Health bill to approach 20 percent of spending by 2020
By Andrew Seaman
Jul 28, 2011
(Reuters) - The U.S. health bill will account for 19.8 percent of the nation's spending by 2020, up from 17.6 percent in 2009, outpacing projected average annual GDP growth, researchers said on Thursday.
The report, published online in the journal Health Affairs, looked at projected U.S. health spending through 2020 and estimated about 30 million people will gain health insurance by the start of the next decade due to President Barack Obama's healthcare overhaul.
According to the report, the average annual growth in national health spending is expected to be 5.8 percent, or 0.1 percentage point higher than it would be without the Affordable Care Act.
"We are projecting a decline in the out-of-pocket share, but that doesn't mean that the consumer's burden is going to be substantially reduced," said Sean Keehan, an economist at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and co-author of the report. "Especially since we're projecting health spending to grow at a faster rate than economic growth and disposable personal incomes."
For 2010, the researchers estimated that health spending grew at a historically low rate of 3.9 percent over the previous year to $2.6 trillion, which they attributed to a weak economy that has led many consumers to delay medical treatment.
But future spending will likely grow at a faster pace, fueling concerns over how to cut the country's deficit, now the subject of fierce debate among lawmakers ahead of a deadline for raising the government's borrowing limit.
The largest increase in healthcare spending in a single year is expected in 2014, when CMS forecasts a rise of 8.3 percent from 2013 as much of the new U.S. health law is implemented. The law's provisions include introducing state-based insurance exchanges and increased access to the government's Medicaid insurance plan for the poor. Spending growth will then average 6.2 percent annually from 2015 through 2020.
According to the report, some large employers with low-wage employees are expected to stop offering health insurance in 2014. An estimated 13 million employees would then likely seek insurance in the new exchanges or by enrolling in Medicaid, according to Rick Foster, CMS's chief actuary.
Increased access to health insurance is another explanation for the high growth rate, because with access comes demand.
The researchers estimated that doctor visits, clinical services and prescription drugs will be some of the largest growth areas, because of the comparably young age of the newly insured population. The report said younger patients tend to require less acute care.
(Editing by Michele Gershberg and Steve Orlofsky)
Thursday, July 28, 2011
Friday, July 22, 2011
Chief at Kaiser: doctors aware when hired that they would be required to violate professional standards
Dennis Cook, M.D., coordinating chief of psychiatrists for Kaiser’s Southern California division, is quoted by the Times as saying that Jensen was well aware of the policy when he was hired.
Kaiser's Prescribing Policy Leads To Lawsuit, Ethics Concerns
Psychiatric News
May 5, 2000
One of the nation’s best-known HMOs has ignited a furor by requiring psychiatrists at one of its California facilities to write prescriptions for patients they have never seen.
Kaiser Permanente’s policy for psychiatrists in its San Diego area facilities stipulates that when they receive a request for a prescription for a patient that a staff psychologist, social worker, or family therapist is seeing, they are to comply with the request and write the prescription without scheduling a visit with the patient.
Widespread publicity about the policy, which was the focus of an April 13 Los Angeles Times article, has generated heated responses from psychiatrists and others concerned about how such a policy could seriously compromise patient care and put psychiatrists in ethical jeopardy.
The article revealed that a state agency was investigating this practice and that a psychiatrist who lost his job after refusing to follow the policy was suing Kaiser Permanente.
The day after the article appeared, APA issued a press release strongly condemning the policy as an example of "unethical" medical practice.
In that statement APA President-elect Daniel Borenstein, M.D., a private practitioner in Los Angeles, said it is "unethical and substandard practice for a psychiatrist to prescribe medication for a patient without personally examining that patient and determining the necessity for medication."
He emphasized that Kaiser Permanente’s practice "trivializes mental illness and the special medical skills of psychiatrists in diagnosing and treating it."
APA’s press release cites two paragraphs of its ethics code that may be violated by Kaiser’s prescribing policy. One states, "When the psychiatrist assumes a collaborative or supervisory role with another mental health worker, he/she must expend sufficient time to assure that proper care is given. It is contrary to the interests of the patient and to patient care if he/she allows himself/herself to be used as a figurehead."
