients a month called the forced leave irresponsible and life-threatening. "This is just going to balloon the waiting lists for operations and consultations," he said. "They could just give us a payment, or just get off our backs. We have a job to do."
Salaried Doctors Queensland president Don Kane said Queensland Health was more concerned about clearing leave than cutting wait lists. The union, which represents 2000 doctors, blamed health managers for failing to provide backup so doctors could take leave at appropriate times. "It should never have been allowed to get to this stage," he said. "This is pretty typical."
Queensland Health said the payout or partial payout of leave for all public servants was banned. Queensland Health acting director-general Andrew Wilson said it was important doctors took leave for their wellbeing and that of patients. Dr Wilson said it was better to have doctors take heavy leave as a "large block" so a replacement doctor could be employed for a longer period. He failed to explain why managers had allowed huge amounts of leave to mount.
The surgeon said his supervisor had badgered him and other surgeons to take large blocks of leave. The discussions had been conducted verbally because doctors were never supposed to accumulate that much leave and the bureaucrats wanted nothing in writing, he said. "For any of us to take that length of time off, it's going to delay the work and de-skill the surgeons," he said.
Queensland Health said it was able to fill the leave gaps without disruption to the waiting list, but the surgeon disagreed. "There are plenty of patients who will fall through the cracks,' the surgeon said.
Source
Monday, May 19, 2008
Socialist haters at work in Britain
The National Health Service has refused to pay for an operation to prevent a pensioner’s agonising migraines because the woman paid privately for earlier treatment. Maureen Alden, 74, from Bristol, spent her life savings on a £13,000 operation two years ago to implant wires into her brain which prevent migraines by stimulating the nerves. The operation was successful and cut her attacks by 80%. The battery which powers the medical device is about to run out, however, and the retired typist cannot obtain funding for a replacement.
Alden’s case will reignite the debate over the ban on NHS patients supplementing their care by paying for treatments that are not funded by the health service. Breast cancer sufferers have been told they will be denied NHS treatment if they pay privately for “top-up” drugs. Patients are taking legal action to fight the ban.
Alden is backed by her GP, Dr Sarah Vaughan, who said: “This seems appalling to me. Funding decisions should be made on medical grounds such as how badly the patient needs the treatment, not whether they have previously paid privately.”
Alden had the device, an occipital nerve stimulator, implanted in March 2006. The battery is expected to run out in the next six months. A permanent battery has since been developed, so if the NHS pays 8,500 pounds for a replacement then Alden should not require any further treatment.
Vaughan warns that if Alden is denied the treatment the NHS will end up spending as much on expensive medication. South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust said: “If someone elects to privately fund a treatment that is not funded by the PCT and no exceptional grounds have been agreed in advance, the individual will remain responsible for funding any ongoing costs.”
A British Medical Association (BMA) spokeswoman said: "Ethically the BMA does not believe that if someone has treatment privately they should be prevented from accessing any NHS care related to this initial procedure."
Source
Congress Messing with Your HSA
Never mind the presidential race. The battle over who will control your health care is already taking place, under the radar, in Congress. In April, House Democrats passed legislation that would impose onerous and unnecessary reporting requirements on people with tax-free health savings accounts. As of January, more than 6 million Americans have HSA coverage. That includes nearly 640,000 Californians, or about 3 percent of all Californians under age 65. In some states, HSA plans cover nearly one in 10 people under 65.
Current law requires HSA holders to document their withdrawals in the event of an IRS audit. The new legislation would require every HSA holder to document every HSA withdrawal, every time they file their taxes. That's right: Congressional Democrats have found a way to make Americans' medical bills and tax returns even more complicated. Led by Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark, D-Fremont, supporters claim the legislation seeks only to prevent people from claiming a tax break for nonqualified expenses. Stark cites reports that "HSA funds appear to have been spent on escort services, at casinos and bowling facilities."
Yet Congress' own Government Accountability Office found that 90 percent of HSA withdrawals are applied directly to qualified medical expenses. Even if the remaining 10 percent were spent at brothels and bowling alleys, federal law does not require funds contributed to an HSA to be used only for medical care. It requires only that withdrawals not exceed qualified medical expenses, or that the account holder pay taxes and a penalty on any excess withdrawals. In either case, random audits police compliance. More importantly, HSA critics haven't produced any actual evidence of unlawful withdrawals.
The real reason for the anti-HSA legislation lies elsewhere. The federal government has traditionally offered workers a large tax break for job-based health benefits. In practice, however, that tax break effectively robs you of control over a large chunk of your earnings: the money your employer puts toward your health insurance. For the average insured family, that's about $9,000 per year. The law also robs you of control over your coverage decisions.
In 2004, Congress extended that tax break to employee-owned HSAs, enabling workers to reclaim ownership of a portion of those earnings. If a family obtains a high-deductible health plan, he or his employer can contribute as much as $5,800 to an HSA, tax-free. The family owns the account, which stays with them from job to job. So long as they spend that money on medical care, HSA funds are never taxed. Otherwise, HSA rules are identical to those for traditional IRAs.
Some politicians just don't want workers to control their own earnings and have launched an all-out assault on HSAs. Last week, Stark complained, "The total value of all Health Savings Accounts contributions reported to IRS in 2005 was about twice that of withdrawals … suggesting an interest in it more as a shelter than vehicle to obtain needed health care or supplement inadequate coverage."
Stark is shocked — shocked! — that workers are using their health savings accounts as … a savings vehicle. Stark further alleges that HSAs "are an effective tax shelter for people whose average incomes are nearly triple that of average tax filers." True, HSAs provide a tax break that gets more valuable as earnings rise. (That's because income tax rates rise with income.) Yet the tax break for employer-controlled coverage provides identical tax breaks to millions more high-income earners. Where is the outrage over that tax loophole?
HSA opponents offer no evidence that unlawful HSA withdrawals are a serious problem, and they can't say why random audits aren't enough to deter them. They are highly suspicious when Americans take money out of their HSAs — but equally suspicious when they leave it in. And tax breaks for the wealthy appear to be kosher, unless they let workers control their earnings. All of which leaves Stark and his fellow travelers open to the charge that what really bothers them is the fact that HSAs let workers control their own money.
Source
The National Health Service has refused to pay for an operation to prevent a pensioner’s agonising migraines because the woman paid privately for earlier treatment. Maureen Alden, 74, from Bristol, spent her life savings on a £13,000 operation two years ago to implant wires into her brain which prevent migraines by stimulating the nerves. The operation was successful and cut her attacks by 80%. The battery which powers the medical device is about to run out, however, and the retired typist cannot obtain funding for a replacement.
Alden’s case will reignite the debate over the ban on NHS patients supplementing their care by paying for treatments that are not funded by the health service. Breast cancer sufferers have been told they will be denied NHS treatment if they pay privately for “top-up” drugs. Patients are taking legal action to fight the ban.
Alden is backed by her GP, Dr Sarah Vaughan, who said: “This seems appalling to me. Funding decisions should be made on medical grounds such as how badly the patient needs the treatment, not whether they have previously paid privately.”
Alden had the device, an occipital nerve stimulator, implanted in March 2006. The battery is expected to run out in the next six months. A permanent battery has since been developed, so if the NHS pays 8,500 pounds for a replacement then Alden should not require any further treatment.
Vaughan warns that if Alden is denied the treatment the NHS will end up spending as much on expensive medication. South Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust said: “If someone elects to privately fund a treatment that is not funded by the PCT and no exceptional grounds have been agreed in advance, the individual will remain responsible for funding any ongoing costs.”
A British Medical Association (BMA) spokeswoman said: "Ethically the BMA does not believe that if someone has treatment privately they should be prevented from accessing any NHS care related to this initial procedure."
Source
Congress Messing with Your HSA
Never mind the presidential race. The battle over who will control your health care is already taking place, under the radar, in Congress. In April, House Democrats passed legislation that would impose onerous and unnecessary reporting requirements on people with tax-free health savings accounts. As of January, more than 6 million Americans have HSA coverage. That includes nearly 640,000 Californians, or about 3 percent of all Californians under age 65. In some states, HSA plans cover nearly one in 10 people under 65.
Current law requires HSA holders to document their withdrawals in the event of an IRS audit. The new legislation would require every HSA holder to document every HSA withdrawal, every time they file their taxes. That's right: Congressional Democrats have found a way to make Americans' medical bills and tax returns even more complicated. Led by Health Subcommittee Chairman Pete Stark, D-Fremont, supporters claim the legislation seeks only to prevent people from claiming a tax break for nonqualified expenses. Stark cites reports that "HSA funds appear to have been spent on escort services, at casinos and bowling facilities."
