After
George Leuzzi pays final respects to his wife on Tuesday at her
funeral, he will turn his attention to caring for their young daughter
and bringing an end to a procedure that claimed 44-year-old Brenda.
"Now
that she's passed I will do my part to carry on what she started," he
said. "I will help as much as I can to get this removed."
Brenda Leuzzi died 25 months after fibroid surgery through minimally invasive procedure that involved power morcellation.
At the time, no one knew the fibroids, thought to be innocent growths,
were cancerous. There is no definitive pre-surgery test to determine
whether fibroids are benign. Power morcellation shreds tissue so that it
can be removed through small incisions of minimally invasive surgery.
In so doing, it can send bits of cancer to other parts of the abdomen,
where they can "seed."
A grassroots effort to end power
morcellation has been going on for just about a year, since the problem
was brought to light by a physician whose wife had an undetected cancer
worsened by the procedure.
The Food and Drug Administration has
issued advisories against the procedure and the leading manufacturer,
Johnson & Johnson, has asked providers to return the devices. But
other manufacturers have them on the market. The FDA held hearings in
July about the safety of the procedure.
The same day that George
Leuzzi buried his wife, Morgan Liscinsky of the FDA press office
answered a request for an update with, "I have no new information to
share since you contacted me last month."
Sens. Chuck Schumer and
Kirsten Gillibrand wrote in August to FDA Commissioner Margaret Hamburg.
That letter was on behalf of Jim Leary of Greece, whose wife, Barbara,
died last year after having undergone a procedure that involved
morcellation.
Asked what the senators are doing to step up
pressure, Gillibrand spokesman Jacob Fromer responded: "It is deeply
frustrating to the Senator that while the FDA discourages the use of
these very devices they won't take the necessary action to ban them. She
will continue to communicate her concerns to the commissioner.
Kirsten's thoughts and prayers are with the Leuzzi family, particularly
their young daughter, Peyton."
Schumer spokesman Max Dworin said
the office "followed up with the FDA (Monday), urging them again to call
on manufacturers to voluntarily recall these devices, and we will
continue to push."
Schumer's statement Monday read, ""The passing
of Brenda Leuzzi is tragic and further underscores the urgency for all
firms to voluntarily recall these devices until more thorough testing
can be done. The FDA should act before another family has to experience
what the Leuzzi family is going through right now. My thoughts and
prayers go out to the entire Leuzzi family."
George Leuzzi is more
adamant than Schumer. "I'm very disappointed in the FDA. They should
have banned this by now. They're just stalling and finding some other
way to convince themselves it's OK. If anybody saw Brenda and the way
she died, it's pretty far from OK. I wouldn't wish it on my worst
enemy."
George Leuzzi said he's received an uncountable number of
texts and emails since he posted on a leiomyosarcoma Facebook page news
of Brenda's death.
"Cancer is the enemy, but any procedure that
would enhance it and make it worse and put someone in a position to have
no way of rebounding from it is criminal," he said.
As it was during Brenda's illness, her husband's focus is on his wife.
"I
want her to be remembered. I don't want her to be forgotten, especially
because what she died for was completely unnecessary."
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cancer. Show all posts
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
Saturday, August 30, 2014
Many Women Have Died Unnecessarily Because of surgery with MORCELLATORS
Why does Morcellation surgery continue when we know it kills women? Why do doctors continue to do the surgery? The answer: profits for medical device companies, profits for doctors.
How Many People Have To Die To Show A New Surgery Technique Isn't Worth It?
By Harriet Brown
Prevention Magazine
May 2014
Dr. Noorchashm asks: "When new technology makes
medicine cheaper and more convenient, how many
patients have to die to prove it's not worth it?"
Petition by Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD:
My wife [Dr. Amy Reed] had a surgical procedure that spread cancerous cells throughout her body. She now has stage 4 cancer. Please sign my petition demanding the FDA stop a procedure that has spread cancer in thousands of women.
My wife Amy is a mother of six, and an accomplished anesthesiologist who helped treat victims of the Boston Marathon bombing last year.
How Many People Have To Die To Show A New Surgery Technique Isn't Worth It?
By Harriet Brown
Prevention Magazine
May 2014
Dr. Noorchashm asks: "When new technology makes
medicine cheaper and more convenient, how many
patients have to die to prove it's not worth it?"
Petition by Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD:
My wife [Dr. Amy Reed] had a surgical procedure that spread cancerous cells throughout her body. She now has stage 4 cancer. Please sign my petition demanding the FDA stop a procedure that has spread cancer in thousands of women.
My wife Amy is a mother of six, and an accomplished anesthesiologist who helped treat victims of the Boston Marathon bombing last year.
Now, because of a dangerous, but standard, gynecological
procedure her early stage cancer was spread -- causing stage 4 cancer.
Last Fall, Amy went in for a routine hysterectomy to treat what
we thought were benign fibroids, and had a minimally invasive “morcellation”
procedure to remove her uterus. Little did we know that this procedure would
end up spreading malignant cancer cells throughout Amy’s belly. What's more is
that “morcellation” is totally avoidable and it has devastated thousands of
women and families by spreading and upstaging dangerous cancers of the uterus
and ovaries.
Now we’re taking a stand in hopes of banning this surgery for
good, and saving the lives of countless women and mothers. And the momentum is
on our side.
Because of the momentum of this petition,
numerous hospitals around the country have stopped performing this type of
hysterectomy. Last week, a major health insurer -- Blue Cross Blue Shield --
announced that they would no longer cover the procedure. And Johnson &
Johnson, which manufactures some of the surgical tools used in this procedure,
issued a worldwide voluntary recall of the tools called "power
morcellators," saying that they couldn’t guarantee that the procedure was
safe for women to undergo.
The reason this surgical procedure is so controversial is that doctors
have no reliable way of testing whether patients are at risk of having
cancerous cells spread throughout their body during the surgery. That was
the case with Amy -- in the process of removing her uterus, undetected cancer
cells were spread throughout her abdomen region, and stage 4 cancer developed.
The same has happened to scores of other women, globally. Women who went in
thinking they were having a “minimally invasive” procedure, left the operating
room with an advanced stage of cancer.
Last month, the FDA held public hearings on this surgical
procedure. Amy and I traveled down to Washington, D.C., to talk about this
petition and to bring Amy’s story to the attention of FDA and congressional
regulators. They are currently debating whether to ban this procedure or not,
and that’s why I need your help today.
I cannot tell you what this means to my wife, to me, and to our
family. Together, we can help potentially save the lives of thousands of women
moving forward. No other woman should ever have her uterine cancer upstaged to
an advanced stage by a gynecologist practicing this totally avoidable procedure
they call "morcellation."
Thank you,
Hooman Noorchashm, MD, PhD
Boston, MA
Boston, MA
Health Alert: Many Women Have Died Unnecessarily Because Dangerous Cancers of the Uterus and Ovaries Are Being Spread using MORCELLATORS. Stop MORCELLATION in Minimally Invasive Gynecological Surgery.
Friends of the Public,
Many women have been harmed and have died prematurely or unnecessarily because of a routine but avoidable gynecological practice known as MORCELLATION. This world-wide practice has devastated many families for well over two decades now.
