Should you always trust an Ivy-Leage doctor? Will they sometimes lie to you for financial gain?

There's more than one way for doctors to make profits by concealing facts from patients.   Not all the products they promote are sold through the media, as seen in the story of Dr. William Taylor at UCSD.

Real-world doctors fact-check Dr. Oz, and the results aren't pretty

By Karen Kaplan 

LA Times
Dec. 19, 2014

Only one-third of claims made on 'The Dr. Oz Show' can be backed by medical evidence, study says

11% of the recommendations made by Dr. Oz or his guests contradict medical facts, researchers say

Viewers of 'The Dr. Oz Show' should be skeptical about advice given on the program, experts conclude

What do real-world doctors have to say about the advice dispensed on “The Dr. Oz Show”? Less than one-third of it can be backed up by even modest medical evidence.
If that sounds alarming, consider this: Nearly 4 in 10 of the assertions made on the hit show appear to be made on the basis of no evidence at all.
The researchers who took it upon themselves to fact-check Dr. Oz and his on-air guests were able to find legitimate studies related to another 11% of the recommendations made on the show. However, in these cases, the recommendations ran counter to the medical literature.

Dr. Oz doubles down on bogus weight loss products at Senate hearing

 

“Consumers should be skeptical about any recommendations provided on television medical talk shows,” the researchers wrote in a study published this week in BMJ. “Viewers need to realize that the recommendations may not be supported by higher evidence or presented with enough balanced information to adequately inform decision making.”

Critics of Dr. Mehmet Oz, an accomplished cardiac surgeon with degrees from two Ivy League universities, complain that his show is little more than an hour-long infomercial for weight-loss fads like green coffee bean extract. (The Federal Trade Commission has sued the company that hawks this dubious product.) A spokesman for the Center for Inquiry accused him of selling “snake oil.” In June, a Senate subcommittee took him to task for telling his viewers (who number 2.9 million on any given day) things like: “I’ve got the No. 1 miracle in a bottle to burn your fat. It’s raspberry ketones.”

“I don’t get why you need to say this stuff because you know it’s not true," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said during the hearing...

Are California doctors violating their Hippocratic oaths in California Prop 45 fight?

Why Are CA Doctors Breaking Their Hippocratic Oath on Prop 45? 

Paul Y. Song, MD  Physician, Executive Chairman of the Courage Campaign, Healthcare Activist
Huffington Post 

10/08/2014 

 

An Open Letter to my fellow medical professionals about California's Proposition 45 and the primary obligation we have to protect the well being of our patients.

Like generations of doctors before us, when each of us graduated from medical school, we were asked to raise our hand and recite the Hippocratic Oath. This was a defining moment in many of our lives. Reciting the words carried great weight and purpose: "I will apply all measures for the benefit of the sick according to my ability and judgment; I will keep them from harm and injustice."

It is through the prism of these words that I watch you appearing in advertisements against Proposition 45 and react in horror. Dr. Amy Nguyen Howell, Dr. Marshall Morgan, and Dr. John Maa, I believe you are betraying your Hippocratic Oaths, and Registered Nurse Candace Campbell, I believe you are betraying the Nightingale Pledge. In fact, in your roles advocating against Prop 45, you are spreading lies designed to mislead and scare the public -- our patients -- in order to protect the insurance industry. It is unconscionable.
The facts are that since 2002, health insurance premiums have increased 185%, while wages for the bottom 70% of our state have remained stagnant. During this same time, California health insurers have issued over 45.7 million denials of treatment, while making record profits which have translated into record cash reserves in the billions.

So let's take a real look at your arguments:

In advertisements paid for by the health insurance industry, you claim that we should keep the new "independent commission" and that special interests are sponsoring Proposition 45 to give "one politician" new power over our health care -- including what treatment options our health insurance covers.
First off, there is absolutely no conflict between this new "independent commission" -- Covered California -- and Prop 45. The Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was written to accommodate just this sort of rate regulation, and 35 other states already have some version of it.

Covered California is actually run by purely political appointees, some of who have a long cozy history with the private insurance industry. Unlike the State Insurance Commissioner, who is publicly elected to serve as the ultimate consumer protector, the citizens of California have no say in who is appointed to this "independent commission" whereas the Insurance Commissioner is publicly accountable and can be voted out of office.

