Des Moines Personal Injury Lawyer - Medical Devices & Implants

Iowa and Nebraska EMT’s consider a Crane to Transport the Morbidly Obese Bureaucrats

Steve Lombardi — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 10:03:00 GMT

America the obese is weighing down government budgets for things like cranes and forklifts to move 800-pound EMT patients. The cost of ambulances and equipment is increasing with America’s waist line. In 2008 27 percent of Iowa and Nebraska’s population was obese; that was up from 23 percent in 2005. Omaha recently spent $200,000 for an ambulance just to make it easier to transport obese patients. It’s reported some departments need equipment to lift up to 1,600 pounds up from 700 pounds.

Is HIPPA to protect the patient or to keep the taxpayers from having the facts?

I have to wonder how much of this is fact and how much is budgetary foul play; hocus pocus so they can continue to waste tax dollars. Let’s just say there are a total of 5 - 800 pound patients in both Iowa and Nebraska. Why couldn’t the rescue departments, when the time arises, rent a forklift or crane from a rental or construction company? Why do we need each and every EMT department purchasing a brand new crane or forklift to sit around some fire station? Ridiculous if you ask me. Pure poppycock is my guess.

They say lawsuits waste money, but for every dollar taken from the injured I see $10 being spent on needless expense with a fictious need created by the lobbyists.

Clark County Fire Department in Las Vegas is making a special purchase of a new ambulance that can handle a patient weighing 500 pounds or more. It’s more likely in Las Vegas that overweight heart attack patient will come out of the casinos so why not make the casinos pay for the special ambulance? Why Clark County’s Fire Department?

Why do the injured need to prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt, but legislators need only whine in front of a camera lens to get billions?

Here is part of the special reporting we see from Bio-Medicine,

Ray Carrol, the manager at American Medical Response, said that in the last six months, the company has handled 75 calls where they needed extra manpower to lift patients onto ambulances. He also said that moving someone that large in a regular ambulance poses safety problems for patients, paramedics and ambulance crewmembers.

The $250,000 (?144,000) vehicle, developed by the American Medical Response group, looks like a standard ambulance. But it is wider, with an especially large wheeled stretcher trolley. The vehicle, called a Bariatric Unit, also has a special ramp and a winch that can handle loads of 1,600lb (114 stone), and be operated by just one crewmember.

Is it the PI lawyers who are ruining this country, or ruining the gravy train for those who want to waste your tax dollars?

How many counties are there in the United States? There are 3,140 counties in the United States. $200,000 X 3,140 = $628,000,000.00. That's $628 million.

Do I smell lobbyists all over this one? That statement couldn’t be any vaguer in terms of the reality of why this expense is necessary.

Kansas City’s EMT’s state they need to get creative to move all that human lard. How about getting more creative, designed to save money. If we can pay terrorist response teams, why not obesity EMT response teams; why not make the terrorists responders’ obesity responders. Tell me where all those terrorist response team members are and what are they doing when the terrorists aren’t causing trouble? Perhaps we can take some of those TSA statues and power happy irritating excuses for human beings at the airport and make them do something between flights?

That might work. Let’s try it. Or is the idea not to save money and drive down the deficit?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Health Care News: University of Iowa joins the growing trend towards financial disclosures by physicians and health care workers

Steve Lombardi — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:07:00 GMT

The University of Iowa announced new rules prohibiting physicians from accepting free drug samples and handing them out to patients. Also doctors and other health care workers will be prohibited from accepting gifts and must disclose financial remuneration paid by private medical companies that can create a conflict of interest with reporting research results.

“At least 25 public and private academic medical centers now have “strong” conflict-of-interest policies, according to a Sept. 3 commentary in JAMA, the Journal of the American Medical Association, by David Rothman and Susan Chimonas of the Institute on Medicine as a Profession at Columbia University.

The institute’s searchable database for conflict-of-interest policies at medical centers and university hospitals, at http://www.imapny.org/coi_database/, shows the U of I’s proposed restrictions are stricter than some, but not the most severe.”

Des Moines Register, January 22, 2009 - U of I beefs up conflict of interest rules for doctors

And if you’re wondering how much a physician can be paid take a look at the Des Moines Register’s article on January 23, 2009, U of I to bar free drug samples, gifts.

“Last year, three U of I orthopedic surgeons were included on a list of doctors across the country who accepted money from the manufacturers of artificial hips and knees.

Dr. John Callaghan, a U of I surgeon, received $2.6 million in 2007 from DePuy Orthopaedics, a Johnson & Johnson company that makes replacement joints. Callaghan said the payments were above-board royalties for other doctors' use of joint replacement devices he helped develop. The U of I knew of the financial ties, but did not know how much Callaghan made in royalties because the university-wide conflict-of-interest policy does not require employees to report payment amounts.”