More than 600,000 hysterectomies are done in the US every year. By the age of 70, one out of every three American women will have had a hysterectomy. About 90% of these surgeries are done for what is presumed to be a benign condition called fibroids. More and more of these surgeries are done with minimally invasive techniques. Usually, to get the uterus out of the body using the "minimally invasive" technique, it is cut into small pieces with a machine called a morcellator. However, a devastating problem happens if in fact the woman did NOT have fibroids – but if she actually had cancer. Unfortunately, the tests that are done before a hysterectomy do not identify these cancers well. Many gynecologists don't even bother getting any tests. In fact, morcellating cancer spreads the cancer inside the woman’s body.
This is called ‘up staging’ the cancer.
It is important to understand:
1) The average life span following accidental morcellation of sarcoma is only 24-36 months.
2) Only 15% of woman who have leiomyosarcoma (LMS) that has spread (stage 4) will be alive after 5 years.
3) Women with sarcoma who are morcellated are about 4 times more likely to die from sarcoma than if they had not been morcellated.
This is an avoidable disaster.
This problem has been recognized for more than two decades. A review of the literature reveals that 1 in 415 women who go for fibroid surgery actually has sarcoma. This means that everyday 2-5 women in the US – and more around the world will have a deadly cancer spread because of morcellation.
This catastrophic problem has happened in our own family and we are fighting to stop this dangerous activity called morcellation. A chance of 1 in 415 for such a devastating outcome is much too high to accept. Women should be told the truth and the practice should stop.
Please help us bring an end to spreading cancer with morcellation. There are alternatives. Some surgeons have begun using a special bag to avoid spreading cancer cells. Several of the reasons why this has not yet become commonplace are the fact that: a) bag morcellation takes more time – and time is money; b) lack of training; and c) lack of awareness. Other people opt for a traditional open hysterectomy. People need to understand their options – but – currently, most women never hear anything about morcellation or about the possibility of cancer upstaging. We need your help.
Please sign our petition so we can get the word out. We want the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology to change this "standard of care" by ending the needless waste of life caused by spreading cancer with morcellation.
For more information and original references see: http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/blog/onlinefirst/pages/post.aspx?PostID=188 ) (also see:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23189178) (also see:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565389).
The attached video below shows an example of morcellation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMnzQbRMWJ8
The following companies manufacture and distribute uterine morcellator devices:
1) ETHICON: Gynecare morcellator
2) Storz: Rotocut Morcellator
3) Richard Wolf Medical Instrumentation Company
4) LiNA: LiNA Xcise Cordless Laparoscopic Morcellator
5) Blue Endo MOREsolution Tissue Morcellator
Intuitive Surgical's Da Vinci Robot deserves special mention, as the frequency of robotic hysterectomies performed by minimally invasive gynecologists is currently on the rise across the United States. Note that Intuitive Surgical builds and markets the DaVinci robot, which is not itself a "morcellator". However, use of the DaVinci robot almost invariably appears to require that the uterus be minced up, or morcellated, into smaller pieces inside the woman's belly cavity in order to extract from the abdomen. A clear example is shown in the following YouTube video of DaVinci being used to perform a robotic hysterectomy and manually morcellating the uterus using the endo-wrist component of the robot (morcellation is being performed at minute 5:30 of the video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6luiX6UQmg
Without morcellation using equipment manufactured by Intuitive Surgical, robotic hysterectomies would, likely, not be possible using the DaVinci Robot. It is noteworthy that the DaVinci robot does not appear to have a readily available warning label advising against its use to morcellate tumors with malignant potential inside the body. The company's Chief Medical Advisor, Dr. Myriam Curet, a surgeon herself, has been informed and advised of this severe hazard in the use of DaVinci for robotic hysterectomy and the absence of a readily available warning label.
Many women have been harmed and have died prematurely or unnecessarily because of a routine but avoidable gynecological practice known as MORCELLATION. This world-wide practice has devastated many families for well over two decades now.
More than 600,000 hysterectomies are done in the US every year. By the age of 70, one out of every three American women will have had a hysterectomy. About 90% of these surgeries are done for what is presumed to be a benign condition called fibroids. More and more of these surgeries are done with minimally invasive techniques. Usually, to get the uterus out of the body using the "minimally invasive" technique, it is cut into small pieces with a machine called a morcellator. However, a devastating problem happens if in fact the woman did NOT have fibroids – but if she actually had cancer. Unfortunately, the tests that are done before a hysterectomy do not identify these cancers well. Many gynecologists don't even bother getting any tests. In fact, morcellating cancer spreads the cancer inside the woman’s body.
This is called ‘up staging’ the cancer.
It is important to understand:
1) The average life span following accidental morcellation of sarcoma is only 24-36 months.
2) Only 15% of woman who have leiomyosarcoma (LMS) that has spread (stage 4) will be alive after 5 years.
3) Women with sarcoma who are morcellated are about 4 times more likely to die from sarcoma than if they had not been morcellated.
This is an avoidable disaster.
This problem has been recognized for more than two decades. A review of the literature reveals that 1 in 415 women who go for fibroid surgery actually has sarcoma. This means that everyday 2-5 women in the US – and more around the world will have a deadly cancer spread because of morcellation.
This catastrophic problem has happened in our own family and we are fighting to stop this dangerous activity called morcellation. A chance of 1 in 415 for such a devastating outcome is much too high to accept. Women should be told the truth and the practice should stop.
Please help us bring an end to spreading cancer with morcellation. There are alternatives. Some surgeons have begun using a special bag to avoid spreading cancer cells. Several of the reasons why this has not yet become commonplace are the fact that: a) bag morcellation takes more time – and time is money; b) lack of training; and c) lack of awareness. Other people opt for a traditional open hysterectomy. People need to understand their options – but – currently, most women never hear anything about morcellation or about the possibility of cancer upstaging. We need your help.
Please sign our petition so we can get the word out. We want the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and the American Board of Obstetrics and Gynecology to change this "standard of care" by ending the needless waste of life caused by spreading cancer with morcellation.
For more information and original references see: http://journals.lww.com/oncology-times/blog/onlinefirst/pages/post.aspx?PostID=188 ) (also see:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23189178) (also see:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21565389).
The attached video below shows an example of morcellation http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMnzQbRMWJ8
The following companies manufacture and distribute uterine morcellator devices:
1) ETHICON: Gynecare morcellator
2) Storz: Rotocut Morcellator
3) Richard Wolf Medical Instrumentation Company
4) LiNA: LiNA Xcise Cordless Laparoscopic Morcellator
5) Blue Endo MOREsolution Tissue Morcellator
Intuitive Surgical's Da Vinci Robot deserves special mention, as the frequency of robotic hysterectomies performed by minimally invasive gynecologists is currently on the rise across the United States. Note that Intuitive Surgical builds and markets the DaVinci robot, which is not itself a "morcellator". However, use of the DaVinci robot almost invariably appears to require that the uterus be minced up, or morcellated, into smaller pieces inside the woman's belly cavity in order to extract from the abdomen. A clear example is shown in the following YouTube video of DaVinci being used to perform a robotic hysterectomy and manually morcellating the uterus using the endo-wrist component of the robot (morcellation is being performed at minute 5:30 of the video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f6luiX6UQmg
Without morcellation using equipment manufactured by Intuitive Surgical, robotic hysterectomies would, likely, not be possible using the DaVinci Robot. It is noteworthy that the DaVinci robot does not appear to have a readily available warning label advising against its use to morcellate tumors with malignant potential inside the body. The company's Chief Medical Advisor, Dr. Myriam Curet, a surgeon herself, has been informed and advised of this severe hazard in the use of DaVinci for robotic hysterectomy and the absence of a readily available warning label.