As for giving the Insurance Commissioner new power over treatment options, this is false on so many levels. First and foremost, it is the private health insurance industry and their administrators, many of who have never cared for a patient, who are denying care, while telling doctors what treatment and drugs they can provide. Our Insurance Commissioner does not do this now and Prop 45 will not give him the authority to do so in the future.

In fact, Prop 45 would simply apply the same regulatory framework to health insurance which has proven so successful regulating auto, home, and medical malpractice insurance in California. Auto insurance rates have actually decreased in the 26 years since Prop 103, saving Californians billions of dollars in premiums. In 2012, our state Insurance Commissioner actually saved doctors like yourselves over $44 million in excessive malpractice premiums using the very same system proposed in Prop 45.

With regard to special interests funding Prop 45, it is actually Big Insurance -- Kaiser Permanente, Well Point, and Blue Shield -- that is spending $37 million of our patients' premium dollars to try and kill Prop 45.
For every dollar that is spent on this campaign trying to protect patients against excessive, unreasonable health insurance rate increases, Big Insurance is spending almost 40 times as much to protect their lucrative status quo.

So, I urge you to stop spreading these lies. I challenge each of you to publicly debate the facts in person. Our patients are suffering mentally and physically from outrageous rate increases, and as the Hippocratic Oath makes clear, we must "keep them from harm and injustice." I call on you to renounce your opposition to Prop 45 and remember the promise you once made to all of your future patients.

Follow Paul Y. Song, MD on Twitter: www.twitter.com/paulysong

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.

Los Angeles doctor runs down pedestrian, then gets him arrested

Author Steve Bevilacqua

Doctor causes harm, then lies about it to escape blame. Haven't I heard this before?

"...road rage lunatic who happened to be a doctor...The driver also pulled the gender card and claimed that her actions were justified because she was "very afraid" of me, despite the fact that she was in a car and I was on my ass in the street."

Book: A Layman's Handbook for Those Falsely Accused of Felonies
Man Run Over By Doctor Faced Lengthy Prison Sentence & Was Then Redeemed On National TV By Judge Judy
Ryan McCormick
Nov 19, 2013

One day Steve Bevilacqua was hit by a car crossing the street and almost went to prison for it. The driver who ran him down was charged with nothing, and Steve spent months in court fighting mandatory prison sentences for imaginary crimes. His book "KAFKA AT THE BEACH: A Layman's Handbook for Those Falsely Accused of Felonies" offers a firsthand account of being on the wrong end of America's justice system.

In KAFKA AT THE BEACH Steve Bevilacqua reveals:

How & why he was facing an 18-month mandatory prison sentence for assault, battery, and strong-armed robbery against the woman who ran him over with her car - crimes he did not commit.

How after he was run over, the driver cursed him, got out of her car, and then attempted to physically assault him.

A corrupt LAPD detective adds more false charges to Steve's existing ones.

In court, Steve meet the alcoholic city attorney who, chomping on pretzels and nursing a hangover, keeps confusing his case with others and becomes hellbent on sending Steve to prison for two years.

Redemption: TV's Judge Judy ruled in Steve's favor as he was suing the driver for cost incurred of her making deliberate false statements.



Santa Monica courthouse

"In the bizarre totalitarian odyssey that devoured a year of my life. I fought off a ferocious campaign to put me in prison, experienced the joys of bankruptcy, and struggled through an absurd maze of court-ordered therapy. However, I ultimately triumphed, achieving vindication on national television at the hands of the snarling modern-day Solomon known as Judge Judy." Steve Bevilacqua

Lights, Camera, Justice: If Only the Los Angeles Court System Were More Like Judge Judy
Steve Bevilacqua
Huff Post
07/31/2013

I was run down by a car while crossing the street, and almost went to prison for it, thanks to our local court system. Granted, what happened to me was an extreme incident, propelled by a road rage lunatic who happened to be a doctor yet should never have been listened to by anyone. The driver also pulled the gender card and claimed that her actions were justified because she was "very afraid" of me, despite the fact that she was in a car and I was on my ass in the street. But what transpired for the next 8 months in our city's court system was a totalitarian nightmare straight out of Kafka's The Trial.

Hundreds of hours, thousands of dollars, and one surreal stint in court-ordered therapy later, I was ravaged but free. Then this legal deathmarch was to play itself out again, on television. Amazingly enough, in one extremely loud afternoon, my fiasco was set right by the modern-day Solomon known as Judge Judy. The actual court system spent months squeezing every technicality in their agonized efforts to send me to prison at the expense of the obvious truth. Judge Judy was direct and ferociously sensible...