Yet Congress' own Government Accountability Office found that 90 percent of HSA withdrawals are applied directly to qualified medical expenses. Even if the remaining 10 percent were spent at brothels and bowling alleys, federal law does not require funds contributed to an HSA to be used only for medical care. It requires only that withdrawals not exceed qualified medical expenses, or that the account holder pay taxes and a penalty on any excess withdrawals. In either case, random audits police compliance. More importantly, HSA critics haven't produced any actual evidence of unlawful withdrawals.
The real reason for the anti-HSA legislation lies elsewhere. The federal government has traditionally offered workers a large tax break for job-based health benefits. In practice, however, that tax break effectively robs you of control over a large chunk of your earnings: the money your employer puts toward your health insurance. For the average insured family, that's about $9,000 per year. The law also robs you of control over your coverage decisions.
In 2004, Congress extended that tax break to employee-owned HSAs, enabling workers to reclaim ownership of a portion of those earnings. If a family obtains a high-deductible health plan, he or his employer can contribute as much as $5,800 to an HSA, tax-free. The family owns the account, which stays with them from job to job. So long as they spend that money on medical care, HSA funds are never taxed. Otherwise, HSA rules are identical to those for traditional IRAs.
Some politicians just don't want workers to control their own earnings and have launched an all-out assault on HSAs. Last week, Stark complained, "The total value of all Health Savings Accounts contributions reported to IRS in 2005 was about twice that of withdrawals … suggesting an interest in it more as a shelter than vehicle to obtain needed health care or supplement inadequate coverage."
Stark is shocked — shocked! — that workers are using their health savings accounts as … a savings vehicle. Stark further alleges that HSAs "are an effective tax shelter for people whose average incomes are nearly triple that of average tax filers." True, HSAs provide a tax break that gets more valuable as earnings rise. (That's because income tax rates rise with income.) Yet the tax break for employer-controlled coverage provides identical tax breaks to millions more high-income earners. Where is the outrage over that tax loophole?
HSA opponents offer no evidence that unlawful HSA withdrawals are a serious problem, and they can't say why random audits aren't enough to deter them. They are highly suspicious when Americans take money out of their HSAs — but equally suspicious when they leave it in. And tax breaks for the wealthy appear to be kosher, unless they let workers control their earnings. All of which leaves Stark and his fellow travelers open to the charge that what really bothers them is the fact that HSAs let workers control their own money.
Source
Sunday, May 18, 2008
British grandmother overjoyed by go-ahead to sue over hospital superbug MRSA
A great-grandmother was "overjoyed" after being given the go-ahead to bring a test case against the National Health Service for allegedly infecting her with the MRSA superbug. Elizabeth Miller, 71, contracted MRSA while recovering from a heart operation at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary in 2001. Her legal team argues that a failure to implement the hospital's hand hygiene policy led to her infection.
Although patients have sued hospitals for failing to treat the superbug, no cases have been brought against the health service for giving it to patients. If successful, Mrs Miller's case could lead to scores of others.
Speaking after the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that a full hearing into the claim should be held, Mrs Miller said: "I really am overjoyed that we have won the first battle and I just feel it has taken a long, long time. The main thing is that the hospitals get cleaned up. It has ruined my life. I spend most of my life sitting in a chair, and depression is one of the worst things it has done. I just feel my life will never be the same again. But if the case can prevent it happening to someone else, that will be a bonus."
Mrs Miller, from Kilsyth, near Glasgow, is seeking damages of 30,000 pounds from NHS Greater Glasgow. She says that she can no longer play with her great-grandchildren because she is too unwell. Her legal team claims that she contracted the bug because of a series of errors that led to staff failing to wash their hands properly. The problems were understood to include faulty taps and sinks and a lack of soap and paper towels. According to court papers lodged on her behalf: "If the hospital's hand hygiene policy had been implemented, enforced and adhered to, Mrs Miller would not have become infected with MRSA."
Lawyers for the NHS board called for the legal action to be dismissed. They claim that the infection was identified and treated as early as possible and that a nasal swab taken from Mrs Miller did not rule out the possibility that she had MRSA before being admitted.
However, in a written ruling yesterday, Judge Lady Clark said that the case should proceed to a full hearing. She said that there were still some factual matters to be determined. A date has not been fixed yet for the full hearing.
Mrs Miller's solicitor, Cameron Fyfe, said that he had 160 other clients who intended to pursue similar claims if the case was successful. In some cases patients had died or lost limbs, and those claims could run into six figures, he suggested. Mr Fyfe added: "This is a big step forward. If at this final hearing we can prove that the hospital was to blame, Elizabeth will be compensated and it will open the door to hundreds of claims."
Source
Australia: Your regulators will protect you -- in their usual somnolent fashion
One of the NSW's busiest skin care specialists has been accused of running a bizarre surgery for seven years in which patients were relentlessly pursued, verbally abused, threatened with AVOs and told never to come back. Dr David Lindsay froze off more than 250 sun spots from one patient in a single session, cut a lesion from a patient's leg without anaesthetic and treated another patient for a year without telling him he had skin cancer on his cheek, it is alleged.
Ten years after he first came to their attention, the Health Care Complaints Commission has asked the Medical Tribunal to strike Dr Lindsay off the medical register "to protect the public." The commission alleges Dr Lindsay, 42, suffers from a paranoid personality disorder. His behaviour could be triggered by minor comments, including a patient saying they had been kept waiting for a long time, said Ms Christine Adamson, counsel for the HCCC.
She said it was made difficult for patients to complain because his mother Tallulah Glynne worked as his receptionist at the Mid City Skin Cancer Centre in George St, Sydney. In one outburst, Dr Lindsay allegedly told a patient she had a suspicious mole on her body but he wouldn't tell her where "feigning that he had forgotten where it was". "I don't want to see you anyway, get out," he allegedly told another patient who said she had to leave after waiting 30 minutes.
Two patients had private prosecutions brought against them under the Inclosed Land Protection Act after they complained. One patient who commented to the receptionist that the doctor lacked personal skills was abused because of nationality and "told to return to England".
In a 57-page complaint, the HCCC claims he is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct, improper or unethical conduct and that he threatened and intimidated patients and other doctors who complained. In 2004, he left a message on the answering machine of Judge Ken Taylor, then an acting HCCC commissioner, saying the judge was incompetent and the HCCC corrupt.
The complaints involve 25 patients and three doctors and begin in January 2002. He was first reported to the Medical Board in 1998 when the anaesthetist suggested he see a psychiatrist. The doctor, who has been suspended pending the outcome of the decision, denies he suffers a personality disorder. In a failed application to have one of the tribunal members dismissed due to his perceived links to one of the patients, Dr Lindsay said he was the "most investigated doctor" in both Australia and the US. "I'm not a bad person. I'm as good as I can be. I don't have a personality problem," he said.
Source
A great-grandmother was "overjoyed" after being given the go-ahead to bring a test case against the National Health Service for allegedly infecting her with the MRSA superbug. Elizabeth Miller, 71, contracted MRSA while recovering from a heart operation at the Glasgow Royal Infirmary in 2001. Her legal team argues that a failure to implement the hospital's hand hygiene policy led to her infection.
Although patients have sued hospitals for failing to treat the superbug, no cases have been brought against the health service for giving it to patients. If successful, Mrs Miller's case could lead to scores of others.
Speaking after the Court of Session in Edinburgh ruled that a full hearing into the claim should be held, Mrs Miller said: "I really am overjoyed that we have won the first battle and I just feel it has taken a long, long time. The main thing is that the hospitals get cleaned up. It has ruined my life. I spend most of my life sitting in a chair, and depression is one of the worst things it has done. I just feel my life will never be the same again. But if the case can prevent it happening to someone else, that will be a bonus."
Mrs Miller, from Kilsyth, near Glasgow, is seeking damages of 30,000 pounds from NHS Greater Glasgow. She says that she can no longer play with her great-grandchildren because she is too unwell. Her legal team claims that she contracted the bug because of a series of errors that led to staff failing to wash their hands properly. The problems were understood to include faulty taps and sinks and a lack of soap and paper towels. According to court papers lodged on her behalf: "If the hospital's hand hygiene policy had been implemented, enforced and adhered to, Mrs Miller would not have become infected with MRSA."