Thursday, April 24, 2014
Finally, a Kaiser doctor, oncologist Jennifer Lycette, speaks out about doctors forced to allow harm to patients to increase profits
"...Lycette’s suit states, however, that she became troubled by new Kaiser policies
after [executive Jeffrey] Weisz was brought in.
"Among her other complaints, her suit alleges she expressed concerns about a ban on referring patients to non-Kaiser specialists or clinical trials outside of Kaiser -- even though doing so would be in the best interests of patients.
"She resigned in April 2013, because of her oath to do no harm and her belief that Kaiser policies were "making patients suffer," her suit states.
"According to the website for Oregon Health & Science University, Lycette relocated to Astoria and is now working at OHSU's Cancer Care Center at Columbia Memorial Hospital..."
Former oncologist claims Kaiser Permanente pushed profits over patient care, files $7 million lawsuit
Aimee Green
Oregon Live
April 23, 2014
A former oncologist at Kaiser Permanente is suing the health care company for $7 million, claiming she had no choice but to quit her job after complaining the organization was maximizing profits to the detriment of cancer patients.
Dr. Jennifer Lycette claims quality of care took a nosedive when Northwest Permanente Medical Group hired Jeffrey Weisz as its president and executive medical director in 2011. Weisz had previously worked for Kaiser in Southern California.
"During Dr. Weisz's tenure (in California), he established a reputation as a ruthless administrator who found ways to minimize payrolls by shrinking staff while patient loads skyrocketed, often leaving the remaining staff members trying to cope with impossible patient demands which ultimately harmed Kaiser's patients," reads Lycette's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
In an email statement, Kaiser spokesman Michael Foley said, "The care needs of our members, patients, and customers come first. Allegations that claim otherwise are not supported by fact.
"We're reviewing the lawsuit that was filed," he addied, "and will address its inaccurate allegations through the judicial process."
The suit was filed by Lake Oswego attorney Roderick Boutin.
Lycette's suits claims that during a November 2012 meeting, Weisz ordered Kaiser's Portland oncologists to cram an initial consultation and bone-marrow biopsy of patients -- something that should take two to 2.5 hours and be done over two visits -- into one, 60-minute visit. Lycette’s suit states pain medication that must be taken orally takes 30 to 60 minutes to kick in, so a 60-minute visit would leave patients rushed and in pain.
Lycette "openly and respectfully voiced her concerns," and Weisz responded by shouting at Lycette in "a very angry and threatening manner," her suit states.
Lycette's suit also claims she complained in April 2012 to the then-chief of medical oncology, Nagendra Tirumali, about understaffing. She says patients were struggling to schedule appointments and some chemotherapy patients were only seeing their regular oncologist every two or three months.
Tirumali responded that Lycette was being “emotional,” according to a copy of an email attached to the suit. Lycette’s suit characterizes Tirumali's response as a "veiled attack" on her gender. Her suit states she later asked Tirumali whether he would have accused a man of being "emotional" over the issue of understaffing.
Lycette, 40, worked for Kaiser for about seven years -- from 2006 until she resigned in spring 2013 -- at its Interstate medical offices in North Portland and Sunnyside Medical Center in Clackamas, according to her suit. Her suit states she had the highest patient satisfaction rating, 89 percent, in her department.
Lycette’s suit alleges that before taking the job in 2006, she asked several Kaiser doctors if they thought they could care for patients without feeling that financial overhead compromised care. They assured her they could, the suit states.
Lycette’s suit states, however, that she became troubled by new Kaiser policies after Weisz was brought in.
Among her other complaints, her suit alleges she expressed concerns about a ban on referring patients to non-Kaiser specialists or clinical trials outside of Kaiser -- even though doing so would be in the best interests of patients.
She resigned in April 2013, because of her oath to do no harm and her belief that Kaiser policies were "making patients suffer," her suit states.
According to the website for Oregon Health & Science University, Lycette relocated to Astoria and is now working at OHSU's Cancer Care Center at Columbia Memorial Hospital.
Lycette is seeking $2 million in economic damages and $5 million in non-economic damages.
"Among her other complaints, her suit alleges she expressed concerns about a ban on referring patients to non-Kaiser specialists or clinical trials outside of Kaiser -- even though doing so would be in the best interests of patients.
"She resigned in April 2013, because of her oath to do no harm and her belief that Kaiser policies were "making patients suffer," her suit states.
"According to the website for Oregon Health & Science University, Lycette relocated to Astoria and is now working at OHSU's Cancer Care Center at Columbia Memorial Hospital..."
Former oncologist claims Kaiser Permanente pushed profits over patient care, files $7 million lawsuit
Aimee Green
Oregon Live
April 23, 2014
A former oncologist at Kaiser Permanente is suing the health care company for $7 million, claiming she had no choice but to quit her job after complaining the organization was maximizing profits to the detriment of cancer patients.
Dr. Jennifer Lycette claims quality of care took a nosedive when Northwest Permanente Medical Group hired Jeffrey Weisz as its president and executive medical director in 2011. Weisz had previously worked for Kaiser in Southern California.
"During Dr. Weisz's tenure (in California), he established a reputation as a ruthless administrator who found ways to minimize payrolls by shrinking staff while patient loads skyrocketed, often leaving the remaining staff members trying to cope with impossible patient demands which ultimately harmed Kaiser's patients," reads Lycette's lawsuit, filed Tuesday in Multnomah County Circuit Court.
In an email statement, Kaiser spokesman Michael Foley said, "The care needs of our members, patients, and customers come first. Allegations that claim otherwise are not supported by fact.
"We're reviewing the lawsuit that was filed," he addied, "and will address its inaccurate allegations through the judicial process."
The suit was filed by Lake Oswego attorney Roderick Boutin.
Lycette's suits claims that during a November 2012 meeting, Weisz ordered Kaiser's Portland oncologists to cram an initial consultation and bone-marrow biopsy of patients -- something that should take two to 2.5 hours and be done over two visits -- into one, 60-minute visit. Lycette’s suit states pain medication that must be taken orally takes 30 to 60 minutes to kick in, so a 60-minute visit would leave patients rushed and in pain.
Lycette "openly and respectfully voiced her concerns," and Weisz responded by shouting at Lycette in "a very angry and threatening manner," her suit states.
Lycette's suit also claims she complained in April 2012 to the then-chief of medical oncology, Nagendra Tirumali, about understaffing. She says patients were struggling to schedule appointments and some chemotherapy patients were only seeing their regular oncologist every two or three months.
Tirumali responded that Lycette was being “emotional,” according to a copy of an email attached to the suit. Lycette’s suit characterizes Tirumali's response as a "veiled attack" on her gender. Her suit states she later asked Tirumali whether he would have accused a man of being "emotional" over the issue of understaffing.
Lycette, 40, worked for Kaiser for about seven years -- from 2006 until she resigned in spring 2013 -- at its Interstate medical offices in North Portland and Sunnyside Medical Center in Clackamas, according to her suit. Her suit states she had the highest patient satisfaction rating, 89 percent, in her department.