During my months in court, I endured City Attorneys defending a driver's right to run down a pedestrian with her car, while refusing to charge her with anything. The driver even admitted giving the finger to the downed pedestrian as she fled the scene, yet she didn't even receive a traffic ticket...

I have yet to see an argument based on some pigshit technicality succeed on Judge Judy while, in real courts, it seems to happen as often as not...

Why are American doctors paid so damn much?

Chart: Why are there so few doctors in the US?

Because the medical establishment has intentionally limited the number of doctors in this country--so doctors could make more money by serving more patients. Of course, this has resulted in poorer medical care.

"This is yet another reason not to shed too many tears for doctors. They've basically brought this on themselves. If the market were allowed to produce as many doctors as there's demand for, they'd already be getting paid less. Right now they're enjoying the substantial rents that come from squeezing their own supply, and they've fought like lemmings for decades to keep it that way." -- Kevin Drum

Why Are American Doctors Paid So Damn Much?
By Kevin Drum
Mother Jones
Nov. 20, 2013

Conservatives have picked up today on a Kaiser Health News piece reporting on doctor complaints that insurers plan to pay them less for Obamacare patients than for other patients:

Insurance officials acknowledge they have reduced rates in some plans, saying they are under enormous pressure to keep premiums affordable. They say physicians will make up for the lower pay by seeing more patients, since the plans tend to have smaller networks of doctors. But many primary care doctors say they barely have time to take care of the patients they have now.

Matt Yglesias is unsympathetic. He says American doctors are very well paid and should quit griping: "If we ever reach the point where American doctors have been squeezed so badly that they start fleeing north of the border to get higher pay in Canada, then we've squeezed too hard. Until that happens, forget about it."

That's pretty cold. But if you really want to know what's going on, take a gander at the chart... [above]. It's from the OECD, so it includes all of the world's relatively rich countries:

That's damn peculiar, isn't it? If Econ 101 is to be believed, higher pay should produce more doctors. And yet, even though the United States pays doctors far more than any other country on the globe, we're in the bottom third. We have more doctors per capita than poorish countries like Mexico and Poland, but far fewer than Belgium and Britain and Germany—all of which pay doctors considerably less than we do here. So what's going on?

As Matt says, the basic answer is that U.S. doctors operate as a cartel. They artificially limit their own ranks, which drives up their compensation.

What we really ought to be doing is working to further pressure the incomes of doctors through supply-side reforms. That means letting nurse-practitioners treat patients without kicking a slice upstairs to an M.D., letting more doctors immigrate to the United States, and it means opening more medical schools. Common sense says that since the population both grows and ages over time, there should be more people admitted to medical school today than were thirty years ago. But that's not the case. Instead we produce roughly the same number of new doctors, admissions standards have gotten tougher, and doctors have become scarcer.

This is yet another reason not to shed too many tears for doctors. They've basically brought this on themselves. If the market were allowed to produce as many doctors as there's demand for, they'd already be getting paid less. Right now they're enjoying the substantial rents that come from squeezing their own supply, and they've fought like lemmings for decades to keep it that way. You can hardly blame them for that, but there's no reason the rest of us should put up with it. It's time to fight back.

Former Quebec doctor in custody on murder warrant in fatal stabbing of his kids

People don't want to believe that some doctors are evil. In fact, just because a doctor is a cardiologist doesn't mean he has a heart.

What was the first judge in this case thinking? How can a blackout that occurred AFTER the killings make a man not criminally responsible??? Is the judge really confused, or did he have some motivation to exonerate a rich, important person?

Former Quebec doctor in custody on murder warrant in fatal stabbing of his kids
By Andy Blatchford
The Canadian Press
November 13, 2013

Former Quebec doctor in custody on murder warrant in fatal stabbing of his kids

MONTREAL - A former Quebec doctor ordered to face a new trial in the fatal stabbings of his children is in custody again.

Police in Quebec say Guy Turcotte surrendered Wednesday just hours after Quebec's top court ordered a new trial in the case.

The Crown said it intended to charge Turcotte, once again, with two counts of first-degree murder.

Police said Turcotte was to be arraigned on Thursday.

Turcotte is the former cardiologist who was charged after his children were repeatedly stabbed one night in February 2009.