Lawyers for the NHS board called for the legal action to be dismissed. They claim that the infection was identified and treated as early as possible and that a nasal swab taken from Mrs Miller did not rule out the possibility that she had MRSA before being admitted.
However, in a written ruling yesterday, Judge Lady Clark said that the case should proceed to a full hearing. She said that there were still some factual matters to be determined. A date has not been fixed yet for the full hearing.
Mrs Miller's solicitor, Cameron Fyfe, said that he had 160 other clients who intended to pursue similar claims if the case was successful. In some cases patients had died or lost limbs, and those claims could run into six figures, he suggested. Mr Fyfe added: "This is a big step forward. If at this final hearing we can prove that the hospital was to blame, Elizabeth will be compensated and it will open the door to hundreds of claims."
Source
Australia: Your regulators will protect you -- in their usual somnolent fashion
One of the NSW's busiest skin care specialists has been accused of running a bizarre surgery for seven years in which patients were relentlessly pursued, verbally abused, threatened with AVOs and told never to come back. Dr David Lindsay froze off more than 250 sun spots from one patient in a single session, cut a lesion from a patient's leg without anaesthetic and treated another patient for a year without telling him he had skin cancer on his cheek, it is alleged.
Ten years after he first came to their attention, the Health Care Complaints Commission has asked the Medical Tribunal to strike Dr Lindsay off the medical register "to protect the public." The commission alleges Dr Lindsay, 42, suffers from a paranoid personality disorder. His behaviour could be triggered by minor comments, including a patient saying they had been kept waiting for a long time, said Ms Christine Adamson, counsel for the HCCC.
She said it was made difficult for patients to complain because his mother Tallulah Glynne worked as his receptionist at the Mid City Skin Cancer Centre in George St, Sydney. In one outburst, Dr Lindsay allegedly told a patient she had a suspicious mole on her body but he wouldn't tell her where "feigning that he had forgotten where it was". "I don't want to see you anyway, get out," he allegedly told another patient who said she had to leave after waiting 30 minutes.
Two patients had private prosecutions brought against them under the Inclosed Land Protection Act after they complained. One patient who commented to the receptionist that the doctor lacked personal skills was abused because of nationality and "told to return to England".
In a 57-page complaint, the HCCC claims he is guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct, improper or unethical conduct and that he threatened and intimidated patients and other doctors who complained. In 2004, he left a message on the answering machine of Judge Ken Taylor, then an acting HCCC commissioner, saying the judge was incompetent and the HCCC corrupt.
The complaints involve 25 patients and three doctors and begin in January 2002. He was first reported to the Medical Board in 1998 when the anaesthetist suggested he see a psychiatrist. The doctor, who has been suspended pending the outcome of the decision, denies he suffers a personality disorder. In a failed application to have one of the tribunal members dismissed due to his perceived links to one of the patients, Dr Lindsay said he was the "most investigated doctor" in both Australia and the US. "I'm not a bad person. I'm as good as I can be. I don't have a personality problem," he said.
Source
Saturday, May 17, 2008
Incompetent British medical care kills young mother
Woman dies because nobody gave a stuff
A young mother who developed complications during a home birth died after a midwife lacked the confidence to inject her with fluids, an inquest was told. There was also a delay in giving Joanne Whale treatment that could have saved her life in hospital after another midwife failed to pass on information to the doctors there.
Dr Peter Dean, the Greater Suffolk Coroner, said that lessons must be learnt from her death and that women should be made more aware of the dangers of home births. He also demanded better communication between midwives and doctors.
Miss Whale, 23, gave birth to a healthy boy at home in Ipswich last September. But she died hours later after a severe haemorrhage. When Ms Whale began to lose blood she needed an injection of fluids. Julie Bates, a midwife, said that she had been trained in the process but had never had to use it. "I've got the theoretical knowledge but not the practical knowledge," she said. "I felt uncomfortable having to do that in this situation." She added: "Knowing the ambulance was only a few minutes away I thought it was better to leave it for the proper paramedics."
The inquest was also told that Miss Whale's arrival at hospital had been delayed because the paramedics had found it difficult to remove her from an upstairs bedroom. Martin Hambling, who was in the first of two ambulances to arrive after a 999 call, said: "Extraction was extremely difficult because of the layout of the house. We had to negotiate several sharp turns."
Miss Whale was taken to Ipswich Hospital but doctors were not told the exact nature of her condition, which led to a delay in getting her to the operating theatre. Sarah Hall, another midwife, admitted that she did not pass on information that Miss Whale had suffered an inverted uterus during labour. Marlar Raja, a specialist registrar in gynaecology at the hospital, said that the patient would have been taken straight to the theatre if she had been made aware.
Balroop Johal, a consultant gynaecologist, said: "The staff were expecting a retained placenta. If they had been told that it was a complete inversion of the uterus she would almost certainly have gone straight to theatre and I would have been ready for her."
Dr John Chapman, who carried out the postmortem examination, said that Miss Whale died as a result of the inverted uterus causing a uterine haemorrhage. Her body was in so much shock that her blood failed to clot, adding to extensive bleeding.
Dr Dean recorded a narrative verdict of death from complications after an obstetric home delivery. He said he was surprised that midwives would not be confident in injecting life-saving fluids. "It does worry me a lot that mothers are giving birth in the community and the first line of call is the midwife, who might not be able to get fluid into her in those crucial early moments. That needs to be addressed. "We can't be certain that, had these things been done, she would have survived. All we can say is the chances of survival would have been greater."
Source
NHS kills another young woman
No mention of clotting factors being used
A woman bled to death after her second child was born in hospital, an inquest was told yesterday. Samima Yasmin, 26, had placenta previa - which can lead to complications during birth such as haemorrhaging - diagnosed during the 24th week of her pregnancy. At 35 weeks Mrs Yasmin, from South Shields, Tyne and Wear, had an emergency Caesarean section at South Tyneside District Hospital after suffering complications, including excessive bleeding.
Severe bleeding continued after the delivery of her son, Muzzamil Ali, in 2005, the South Tyneside coroner was told before recording a narrative verdict on Mrs Yasmin, who also had an 18-month-old son.
Hami Fawzi, a consultant at the hospital, said: "The patient was losing a lot of blood and we were trying to pump as much blood and fluids back in as we could. We felt we were on top of replacing what needed to be replaced, but it is difficult to tell how much exactly was lost. In hindsight, there was an underestimation . . . We decided to let her pass peacefully." [Big of him! Sounds unethical] Doctors described it as one of the worst cases of uncontrollable blood loss they had ever seen.
Source
Woman dies because nobody gave a stuff
A young mother who developed complications during a home birth died after a midwife lacked the confidence to inject her with fluids, an inquest was told. There was also a delay in giving Joanne Whale treatment that could have saved her life in hospital after another midwife failed to pass on information to the doctors there.
Dr Peter Dean, the Greater Suffolk Coroner, said that lessons must be learnt from her death and that women should be made more aware of the dangers of home births. He also demanded better communication between midwives and doctors.
Miss Whale, 23, gave birth to a healthy boy at home in Ipswich last September. But she died hours later after a severe haemorrhage. When Ms Whale began to lose blood she needed an injection of fluids. Julie Bates, a midwife, said that she had been trained in the process but had never had to use it. "I've got the theoretical knowledge but not the practical knowledge," she said. "I felt uncomfortable having to do that in this situation." She added: "Knowing the ambulance was only a few minutes away I thought it was better to leave it for the proper paramedics."
The inquest was also told that Miss Whale's arrival at hospital had been delayed because the paramedics had found it difficult to remove her from an upstairs bedroom. Martin Hambling, who was in the first of two ambulances to arrive after a 999 call, said: "Extraction was extremely difficult because of the layout of the house. We had to negotiate several sharp turns."
Miss Whale was taken to Ipswich Hospital but doctors were not told the exact nature of her condition, which led to a delay in getting her to the operating theatre. Sarah Hall, another midwife, admitted that she did not pass on information that Miss Whale had suffered an inverted uterus during labour. Marlar Raja, a specialist registrar in gynaecology at the hospital, said that the patient would have been taken straight to the theatre if she had been made aware.
Balroop Johal, a consultant gynaecologist, said: "The staff were expecting a retained placenta. If they had been told that it was a complete inversion of the uterus she would almost certainly have gone straight to theatre and I would have been ready for her."
Dr John Chapman, who carried out the postmortem examination, said that Miss Whale died as a result of the inverted uterus causing a uterine haemorrhage. Her body was in so much shock that her blood failed to clot, adding to extensive bleeding.