Lycette’s suit alleges that before taking the job in 2006, she asked several Kaiser doctors if they thought they could care for patients without feeling that financial overhead compromised care. They assured her they could, the suit states.
Lycette’s suit states, however, that she became troubled by new Kaiser policies after Weisz was brought in.
Among her other complaints, her suit alleges she expressed concerns about a ban on referring patients to non-Kaiser specialists or clinical trials outside of Kaiser -- even though doing so would be in the best interests of patients.
She resigned in April 2013, because of her oath to do no harm and her belief that Kaiser policies were "making patients suffer," her suit states.
According to the website for Oregon Health & Science University, Lycette relocated to Astoria and is now working at OHSU's Cancer Care Center at Columbia Memorial Hospital.
Lycette is seeking $2 million in economic damages and $5 million in non-economic damages.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Kaiser Mistakes Blamed for Woman's Death from Cancer
Most Kaiser doctors are very careful not to spend too much money on finding and treating cancer patients. They are rewarded financially for keeping costs down. My childhood friend had bleeding for a year-and-a-half before Kaiser did a biopsy, then got very poor care after her cancer was diagnosed. Her first appointment with an oncologist was scheduled two weeks later than her death.
Kaiser Mistakes Blamed for Woman's Death
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News
January 24, 2013
CLEVELAND, Ohio (CN) - A woman who died of lung cancer may have had a shot at life had Kaiser Permanente radiologists not misinterpreted her CT scans, the woman's husband claims in Cuyahoga County Court.
In 2006, Deborah Lee Jones was under "radiological surveillance" for development of tumors in her lungs, according to the complaint. A chest X-ray taken Nov. 23, 2009 at Cleveland Heights Medical Center revealed a "questionable" new nodule in her left lung, the complaint said. A CT scan was consequently performed, revealing the new mass, which went unnoticed by Kaiser Permanente Radiologist and co-defendant David Acquah, the complaint said.
Another CT scan was performed March 9, 2010, but Kaiser radiologist David Radebaugh interpreted it as showing no change from the Nov. 23, 2009 scan, the complaint said.
Jones underwent yet another CT scan Oct. 25, 2010, which revealed a 3.3 x 2.1cm mass, and was diagnosed Nov. 11, 2010 with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma, or lung cancer. Jones passed away Jan. 22, 2011 from bacterial sepsis due to metastatic lung cancer, according to the complaint.
Jones had been a Kaiser Permanente member since 1987.
Husband Gerald filed a wrongful death complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, naming Acquah, Radebaugh, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ohio and Ohio Permanente Medical Group as defendants.v The defendants, he said, "rendered substandard care and were otherwise negligent and departed from the applicable standard of care by failing to properly interpret radiographic studies and treat Deborah Lee Jones for signs and symptoms of lung cancer."
Jones said his wife could have been saved if the tumor had been properly detected early on in its development.
"As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence, plaintiff's decedent condition was allowed to change from being curative to non-curative and untreatable," the complaint states.
Jones is seeking in excess of $25,000 including funeral costs.
Thomas H. Terry of Madison, Ohio represents the plaintiff.
Kaiser Mistakes Blamed for Woman's Death
By PHILIP A. JANQUART
Courthouse News
January 24, 2013
CLEVELAND, Ohio (CN) - A woman who died of lung cancer may have had a shot at life had Kaiser Permanente radiologists not misinterpreted her CT scans, the woman's husband claims in Cuyahoga County Court.
In 2006, Deborah Lee Jones was under "radiological surveillance" for development of tumors in her lungs, according to the complaint. A chest X-ray taken Nov. 23, 2009 at Cleveland Heights Medical Center revealed a "questionable" new nodule in her left lung, the complaint said. A CT scan was consequently performed, revealing the new mass, which went unnoticed by Kaiser Permanente Radiologist and co-defendant David Acquah, the complaint said.
Another CT scan was performed March 9, 2010, but Kaiser radiologist David Radebaugh interpreted it as showing no change from the Nov. 23, 2009 scan, the complaint said.
Jones underwent yet another CT scan Oct. 25, 2010, which revealed a 3.3 x 2.1cm mass, and was diagnosed Nov. 11, 2010 with non-small cell lung adenocarcinoma, or lung cancer. Jones passed away Jan. 22, 2011 from bacterial sepsis due to metastatic lung cancer, according to the complaint.
Jones had been a Kaiser Permanente member since 1987.
Husband Gerald filed a wrongful death complaint in the Cuyahoga County Court of Common Pleas, naming Acquah, Radebaugh, Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ohio and Ohio Permanente Medical Group as defendants.v The defendants, he said, "rendered substandard care and were otherwise negligent and departed from the applicable standard of care by failing to properly interpret radiographic studies and treat Deborah Lee Jones for signs and symptoms of lung cancer."
Jones said his wife could have been saved if the tumor had been properly detected early on in its development.
"As a direct and proximate result of the aforementioned negligence, plaintiff's decedent condition was allowed to change from being curative to non-curative and untreatable," the complaint states.
Jones is seeking in excess of $25,000 including funeral costs.
Thomas H. Terry of Madison, Ohio represents the plaintiff.
Friday, March 23, 2012
Kaiser Sued in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit
Kaiser Sued in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit
Sokolove Law
23 Mar, 2012
Health care company Kaiser Permanente faces a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a woman with stage IV ovarian cancer who claims her disease would have been treatable if she received appropriate testing when she first sought treatment.
According to Courthouse News, Yin Meng Liu Flato and her husband allege that Yin Meng went to a Kaiser Permanente hospital in 2006 with symptoms of cancer but that no tests was ordered by the medical staff. Their suit further claims that a chest CT scan in June 2010 showed nodules on her lungs but doctors still did not order testing.
The Flato’s medical malpractice lawsuit also alleges that it was not until March 2011 that diagnostic testing was performed, revealing Yin Meng had stage IV ovarian cancer. This failure to diagnose Yin Meng’s condition “resulted in plaintiff suffering high-risk cancer and resulting damages to the plaintiff," the complaint states.
Sokolove Law
23 Mar, 2012
Health care company Kaiser Permanente faces a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by a woman with stage IV ovarian cancer who claims her disease would have been treatable if she received appropriate testing when she first sought treatment.
According to Courthouse News, Yin Meng Liu Flato and her husband allege that Yin Meng went to a Kaiser Permanente hospital in 2006 with symptoms of cancer but that no tests was ordered by the medical staff. Their suit further claims that a chest CT scan in June 2010 showed nodules on her lungs but doctors still did not order testing.
The Flato’s medical malpractice lawsuit also alleges that it was not until March 2011 that diagnostic testing was performed, revealing Yin Meng had stage IV ovarian cancer. This failure to diagnose Yin Meng’s condition “resulted in plaintiff suffering high-risk cancer and resulting damages to the plaintiff," the complaint states.