He was found not criminally responsible at his 2011 murder trial, when a jury accepted his argument he could not recall the events and had experienced blackouts.

The case made Turcotte a household name in Quebec and the verdict provoked a torrent of outrage.

His case was one of several infamous court decisions that helped spur new federal legislation aimed at making it harder for those found not criminally responsible to gain their freedom.

Turcotte's first trial heard that his young son and daughter were stabbed 46 times.

He was freed after 46 months of detention in a prison and, eventually, a mental institution.

"An arrest warrant was issued today for Guy Turcotte so that he would appear before the courts to answer two charges of premeditated murder," Crown spokesman Jean-Pascal Boucher told reporters.

Boucher said only a Superior Court judge would be authorized to grant any request by Turcotte to be released pending his new trial.

He did not know when the case will be heard, but he insisted prosecutors would work to hold the trial as soon as possible.

The Crown welcomed the decision earlier in the day by Quebec's Court of Appeal with "satisfaction," Boucher said.

The court ruled that legal errors were committed in Turcotte's original trial — including by the Superior Court justice who presided over it.

In the 2011 trial, the jury heard Turcotte drank washer fluid later in the evening of the killings in what he said was an attempt to end his own life. The Crown said a not-criminally-responsible verdict should be reserved only for cases of mental illness, not ones where a suicide attempt might have triggered an after-the-fact blackout.

The appeals court verdict sided with such critics.

"The burden of proof was on the accused to show that he was suffering from an incapacitating mental illness — distinct from the intoxication symptoms — and it was the jury's job to decide," said Wednesday's ruling.

"But the judge did not remind jurors of that distinction."

The appeals court conceded that the judge had a difficult role, and wasn't helped by the fact that the Crown argued its points in a way that was "sometimes confused."

That being said, according to the appeals court, "his instructions (to the jury) were deficient, which necessarily had a major impact on the verdict."

The defence argued during the appeal process that the Crown had plenty of time to raise objections before the jury went into deliberations.

Attorney Pierre Poupart told the court in September that both sides agreed to the parameters of the trial and the Crown knew what was at stake when the not-criminally-responsible defence was introduced.

Poupart argued that the jury came to a reasonable verdict and he stressed it was important for the appeals court to avoid being used as an unofficial 13th juror.

The mother of the two children, Turcotte's ex-wife, told the French-language CBC TV network that she welcomed the appeals court decision to order a new trial as a "necessary evil."

Isabelle Gaston, who has become an outspoken advocate for justice reform, had been bracing herself for the possibility of living through another trial, proceedings that would once again hear the gory details of the killings.

Gaston, who gave the interview before the Crown announced it had issued an arrest warrant for Turcotte, said Wednesday's court decision took her by surprise, at a time when she had finally found inner peace for the first time since the deaths of her young children.

Turcotte's case has already prompted reaction from Ottawa.

Earlier this year, the federal government tabled the Not Criminally Responsible Act. The bill, C-54, would give the court fresh powers to create a new high-risk category that would hold mentally ill offenders longer, without a formal review, and make it far more difficult for them to leave psychiatric facilities.

It would also keep victims' families informed about the status of such individuals and alert them when they are released.

Utah doctor Martin MacNeill guilty of killing wife, leaving her in tub

How many doctors are secret sociopaths? Is it possible that lack of ethics is an advantage for doctors in administrative positions? How much did Martin MacNeill care about his patients?

Utah doctor Martin MacNeill guilty of killing wife, leaving her in tub
A jury only took hours to convict a Provo, Utah doctor and former Mormon Church official in connection with his wife's 2007 death. NBC's Mike Taibbi reports.
By Paul Foy
The Associated Press
Nov. 8, 2013

PROVO, Utah - A jury convicted a doctor of murder early Saturday in the death of his wife six years ago, bringing an end to a trial that became the nation's latest true-crime cable TV obsession with its tales of jailhouse snitches, forced plastic surgery, philandering and betrayal.

Martin MacNeill was accused of knocking out Michele MacNeill with drugs after cosmetic surgery, then leaving her to die in a tub like one that was displayed during the trial.

...MacNeill was medical director of the Utah State Development Center, a residential center for people with cognitive disorders, who moonlighted in other medical jobs, once consulting for a laser hair removal clinic. He had a law degree but wasn't known to practice law and has since surrendered his law and medical licenses.