Another relevant paragraph says that in relationships between psychiatrists and psychologists, "The physician should not delegate to the psychologist or, in fact, to any nonmedical person, any matter requiring the exercise of professional medical judgment."
Psychiatrist Fired
The San Diego psychiatrist who filed suit against Kaiser, Thomas Jensen, M.D., wants the court to step in and order the HMO to stop the practice, which he contends violates state law about prescribing and dispensing drugs. Kaiser fired Jensen in December after he refused to prescribe medications for HMO patients he had never seen.
Dennis Cook, M.D., coordinating chief of psychiatrists for Kaiser’s Southern California division, is quoted by the Times as saying that Jensen was well aware of the policy when he was hired. In his suit, Jensen said that on his first day on the job, he received medication requests from social workers, social work interns, and marriage and family therapists.
"I was astounded that this was happening," Jensen said. "I was trained that you don’t prescribe medicines for patients you’ve never seen." He said he had seen drug recommendations from nonphysicians that if prescribed would have jeopardized patients’ health.
Oliver Goldsmith, M.D., medical director and chair of the board of Southern California Permanente Medical Group, said in an April 20 press release that contrary to reports, Kaiser does not have an official policy of requiring psychiatrists to prescribe without seeing the patient. He said psychiatrists in the medical group developed a "multidisciplinay team-based approach" in which "psychiatrists in San Diego work very closely on a regular basis with other mental health professionals in a group practice. It is a physician-designed and physician-driven approach in which physicians exercise their medical judgment and authority in rendering care."
Joel Hyatt, M.D., assistant associate medical director for the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, said that "all decisions to examine the patient or to prescribe medication are made by physicians."
In defending the policy, Cook stated that he believes "it’s very ethical." He noted that all of its psychiatrists are informed of and agree to the prescription policy before they are hired. He explained that Kaiser psychiatrists can refuse to follow through on a prescription request from a nonphysician therapist if they believe that medication is not appropriate for a particular patient. If medication is likely to benefit the patient, however, they are obligated to prescribe one.
While psychiatrists may be well informed about the policy, as Cook said, there is a serious question about how well informed patients are.
Sam Muszynski, director of the APA Office of Healthcare Systems and Financing, raised the issue of whether patients are getting any meaningful informed consent when their medication information comes from nonphysicians. "It is hard to believe," he said, that psychologists, social workers, and other therapists can describe the wide range of side effects for which patients need to be alert or can diagnose symptoms that may be the result of interactions with other drugs with anywhere near the degree of competency that a physician can provide.
Kaiser did acknowledge after the suit was filed that it is aware that its prescribing standards differ from those used by other treatment facilities in the region. Cook told the Times that the policy allows psychiatrists to see more patients by eliminating the need for them to conduct duplicate interviews for patients who have already been assessed by a nonphysician therapist. He also called the attacks "self-serving" since, he said, they come from private practitioners who stand to gain from additional office visits if Kaiser is forced to alter its policy.
Comments About Policy
The president of the San Diego Psychiatric Society (SDPS), Kenneth Khoury, M.D., does not see any benefit for patients or physicians in the policy. The policy clearly fails to meet the standard of care in the community, he told Psychiatric News, and "exceeds the boundaries" of what goes into providing "quality care and safe care." There is no room for negotiation on this issue, he noted. He said that the district branch has asked the Medical Board of California to clarify its understanding "that the standards of care and state law say that physicians must conduct face-to-face interviews" with patients before they write prescriptions for them.
Khoury has also asked Michael Newhouse, M.D., chair of the SDPS Ethics Committee, to "review the concerns" raised about possible ethical violations and report his findings to the SDPS Council. He said that 15 San Diego psychiatrists work for that area’s Kaiser Permanente group, of whom three are members of the district branch.
Yvonne Ferguson, M.D., president of the California Psychiatric Association (CPA), said she was "shocked to learn that Kaiser, which enjoys a good reputation in California, had such a policy." She suggested that the controversy "will bring the whole scope-of-practice issue into bold relief," adding that psychiatrists "cannot shrink from confronting this issue. Also, legislators will have to look at [scope of practice], and the public will have to be educated about implications of Kaiser’s policy."