Monday, February 27, 2012
Two black eyes? Kaiser and Komen Foundation
Kaiser and Komen
In a ghastly coincidence, the same day Komen pulled the money from Planned Parenthood because Stearns thought they were spending federal funds on abortions, the Journal of the America Medical Association published a damning study that almost half of women receiving second surgeries after lumpectomies didn't need the procedure. Painful, disfiguring, unnecessary surgery. At least three of the four sites studied in the JAMA report -- the University of Vermont, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, and the Marshfield Clinic -- has a relationship with the Komen Foundation. Kaiser Permanente is a "corporate campaign partner," the University of Vermont received a research grant, the Central Wisconsin Komen affiliate sponsors programs at the Marshfield Clinic. Maybe Komen should concentrate their granting criteria on whether the recipients are actually helping cancer patients.
The Komen Foundation's Black Eye
Linda Hirshman
The Atlantic
FEB 1 2012
By no longer donating to organizations "under investigation" by any federal, state, or local government, the Susan G. Komen Foundation is replacing its pink ribbons with a black list.
Recently, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, whose ubiquitous pink ribbon symbolizes its mission of curing breast cancer, adopted a mysterious rule. They would no longer make bequests for any services to any organization that was "under investigation" by any branch of any federal, state, or local government. Of course Komen is completely free to do whatever it likes. But recent American history contains a powerful warning against letting random legislators determine who gets cut off by their funders. Years ago, when Hollywood screenwriters invoked their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves in front of the red-hunting House Un-American Activities Committee, the private members of the Motion Picture Association put them on a blacklist, never to be employed again. In the years since the McCarthy fever abated, the blacklisting episode has come to be a symbol of political cowardice and wrongdoing. Komen does itself a disservice by replacing the pink ribbon with a black list.
Had anyone been looking, they might have asked why the cancer foundation needed such a rule. After all, how likely is it that a research university or cancer screening provider would attract the attention of the protectors of the public weal? Just before Komen passed its new rule, a passionately anti-abortion Republican congressman, Cliff Stearns, had announced he would be investigating the nationwide cancer-screening service provider Planned Parenthood. Not anything to do with cancer screening of course, but because Americans United for Life had told Rep. Stearns that they suspected the longtime contraceptive pioneer of using some of its federal funding for abortions. And yesterday, Komen pulled the million dollars it gives Planned Parenthood annually for cancer screening. After all, rules are rules.
What if the IRS was looking into a hospital's tax status? Would Komen have to pull their funding too?
Skeptical commentators are speculating that Komen bowed to political pressure. As conservatives increasingly targeted Planned Parenthood in recent months, various organizations explicitly upped the ante with Komen over their support of the non-profit. The Southern Baptists pulled their Pink Bible program, which produced a dollar for Komen with every Bible sold. Last April, Komen hired as vice president for public policy Karen Handel, a failed Republican candidate with a long online history of hostility to Planned Parenthood and contraception in general. And then it enacted its new rule.
The skepticism is further fueled by the weirdness of a rule letting any city council member or random state legislator decide to defund a Komen grantee just by starting an "investigation."...
In a ghastly coincidence, the same day Komen pulled the money from Planned Parenthood because Stearns thought they were spending federal funds on abortions, the Journal of the America Medical Association published a damning study that almost half of women receiving second surgeries after lumpectomies didn't need the procedure. Painful, disfiguring, unnecessary surgery. At least three of the four sites studied in the JAMA report -- the University of Vermont, Kaiser Permanente Colorado, and the Marshfield Clinic -- has a relationship with the Komen Foundation. Kaiser Permanente is a "corporate campaign partner," the University of Vermont received a research grant, the Central Wisconsin Komen affiliate sponsors programs at the Marshfield Clinic. Maybe Komen should concentrate their granting criteria on whether the recipients are actually helping cancer patients.
The Komen Foundation's Black Eye
Linda Hirshman
The Atlantic
FEB 1 2012
By no longer donating to organizations "under investigation" by any federal, state, or local government, the Susan G. Komen Foundation is replacing its pink ribbons with a black list.
Recently, the Susan G. Komen Foundation, whose ubiquitous pink ribbon symbolizes its mission of curing breast cancer, adopted a mysterious rule. They would no longer make bequests for any services to any organization that was "under investigation" by any branch of any federal, state, or local government. Of course Komen is completely free to do whatever it likes. But recent American history contains a powerful warning against letting random legislators determine who gets cut off by their funders. Years ago, when Hollywood screenwriters invoked their constitutional right not to incriminate themselves in front of the red-hunting House Un-American Activities Committee, the private members of the Motion Picture Association put them on a blacklist, never to be employed again. In the years since the McCarthy fever abated, the blacklisting episode has come to be a symbol of political cowardice and wrongdoing. Komen does itself a disservice by replacing the pink ribbon with a black list.
Had anyone been looking, they might have asked why the cancer foundation needed such a rule. After all, how likely is it that a research university or cancer screening provider would attract the attention of the protectors of the public weal? Just before Komen passed its new rule, a passionately anti-abortion Republican congressman, Cliff Stearns, had announced he would be investigating the nationwide cancer-screening service provider Planned Parenthood. Not anything to do with cancer screening of course, but because Americans United for Life had told Rep. Stearns that they suspected the longtime contraceptive pioneer of using some of its federal funding for abortions. And yesterday, Komen pulled the million dollars it gives Planned Parenthood annually for cancer screening. After all, rules are rules.
What if the IRS was looking into a hospital's tax status? Would Komen have to pull their funding too?
Skeptical commentators are speculating that Komen bowed to political pressure. As conservatives increasingly targeted Planned Parenthood in recent months, various organizations explicitly upped the ante with Komen over their support of the non-profit. The Southern Baptists pulled their Pink Bible program, which produced a dollar for Komen with every Bible sold. Last April, Komen hired as vice president for public policy Karen Handel, a failed Republican candidate with a long online history of hostility to Planned Parenthood and contraception in general. And then it enacted its new rule.
The skepticism is further fueled by the weirdness of a rule letting any city council member or random state legislator decide to defund a Komen grantee just by starting an "investigation."...
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Anna Rahm v. Kaiser: Kaiser refused to give an MRI for three months; aggressive cancer then found
Shamefully, the California Medical Association, California Hospital Association and California Dental Association supported Kaiser's denial of care to this patient. The Court of Appeal ruled on behalf of the patient.
Filed 2/15/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC., et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent.
ANNA RAHM et al., Real Parties in
Interest.
...Anna Rahm is a member of the Kaiser Permanente Traditional Plan (the plan),
which provides its members medically necessary health care in exchange for monthly
premiums. In August of 2008, Anna began experiencing back pain. Anna‟s parents,
Lynnette and James Rahm, took Anna to a chiropractor. After the treatments failed to
alleviate Anna‟s pain, the chiropractor recommended that Anna “consult with a medical
doctor because she was in need of an MRI.”
In March of 2009, Anna met with Charlene Huang, a primary care physician at
Kaiser. Lynnette accompanied Anna to the appointment and requested that her daughter
receive an MRI. Although Huang acknowledged that Anna‟s chiropractor had
determined that her back pain was “„severe,‟” Huang refused to order an MRI. Huang
referred Anna “to the physical medicine department at [Kaiser] and also prescribed pain medications and steroids, a much less expensive treatment than an MRI. . . .” Anna took the prescribed medications but her pain persisted.
Two weeks later, on March 24, 2009, Anna met with Ngan Vuong, a physical
medicine doctor at Kaiser. Lynnette accompanied Anna to the appointment and again
requested that Anna receive an MRI. Vuong, however, recommended that Anna receive
an epidural and suggested that her pain could be remedied through changes to her
nutrition and exercise habits. Lynnette told Vuong she did not want her daughter to
receive an epidural and renewed her request for an MRI. Voung refused to authorize an
MRI.