The highlight of the three-week trial was a mistress who MacNeill introduced as a nanny within weeks of his wife's death. His older daughters quickly recognized Gypsy Willis as his secret lover and said her mother had been arguing with her husband over the affair.

The daughters went to work uncovering what they call their father's secret life. They abandoned him while dogging authorities to open a murder investigation. It wasn't until MacNeill's release in July 2012 from a federal prison in Texas on charges of fraud that Utah prosecutors moved to file charges of murder and obstruction of justice.

Willis also served a federal sentence for using the identity of one of MacNeill's adopted daughters to escape a debt-heavy history. That daughter had been sent back to Ukraine, supposedly only for a summer.

For a time, MacNeill's only family defender was his only son. Damian, a 24-year-old law student, committed suicide in January 2010, according to his sisters, who have said he was haunted by their mother's death.

Prosecutors said MacNeill might have gotten away with a perfect murder, but his erratic behavior the day of his wife's death and shortly afterward was "dripping with motive."

They reminded jurors about testimony that MacNeill stood in the bathroom yelling what prosecutors called phony grief, "Why did you do this? All because of a stupid surgery," as paramedics tried to revive his wife.

Family testimony suggested it was MacNeill who insisted his 50-year-old wife, a former local beauty queen in her California hometown, get the surgery. Prosecutors said he used it as an excuse to mix painkillers, Valium and sleeping pills for her supposed recovery.

"Make no mistake, the defendant's fingerprints, if you will, are all over Michele's death," Grunander said.

Prosecutors say MacNeill contrived a medical condition in the weeks leading up to his wife's death, telling many around him he was dying of cancer or multiple sclerosis to absolve him of any motive in the death. He also made use of a cane and could be seen limping at times.

Investigators who subpoenaed MacNeill's own medical records found he was in good health. And they discovered something else: MacNeill had been collecting veteran benefits for decades, saying in an application he had bipolar or anti-social disorders.

MacNeill's arrest warrant contains a former girlfriend's explosive allegation — not used at the trial — that MacNeill killed a brother and tried to kill his mother long ago.

Utah investigators confirmed the brother, Rufus Roy MacNeill, was found dead in a bathtub in New Jersey. They determined MacNeill was never charged and found no indication he was ever under investigation for it.

How UCLA's Millionaire Doctor/public employee David Feinberg got $1.3 million amid tuition hikes, budget cuts and a recession

Dr. David Feinberg

[Maura Larkins comment: Both Dr. Feinberg and Chancellor Gene Block are psychiatry professors. A lawsuit has been filed against yet another professor of psychiatry at UCLA. Dr. Alexander Bystritsky is accused of causing the wrongful death of a woman by giving her dangerous medications in order to make her feel happy and to believe she was cured of her illness, causing her to give a large donation to UCLA.

What kind of ethics does Dr. David Feinberg have? What's he going to do with all this money? I'm guessing it's not all going to scholarships for students who can't pay tuition at UCLA.]


UCLA's Millionaire Doctor David Feinberg
How Feinberg got $1.3 million amid tuition hikes, budget cuts and a recession
By Beth Barrett
LA Weekly
Mar 31 2011

Last year, when Stanford Hospital & Clinics was considering poaching Dr. David Feinberg from UCLA, where he is the associate vice chancellor and CEO of its public hospital system, the university brass and the powerful UC Board of Regents decided to do whatever was required to keep their golden administrator.

Things were bad at UCLA when the feverish bid to retain Feinberg broke out. It had just been slammed with $60 million in academic program cuts by the deficit-riddled state of California, and faces another $96 million bite on July 1. In a series of recent hikes, the university raised average student tuition 40 percent from about $7,000 to more than $11,000.

More tuition hikes were coming, and the university owed its employees $21.5 billion in future pension payments that it had no clear-cut way to pay.

But the vast Ronald Reagan UCLA Medical Center, a public nonprofit, had experienced a financially robust previous year under Feinberg, and the facility in 2009 enjoyed high patient-satisfaction rankings as usual. Despite California's stubborn recession, UCLA Chancellor Gene Block — like Feinberg, a psychiatry professor at the School of Medicine — decided to make his colleague a staggering offer: He would nearly double Feinberg's $739,695 base salary to $1.33 million.

That included a 22 percent pay raise of $160,300 and an annual "retention bonus" of $250,000 paid every year that Feinberg does not leave for another job. Block also decided to continue Feinberg's "incentive bonus," which had hit $210,739 in the previous fiscal year.