Dr Dean recorded a narrative verdict of death from complications after an obstetric home delivery. He said he was surprised that midwives would not be confident in injecting life-saving fluids. "It does worry me a lot that mothers are giving birth in the community and the first line of call is the midwife, who might not be able to get fluid into her in those crucial early moments. That needs to be addressed. "We can't be certain that, had these things been done, she would have survived. All we can say is the chances of survival would have been greater."
Source
NHS kills another young woman
No mention of clotting factors being used
A woman bled to death after her second child was born in hospital, an inquest was told yesterday. Samima Yasmin, 26, had placenta previa - which can lead to complications during birth such as haemorrhaging - diagnosed during the 24th week of her pregnancy. At 35 weeks Mrs Yasmin, from South Shields, Tyne and Wear, had an emergency Caesarean section at South Tyneside District Hospital after suffering complications, including excessive bleeding.
Severe bleeding continued after the delivery of her son, Muzzamil Ali, in 2005, the South Tyneside coroner was told before recording a narrative verdict on Mrs Yasmin, who also had an 18-month-old son.
Hami Fawzi, a consultant at the hospital, said: "The patient was losing a lot of blood and we were trying to pump as much blood and fluids back in as we could. We felt we were on top of replacing what needed to be replaced, but it is difficult to tell how much exactly was lost. In hindsight, there was an underestimation . . . We decided to let her pass peacefully." [Big of him! Sounds unethical] Doctors described it as one of the worst cases of uncontrollable blood loss they had ever seen.
Source
Friday, May 16, 2008
Canada Health Care - Waiting for Rations
(Ottawa, Canada) After a two-week wait to see a general practitioner, a woman learns that her daughter must see a neurologist to explain her chronic seizures.
If it's the latter, the survivors will be comforted by knowing that a computer is sincerely sorry.
Tip: Nasty, Brutish & Short
(Ottawa, Canada) After a two-week wait to see a general practitioner, a woman learns that her daughter must see a neurologist to explain her chronic seizures.
About 2 weeks later, we finally got the referral to a neurologist at the Civic Hospital. Are you ready for this? The appointment is for August 18. April 4, when she had her big seizure, to August 18 - that's 4.5 months, for an 18-year old girl who is having chronic seizures.Why a patient with serious, chronic seizures is not classified as an emergency case is unknown. Beyond a doubt, however, a four and one-half month wait for medical attention is outrageous. The patient's mother is understandably livid.
I never think, "If I had lots of money, I could buy a giant plasma TV and have a computer in every room of the house, and take vacations on a private island in the Caribbean." All I think is, "I'd get my kids the hell out of this dingy backwater, and down the U.S. where they have a decent medical system, and you don't die waiting for a doctor to look at a lump in your breast."While recognizing that long wait times are a fact of life under a socialized system, Canada Health is not heartless as demonstrated by this gesture.
A letter from the Moncton Hospital to a New Brunswick heart patient in need of an electrocardiogram said the appointment would be in three months. It added: "If the person named on this computer- generated letter is deceased, please accept our sincere apologies."Therefore, a patient either waits for the specified time and gets treated or dies, whichever comes first. If it's the former -- Phew!
If it's the latter, the survivors will be comforted by knowing that a computer is sincerely sorry.
Tip: Nasty, Brutish & Short
Australia: Government warned about butcher doctor but hired him anyway
A SENIOR NSW health department executive was warned that disgraced doctor Graeme Reeves was "not meant to do obstetrics" but agreed to hire him anyway. A NSW Greater Southern Area Health executive, involved in the hiring of Reeves, wrote a diary note in April, 2002 which reveals he was told of the obstetrics restriction during a phone call with one of Reeve's referees for a job at Bega and Pambula District Hospitals, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
The executive's handwritten notes detail his phone conversation with an unknown referee of Reeves on April 11, 2002. A transcript of the executive's notes describes Reeves as: "technically well trained ... had depression there was a catastrophe ... OK when normal and has apparently been normal ... last heard not meant to do obstetrics."
After a request by the NSW opposition, 23 documents about Reeves have been tabled in the NSW upper house including the referee check. Reeves is accused of botching procedures on hundreds of women and sexually assaulting women, including several during his time at NSW South Coast hospitals in 2002 and 2003.
The executive's notes also say Reeves has had "... few arguments with nursing staff and junior registrars". The documents reveal the only other background check done on Reeves in 2002 was a criminal history check that came back negative. Reeves beat two other applicants for the position and supplied three references with his resume.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has deflected several calls for a national registration system for doctors, saying it does not prevent malpractice.
Source
Woman in labour left in Australian public hospital storeroom
A WOMAN in labour spent several hours on the floor of a storeroom of Gold Coast Hospital because there were no beds in the maternity ward. Mitch and Erica, who asked for their surname not to be published, arrived at the hospital last Friday at 8am with Erica in labour, only to be told there were no beds available. "They said they were too busy and we would have to wait for a bed and we might have to have the baby in the foyer," said Erica. "The lady said 'We know how to do that and if you want to get more comfortable, get on your hands and knees'," she said. "I didn't feel like doing that with people walking past."
After waiting in the foyer for more than an hour, the couple were moved onto a mattress in a linen storeroom. The room had no airconditioning and Erica had to wait another 45 minutes to get a pillow. After three uncomfortable hours, Erica was finally moved into a bed where she gave birth to a boy.
Erica said that after the ordeal, and other bad experiences at hospitals, she did not want to have any more children. "I guess that I was pretty unlucky. Out of all labours and births that did happen that day that I was the one who had to spend a good part of my labour in a linen storeroom which did make the whole experience unpleasant and uncomfortable, and also a little bit degrading." Mitch said he was disgusted with Queensland Health. "If they can't cope with someone having a baby, how are they going to cope if there is a disaster?" he said. "Four hours to get into a bed is ridiculous. The Queensland Government need to pull their head in and give more resources to the hospital."
A Gold Coast Hospital spokeswoman said there had never been an instance where a woman in labour was not found a bed in time to deliver their baby. "There has been one instance last Friday where a woman was offered the option of undertaking part of her labour in a room not set up for delivery, in order to have direct regular access to her midwife, a toilet and shower facilities," said the spokeswoman. "It was acknowledged at the time and subsequently ... the physical surroundings were less than ideal."
Source
A SENIOR NSW health department executive was warned that disgraced doctor Graeme Reeves was "not meant to do obstetrics" but agreed to hire him anyway. A NSW Greater Southern Area Health executive, involved in the hiring of Reeves, wrote a diary note in April, 2002 which reveals he was told of the obstetrics restriction during a phone call with one of Reeve's referees for a job at Bega and Pambula District Hospitals, the Sydney Morning Herald reports.
The executive's handwritten notes detail his phone conversation with an unknown referee of Reeves on April 11, 2002. A transcript of the executive's notes describes Reeves as: "technically well trained ... had depression there was a catastrophe ... OK when normal and has apparently been normal ... last heard not meant to do obstetrics."
After a request by the NSW opposition, 23 documents about Reeves have been tabled in the NSW upper house including the referee check. Reeves is accused of botching procedures on hundreds of women and sexually assaulting women, including several during his time at NSW South Coast hospitals in 2002 and 2003.
The executive's notes also say Reeves has had "... few arguments with nursing staff and junior registrars". The documents reveal the only other background check done on Reeves in 2002 was a criminal history check that came back negative. Reeves beat two other applicants for the position and supplied three references with his resume.
The Australian Medical Association (AMA) has deflected several calls for a national registration system for doctors, saying it does not prevent malpractice.
Source
Woman in labour left in Australian public hospital storeroom
A WOMAN in labour spent several hours on the floor of a storeroom of Gold Coast Hospital because there were no beds in the maternity ward. Mitch and Erica, who asked for their surname not to be published, arrived at the hospital last Friday at 8am with Erica in labour, only to be told there were no beds available. "They said they were too busy and we would have to wait for a bed and we might have to have the baby in the foyer," said Erica. "The lady said 'We know how to do that and if you want to get more comfortable, get on your hands and knees'," she said. "I didn't feel like doing that with people walking past."
After waiting in the foyer for more than an hour, the couple were moved onto a mattress in a linen storeroom. The room had no airconditioning and Erica had to wait another 45 minutes to get a pillow. After three uncomfortable hours, Erica was finally moved into a bed where she gave birth to a boy.