The suit also charges Kaiser and the Southern California Permanente Medical Group with violating consumer protection laws by engaging in deceptive advertising, such as touting that at its HMOs "physicians alone manage all aspects of care" and that "medical decisions are made by physicians in consultation with their patients, not by health plan administrators. . .no third party comes between medical decisions."
Jensen, who moved from Maine to work for Kaiser, now teaches part time in the psychiatry department at the University of California at San Diego. Explaining why he chose to go the legal route, he commented, "As a physician I was required not only to refuse to [prescribe without seeing the patients], but to do what I could to end the practice because it endangered patients."
Kaiser is the nation’s largest not-for-profit HMO and has 8 million subscribers.—K.H.
[Thomas S. Jensen, M.D., v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al.; case no. 825090-6]
October 6, 2000http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
San Diego Psychiatrist Settles Lawsuit With Kaiser
Psychiatric News
Psychiatrist Thomas Jensen, M.D., agrees to a settlement of his lawsuit against Kaiser, his former employer. The suit stemmed from the HMO's policy of compelling its psychiatrists to prescribe drugs for patients they had not evaluated.
By Ken Hausman
A San Diego psychiatrist who ignited a furor earlier this year when he blew the whistle on the questionable prescribing policies of Califor-nia’s largest HMO has settled his lawsuit against that organization.
Soon after he was hired by Kaiser Permanente’s San Diego HMO, Thomas Jensen, M.D., protested his employer’s policy of requiring psychiatrists to prescribe medications for patients they had never evaluated on the recommendation of psychologists, social workers, or marriage and family counselors (Psychiatric News, May 5, May 19).
Jensen maintained that Kaiser’s prescribing policy violated state law governing how medications can be prescribed and dispensed. He said as well that he had seen medication requests from nonphysician therapists that could have harmed patients’ health if a psychiatrist had complied with the prescribing recommendation. Moreover, he and other California psychiatrists questioned whether complying with the prescribing policy was in fact a breach of medical ethics, and APA issued a press release condemning it as just such a violation.
Last December, Jensen maintained, Kaiser, the nation’s largest not-for-profit HMO organization, responded to Jensen’s airing of the policy by firing him.
After his firing, Jensen filed suit against Kaiser and asked the court to order the organization to halt its prescription policy. Kaiser officials defended the policy, explaining that it was based on a "multidisciplinary team-based approach" developed by psychiatrists at the HMO. At the time Jensen filed his suit, Kaiser employed 22 psychiatrists at its San Diego HMO.
Kaiser Retracts Policy
In early May, several weeks after the prescribing policy and the subsequent lawsuit were described in a Los Angeles Times article—and amid considerable fingerpointing about who developed and knew about the policy—officials of Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG), which owns the San Diego HMO, announced that the organization was going to change its prescription policy to require that all new psychiatry patients will have "to be examined by a physician before medication is prescribed."
While he was pleased about its reversal on the psychiatrist prescribing requirement, Jensen vowed to proceed with his lawsuit against Kaiser, saying he was unwilling to drop it based on the promise contained in a press release to retract its policy...
[Maura Larkins' comment: It appears that part of the settlement, which was probably very lucrative for Jensen, involved a requirement that Jensen say nice things about Kaiser. Sorry, Dr. Jensen. Anything you say after being paid must be taken with a grain of salt.]
Kaiser's Prescribing Policy Leads To Lawsuit, Ethics Concerns
Psychiatric News
May 5, 2000
One of the nation’s best-known HMOs has ignited a furor by requiring psychiatrists at one of its California facilities to write prescriptions for patients they have never seen.
Kaiser Permanente’s policy for psychiatrists in its San Diego area facilities stipulates that when they receive a request for a prescription for a patient that a staff psychologist, social worker, or family therapist is seeing, they are to comply with the request and write the prescription without scheduling a visit with the patient.
Widespread publicity about the policy, which was the focus of an April 13 Los Angeles Times article, has generated heated responses from psychiatrists and others concerned about how such a policy could seriously compromise patient care and put psychiatrists in ethical jeopardy.
The article revealed that a state agency was investigating this practice and that a psychiatrist who lost his job after refusing to follow the policy was suing Kaiser Permanente.
The day after the article appeared, APA issued a press release strongly condemning the policy as an example of "unethical" medical practice.