This factual summary is based on allegations in plaintiffs‟ complaint, which we
assume to be true for the purposes of reviewing the trial court‟s order denying
defendants‟ motion to strike. (See Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 (Turman) [“„In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike [punitive damages allegations], judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.‟
In April of 2009, Anna sought acupuncture treatment for her pain. The treatments
were unsuccessful annd the acupuncturist recommended that Anna request an MRI from
her doctor. Lynnette called Vuong and informed her that Anna‟s acupuncturist had
recommended an MRI. Vuong again declined an MRI and referred Anna to Kaiser‟s
physical therapy department.
In May and June of 2009, Anna continued her acupuncture treatments. Two
different acupuncturists concluded that Anna was in need of an MRI. Anna also attended several physical therapy sessions at Kaiser, but was forced to discontinue the treatments because they were too painful. Kaiser‟s physical therapy department “recommended that [Anna] receive an MRI.”
Lynette called Vuong again and explained that a chiropractor, two acupuncturists
and Kaiser‟s physical therapy department had all recommended an MRI. Vuong rejected
these recommendations because they were not made by medical doctors, but invited the
Rahms to seek a second opinion.
Lynnette elected to schedule a meeting with another doctor. Prior to the
appointment, Lynnette contacted Huang, Anna‟s primary care physician, “as a last ditch effort” to get an MRI. Lynnette summarized the treatments Anna had undergone since her initial visit with Huang. Huang finally agreed to authorize an MRI, which was performed on July 2, 2009.
Anna‟s MRI indicated that she had an “aggressive mass” in her pelvis. A biopsy
revealed that Anna was suffering from a “high grade” osteosarcoma, which is “one of the fastest growing types of osteosarcoma, meaning that [Kaiser‟s] three month delay in ordering [Anna‟s] MRI allowed the cancer to spread and ultimately substantially
contributed to [Anna‟s ] poor prognosis.” Anna underwent chemotherapy and had
numerous surgeries that resulted in the loss of her right leg and portions of her pelvis and spine...
Filed 2/15/12 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA. SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT
KAISER FOUNDATION HEALTH
PLAN, INC., et al.,
Petitioners,
v.
THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS
ANGELES COUNTY,
Respondent.
ANNA RAHM et al., Real Parties in
Interest.
...Anna Rahm is a member of the Kaiser Permanente Traditional Plan (the plan),
which provides its members medically necessary health care in exchange for monthly
premiums. In August of 2008, Anna began experiencing back pain. Anna‟s parents,
Lynnette and James Rahm, took Anna to a chiropractor. After the treatments failed to
alleviate Anna‟s pain, the chiropractor recommended that Anna “consult with a medical
doctor because she was in need of an MRI.”
In March of 2009, Anna met with Charlene Huang, a primary care physician at
Kaiser. Lynnette accompanied Anna to the appointment and requested that her daughter
receive an MRI. Although Huang acknowledged that Anna‟s chiropractor had
determined that her back pain was “„severe,‟” Huang refused to order an MRI. Huang
referred Anna “to the physical medicine department at [Kaiser] and also prescribed pain medications and steroids, a much less expensive treatment than an MRI. . . .” Anna took the prescribed medications but her pain persisted.
Two weeks later, on March 24, 2009, Anna met with Ngan Vuong, a physical
medicine doctor at Kaiser. Lynnette accompanied Anna to the appointment and again
requested that Anna receive an MRI. Vuong, however, recommended that Anna receive
an epidural and suggested that her pain could be remedied through changes to her
nutrition and exercise habits. Lynnette told Vuong she did not want her daughter to
receive an epidural and renewed her request for an MRI. Voung refused to authorize an
MRI.
This factual summary is based on allegations in plaintiffs‟ complaint, which we
assume to be true for the purposes of reviewing the trial court‟s order denying
defendants‟ motion to strike. (See Turman v. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. (2010) 191 Cal.App.4th 53, 63 (Turman) [“„In passing on the correctness of a ruling on a motion to strike [punitive damages allegations], judges read allegations of a pleading subject to a motion to strike as a whole, all parts in their context, and assume their truth.‟
In April of 2009, Anna sought acupuncture treatment for her pain. The treatments
were unsuccessful annd the acupuncturist recommended that Anna request an MRI from
her doctor. Lynnette called Vuong and informed her that Anna‟s acupuncturist had
recommended an MRI. Vuong again declined an MRI and referred Anna to Kaiser‟s
physical therapy department.
In May and June of 2009, Anna continued her acupuncture treatments. Two
different acupuncturists concluded that Anna was in need of an MRI. Anna also attended several physical therapy sessions at Kaiser, but was forced to discontinue the treatments because they were too painful. Kaiser‟s physical therapy department “recommended that [Anna] receive an MRI.”
Lynette called Vuong again and explained that a chiropractor, two acupuncturists
and Kaiser‟s physical therapy department had all recommended an MRI. Vuong rejected
these recommendations because they were not made by medical doctors, but invited the
Rahms to seek a second opinion.
Lynnette elected to schedule a meeting with another doctor. Prior to the
appointment, Lynnette contacted Huang, Anna‟s primary care physician, “as a last ditch effort” to get an MRI. Lynnette summarized the treatments Anna had undergone since her initial visit with Huang. Huang finally agreed to authorize an MRI, which was performed on July 2, 2009.
Anna‟s MRI indicated that she had an “aggressive mass” in her pelvis. A biopsy
revealed that Anna was suffering from a “high grade” osteosarcoma, which is “one of the fastest growing types of osteosarcoma, meaning that [Kaiser‟s] three month delay in ordering [Anna‟s] MRI allowed the cancer to spread and ultimately substantially
contributed to [Anna‟s ] poor prognosis.” Anna underwent chemotherapy and had
numerous surgeries that resulted in the loss of her right leg and portions of her pelvis and spine...
Friday, June 10, 2011
Cancer costs put treatments out of reach for many
Cancer costs put treatments out of reach for many
By Debra Sherman
Jun 6, 2011
Reuters
The skyrocketing cost of new cancer treatments is phttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifutting advances in fighting the deadly disease out of reach for a growing number of Americans.
Cancer patients are abandoning medical care because the costs are simply too high and medical bills -- even among the insured -- are unmanageable and risk bankruptcy, studies show.
"There's a growing awareness that the cost of cancer treatment is unsustainable," said Dr. Lee Schwartzberg, an oncologist who did a study examining the factors that contributed to patients quitting their oral cancer drugs.
Cancer is one of the most costly diseases to treat, largely because many patients are treated over a long term, often with expensive new drugs that are complicated to produce and not available in generic form. And as insurance companies cut all benefits, reimbursements on cancer treatments have also declined.
"When it's an expensive drug, we have to have the hard discussion about a very substantial out-of-pocket payment. I ask: 'Do you want to spend this money for an average improvement of just a few months of life?' I'm very uncomfortable having those discussions because I want to focus on the patient getting better," Schwartzberg, medical director of the West Clinic in Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview.