Erica said that after the ordeal, and other bad experiences at hospitals, she did not want to have any more children. "I guess that I was pretty unlucky. Out of all labours and births that did happen that day that I was the one who had to spend a good part of my labour in a linen storeroom which did make the whole experience unpleasant and uncomfortable, and also a little bit degrading." Mitch said he was disgusted with Queensland Health. "If they can't cope with someone having a baby, how are they going to cope if there is a disaster?" he said. "Four hours to get into a bed is ridiculous. The Queensland Government need to pull their head in and give more resources to the hospital."
A Gold Coast Hospital spokeswoman said there had never been an instance where a woman in labour was not found a bed in time to deliver their baby. "There has been one instance last Friday where a woman was offered the option of undertaking part of her labour in a room not set up for delivery, in order to have direct regular access to her midwife, a toilet and shower facilities," said the spokeswoman. "It was acknowledged at the time and subsequently ... the physical surroundings were less than ideal."
Source
Thursday, May 15, 2008
Lazy NHS doctor nearly kills little girl
No diagnostic tests for peasants! Just take an aspirin. She's half blind now but the doctor will suffer no consequences. And what nobody is mentioning is WHY TB has resurfaced in Britain: "Refugees" from Africa bring it with them. Being kind to such refugees has sent a little British girl half blind
For three days, Katie Roberts lay unresponsive on a paediatric ward. The two-year-old's eyes were shut, her face sallow, and the drips taped to her arms only accentuated her wasted limbs. Katie had been ill for nearly a month with a high temperature, sickness and weight loss which her GP had repeatedly blamed on a virus. "It all started when Katie developed a slight temperature and came out in a rash,' says her mother Sarah, 27, from Grantham, Lincs. "The GP diagnosed mild chickenpox. But a week later, Katie had a high temperature and was vomiting. The weight fell off her. "The doctor's answer was always the same - it was a virus. I remember sitting in my car after yet another appointment, in floods of tears and so frustrated," recalls the auxiliary nurse. "My child was dying and no one cared. No one took her temperature, let alone did blood tests."
After three weeks, in desperation, Sarah and her husband Martin, 27, took Katie to A&E at Grantham Hospital. Katie was immediately transferred to a specialist paediatric ward in Lincoln where she had a brain scan, a lumbar puncture to check for meningitis and dozens of blood tests. "Doctors suggested she had everything from chickenpox to cancer, but all tests came back negative," says Sarah. Despite being on large doses of antibiotics, Katie was showing no signs of recovery.
Three days later, a doctor asked if she'dcome into contact with anyone who had TB. That question probably saved her life. She had indeed been exposed - through her aunt's boyfriend, James. He had been diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, TB of the lungs, 18 months earlier - although he never found out how he had contracted it. Before the era of antibiotics and vaccinations, tuberculosis was responsible for thousands of deaths in the UK every year. But while many think the disease had been eradicated, around 8,000 cases of TB are still reported in the UK every year, mostly in major cities (just last month, 30 pupils at a secondary school in Birmingham were diagnosed with TB). Not all tuberculosis is infectious, but pulmonary TB is.
Two weeks after James started his antibiotic treatment, he was no longer infectious. But it had taken four months to diagnose him, meaning he'd had the potential to infect others during that time. Katie was moved into isolation.
Doctors explained she could have TB meningitis, a complication caused when the bacteria - mycobacterium tuberculosis - migrates to the lining of the brain and forms When these abscesses burst, they create inflammation which puts pressure on the brain. Without antibiotics to combat the bacteria, and steroids to reduce the swelling - the consequences would be catastrophic. There was a serious risk of brain damage, sight or hearing loss and septicaemia, leading to loss of limbs - and if the infection got out of control, organ failure and death.
Although doctors weren't certain, no time could be wasted. Katie was started on four antibiotics specifically for the disease via a gastric tube. She was also given steroids to reduce the inflammation in her brain and blood was sent off for analysis. It was then a waiting game. Gradually, after a few days, her fevers lessened and she stayed awake for longer - the results of the tests confirmed she did have the disease.
As their daughter recovered, Sarah and Martin foundthemselves increasingly angry about the needlessness of their ordeal - and how the doctors' lack of awareness could have killed Katie. Since James's diagnosis of TB 18 months earlier, Sarah had been anxious that Katie could catch the disease. But her GP had insisted there was no risk, because James saw Katie only once a week, for a few hours.
According to the UK charity TB Alert, the doctor's reaction was typical, demonstrating the general lack of awareness among healthcare professionals. "Because tuberculosis has been dealt with so effectively in the past 50 years, many GPs, particularly those away from the high-risk areas such as London, will never have seen the disease," says Melanie Matthews, of TB Alert. "But it's on the increase, and as people travel can spread to socalled unaffected areas. There is also a complacency that it can be easily treated with antibiotics and is no longer dangerous. "In fact, for those who have weak immune systems, such as infants or elderly people, left untreated it can be fatal."
Another problem is that Government guidelines for screening those in contact with a sufferer are open to interpretation. The Department of Health makes it clear that the decision is down to individual clinics, while The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines state that people who are in close contact with the TB sufferer should be tested and given precautionary antibiotics. Screening can be in the form of a blood test, a skin test or a chest X-ray. Katie had been exposed to active tuberculosis and was showing classic symptoms. Yet no one put the clues together until it was almost too late.
After three weeks, she was discharged from hospital, but was so weak she needed physiotherapy to build up her muscles. Fighting the disease is a long journey - Katie will take antibiotics for a year, until at least November this year. The family initially thought Katie might have got away unscathed, but this wasn't the case. Two weeks later, Katie was bumping into things or reaching out for a toy and missing it.
"The consultant ophthalmologist agreed Katie's sight was deteriorating, but felt it might be a repairable side-effect from one of the antibiotics," remembers Sarah. "We stopped giving her the drug but her sight kept deteriorating and a few days later she couldn't even see her hands. A scan confirmed the worst. "A few TB abscesses had swollen up again and were pushing onto the optic nerve - she was virtually blind. She was given 30mg of steroids a day to reduce the swelling." For two weeks, the family watched desperately for any sign of improvement, but her eyesight didn't improve. They were then warned their daughter's sight was unlikely to recover. "We were basically told to start organising our home around the needs of a blind child," says Sarah. "It all seemed so unfair. The one person I didn't blame was James. He'd done nothing wrong except become ill."
Unbeknown to the family, the consultant tracked down a doctor in Newcastle who'd had some success with a similar case by giving the child a huge short-term dose of steroids. "She called and said she wanted to double the dose from 30mgs to 60mgs a day," says Sarah. "We knew there might be side-effects such as liver damage and growth retardation, but if it saved her sight it would be worth it." And after three days, Katie's sight began to return. "To our relief, by the end of the two weeks it was back to 50 per cent of normal," recalls Sarah. Despite this, no one knows if Katie will have any long-term neurological damage. She has also gained weight from the high doses of steroids.
But having regained 50 per cent of her sight, Katie - who is now three-and-a-half - will be able to attend mainstream school and live a relatively normal life. "I hope that everyone who reads this realises the danger of underestimating TB," says Sarah. "It's on the increase and is not just confined to the inner cities or high-risk groups. And, as this story shows, it can still wreck lives."
Source
Wal-Mart expanding its low-priced drug program
Wal-Mart Stores Inc expanded its low-priced drug program, saying on Monday that it is now offering more than 1,000 over-the-counter items for $4 or less and selling some 90-day generic prescriptions for $10. It also increased the number of women's medications that it offers at a discount. "We expect that today's extension will generate additional pharmacy volume for the company, especially given the current weak consumer environment and rising health-care costs," wrote Uta Werner, a retail analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co, in a research note.
In 2006, Wal-Mart began selling some generic drugs for $4 per monthly prescription in Florida, and it quickly extended the program to all its U.S. pharmacies. Last year, it added more medicines to the program and said in September that $4 prescriptions accounted for nearly 40 percent of all prescriptions filled in its Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market pharmacies.
The world's largest retailer said pharmacies at its U.S. discount stores, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club warehouse locations is now filling prescriptions for up to 350 generic medications, like diabetes drug metformin and asthma drug albuterol, for $10 for a 90-day supply. It also expanded the number of women's medications it offers for $9, adding drugs to treat osteoporosis, breast cancer and hormone deficiency. It is selling alendronate, the generic version of the osteoporosis drug Fosamax, for $9 for a 30-day supply or $24 for a 90-day supply.