There was nothing else quite like Block's offer elsewhere in California's university medical schools. The next highest paid is UC San Francisco's CEO Mark Laret. San Francisco, like UCLA, is a top facility, ranked seventh in the nation by U.S. News & World Report, close behind No. 5 UCLA.

In 2010, Laret's $739,700 pay was reduced as a result of the systemwide pay cuts. But with an "incentive" bonus of $176,912 and a car allowance of $8,916, he earned $876,215. Now, suddenly Feinberg was in line to earn nearly half a million dollars more than Laret.

On June 30, Feinberg will begin getting his annual quarter-million-dollar bonus simply for not leaving for another job.

Feinberg's juicy pay package led to uncomfortable headlines for UCLA on Sept. 17, the day after the Board of Regents approved it.

Then, in late December, Feinberg earned UCLA another round of unwanted media attention. The San Francisco Chronicle obtained a private Dec. 9 letter in which Feinberg and 35 other executives in the UC system lashed out at the Board of Regents. The highly compensated group weren't demanding help for academic programs and students. They were threatening to sue the struggling California universities if the regents didn't boost the executives' long-standing $245,000 salary caps used to calculate their pensions.

The change would create a sizable pension boost, costing the universities $5.1 million per year — for just 36 government employees. In addition, the 36 executives insisted the new pension deal be retroactive to 2007, taking from the universities an additional bite of $51 million.

In the letter, Feinberg and the others wrote that it was "the University's legal, moral and ethical obligation" to hand over the pension boosts. They also threatened, "Failure to do so will likely result in a costly and unsuccessful legal confrontation," and emphasized that they were writing "URGENTLY."

The letter, which proved to be deeply embarrassing to UC officials and the regents, was widely assumed to have been leaked by a UC university system insider disgusted by the demands.

The demands from the 36 were a direct political challenge to UC President Mark Yudof, who had publicly opposed bigger pensions for university executives. The University of California system owes $21.6 billion in future pension payments to all its retirees — but it hasn't got the money, and doesn't know where it's going to get it. Yudof is pursuing fiscal reforms to raise the missing billions, including upping the retirement age for future employees from age 60 to 65 for maximum pension benefits — and, once again, raising student tuition and fees.

The leaked letter enraged students, critics of cushy government pensions and salaries and incoming Gov. Jerry Brown, who is a nonvoting member of the Board of Regents.

Brown opined in the Chronicle in December: "These executives seem very out of touch at a time when the state is contemplating billions of dollars in reductions that will affect people who are far less advantaged."

In early January, under a media spotlight, Block opposed the pension boosts, and the demand was not approved by the regents.

But three weeks later, without a formal vote, the regents — who include such notables as investment banker Richard C. Blum, husband of Sen. Dianne Feinstein, and Sherry L. Lansing, former chair/CEO of Paramount Pictures — found a way to give Feinberg and other UC system medical center executives statewide a different costly reward: "incentive" bonuses totaling $2.6 million that had been deferred from 2009.

Feinberg topped the bonus recipient list, raking in $218,728.

The popular doctor now has critics aplenty. Students, facing further tuition hikes as Gov. Brown struggles with a massive deficit, are flabbergasted at the Wall Street–like disparity between how the UC system treats its highfliers versus its students.

Student Matt Margolis, president of the Bruin Democrats, says thousands of UC, California State University and community college students "have to take quarters off, drop classes, get kicked out of their housing." For UC leaders "to respond to the need to scale back by cutting the budget and raising tuition — I don't see how that sits well with the CEO of the medical center having his salary doubled...

Almost Half of Doctors Burned Out by Rising Workload

Almost Half of Doctors Burned Out by Rising Workload
By Shannon Pettypiece
Bloomberg Businessweek
August 20, 2012

About 1 in 2 doctors are burned out, showing signs of emotional exhaustion and little interest in work as patient loads increase, U.S. researchers found.

Doctors working in emergency, family and internal medicine were the most likely to feel drained, according to the study released today in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Researchers said burnout also was tied to long hours, with 37 percent of physicians working more than 60 hours a week.

The number of doctors reporting feeling burned out is surprising and troubling, said Tait Shanafelt, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic and lead study author. He said the trend may cause physicians to quit or reduce their workload just as demand for doctors is increasing with the aging population. The issue may get worse as 32 million Americans are expected to get health insurance by 2014 under a new U.S. law, increasing the number of people seeking medical care, he said.