Schwartzberg's and other cost studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting come as U.S. lawmakers battle over ways to reduce the national debt, including cuts in healthcare funding. For full ASCO coverage see [nN05141382]
ASCO president Dr. Michael Link, a pediatric oncologist, said access to healthcare should be a national priority.
INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIERS
"We're thrilled with what we consider to be breakthroughs and wonderful new therapies ... yet the barriers for some patients to get them is insurmountable. It is an indictment of how we take care of patients in the United States," Link said.
Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease. The incidence is expected to increase with an aging population.
The costs for cancer care topped $124 billion in 2010 in the United States, led by breast cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That number is expected to rise as more advanced treatments -- targeted therapies that attack specific cancer cells and often have fewer side effects -- are adopted as the standards of care. The NCI projects those costs to reach at least $158 billion by 2020.
Until recently, almost all cancer drugs were administered intravenously. Today, about a quarter of them can be given orally, which means fewer visits to the doctor. But pills are often more expensive, have higher co-payments, and are reimbursed by insurers at lower rates than IV drugs, he noted.
Using a database of pharmacy claims paid by private insurers and Medicare, he found, not surprisingly, that those with higher co-payments quit their drugs more often.
Patients with co-payments of more than $500 were four times more likely to abandon treatment than those with co-payments of $100 or less, Schwartzberg said. Claims with the highest co-payments had a 25 percent abandonment rate, compared with 6 percent for co-payments of less than $100...
By Debra Sherman
Jun 6, 2011
Reuters
The skyrocketing cost of new cancer treatments is phttp://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gifutting advances in fighting the deadly disease out of reach for a growing number of Americans.
Cancer patients are abandoning medical care because the costs are simply too high and medical bills -- even among the insured -- are unmanageable and risk bankruptcy, studies show.
"There's a growing awareness that the cost of cancer treatment is unsustainable," said Dr. Lee Schwartzberg, an oncologist who did a study examining the factors that contributed to patients quitting their oral cancer drugs.
Cancer is one of the most costly diseases to treat, largely because many patients are treated over a long term, often with expensive new drugs that are complicated to produce and not available in generic form. And as insurance companies cut all benefits, reimbursements on cancer treatments have also declined.
"When it's an expensive drug, we have to have the hard discussion about a very substantial out-of-pocket payment. I ask: 'Do you want to spend this money for an average improvement of just a few months of life?' I'm very uncomfortable having those discussions because I want to focus on the patient getting better," Schwartzberg, medical director of the West Clinic in Memphis, Tenn., said in an interview.
Schwartzberg's and other cost studies presented at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) annual meeting come as U.S. lawmakers battle over ways to reduce the national debt, including cuts in healthcare funding. For full ASCO coverage see [nN05141382]
ASCO president Dr. Michael Link, a pediatric oncologist, said access to healthcare should be a national priority.
INSURMOUNTABLE BARRIERS
"We're thrilled with what we consider to be breakthroughs and wonderful new therapies ... yet the barriers for some patients to get them is insurmountable. It is an indictment of how we take care of patients in the United States," Link said.
Cancer is the second-leading cause of death in the United States, after heart disease. The incidence is expected to increase with an aging population.
The costs for cancer care topped $124 billion in 2010 in the United States, led by breast cancer, according to the National Cancer Institute (NCI). That number is expected to rise as more advanced treatments -- targeted therapies that attack specific cancer cells and often have fewer side effects -- are adopted as the standards of care. The NCI projects those costs to reach at least $158 billion by 2020.
Until recently, almost all cancer drugs were administered intravenously. Today, about a quarter of them can be given orally, which means fewer visits to the doctor. But pills are often more expensive, have higher co-payments, and are reimbursed by insurers at lower rates than IV drugs, he noted.
Using a database of pharmacy claims paid by private insurers and Medicare, he found, not surprisingly, that those with higher co-payments quit their drugs more often.
Patients with co-payments of more than $500 were four times more likely to abandon treatment than those with co-payments of $100 or less, Schwartzberg said. Claims with the highest co-payments had a 25 percent abandonment rate, compared with 6 percent for co-payments of less than $100...
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Hair analysis reveals breast cancer
Hair sample may provide breast cancer diagnosis
Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:25pm EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page| Recommend (2) [-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full Size
Related News
Hair analysis offers new crime-fighting clues
26 Feb 2008
Breast cancer gene carriers need dual screening
26 Feb 2008
Hormone therapy skews breast cancer diagnosis
26 Feb 2008
powered by Sphere
Featured Broker sponsored link
Trade with personal dealer service.NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Hair from women with breast cancer can be distinguished from hair obtained from women without the disease, researchers in Australia report.
When hair is exposed to X-rays, the radiation is diffracted in a distinctive pattern by the alpha-keratin that forms hair, the researchers explain in the International Journal of Cancer. Dr. Gary L. Corino and Dr. Peter W. French, based at Fermiscan Ltd in Sydney, used the technique to look at samples of hair from 13 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and 20 healthy subjects.
Hair was cut as close to the skin as possible to obtain samples of the most recent hair growth. The investigators "successfully and consistently generated the basic alpha-keratin X-ray diffraction pattern in every hair sample."
Hair from the breast cancer patients produced the same features "with the only difference being the superimposition of a new feature." This was a distinctive low-intensity ring.
This ring sign was fairly accurate in identifying breast cancer. It missed one of the breast cancer patients, and showed up as a false-positive in three of the healthy subject.
The researchers went on to study a length of hair representing 6 months' growth from a breast cancer patient whose hair fell out following chemotherapy. X-ray diffraction at three points along the hair showed clear evidence of the ring at the position furthest from the hair root, a fainter ring at the middle point, and complete absence of the ring close to the root.
"This progressive reduction in the intensity of the ring appears to correlate with the patient's course of treatment and possibly indicates the eradication of the cancer as a result of that treatment," Corino and French suggest.
As for the reason for the ring pattern, they suggest it may represent "incorporation of extraneous lipid material into the fiber as a result of the presence of a tumor." It may also be that the disease affects hair follicles in some way.
Further testing is needed to establish the accuracy of this methodology as a diagnostic test for breast cancer, they conclude.
SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer, February 15, 2008.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSKUA56971920080215?feedType=nl&feedName=ushealth1100
Fri Feb 15, 2008 2:25pm EST Email | Print | Share| Reprints | Single Page| Recommend (2) [-] Text [+]
1 of 1Full Size
Related News
Hair analysis offers new crime-fighting clues
26 Feb 2008
Breast cancer gene carriers need dual screening
26 Feb 2008
Hormone therapy skews breast cancer diagnosis
26 Feb 2008
powered by Sphere
Featured Broker sponsored link
Trade with personal dealer service.NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Hair from women with breast cancer can be distinguished from hair obtained from women without the disease, researchers in Australia report.
When hair is exposed to X-rays, the radiation is diffracted in a distinctive pattern by the alpha-keratin that forms hair, the researchers explain in the International Journal of Cancer. Dr. Gary L. Corino and Dr. Peter W. French, based at Fermiscan Ltd in Sydney, used the technique to look at samples of hair from 13 patients diagnosed with breast cancer and 20 healthy subjects.
Hair was cut as close to the skin as possible to obtain samples of the most recent hair growth. The investigators "successfully and consistently generated the basic alpha-keratin X-ray diffraction pattern in every hair sample."