In that statement APA President-elect Daniel Borenstein, M.D., a private practitioner in Los Angeles, said it is "unethical and substandard practice for a psychiatrist to prescribe medication for a patient without personally examining that patient and determining the necessity for medication."
He emphasized that Kaiser Permanente’s practice "trivializes mental illness and the special medical skills of psychiatrists in diagnosing and treating it."
APA’s press release cites two paragraphs of its ethics code that may be violated by Kaiser’s prescribing policy. One states, "When the psychiatrist assumes a collaborative or supervisory role with another mental health worker, he/she must expend sufficient time to assure that proper care is given. It is contrary to the interests of the patient and to patient care if he/she allows himself/herself to be used as a figurehead."
Another relevant paragraph says that in relationships between psychiatrists and psychologists, "The physician should not delegate to the psychologist or, in fact, to any nonmedical person, any matter requiring the exercise of professional medical judgment."
Psychiatrist Fired
The San Diego psychiatrist who filed suit against Kaiser, Thomas Jensen, M.D., wants the court to step in and order the HMO to stop the practice, which he contends violates state law about prescribing and dispensing drugs. Kaiser fired Jensen in December after he refused to prescribe medications for HMO patients he had never seen.
Dennis Cook, M.D., coordinating chief of psychiatrists for Kaiser’s Southern California division, is quoted by the Times as saying that Jensen was well aware of the policy when he was hired. In his suit, Jensen said that on his first day on the job, he received medication requests from social workers, social work interns, and marriage and family therapists.
"I was astounded that this was happening," Jensen said. "I was trained that you don’t prescribe medicines for patients you’ve never seen." He said he had seen drug recommendations from nonphysicians that if prescribed would have jeopardized patients’ health.
Oliver Goldsmith, M.D., medical director and chair of the board of Southern California Permanente Medical Group, said in an April 20 press release that contrary to reports, Kaiser does not have an official policy of requiring psychiatrists to prescribe without seeing the patient. He said psychiatrists in the medical group developed a "multidisciplinay team-based approach" in which "psychiatrists in San Diego work very closely on a regular basis with other mental health professionals in a group practice. It is a physician-designed and physician-driven approach in which physicians exercise their medical judgment and authority in rendering care."
Joel Hyatt, M.D., assistant associate medical director for the Southern California Permanente Medical Group, said that "all decisions to examine the patient or to prescribe medication are made by physicians."
In defending the policy, Cook stated that he believes "it’s very ethical." He noted that all of its psychiatrists are informed of and agree to the prescription policy before they are hired. He explained that Kaiser psychiatrists can refuse to follow through on a prescription request from a nonphysician therapist if they believe that medication is not appropriate for a particular patient. If medication is likely to benefit the patient, however, they are obligated to prescribe one.
While psychiatrists may be well informed about the policy, as Cook said, there is a serious question about how well informed patients are.
Sam Muszynski, director of the APA Office of Healthcare Systems and Financing, raised the issue of whether patients are getting any meaningful informed consent when their medication information comes from nonphysicians. "It is hard to believe," he said, that psychologists, social workers, and other therapists can describe the wide range of side effects for which patients need to be alert or can diagnose symptoms that may be the result of interactions with other drugs with anywhere near the degree of competency that a physician can provide.
Kaiser did acknowledge after the suit was filed that it is aware that its prescribing standards differ from those used by other treatment facilities in the region. Cook told the Times that the policy allows psychiatrists to see more patients by eliminating the need for them to conduct duplicate interviews for patients who have already been assessed by a nonphysician therapist. He also called the attacks "self-serving" since, he said, they come from private practitioners who stand to gain from additional office visits if Kaiser is forced to alter its policy.
Comments About Policy
The president of the San Diego Psychiatric Society (SDPS), Kenneth Khoury, M.D., does not see any benefit for patients or physicians in the policy. The policy clearly fails to meet the standard of care in the community, he told Psychiatric News, and "exceeds the boundaries" of what goes into providing "quality care and safe care." There is no room for negotiation on this issue, he noted. He said that the district branch has asked the Medical Board of California to clarify its understanding "that the standards of care and state law say that physicians must conduct face-to-face interviews" with patients before they write prescriptions for them.