“Right at a time when we are trying to provide care to people who are uninsured and projecting workforce shortages we are seeing this burnout rate creep in, which may cause physicians to reduce workloads and consider early retirement,” Shanafelt said.

He added that burnout has also been linked to medical errors and worse patient care in previous studies.

The study found that 46 percent of doctors show at least one sign of being worn out. Shanafelt said the burnout was about 10 percent higher than in the population as a whole. Unlike with other professions, more education isn’t linked to a lower risk of feeling drained among doctors, the study found.

Across Specialties

Researchers collected responses from 7,288 doctors across all practice areas to measure levels of emotional exhaustion, depersonalization and sense of professional accomplishment. The data was compared with surveys of the general population.

There was no increased rate of depression or suicide among doctors compared with the general population, a sign that the burnout is specific to the work environment, Shanafelt said. He said more research is needed to determine proper treatment.

Doctors have been increasing the number of patients they see to make up for reduced reimbursement from health insurers and the government, Shanafelt said. Physicians in private practice are also dealing with more bureaucracy, such as a push by the government to implement electronic medical records.

“If this were only 5 percent, we could say that these are just people who don’t manage their stress well or need additional training,” Shanafelt said. “But with almost one out of every two physicians, we have to say there must be something about their environment contributing to this.”

Doctors are not very happy

Physician Frustration Grows, Income Falls -- But a Ray of Hope
Medscape
Mark Crane
04/24/2012

Physician income overall has declined since 2010, yet there are tiny glimmers of hope in some specialties. Frustration is mounting, however, and doctors in every specialty are bracing for what they expect to be further income declines as healthcare elements are implemented, such as ACOs and required treatment and quality guidelines.

Those are some of the insights from Medscape's Physician Compensation Survey Report: 2012 Results. The report is based on a survey that garnered responses from more than 24,000 US physicians representing 25 specialties.

"Physicians' sense of worry may be greater than the reality, but it's understandable," said Judy Aburmishan, CPA, a partner in FGMK, LLC in Chicago, a firm that represents physicians and other healthcare providers. "Hospitals are buying up private practices both in primary care and the specialties. The heavy-handed message they send out is that if you don't join us, you won't survive. There is great uncertainty and fear about what healthcare reform will mean for physicians once it's fully implemented."

Some of the major findings from Medscape's 2012 report:

1. Dissatisfaction with medicine is intensifying, although a majority of physicians would again choose the same career path. In 2012, just over half of all physicians (54%) would choose medicine again as a career, far less than in the previous year's report, where 69% of physicians would choose medicine again.

2. The top-earning specialties in 2012 were the same as in the previous year, even though their incomes declined in general. In 2012, radiologists and orthopedic surgeons again topped the list at a mean income of $315,000, followed by cardiologists ($314,000) and anesthesiologists ($309,000). The same 4 specialties were in the leading positions in last year's survey. The bottom-earning specialties also remained similar: pediatrics ($156,000), family medicine ($158,000), and internal medicine ($165,000).

3. Who's up, who's down since 2010? "Decreased reimbursement" is the overall buzz-phrase, yet a minority of specialties saw modest gains. The biggest income increases were in ophthalmology (+9%), pediatrics (+5%), nephrology (+4%), oncology (+4%), and rheumatology (+4%). The largest declines were in general surgery (-12%), orthopedic surgery (-10%), radiology (-10%), and neurology (-8%).

4. Do men or women earn more? Overall, male physicians earn 40% more than female physicians, although that difference is only 23% in primary care. Experts say that the difference is related to choice of specialties and lifestyle preferences that women choose.

5. Don't write off private practice! Although physicians are rushing toward employment, partners in private practice far outearn physicians in other work environments. Overall, partners in private practice earn significantly more than solo practice owners and employed physicians, who earn less than either group.

6. The "rich doctor" myth may be just that, although "rich" is relative. Overall, only 11% of physicians say they consider themselves rich, while about 45% say their incomes are no better than that of many nonphysicians, and another about 45% say, "My income probably qualifies me as rich, but I have so many debts and expenses that I don't feel rich." The specialties with the highest percentage of physicians who felt rich were pathology (15%), radiology, oncology, and gastroenterology (14% each).

7. Doctors in all specialties are swamped with paperwork. A third of physicians (33%) spend more than 10 hours per week on paperwork and administration.