Hair from the breast cancer patients produced the same features "with the only difference being the superimposition of a new feature." This was a distinctive low-intensity ring.
This ring sign was fairly accurate in identifying breast cancer. It missed one of the breast cancer patients, and showed up as a false-positive in three of the healthy subject.
The researchers went on to study a length of hair representing 6 months' growth from a breast cancer patient whose hair fell out following chemotherapy. X-ray diffraction at three points along the hair showed clear evidence of the ring at the position furthest from the hair root, a fainter ring at the middle point, and complete absence of the ring close to the root.
"This progressive reduction in the intensity of the ring appears to correlate with the patient's course of treatment and possibly indicates the eradication of the cancer as a result of that treatment," Corino and French suggest.
As for the reason for the ring pattern, they suggest it may represent "incorporation of extraneous lipid material into the fiber as a result of the presence of a tumor." It may also be that the disease affects hair follicles in some way.
Further testing is needed to establish the accuracy of this methodology as a diagnostic test for breast cancer, they conclude.
SOURCE: International Journal of Cancer, February 15, 2008.
http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSKUA56971920080215?feedType=nl&feedName=ushealth1100
Saturday, February 23, 2008
Health Net ordered to pay $9 million for canceling coverage during cancer treatment
The punitive damage award is the first of its kind and has prompted the giant medical insurer to scrap practices that have recently come under fire.
By Lisa Girion
Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2008
One of California's largest for-profit insurers stopped a controversial practice of canceling sick policyholders Friday after a judge ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient it dropped in the middle of chemotherapy.
The ruling by a private arbitration judge was the first of its kind and the most powerful rebuke to the state's major insurers whose cancellation practices are under fire from the courts, state regulators and elected officials.
Calling Woodland Hills-based Health Net's actions "egregious," Judge Sam Cianchetti, a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, ruled that the company broke state laws and acted in bad faith.
"Health Net was primarily concerned with and considered its own financial interests and gave little, if any, consideration and concern for the interests of the insured," Cianchetti wrote in a 21-page ruling.
Patsy Bates, a 52-year-old grandmother, was at work at the Gardena hair salon she owns when her lawyer William Shernoff called with the news. Bates said she screamed and thanked the lawyer.
Then, "I thanked God," she said. "I praised the Lord."
Bates called the arbitration judge "an angel . . . a real stand-up kind of judge."
When Health Net dropped her in January 2004, Bates was stuck with more than $129,000 in medical bills and was forced to stop chemotherapy for several months until she found a charity to pay for it.
Health Net Chief Executive Jay Gellert ordered an immediate halt to cancellations and told The Times that the company would be changing its coverage applications and retraining its sales force.
"I felt bad about what happened to her," he said. "I feel bad about the whole situation."
Gellert said he would move quickly to "give people the confidence that they can count on their policy." Specifically, he pledged to stop all cancellations until an external review process could be established to approve all cancellations.
Other insurers were considering changing their own practices. A spokeswoman for WellPoint Inc., which operates Blue Cross of California, the state's largest for-profit insurer, said the company was in favor of such an idea. Blue Shield of California declined to comment.
Until Friday, the companies had uniformly defended cancellations, saying they were necessary to hold down costs by weeding out people who may have failed to disclose pre-existing conditions on applications for coverage. They say cancellations happen infrequently.
The judge's strong denunciation of the way Health Net carried out Bates' cancellation and big money award stunned and pleased regulators and patient advocates.
State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner applauded the judge, saying "health insurers simply cannot hold out the promise of insurance for their consumers and then snatch it away just when people need it most. That is illegal, immoral and will not be tolerated."
Earlier, Health Net had defended its actions, saying it never would have issued Bates a policy in the first place if she had disclosed her true weight and a preexisting heart condition on her application.
Bates said a broker filled out the application while she was styling a client's hair on a busy day in her shop. She said she answered his questions as best she could.
Bates said she already had insurance and wasn't in the market until the broker came by and told her that he thought he could get her a lower monthly premium if she switched to Health Net.
At the arbitration hearing, internal company documents were disclosed showing that Health Net had paid employee bonuses for meeting a cancellation quota and for the amount of money saved.
"It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive," the judge wrote.
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,2680255.story
By Lisa Girion
Los Angeles Times
February 23, 2008
One of California's largest for-profit insurers stopped a controversial practice of canceling sick policyholders Friday after a judge ordered Health Net Inc. to pay more than $9 million to a breast cancer patient it dropped in the middle of chemotherapy.
The ruling by a private arbitration judge was the first of its kind and the most powerful rebuke to the state's major insurers whose cancellation practices are under fire from the courts, state regulators and elected officials.
Calling Woodland Hills-based Health Net's actions "egregious," Judge Sam Cianchetti, a retired Los Angeles County Superior Court judge, ruled that the company broke state laws and acted in bad faith.
"Health Net was primarily concerned with and considered its own financial interests and gave little, if any, consideration and concern for the interests of the insured," Cianchetti wrote in a 21-page ruling.
Patsy Bates, a 52-year-old grandmother, was at work at the Gardena hair salon she owns when her lawyer William Shernoff called with the news. Bates said she screamed and thanked the lawyer.
Then, "I thanked God," she said. "I praised the Lord."
Bates called the arbitration judge "an angel . . . a real stand-up kind of judge."
When Health Net dropped her in January 2004, Bates was stuck with more than $129,000 in medical bills and was forced to stop chemotherapy for several months until she found a charity to pay for it.
Health Net Chief Executive Jay Gellert ordered an immediate halt to cancellations and told The Times that the company would be changing its coverage applications and retraining its sales force.
"I felt bad about what happened to her," he said. "I feel bad about the whole situation."
Gellert said he would move quickly to "give people the confidence that they can count on their policy." Specifically, he pledged to stop all cancellations until an external review process could be established to approve all cancellations.
Other insurers were considering changing their own practices. A spokeswoman for WellPoint Inc., which operates Blue Cross of California, the state's largest for-profit insurer, said the company was in favor of such an idea. Blue Shield of California declined to comment.
Until Friday, the companies had uniformly defended cancellations, saying they were necessary to hold down costs by weeding out people who may have failed to disclose pre-existing conditions on applications for coverage. They say cancellations happen infrequently.
The judge's strong denunciation of the way Health Net carried out Bates' cancellation and big money award stunned and pleased regulators and patient advocates.
State Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner applauded the judge, saying "health insurers simply cannot hold out the promise of insurance for their consumers and then snatch it away just when people need it most. That is illegal, immoral and will not be tolerated."
Earlier, Health Net had defended its actions, saying it never would have issued Bates a policy in the first place if she had disclosed her true weight and a preexisting heart condition on her application.
Bates said a broker filled out the application while she was styling a client's hair on a busy day in her shop. She said she answered his questions as best she could.
Bates said she already had insurance and wasn't in the market until the broker came by and told her that he thought he could get her a lower monthly premium if she switched to Health Net.
At the arbitration hearing, internal company documents were disclosed showing that Health Net had paid employee bonuses for meeting a cancellation quota and for the amount of money saved.
"It's difficult to imagine a policy more reprehensible than tying bonuses to encourage the rescission of health insurance that keeps the public well and alive," the judge wrote.
http://www.latimes.com/features/health/la-fi-insure23feb23,1,2680255.story
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)