More here
No diagnostic tests for peasants! Just take an aspirin. She's half blind now but the doctor will suffer no consequences. And what nobody is mentioning is WHY TB has resurfaced in Britain: "Refugees" from Africa bring it with them. Being kind to such refugees has sent a little British girl half blind
For three days, Katie Roberts lay unresponsive on a paediatric ward. The two-year-old's eyes were shut, her face sallow, and the drips taped to her arms only accentuated her wasted limbs. Katie had been ill for nearly a month with a high temperature, sickness and weight loss which her GP had repeatedly blamed on a virus. "It all started when Katie developed a slight temperature and came out in a rash,' says her mother Sarah, 27, from Grantham, Lincs. "The GP diagnosed mild chickenpox. But a week later, Katie had a high temperature and was vomiting. The weight fell off her. "The doctor's answer was always the same - it was a virus. I remember sitting in my car after yet another appointment, in floods of tears and so frustrated," recalls the auxiliary nurse. "My child was dying and no one cared. No one took her temperature, let alone did blood tests."
After three weeks, in desperation, Sarah and her husband Martin, 27, took Katie to A&E at Grantham Hospital. Katie was immediately transferred to a specialist paediatric ward in Lincoln where she had a brain scan, a lumbar puncture to check for meningitis and dozens of blood tests. "Doctors suggested she had everything from chickenpox to cancer, but all tests came back negative," says Sarah. Despite being on large doses of antibiotics, Katie was showing no signs of recovery.
Three days later, a doctor asked if she'dcome into contact with anyone who had TB. That question probably saved her life. She had indeed been exposed - through her aunt's boyfriend, James. He had been diagnosed with pulmonary tuberculosis, TB of the lungs, 18 months earlier - although he never found out how he had contracted it. Before the era of antibiotics and vaccinations, tuberculosis was responsible for thousands of deaths in the UK every year. But while many think the disease had been eradicated, around 8,000 cases of TB are still reported in the UK every year, mostly in major cities (just last month, 30 pupils at a secondary school in Birmingham were diagnosed with TB). Not all tuberculosis is infectious, but pulmonary TB is.
Two weeks after James started his antibiotic treatment, he was no longer infectious. But it had taken four months to diagnose him, meaning he'd had the potential to infect others during that time. Katie was moved into isolation.
Doctors explained she could have TB meningitis, a complication caused when the bacteria - mycobacterium tuberculosis - migrates to the lining of the brain and forms When these abscesses burst, they create inflammation which puts pressure on the brain. Without antibiotics to combat the bacteria, and steroids to reduce the swelling - the consequences would be catastrophic. There was a serious risk of brain damage, sight or hearing loss and septicaemia, leading to loss of limbs - and if the infection got out of control, organ failure and death.
Although doctors weren't certain, no time could be wasted. Katie was started on four antibiotics specifically for the disease via a gastric tube. She was also given steroids to reduce the inflammation in her brain and blood was sent off for analysis. It was then a waiting game. Gradually, after a few days, her fevers lessened and she stayed awake for longer - the results of the tests confirmed she did have the disease.
As their daughter recovered, Sarah and Martin foundthemselves increasingly angry about the needlessness of their ordeal - and how the doctors' lack of awareness could have killed Katie. Since James's diagnosis of TB 18 months earlier, Sarah had been anxious that Katie could catch the disease. But her GP had insisted there was no risk, because James saw Katie only once a week, for a few hours.
According to the UK charity TB Alert, the doctor's reaction was typical, demonstrating the general lack of awareness among healthcare professionals. "Because tuberculosis has been dealt with so effectively in the past 50 years, many GPs, particularly those away from the high-risk areas such as London, will never have seen the disease," says Melanie Matthews, of TB Alert. "But it's on the increase, and as people travel can spread to socalled unaffected areas. There is also a complacency that it can be easily treated with antibiotics and is no longer dangerous. "In fact, for those who have weak immune systems, such as infants or elderly people, left untreated it can be fatal."
Another problem is that Government guidelines for screening those in contact with a sufferer are open to interpretation. The Department of Health makes it clear that the decision is down to individual clinics, while The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines state that people who are in close contact with the TB sufferer should be tested and given precautionary antibiotics. Screening can be in the form of a blood test, a skin test or a chest X-ray. Katie had been exposed to active tuberculosis and was showing classic symptoms. Yet no one put the clues together until it was almost too late.
After three weeks, she was discharged from hospital, but was so weak she needed physiotherapy to build up her muscles. Fighting the disease is a long journey - Katie will take antibiotics for a year, until at least November this year. The family initially thought Katie might have got away unscathed, but this wasn't the case. Two weeks later, Katie was bumping into things or reaching out for a toy and missing it.
"The consultant ophthalmologist agreed Katie's sight was deteriorating, but felt it might be a repairable side-effect from one of the antibiotics," remembers Sarah. "We stopped giving her the drug but her sight kept deteriorating and a few days later she couldn't even see her hands. A scan confirmed the worst. "A few TB abscesses had swollen up again and were pushing onto the optic nerve - she was virtually blind. She was given 30mg of steroids a day to reduce the swelling." For two weeks, the family watched desperately for any sign of improvement, but her eyesight didn't improve. They were then warned their daughter's sight was unlikely to recover. "We were basically told to start organising our home around the needs of a blind child," says Sarah. "It all seemed so unfair. The one person I didn't blame was James. He'd done nothing wrong except become ill."
Unbeknown to the family, the consultant tracked down a doctor in Newcastle who'd had some success with a similar case by giving the child a huge short-term dose of steroids. "She called and said she wanted to double the dose from 30mgs to 60mgs a day," says Sarah. "We knew there might be side-effects such as liver damage and growth retardation, but if it saved her sight it would be worth it." And after three days, Katie's sight began to return. "To our relief, by the end of the two weeks it was back to 50 per cent of normal," recalls Sarah. Despite this, no one knows if Katie will have any long-term neurological damage. She has also gained weight from the high doses of steroids.
But having regained 50 per cent of her sight, Katie - who is now three-and-a-half - will be able to attend mainstream school and live a relatively normal life. "I hope that everyone who reads this realises the danger of underestimating TB," says Sarah. "It's on the increase and is not just confined to the inner cities or high-risk groups. And, as this story shows, it can still wreck lives."
Source
Wal-Mart expanding its low-priced drug program
Wal-Mart Stores Inc expanded its low-priced drug program, saying on Monday that it is now offering more than 1,000 over-the-counter items for $4 or less and selling some 90-day generic prescriptions for $10. It also increased the number of women's medications that it offers at a discount. "We expect that today's extension will generate additional pharmacy volume for the company, especially given the current weak consumer environment and rising health-care costs," wrote Uta Werner, a retail analyst with Sanford C. Bernstein & Co, in a research note.
In 2006, Wal-Mart began selling some generic drugs for $4 per monthly prescription in Florida, and it quickly extended the program to all its U.S. pharmacies. Last year, it added more medicines to the program and said in September that $4 prescriptions accounted for nearly 40 percent of all prescriptions filled in its Wal-Mart, Sam's Club and Neighborhood Market pharmacies.
The world's largest retailer said pharmacies at its U.S. discount stores, Neighborhood Markets and Sam's Club warehouse locations is now filling prescriptions for up to 350 generic medications, like diabetes drug metformin and asthma drug albuterol, for $10 for a 90-day supply. It also expanded the number of women's medications it offers for $9, adding drugs to treat osteoporosis, breast cancer and hormone deficiency. It is selling alendronate, the generic version of the osteoporosis drug Fosamax, for $9 for a 30-day supply or $24 for a 90-day supply.
More here
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
PUBLIC MEDICINE MAYHEM IN AUSTRALIA
Three current articles below. Note that health insurance is taken out individually in Australia, rather than via an employer
Labor government to expand inferior healthcare
Sound crazy? It is. But that's the sort of destructiveness you regularly get when Leftist ideology takes charge. The Feds are going to spend more money on Australia's chaotic public hospitals in a bid to provide more staff per patient and cut waiting lists. Great! But they are ALSO attacking private health insurance -- thus sending more people into the public system and negating the effect of the extra funding for that system. You have to be a Leftist to be that moronic.
LABOR will shower public hospitals with cash in today's budget, adding to a $1billion boost it gave state governments in March, while facing allegations it is pursuing an ideologically driven vendetta against the private health sector. The Government yesterday accused the Howard government of neglecting public hospitals and promised that today's budget, the first Labor economic blueprint in 13 years, would restore the balance in health funding. But it also conceded one of its budget measures would trigger a reduction in the number of people with private health insurance, thereby placing more pressure on the public system.
