Michigan doctor arrested for purposely misdiagnosing cancer
by Jen Hayden
Daily Kos
Aug 07, 2013
Greed knows no bounds. It pushes people to do unspeakable things. For Dr. Farid Fata, a Michigan oncologist, there were no limits:
Dr. Farid Fata, 48, of Oakland Township was arrested Tuesday and charged for allegedly submitting false claims to Medicare for services that were medically unnecessary, including chemotherapy treatments, Positron Emission Tomograph (PET) scans and a variety of cancer and hematology treatments for patients who did not need them. Dr. Fata owns and operates Michigan Hematology Oncology Centers (MHO) which has offices in Clarkston, Bloomfield Hills, Lapeer, Sterling Heights, Troy and Oak Park.
Dr. Fata was scamming Medicare to the tune of $35 million.
In the course of the scheme, prosecutors say Dr. Fata falsified and directed others to falsify documents. MHO billed Medicare for approximately $35 million dollars over a two-year period, approximately $25 of which is attributable to Dr. Fata, federal officials said.
The complaint further alleges that Dr. Fata directed the administration of unnecessary chemotherapy to patients in remission; deliberate misdiagnosis of patients as having cancer to justify unnecessary cancer treatment; administration of chemotherapy to end-of-life patients who will not benefit from the treatment; deliberate misdiagnosis of patients without cancer to justify expensive testing; fabrication of other diagnoses such as anemia and fatigue to justify unnecessary hematology treatments, and distribution of controlled substances to patients without medical necessity or are administered at dangerous levels.
Dr. Fata was prescribing painful and unnecessary treatments to patients:
The feds say he also deliberately misdiagnosed patients “as having cancer to justify unnecessary cancer treatment,” WXYZ reported.
Federal agents say Fata directed the “administration of chemotherapy to end-of-life patients who [would] not benefit from the treatment,” and deliberately misdiagnosed “patients without cancer to justify expensive testing.”
Thankfully, Dr. Fata isn't likely to get out of jail any time soon:
Dr. Fata faced a federal magistrate Tuesday afternoon. Assistant U. S. Attorneys assigned to the case argued Fata is a flight risk because he has access to about $14 million in liquid assets and a home in Lebanon. The magistrate is temporarily detaining Fata until another hearing can be held on Thursday. He faces up to 20 years behind bars if he’s convicted.
Twenty years? Not long enough. Not nearly long enough.
Showing posts with label overdiagnosis. Show all posts
Showing posts with label overdiagnosis. Show all posts
Monday, August 12, 2013
Friday, December 28, 2012
Kaiser sued for its common practice of releasing incorrect records
The medical records system at Kaiser is rather odd. It seems they often give the wrong records, or no records at all. I've received altered records from Kaiser, and a bizarre set of X-rays with many duplicates that Kaiser prepared in an apparent effort to hide the fact that most of my X-rays were missing from the set. Also, they gave Stutz, Artiano Shinoff & Holtz 20 years of my records illegally. It turned out that the woman at Kaiser who authorized the release was Facebook friends with Dan Shinoff's wife!
Man Claims Kaiser Screw-up Cost Him
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
December 27, 2012
CLEVELAND (CN) - The Ohio National Guard rejected a man's application for Officer Candidate School because a Kaiser employee entered "intermittent explosive disorder" into a computer system, though he never had been diagnosed with that, the man claims in court.
Simon Montgomery sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ohio, Ohio Permanente Medical Group, and Constance Baker-Alden, who allegedly made the computer mistake, in Cuyahoga County Court. The National Guard is not a party to the complaint.
Montgomery claims he was diagnosed with "exercise-induced syncope" after he fainted after working out on a treadmill in February 2010. After this, his doctor had told him "that he was medically cleared for all activities and that the isolated incident should not be a cause for concern," according to the complaint.
Montgomery applied for Officer Candidate School in January 2010. To do so, he signed waivers allowing the National Guard to review his medical records.
The Guard rejected him, in a letter that said "his application for enlistment had been denied because of a permanent medical disqualification for Intermittent Explosive Disorder and exercise-induced syncope," the complaint states.
Montgomery says he appealed to the Guard, in a letter stating that the fainting episode happened just once and that the diagnosis of intermittent explosive disorder was incorrect.
He claims that Baker-Alden, "as an employee of Kaiser and/or Permanente," wrote a letter to him, which he immediately forwarded to the Guard.
"This letter explained that Baker-Alden had incorrectly entered the diagnosis of Intermittent Explosive Disorder on plaintiff's medical records," the complaint states.
The Guard rejected his appeal, "because his medical records were contradictory," Montgomery says.
As a result, he says, he applied to the Naval Reserves as an enlisted man, for monthly pay of $366 less than he would have earned as an officer in the National Guard.
He seeks punitive damages for more than $25,000 for negligence.
He is represented by Ann-Marie Ahern, with McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman.
Man Claims Kaiser Screw-up Cost Him
By BARBARA WALLACE
Courthouse News Service
December 27, 2012
CLEVELAND (CN) - The Ohio National Guard rejected a man's application for Officer Candidate School because a Kaiser employee entered "intermittent explosive disorder" into a computer system, though he never had been diagnosed with that, the man claims in court.