Khoury has also asked Michael Newhouse, M.D., chair of the SDPS Ethics Committee, to "review the concerns" raised about possible ethical violations and report his findings to the SDPS Council. He said that 15 San Diego psychiatrists work for that area’s Kaiser Permanente group, of whom three are members of the district branch.
Yvonne Ferguson, M.D., president of the California Psychiatric Association (CPA), said she was "shocked to learn that Kaiser, which enjoys a good reputation in California, had such a policy." She suggested that the controversy "will bring the whole scope-of-practice issue into bold relief," adding that psychiatrists "cannot shrink from confronting this issue. Also, legislators will have to look at [scope of practice], and the public will have to be educated about implications of Kaiser’s policy."
The suit also charges Kaiser and the Southern California Permanente Medical Group with violating consumer protection laws by engaging in deceptive advertising, such as touting that at its HMOs "physicians alone manage all aspects of care" and that "medical decisions are made by physicians in consultation with their patients, not by health plan administrators. . .no third party comes between medical decisions."
Jensen, who moved from Maine to work for Kaiser, now teaches part time in the psychiatry department at the University of California at San Diego. Explaining why he chose to go the legal route, he commented, "As a physician I was required not only to refuse to [prescribe without seeing the patients], but to do what I could to end the practice because it endangered patients."
Kaiser is the nation’s largest not-for-profit HMO and has 8 million subscribers.—K.H.
[Thomas S. Jensen, M.D., v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, et al.; case no. 825090-6]
October 6, 2000http://www.blogger.com/img/blank.gif
San Diego Psychiatrist Settles Lawsuit With Kaiser
Psychiatric News
Psychiatrist Thomas Jensen, M.D., agrees to a settlement of his lawsuit against Kaiser, his former employer. The suit stemmed from the HMO's policy of compelling its psychiatrists to prescribe drugs for patients they had not evaluated.
By Ken Hausman
A San Diego psychiatrist who ignited a furor earlier this year when he blew the whistle on the questionable prescribing policies of Califor-nia’s largest HMO has settled his lawsuit against that organization.
Soon after he was hired by Kaiser Permanente’s San Diego HMO, Thomas Jensen, M.D., protested his employer’s policy of requiring psychiatrists to prescribe medications for patients they had never evaluated on the recommendation of psychologists, social workers, or marriage and family counselors (Psychiatric News, May 5, May 19).
Jensen maintained that Kaiser’s prescribing policy violated state law governing how medications can be prescribed and dispensed. He said as well that he had seen medication requests from nonphysician therapists that could have harmed patients’ health if a psychiatrist had complied with the prescribing recommendation. Moreover, he and other California psychiatrists questioned whether complying with the prescribing policy was in fact a breach of medical ethics, and APA issued a press release condemning it as just such a violation.
Last December, Jensen maintained, Kaiser, the nation’s largest not-for-profit HMO organization, responded to Jensen’s airing of the policy by firing him.
After his firing, Jensen filed suit against Kaiser and asked the court to order the organization to halt its prescription policy. Kaiser officials defended the policy, explaining that it was based on a "multidisciplinary team-based approach" developed by psychiatrists at the HMO. At the time Jensen filed his suit, Kaiser employed 22 psychiatrists at its San Diego HMO.
Kaiser Retracts Policy
In early May, several weeks after the prescribing policy and the subsequent lawsuit were described in a Los Angeles Times article—and amid considerable fingerpointing about who developed and knew about the policy—officials of Southern California Permanente Medical Group (SCPMG), which owns the San Diego HMO, announced that the organization was going to change its prescription policy to require that all new psychiatry patients will have "to be examined by a physician before medication is prescribed."
While he was pleased about its reversal on the psychiatrist prescribing requirement, Jensen vowed to proceed with his lawsuit against Kaiser, saying he was unwilling to drop it based on the promise contained in a press release to retract its policy...
[Maura Larkins' comment: It appears that part of the settlement, which was probably very lucrative for Jensen, involved a requirement that Jensen say nice things about Kaiser. Sorry, Dr. Jensen. Anything you say after being paid must be taken with a grain of salt.]