The developments came as Kevin Rudd told a meeting of Labor MPs to expect "a good Labor budget", while Wayne Swan renewed his warnings that "tough decisions" could upset some citizens in a budget widely tipped to attack high-income earners.
As MPs began returning to Canberra for today's resumption of parliament, much of the political debate centred on Labor's plan to lift the threshold at which people face an extra surcharge for not having private health insurance, raising it from $50,000 to $100,000 for singles and from $100,000 to $150,000 for families. The Australian Health Insurance Association warned the move could prompt up to 400,000 people to dump their insurance and take their health needs to the public sector, already burdened by long waiting lists and inadequate resources.
Despite warnings this would put more pressure on public hospitals, Ms Roxon brushed aside the concerns. She advised health funds to make their products more attractive to consumers and said she would make no apologies for directing more resources into the public sector. Ms Roxon said the surcharge, introduced a decade ago to force higher-income earners to take out insurance, had become a "cruel hoax" on battlers because it had not been indexed. An income of $51,000 a year was no longer a high income, she said, and battlers were being unfairly exposed. "It's gradually hurt more and more people. We don't think that's fair and we're correcting that," Ms Roxon told Sydney radio station 2UE. "We're not going to keep working families under pressure where they get stuck either with the tax or taking out private health insurance when we know that the increasingly tight family budget just makes that a hopeless choice for many, many families."
Ms Roxon would not reveal government forecasts of how many people would dump their insurance and stressed the Government would continue to pay people with private health insurance a 30 per cent rebate, while vowing extra Labor funding for the public sector would enable it to meet increasing needs. "Unfortunately, the previous government neglected the public sector," she said. "I am very confident that the Rudd Labor Government, by investing more in the public hospital system and continuing to strongly support the private health sector, will get the balance right without putting unnecessary pressure on working families."
The weekend announcement of the change sent the shares of Australia's only listed private health insurer, NIB Holdings, plummeting. They finished down 16.11 per cent at 75.5c. If the same fall were applied to Australia's largest health insurer, the publicly owned Medibank Private, the Government would have stripped more than $300million in a single day off the value of its $2billion asset.
While the minister said yesterday that private health funds should have expected the surcharge would over time be indexed, Opposition health spokesman Joe Hockey said the move would hammer the private sector and lead to higher insurance premiums. "Either it's incompetence or it's ideological, and it seems to be ideological because it's very targeted," Mr Hockey told The Australian last night. "It seems to be targeted at private health providers. The impact on private health providers will be dramatic."
Earlier, Australian Private Health Insurance Association chief executive Michael Armitage said the change was being made for "socialist government philosophical reasons".
Source
From Medicare to mediocre
By Tony Abbott, Opposition spokesman
The Rudd Government is trumpeting that it has saved 2.4 million people from paying a Medicare surcharge. In fact, only 465,000 people paid the surcharge and each one of them could have avoided it by taking out private health insurance. If up to one million people now give up their private cover, as experts predict they will, Kevin Rudd will be directly responsible for a massive blow-out in public hospital waiting lists.
Sick people already wait for hours in public hospital emergency departments, despite the big increase in bulk-billing since 2003. Older people still wait months for elective surgery, despite a 16 per cent real increase in federal funding for state-run public hospitals under the present healthcare agreements. People tempted to thank Rudd for a tax cut won't be so grateful when they wait even longer for a hospital bed.
The Medicare surcharge is designed to ensure that people with higher incomes make a greater contribution to health costs. Fewer people covered by the surcharge means less money invested in the health system. At present, a family on $100,000 a year takes out private health insurance or pays an extra $1000 to Medicare. Most families in this situation have private insurance, which means that they don't compete with poorer people for elective surgery in public hospitals or can contribute to public hospital revenue by electing to be treated as private patients. Under the Rudd Government's announced changes, these families will have much less incentive to be privately insured. Many will drop out, especially because they also face higher grocery and petrol prices and higher interest rates since the Government's election.
Health analyst Andrew Goodsall says the initial effect of the Government's changes could be that 400,000 people drop out of private health insurance. Because the dropouts will mostly be younger and less costly to treat, Goodsall expects a disproportionate drop in profitability, perhaps a 10 per cent hike in premiums, and one million people ultimately losing private health cover. As a result, not only will more people be totally reliant on overstretched public hospitals but there could be a cascading effect on the viability of the private health system, which has been painstakingly restored since 1996.
After reaching nearly 70 per cent in the early 1980s, due to Hawke government policy changes, private health cover had dropped to just 30 per cent of the population by the mid-'90s. Then the Howard government introduced the Medicare surcharge for higher income earners without insurance, lifetime health cover to encourage younger people to join health funds, and the Medicare rebate to make health insurance premiums 30 per cent cheaper. Together, these policies increased private health coverage from six million to more than nine million people (including one million people earning less than $20,000 a year). Partly as a result, nearly 60 per cent of all surgery is now performed in private hospitals.
If even a small proportion of the 2.9 million episodes of private hospital treatment every year went public, there would be a substantial strain on public hospitals already struggling to cope.
In "economic conservative" mode before the election, Kevin Rudd and Health Minister Nicola Roxon were at pains to promise their full support for the private health sector. On November 20 last year, to "allay concerns" about Labor's historical bias against private health insurance, Rudd wrote to the Australian Health Insurance Association pledging that "Labor will maintain the Medicare levy surcharge".
Typically, Rudd has deliberately created a false impression without technically telling a lie. The surcharge has been maintained, but it has been altered in ways that fundamentally change its impact. Plainly, Rudd intends to rely on word games to justify junking other seemingly rock-solid commitments such as not means-testing the baby bonus. This is likely to turn out to be the 2008 version of core and non-core promises (only without the justification of an unexpected budget black hole) and to have an equal effect on the Government's standing.
Despite the Prime Minister's pose as "beyond Left and Right", there's already an old-fashioned feel to this budget. There's been much ado about minor changes that will "hit the rich" even though, in the case of the extra luxury car tax, they're likely to drive up prices for everyone. After the strain of having to appear economically responsible, ministers are enjoying playing Robin Hood but haven't yet realised that it's hard to hit the rich without hitting the poor.
Still, like the Labor premiers, Rudd has certainly learned the value of news management. Labor's spin about Medicare savings was front page news in at least four metropolitan newspapers while the reality that money was being taken out of the health system is now "old news", relegated to the back of the book.
Source
State minister accused of waiting list blowout
Below is the silly little airhead responsible for the healthcare of most people in NSW
The number of patients waiting for surgery at NSW hospitals has climbed to nearly 59,000, or about 55 extra people each week since Reba Meagher became Health Minister just over a year ago, the Opposition says. "Under Reba Meagher's watch, there are now more people waiting for surgery in NSW than at any other time during the last three years," the Opposition health spokeswoman, Jillian Skinner, said yesterday. The waiting list would increase further if the Federal Government doubled the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, which applied to taxpayers who did not have private health insurance, because at least 140,000 patients would flood the NSW public system, she said.
Ms Skinner called on the State Government to ensure NSW received more funding for its hospitals to cope with the expected rise in demand. Already overstretched doctors and nurses would come under more pressure from 140,000 extra patients.
Ms Meagher said the numbers waiting for surgery would "naturally rise as the population grows and ages, and the demand for medical services increases". The Opposition had "missed the point", she said, citing a drop in how long patients waited for surgery from an average of 3.6 months in June 2005 to 2.8 months in March this year.
She said the number of patients waiting more than a year for elective surgery had dropped from more than 10,000 to 255 in March and those waiting more than 30 days for urgent surgery had decreased from more than 5000 in 2005 to 102. "What matters is that people who need elective surgery have their procedure within the clinically recommended time frame, and that is what is happening," she said.
The Opposition says the hospital waiting list dropped from 58,461 in March 2006 to 51,779 in December 2006, the last reported figures before the state election. The figure then jumped to 55,972 in March last year, and was 58,839 a year later, it says. The Federal Government announced in January it would spend $150 million on cutting elective surgery waiting lists, of which NSW would receive $43.3 million.
Source
Three current articles below. Note that health insurance is taken out individually in Australia, rather than via an employer
Labor government to expand inferior healthcare
Sound crazy? It is. But that's the sort of destructiveness you regularly get when Leftist ideology takes charge. The Feds are going to spend more money on Australia's chaotic public hospitals in a bid to provide more staff per patient and cut waiting lists. Great! But they are ALSO attacking private health insurance -- thus sending more people into the public system and negating the effect of the extra funding for that system. You have to be a Leftist to be that moronic.