Simon Montgomery sued Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Ohio, Ohio Permanente Medical Group, and Constance Baker-Alden, who allegedly made the computer mistake, in Cuyahoga County Court. The National Guard is not a party to the complaint.
Montgomery claims he was diagnosed with "exercise-induced syncope" after he fainted after working out on a treadmill in February 2010. After this, his doctor had told him "that he was medically cleared for all activities and that the isolated incident should not be a cause for concern," according to the complaint.
Montgomery applied for Officer Candidate School in January 2010. To do so, he signed waivers allowing the National Guard to review his medical records.
The Guard rejected him, in a letter that said "his application for enlistment had been denied because of a permanent medical disqualification for Intermittent Explosive Disorder and exercise-induced syncope," the complaint states.
Montgomery says he appealed to the Guard, in a letter stating that the fainting episode happened just once and that the diagnosis of intermittent explosive disorder was incorrect.
He claims that Baker-Alden, "as an employee of Kaiser and/or Permanente," wrote a letter to him, which he immediately forwarded to the Guard.
"This letter explained that Baker-Alden had incorrectly entered the diagnosis of Intermittent Explosive Disorder on plaintiff's medical records," the complaint states.
The Guard rejected his appeal, "because his medical records were contradictory," Montgomery says.
As a result, he says, he applied to the Naval Reserves as an enlisted man, for monthly pay of $366 less than he would have earned as an officer in the National Guard.
He seeks punitive damages for more than $25,000 for negligence.
He is represented by Ann-Marie Ahern, with McCarthy, Lebit, Crystal & Liffman.
Thursday, November 22, 2012
Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis?
It appears that over a million women who didn't have breast cancer were diagnosed with it and treated for it.
Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis?
By H. GILBERT WELCH
New York Times
November 21, 2012
FOR decades women have been told that one of the most important things they can do to protect their health is to have regular mammograms. But over the past few years, it’s become increasingly clear that these screenings are not all they’re cracked up to be. The latest piece of evidence appears in a study in Wednesday’s New England Journal of Medicine, conducted by the oncologist Archie Bleyer and me.
The study looks at the big picture, the effect of three decades of mammography screening in the United States. After correcting for underlying trends and the use of hormone replacement therapy, we found that the introduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer.
That would be a good thing if it meant that 1.5 million fewer women had gotten a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. Then we could say that screening had advanced the time of diagnosis and provided the opportunity of reduced mortality for 1.5 million women.
But instead, we found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer — most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation — for a “cancer” that was never going to make them sick. Although it’s impossible to know which women these are, that’s some pretty serious harm.
But even more damaging is what these data suggest about the benefit of screening. If it does not advance the time of diagnosis of late-stage cancer, it won’t reduce mortality. In fact, we found no change in the number of women with life-threatening metastatic breast cancer.
The harm of overdiagnosis shouldn’t come as a surprise. Six years ago, a long-term follow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the 1980s. Newer digital mammograms detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.
The news on the benefits of screening isn’t any better. Some of the original trials from back in the ’80s suggested that mammography reduced breast cancer mortality by as much as 25 percent. This figure became the conventional wisdom. In the last two years, however, three investigations in Europe came to a radically different conclusion: mammography has either a limited impact on breast cancer mortality (reducing it by less than 10 percent) or none at all.
Feeling depressed? Don’t be. There’s good news here, too: breast cancer mortality has fallen substantially in the United States and Europe. But it’s not about screening. It’s about treatment. Our therapies for breast cancer are simply better than they were 30 years ago.
As treatment improves, the benefit of screening diminishes. Think about it: because we can treat most patients who develop pneumonia, there’s little benefit to trying to detect pneumonia early. That’s why we don’t screen for pneumonia.
So here is what we now know: the mortality benefit of mammography is much smaller, and the harm of overdiagnosis much larger, than has been previously recognized.
But to be honest, that general message has been around for more than a decade. Why isn’t it getting more traction?
The reason is that no other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms — efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion (“I can’t be your doctor if you don’t get one”). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: “Early detection saves lives. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early is 98 percent. When it’s not? It decreases to 23 percent.”
Survival rates always go up with early diagnosis: people who get a diagnosis earlier in life will live longer with their diagnosis, even if it doesn’t change their time of death by one iota. And diagnosing cancer in people whose “cancer” was never destined to kill them will inflate survival rates — even if the number of deaths stays exactly the same. In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will skyrocket.
Screening proponents have also encouraged the public to believe two things that are patently untrue.
First, that every woman who has a cancer diagnosed by mammography has had her life saved (consider those “Mammograms save lives. I’m the proof” T-shirts for breast cancer survivors). The truth is, those survivors are much more likely to have been victims of overdiagnosis.
Second, that a woman who died from breast cancer “could have been saved” had her cancer been detected early. The truth is, a few breast cancers are destined to kill no matter what we do.