Thursday, July 21, 2011
Health Administration Responsibility Project
Health Administration Responsibility Project
HARP is a resource for patients, doctors, and attorneys seeking to establish the liability of HMOs, Managed Health Care Organizations, and Nursing Facilities for the consequences of their decisions.
We are concerned that in the headlong rush to "Efficient" Medical care, the organizations involved are losing sight of the "Quality" of the care they provide.
As more and more "Incentives" to cut back on medical care are put in place by the new class of medical entrepreneurs, the patient often suffers. We feel that Counter-incentives must be applied, and they must be financial. The only such Counter-incentives available under our system are lawsuits for damages caused by excessive cost-cutting measures.
However, many obstacles protect corporate providers from being held responsible for their acts. ERISA drastically limits the remedies available to injured workers, as well as preempting State regulations designed to control the more egregious problems. Rigged Mandatory Arbitration gives injured patients the illusion of justice. Strict application of state Tort laws holds doctors responsible for actions forced on them by Managed Care Organizations, which themselves escape liability...
HARP is a resource for patients, doctors, and attorneys seeking to establish the liability of HMOs, Managed Health Care Organizations, and Nursing Facilities for the consequences of their decisions.
We are concerned that in the headlong rush to "Efficient" Medical care, the organizations involved are losing sight of the "Quality" of the care they provide.
As more and more "Incentives" to cut back on medical care are put in place by the new class of medical entrepreneurs, the patient often suffers. We feel that Counter-incentives must be applied, and they must be financial. The only such Counter-incentives available under our system are lawsuits for damages caused by excessive cost-cutting measures.
However, many obstacles protect corporate providers from being held responsible for their acts. ERISA drastically limits the remedies available to injured workers, as well as preempting State regulations designed to control the more egregious problems. Rigged Mandatory Arbitration gives injured patients the illusion of justice. Strict application of state Tort laws holds doctors responsible for actions forced on them by Managed Care Organizations, which themselves escape liability...
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
Patient is shocked when reviewing medical record
Medical Malpractice/False Medical Records
posted by Yoko
30 Mar 2006
Medical News Today
When I was pregnant with my 4th child, I was told I was "slightly" high-risk. My OB doctor did not want me to take amnioscentesis test right away. He recomended me to go to this specialist who had 3-D fetal ultrasound. This specialist told me that my baby did not have Down syndrome or any other health problems. When I went back for the second time, she confirmed that everything was just fine. "No problem."
She also told me NOT to take amnioscentesis test since she did not see any signs of Down syndrome or any other problems. I did not reply that time since I believe my OB doctor would follow up with me. However, nobody did.
Three months later, my baby was born with Down syndrome and two VERY large heart defects, which needed to be repaired within 3 months.
A few weeks after, I went back to my OB's office to view my medical records. I was shocked to find out that both my OB doctor and this specialist were filling false statements in my record. For example, "she recommended me to take amnioscentesis test, but the patient declined it." And my OB doctor also stated he showed this report from the specialist to me - he never did. I was also shocked to find out I had been at higer risk than my actual age and after the blood test, the lab was suggesting I should get amnioscentesis test.
I am a teacher and finishing up my graduate school work, but with the unexpected pregnancy and a baby born with these problems, I cannot pursue my career any more.
I had a neighbor whose daughter had Down syndrome, which made her severley retarded. Every day I go through a very tough time to understand my family has to go through what this family went through. My baby is precious and I really want to do my best for him, but it is very very hard. What upsets me most is that I was never given an option and time to prepare for this.
posted by Yoko
30 Mar 2006
Medical News Today
When I was pregnant with my 4th child, I was told I was "slightly" high-risk. My OB doctor did not want me to take amnioscentesis test right away. He recomended me to go to this specialist who had 3-D fetal ultrasound. This specialist told me that my baby did not have Down syndrome or any other health problems. When I went back for the second time, she confirmed that everything was just fine. "No problem."
She also told me NOT to take amnioscentesis test since she did not see any signs of Down syndrome or any other problems. I did not reply that time since I believe my OB doctor would follow up with me. However, nobody did.
Three months later, my baby was born with Down syndrome and two VERY large heart defects, which needed to be repaired within 3 months.