8. One healthcare reform goal of reducing "unnecessary care" garners negative response. The vast majority (67%) of physicians said they won't reduce the amount of tests, procedures, and treatments they perform (in order to comply with insurer treatment guidelines) either because the guidelines aren't in their patients' best interests or because doctors still need to practice defensive medicine.



Doctors bemoan paychecks that most plebes would kill for MSN April 28, 2012 Nearly half of all doctors say they regret choosing a career in medicine, according to an annual survey conducted by Medscape. Only 54 percent of doctors said they'd make the same career choice again, down from 69 percent last year. Lower incomes from "decreased reimbursement" apparently play a role in this dissatisfaction, though certain specialties enjoyed modest income gains. But even though physicians made mean incomes that ranged from $156,000 (pediatricians) to $315,000 (radiologists, orthopedic surgeons) per year, only 11 percent of doctors considered themselves rich (cough, cough), and 45 percent agreed with the statement "My income probably qualifies me as rich, but I have so many debts and expenses that I don't feel rich." Physician, cheer thyself.

U.S. doctors still too cozy with drug industry: report

U.S. doctors still too cozy with drug industry: report
By Julie Steenhuysen
Nov 9, 2010
Reuters

Doctors in the United States are still too cozy with drug companies, although they have managed to break some of those ties, U.S. researchers said on Monday.

The team at Harvard University and Massachusetts General Hospital did a national survey of 1,900 primary care doctors in 2009 about their contacts with drug companies.

They found 84 percent reported some type of relationship with drug companies, compared with 94 percent in 2004.

About two thirds accepted drug samples, 70 percent accepted food or beverages from drug companies and 14 percent accepted payment in exchange for their professional services, they reported in the Archives of Internal Medicine.

"We found a significant decline overall in the percentage of physicians who have relationships with industry," Eric Campbell of Massachusetts General, who led the study, said in a telephone interview.

In the team's first study of industry ties in 2004, getting drug samples or accepting lunches or other food from drug company salespeople were most common, followed by payments from drug companies for attending medical meetings or continuing education seminars.

Since then, several government and academic groups have pressured doctors to sever their ties to drug companies.

Members of Congress, including Senator Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican, have been pushing to limit the influence of drugmakers over the practice of medicine after a probe showed a noted Harvard neuroscientist had failed to disclose payments from drug companies...

Do we need more ethics screening for medical students and doctors?

Apparently this medical student was not motivated by the desire to help his fellow humans be healthier. I wonder how many doctors are motivated by the desire to help others?



Suspect in Craigslist slaying indicted
June 21, 2009
CNN

A Massachusetts grand jury late last week indicted a 23-year-old medical student on seven counts, including first-degree murder, in the fatal shooting of one woman and the robbery of another in Boston hotels.
Philip Markoff is charged with killing a woman and robbing another in Boston hotels in April.

Philip Markoff is charged with killing a woman and robbing another in Boston hotels in April.

Philip Markoff is charged with the April 14 fatal shooting and attempted robbery of Julissa Brisman, 25, and the armed robbery of a 29-year-old Las Vegas woman on April 10. Investigators have linked both incidents to advertisements on the Craigslist classified ad Web site.

Markoff also is charged with "the armed and forcible confinement" of the two women, as well as two counts of unlawful firearm possession, the Suffolk County District Attorney's Office said Sunday.

The grand jury returned the seven-count indictment late Thursday, and it moves the case from Boston Municipal Court to Suffolk Superior Court, where Markoff is expected to appear for a Monday morning arraignment. He previously pleaded not guilty in the city court and is being held without bail.

Markoff's attorney, John Salzberg, had no comment on the new indictment.

Prosecutors said Brisman, a model from New York who advertised as a masseuse on Craigslist, was shot three times at close range and suffered blunt head trauma at the Marriott Copley Place hotel.

The Las Vegas woman was robbed of $800 in cash and $250 in American Express gift cards at the Westin Copley Place hotel, police reports said.

Markoff, a second-year medical student at Boston University's School of Medicine, also has been charged in a nonfatal hotel assault in Rhode Island.

He has been charged with assault with the intent to rob, assault with a dangerous weapon, possession of a handgun and use of a firearm while committing a crime of violence, stemming from an April 16 robbery attempt at a Holiday Inn Express in Warwick, Rhode Island.