What motivates proponents to use these tactics? Largely, it’s sincere faith in the virtue of early diagnosis, the belief that screening must be good for women. And 30 years ago, when we started down this road, they may have been right. In light of what we know now, it is wrong to continue down it. Let’s offer the proponents amnesty and move forward.
What should be done? First and foremost, tell the truth: woman really do have a choice. While no one can dismiss the possibility that screening may help a tiny number of women, there’s no doubt that it leads many, many more to be treated for breast cancer unnecessarily. Women have to decide for themselves about the benefit and harms...
Cancer Survivor or Victim of Overdiagnosis?
By H. GILBERT WELCH
New York Times
November 21, 2012
FOR decades women have been told that one of the most important things they can do to protect their health is to have regular mammograms. But over the past few years, it’s become increasingly clear that these screenings are not all they’re cracked up to be. The latest piece of evidence appears in a study in Wednesday’s New England Journal of Medicine, conducted by the oncologist Archie Bleyer and me.
The study looks at the big picture, the effect of three decades of mammography screening in the United States. After correcting for underlying trends and the use of hormone replacement therapy, we found that the introduction of screening has been associated with about 1.5 million additional women receiving a diagnosis of early stage breast cancer.
That would be a good thing if it meant that 1.5 million fewer women had gotten a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. Then we could say that screening had advanced the time of diagnosis and provided the opportunity of reduced mortality for 1.5 million women.
But instead, we found that there were only around 0.1 million fewer women with a diagnosis of late-stage breast cancer. This discrepancy means there was a lot of overdiagnosis: more than a million women who were told they had early stage cancer — most of whom underwent surgery, chemotherapy or radiation — for a “cancer” that was never going to make them sick. Although it’s impossible to know which women these are, that’s some pretty serious harm.
But even more damaging is what these data suggest about the benefit of screening. If it does not advance the time of diagnosis of late-stage cancer, it won’t reduce mortality. In fact, we found no change in the number of women with life-threatening metastatic breast cancer.
The harm of overdiagnosis shouldn’t come as a surprise. Six years ago, a long-term follow-up of a randomized trial showed that about one-quarter of cancers detected by screening were overdiagnosed. And this study reflected mammograms as used in the 1980s. Newer digital mammograms detect a lot more abnormalities, and the estimates of overdiagnosis have risen commensurately: now somewhere between a third and half of screen-detected cancers.
The news on the benefits of screening isn’t any better. Some of the original trials from back in the ’80s suggested that mammography reduced breast cancer mortality by as much as 25 percent. This figure became the conventional wisdom. In the last two years, however, three investigations in Europe came to a radically different conclusion: mammography has either a limited impact on breast cancer mortality (reducing it by less than 10 percent) or none at all.
Feeling depressed? Don’t be. There’s good news here, too: breast cancer mortality has fallen substantially in the United States and Europe. But it’s not about screening. It’s about treatment. Our therapies for breast cancer are simply better than they were 30 years ago.
As treatment improves, the benefit of screening diminishes. Think about it: because we can treat most patients who develop pneumonia, there’s little benefit to trying to detect pneumonia early. That’s why we don’t screen for pneumonia.
So here is what we now know: the mortality benefit of mammography is much smaller, and the harm of overdiagnosis much larger, than has been previously recognized.
But to be honest, that general message has been around for more than a decade. Why isn’t it getting more traction?
The reason is that no other medical test has been as aggressively promoted as mammograms — efforts that have gone beyond persuasion to guilt and even coercion (“I can’t be your doctor if you don’t get one”). And proponents have used the most misleading screening statistic there is: survival rates. A recent Komen foundation campaign typifies the approach: “Early detection saves lives. The five-year survival rate for breast cancer when caught early is 98 percent. When it’s not? It decreases to 23 percent.”
Survival rates always go up with early diagnosis: people who get a diagnosis earlier in life will live longer with their diagnosis, even if it doesn’t change their time of death by one iota. And diagnosing cancer in people whose “cancer” was never destined to kill them will inflate survival rates — even if the number of deaths stays exactly the same. In short, tell everyone they have cancer, and survival will skyrocket.
Screening proponents have also encouraged the public to believe two things that are patently untrue.
First, that every woman who has a cancer diagnosed by mammography has had her life saved (consider those “Mammograms save lives. I’m the proof” T-shirts for breast cancer survivors). The truth is, those survivors are much more likely to have been victims of overdiagnosis.
Second, that a woman who died from breast cancer “could have been saved” had her cancer been detected early. The truth is, a few breast cancers are destined to kill no matter what we do.
What motivates proponents to use these tactics? Largely, it’s sincere faith in the virtue of early diagnosis, the belief that screening must be good for women. And 30 years ago, when we started down this road, they may have been right. In light of what we know now, it is wrong to continue down it. Let’s offer the proponents amnesty and move forward.
What should be done? First and foremost, tell the truth: woman really do have a choice. While no one can dismiss the possibility that screening may help a tiny number of women, there’s no doubt that it leads many, many more to be treated for breast cancer unnecessarily. Women have to decide for themselves about the benefit and harms...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)