A few weeks after, I went back to my OB's office to view my medical records. I was shocked to find out that both my OB doctor and this specialist were filling false statements in my record. For example, "she recommended me to take amnioscentesis test, but the patient declined it." And my OB doctor also stated he showed this report from the specialist to me - he never did. I was also shocked to find out I had been at higer risk than my actual age and after the blood test, the lab was suggesting I should get amnioscentesis test.
I am a teacher and finishing up my graduate school work, but with the unexpected pregnancy and a baby born with these problems, I cannot pursue my career any more.
I had a neighbor whose daughter had Down syndrome, which made her severley retarded. Every day I go through a very tough time to understand my family has to go through what this family went through. My baby is precious and I really want to do my best for him, but it is very very hard. What upsets me most is that I was never given an option and time to prepare for this.
Dr Mark Midei's medical license revoked
Dr Mark Midei's medical license revoked
July 13, 2011
Shelley Wood
The heart.org
The Maryland Medical Board has concluded its review of Dr Mark Midei, deciding to revoke his license, calling his violations of the Medical Practice Act "repeated and serious."
The disciplinary actions alert published on the board's website today notes that the board will not accept any application for reinstatement by Midei for at least two years. At that time, it is up to the board whether it will consider reinstatement of his license.
As previously reported by heartwire, Midei is alleged to have implanted hundreds of unneeded stents when he worked at St Joseph Medical Center in Towson, MD. The imbroglio was ultimately taken up by the US Senate Finance Committee, which issued a damning report back in December 2010.
For years, however, watchers have been waiting to hear what the Maryland Board of Physicians concluded, having charged Midei with violating the Medical Practice Act back in July 2010, focusing specifically on five patients it was alleged may have received stents unnecessarily. A subsequent seven-day hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) led to her issuing a 77-page "proposed decision" that Midei have his license revoked for having violated five provisions of the act, specifically those prohibiting:
* Unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine.
* Willfully making a false report or record in the practice of medicine.
* Gross overutilization of health care services.
* Violations of the standard of quality care.
* Failure to keep adequate records...
July 13, 2011
Shelley Wood
The heart.org
The Maryland Medical Board has concluded its review of Dr Mark Midei, deciding to revoke his license, calling his violations of the Medical Practice Act "repeated and serious."
The disciplinary actions alert published on the board's website today notes that the board will not accept any application for reinstatement by Midei for at least two years. At that time, it is up to the board whether it will consider reinstatement of his license.
As previously reported by heartwire, Midei is alleged to have implanted hundreds of unneeded stents when he worked at St Joseph Medical Center in Towson, MD. The imbroglio was ultimately taken up by the US Senate Finance Committee, which issued a damning report back in December 2010.
For years, however, watchers have been waiting to hear what the Maryland Board of Physicians concluded, having charged Midei with violating the Medical Practice Act back in July 2010, focusing specifically on five patients it was alleged may have received stents unnecessarily. A subsequent seven-day hearing before an administrative law judge (ALJ) led to her issuing a 77-page "proposed decision" that Midei have his license revoked for having violated five provisions of the act, specifically those prohibiting:
* Unprofessional conduct in the practice of medicine.
* Willfully making a false report or record in the practice of medicine.
* Gross overutilization of health care services.
* Violations of the standard of quality care.
* Failure to keep adequate records...
NYC Doctor Accused of Falsely Telling Patients They Had HIV
NYC Doctor Accused of Falsely Telling Patients They Had HIV
June 4, 2011
Billy Hallowell
It’s a hard-to-believe accusation, but one that prosecutors believe to be true. A New York City doctor allegedly told about a dozen patients that they were infected with the HIV virus. Then, he purportedly treated them and billed Medicaid $700,000. As a result, he may face 15 years behind bars. FOX News has more:
Suresh Hemrajani, 57, was arraigned Friday in Manhattan Supreme Court on felony charges of grand larceny, fraud and falsifying business records. He was being held in lieu of $250,000 bail…
The doctor also created false records of his purported repeated treatments of the patients, even though most of them never visited his office more than once.
The scam was only revealed after the patients later attempted to obtain prescriptions from a hospital, were tested, and found to be HIV-negative, Vance said...