LABOR will shower public hospitals with cash in today's budget, adding to a $1billion boost it gave state governments in March, while facing allegations it is pursuing an ideologically driven vendetta against the private health sector. The Government yesterday accused the Howard government of neglecting public hospitals and promised that today's budget, the first Labor economic blueprint in 13 years, would restore the balance in health funding. But it also conceded one of its budget measures would trigger a reduction in the number of people with private health insurance, thereby placing more pressure on the public system.
The developments came as Kevin Rudd told a meeting of Labor MPs to expect "a good Labor budget", while Wayne Swan renewed his warnings that "tough decisions" could upset some citizens in a budget widely tipped to attack high-income earners.
As MPs began returning to Canberra for today's resumption of parliament, much of the political debate centred on Labor's plan to lift the threshold at which people face an extra surcharge for not having private health insurance, raising it from $50,000 to $100,000 for singles and from $100,000 to $150,000 for families. The Australian Health Insurance Association warned the move could prompt up to 400,000 people to dump their insurance and take their health needs to the public sector, already burdened by long waiting lists and inadequate resources.
Despite warnings this would put more pressure on public hospitals, Ms Roxon brushed aside the concerns. She advised health funds to make their products more attractive to consumers and said she would make no apologies for directing more resources into the public sector. Ms Roxon said the surcharge, introduced a decade ago to force higher-income earners to take out insurance, had become a "cruel hoax" on battlers because it had not been indexed. An income of $51,000 a year was no longer a high income, she said, and battlers were being unfairly exposed. "It's gradually hurt more and more people. We don't think that's fair and we're correcting that," Ms Roxon told Sydney radio station 2UE. "We're not going to keep working families under pressure where they get stuck either with the tax or taking out private health insurance when we know that the increasingly tight family budget just makes that a hopeless choice for many, many families."
Ms Roxon would not reveal government forecasts of how many people would dump their insurance and stressed the Government would continue to pay people with private health insurance a 30 per cent rebate, while vowing extra Labor funding for the public sector would enable it to meet increasing needs. "Unfortunately, the previous government neglected the public sector," she said. "I am very confident that the Rudd Labor Government, by investing more in the public hospital system and continuing to strongly support the private health sector, will get the balance right without putting unnecessary pressure on working families."
The weekend announcement of the change sent the shares of Australia's only listed private health insurer, NIB Holdings, plummeting. They finished down 16.11 per cent at 75.5c. If the same fall were applied to Australia's largest health insurer, the publicly owned Medibank Private, the Government would have stripped more than $300million in a single day off the value of its $2billion asset.
While the minister said yesterday that private health funds should have expected the surcharge would over time be indexed, Opposition health spokesman Joe Hockey said the move would hammer the private sector and lead to higher insurance premiums. "Either it's incompetence or it's ideological, and it seems to be ideological because it's very targeted," Mr Hockey told The Australian last night. "It seems to be targeted at private health providers. The impact on private health providers will be dramatic."
Earlier, Australian Private Health Insurance Association chief executive Michael Armitage said the change was being made for "socialist government philosophical reasons".
Source
From Medicare to mediocre
By Tony Abbott, Opposition spokesman
The Rudd Government is trumpeting that it has saved 2.4 million people from paying a Medicare surcharge. In fact, only 465,000 people paid the surcharge and each one of them could have avoided it by taking out private health insurance. If up to one million people now give up their private cover, as experts predict they will, Kevin Rudd will be directly responsible for a massive blow-out in public hospital waiting lists.
Sick people already wait for hours in public hospital emergency departments, despite the big increase in bulk-billing since 2003. Older people still wait months for elective surgery, despite a 16 per cent real increase in federal funding for state-run public hospitals under the present healthcare agreements. People tempted to thank Rudd for a tax cut won't be so grateful when they wait even longer for a hospital bed.
The Medicare surcharge is designed to ensure that people with higher incomes make a greater contribution to health costs. Fewer people covered by the surcharge means less money invested in the health system. At present, a family on $100,000 a year takes out private health insurance or pays an extra $1000 to Medicare. Most families in this situation have private insurance, which means that they don't compete with poorer people for elective surgery in public hospitals or can contribute to public hospital revenue by electing to be treated as private patients. Under the Rudd Government's announced changes, these families will have much less incentive to be privately insured. Many will drop out, especially because they also face higher grocery and petrol prices and higher interest rates since the Government's election.
Health analyst Andrew Goodsall says the initial effect of the Government's changes could be that 400,000 people drop out of private health insurance. Because the dropouts will mostly be younger and less costly to treat, Goodsall expects a disproportionate drop in profitability, perhaps a 10 per cent hike in premiums, and one million people ultimately losing private health cover. As a result, not only will more people be totally reliant on overstretched public hospitals but there could be a cascading effect on the viability of the private health system, which has been painstakingly restored since 1996.
After reaching nearly 70 per cent in the early 1980s, due to Hawke government policy changes, private health cover had dropped to just 30 per cent of the population by the mid-'90s. Then the Howard government introduced the Medicare surcharge for higher income earners without insurance, lifetime health cover to encourage younger people to join health funds, and the Medicare rebate to make health insurance premiums 30 per cent cheaper. Together, these policies increased private health coverage from six million to more than nine million people (including one million people earning less than $20,000 a year). Partly as a result, nearly 60 per cent of all surgery is now performed in private hospitals.
If even a small proportion of the 2.9 million episodes of private hospital treatment every year went public, there would be a substantial strain on public hospitals already struggling to cope.
In "economic conservative" mode before the election, Kevin Rudd and Health Minister Nicola Roxon were at pains to promise their full support for the private health sector. On November 20 last year, to "allay concerns" about Labor's historical bias against private health insurance, Rudd wrote to the Australian Health Insurance Association pledging that "Labor will maintain the Medicare levy surcharge".
Typically, Rudd has deliberately created a false impression without technically telling a lie. The surcharge has been maintained, but it has been altered in ways that fundamentally change its impact. Plainly, Rudd intends to rely on word games to justify junking other seemingly rock-solid commitments such as not means-testing the baby bonus. This is likely to turn out to be the 2008 version of core and non-core promises (only without the justification of an unexpected budget black hole) and to have an equal effect on the Government's standing.
Despite the Prime Minister's pose as "beyond Left and Right", there's already an old-fashioned feel to this budget. There's been much ado about minor changes that will "hit the rich" even though, in the case of the extra luxury car tax, they're likely to drive up prices for everyone. After the strain of having to appear economically responsible, ministers are enjoying playing Robin Hood but haven't yet realised that it's hard to hit the rich without hitting the poor.
Still, like the Labor premiers, Rudd has certainly learned the value of news management. Labor's spin about Medicare savings was front page news in at least four metropolitan newspapers while the reality that money was being taken out of the health system is now "old news", relegated to the back of the book.
Source
State minister accused of waiting list blowout
Below is the silly little airhead responsible for the healthcare of most people in NSW
The number of patients waiting for surgery at NSW hospitals has climbed to nearly 59,000, or about 55 extra people each week since Reba Meagher became Health Minister just over a year ago, the Opposition says. "Under Reba Meagher's watch, there are now more people waiting for surgery in NSW than at any other time during the last three years," the Opposition health spokeswoman, Jillian Skinner, said yesterday. The waiting list would increase further if the Federal Government doubled the Medicare levy surcharge threshold, which applied to taxpayers who did not have private health insurance, because at least 140,000 patients would flood the NSW public system, she said.
Ms Skinner called on the State Government to ensure NSW received more funding for its hospitals to cope with the expected rise in demand. Already overstretched doctors and nurses would come under more pressure from 140,000 extra patients.
Ms Meagher said the numbers waiting for surgery would "naturally rise as the population grows and ages, and the demand for medical services increases". The Opposition had "missed the point", she said, citing a drop in how long patients waited for surgery from an average of 3.6 months in June 2005 to 2.8 months in March this year.
She said the number of patients waiting more than a year for elective surgery had dropped from more than 10,000 to 255 in March and those waiting more than 30 days for urgent surgery had decreased from more than 5000 in 2005 to 102. "What matters is that people who need elective surgery have their procedure within the clinically recommended time frame, and that is what is happening," she said.
The Opposition says the hospital waiting list dropped from 58,461 in March 2006 to 51,779 in December 2006, the last reported figures before the state election. The figure then jumped to 55,972 in March last year, and was 58,839 a year later, it says. The Federal Government announced in January it would spend $150 million on cutting elective surgery waiting lists, of which NSW would receive $43.3 million.
Source