June 4, 2011
Billy Hallowell
It’s a hard-to-believe accusation, but one that prosecutors believe to be true. A New York City doctor allegedly told about a dozen patients that they were infected with the HIV virus. Then, he purportedly treated them and billed Medicaid $700,000. As a result, he may face 15 years behind bars. FOX News has more:
Suresh Hemrajani, 57, was arraigned Friday in Manhattan Supreme Court on felony charges of grand larceny, fraud and falsifying business records. He was being held in lieu of $250,000 bail…
The doctor also created false records of his purported repeated treatments of the patients, even though most of them never visited his office more than once.
The scam was only revealed after the patients later attempted to obtain prescriptions from a hospital, were tested, and found to be HIV-negative, Vance said...
Doctors falsely diagnose patient HIV positive based on claims by Sheriff's deputy
Dr’s Falsely Diagnosed Larry HIV+ Positive Based On Claims of Sheriff Deputy???
Larry Sinclair
Apr• 05•11
Today we received records which were requested concerning Larry’s suicide attempt last September 27th. While reading the records we came across not one, not two, but four (4) Progress Reports and one (1) Discharge Summary where West Virginia Doctors “diagnosed” Larry as being HIV Positive. Not only did these Doctors make this incorrect diagnosis repeatedly, they did so without EVER having performed a single HIV test.
Today we contacted one of the Doctors who reported this false diagnosis to ask how they had come to such a diagnosis. The Doctor was kind enough to take our call and after reviewing the file called back and apologized for the diagnosis. The Doctor informed us they did not know exactly where the information had come from, but they believed it was relayed through the Emergency Room by the Deputy who had Larry taken to the hospital.
Larry is NOT HIV Positive nor has he ever been HIV Positive and to have a medical facility and multiple Doctors record such a diagnosis without ever conducting a test is reckless an unacceptable.
We have just received a call from the Hospital Administrator concerning the HIV Positive diagnosis entered in their records. They too have confirmed that upon review of all notes, reports, and diagnostic test there is NOTHING whatsoever that would suggest a diagnosis of HIV Positive. However, they explained that the diagnosis cannot be removed from the records but the Doctor can go back an add an amendment to the record noting it is erroneous. Anti-Sinclair bloggers have since 2008 posted on the Internet statements that Larry was HIV Positive and now we have a University Medical facility and Doctors placing the same in Larry’s medical records without any medical evidence to support it. This facility even transmitted the false diagnosis to a second medical facility.
We have sent a written request to Jefferson County Sheriff Robert Shirley to inquire as to whether his employee Cpl. Kevin J. Boyce told medical personnel that Larry was HIV Positive (which he is not) and why.
Larry Sinclair
Apr• 05•11
Today we received records which were requested concerning Larry’s suicide attempt last September 27th. While reading the records we came across not one, not two, but four (4) Progress Reports and one (1) Discharge Summary where West Virginia Doctors “diagnosed” Larry as being HIV Positive. Not only did these Doctors make this incorrect diagnosis repeatedly, they did so without EVER having performed a single HIV test.
Today we contacted one of the Doctors who reported this false diagnosis to ask how they had come to such a diagnosis. The Doctor was kind enough to take our call and after reviewing the file called back and apologized for the diagnosis. The Doctor informed us they did not know exactly where the information had come from, but they believed it was relayed through the Emergency Room by the Deputy who had Larry taken to the hospital.
Larry is NOT HIV Positive nor has he ever been HIV Positive and to have a medical facility and multiple Doctors record such a diagnosis without ever conducting a test is reckless an unacceptable.
We have just received a call from the Hospital Administrator concerning the HIV Positive diagnosis entered in their records. They too have confirmed that upon review of all notes, reports, and diagnostic test there is NOTHING whatsoever that would suggest a diagnosis of HIV Positive. However, they explained that the diagnosis cannot be removed from the records but the Doctor can go back an add an amendment to the record noting it is erroneous. Anti-Sinclair bloggers have since 2008 posted on the Internet statements that Larry was HIV Positive and now we have a University Medical facility and Doctors placing the same in Larry’s medical records without any medical evidence to support it. This facility even transmitted the false diagnosis to a second medical facility.
We have sent a written request to Jefferson County Sheriff Robert Shirley to inquire as to whether his employee Cpl. Kevin J. Boyce told medical personnel that Larry was HIV Positive (which he is not) and why.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)