That’s a lot of money. Then again it seems Doctor Callahan earned it with his participation in developing the joint replacement. Or at least someone earned the right to the royalties. What I’ve always wondered is how State of Iowa employees are allowed to get paid a salary by the State of Iowa, use state equipment and laboratories to develop patentable products and then the employee get to keep the royalties. Why aren’t the royalties owed to the State of Iowa?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

Federal Preemption: Is the FDA testing process fail-safe and protecting you, the patient?

Steve Lombardi — Sun, 12 Oct 2008 10:06:00 GMT

Cardiopulmonary bypass disposables are subject to a voluntary recall.

You might still be asking whether issues involving federal preemption are worth the fifteen minutes it takes to write to your Congressman about. Well consider the following. Are you smart enough to know how this recalled product might affect you?

The FDA issues alert notices about recalls. They are available to everyone to read. I’ve copied one concerning patients who might undergo certain procedures having to do with the heart. Read the one below. It’s copied word for word.

Recall -- Firm Press Release

FDA posts press releases and other notices of recalls and market withdrawals from the firms involved as a service to consumers, the media, and other interested parties. FDA does not endorse either the product or the company.

Medtronic Initiates Voluntary Field Actions for Selected Heparin-Coated Products Used During Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Contact:
Daniel Beach
Public Relations
763-505-2603

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -- MINNEAPOLIS – May 7, 2008 – Medtronic, Inc. today announced that it is initiating a voluntary and precautionary recall of selected products featuring the Carmeda BioActive surface. The affected devices are disposable products used during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for heart surgeries. Affected products include blood oxygenators, reservoirs, pumps, cannulae, and tubing packs. This action is being taken subsequent to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's April 8, 2008 recommendation to device manufacturers that heparin supplies be checked with newly-developed tests, and that affected products be evaluated for possible field corrective action.

Limited lots of Carmeda-coated products were manufactured with heparin found to have been contaminated with oversulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS). The patient risk associated with the presence of OSCS in heparin-coated medical devices is not known at this time. However, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has received reports of serious injury and death in patients who have been administered injectable heparin products containing high levels of OSCS.

Medtronic has not received reports of any OSCS-related adverse events arising from the use of Carmeda CPB products. It is unclear, however, if exposure to Carmeda-coated medical devices, made with comparatively small amounts of heparin, could cause adverse events similar to those observed with injectable heparin formulations. As a result, Medtronic has initiated a precautionary recall of affected Carmeda products.

In a separate action, Medtronic is advising customers that selected lots of Trillium-coated products were also manufactured with heparin containing OSCS. Trillium is another biosurface used on CPB products. The amount of heparin on the product is significantly lower than that contained on the Carmeda product. Medtronic's ultimate goal is to remove contaminated products from the market. However, based on the current data, the benefit of using the affected products outweighs any potential risk to patients. Since the maximum possible patient exposure to heparin from Trillium is extremely low, customers can continue to use the affected Trillium products until a replacement is available.

The above actions are being made with the knowledge of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Patients with questions should talk to their physician. Physicians or Pefusionists with medical questions related to Medtronic therapies should contact Medtronic at 1-800-638 0218, Monday – Friday, 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. CDT

Now that you’ve read it you should feel comfortable with knowing how to protect yourself and which medical procedures involve the recall. You should be able to describe the problems and surgical procedures might involve the recalled item. Do you? Can you?

I’ve copied the recall notice above so you can see what I’m talking about. As patients we are in the dark when it comes to what medical devices work and which do not. In the case of the “selected products” featuring the “Cameda BioActive surface” patients have suffered serious injury and death when administered injectable heparin products containing high levels of OSCS.

What are the “adverse events” to which the notice refers?

Some people are comfortable letting their physician and hospital staff make all the decisions and to look out for their safety. And that’s alright but some of us are not. As my mother was fond of saying, ignorance is bliss. But an education goes a long way and after attending law school ignorance is no longer an option. What if the doctor and hospital staff doesn’t protect you? What if the make a mistake and use one of the contaminated coated medical devices? What then? I’m not blaming them; I’m just saying it’s entirely possible. Why do we buy insurance if not for these types of mistakes?

And what about federal preemption issues that we’ve been talking about? Remember the manufacturer argued the FDA had approved this product for use and therefore it’s safe, or reasonably safe, and that approval is the seal of approval for which they can’t be sued. If that’s true why then are we getting this recall notice? If medical devices are thoroughly tested during the FDA approval process and declared safe, how did this one slip through? I thought the FDA approval testing process was nearly fail-safe? No? If medical device lawsuits are preempted then when you’re injured, you’re out of luck.

So is federal preemption always good and fair? Not in this case it would appear.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi

How can you streamline accessibility to your medical records?

Steve Lombardi — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 08:10:00 GMT

What technology is available that may save your life and speed the transmission of your medical history to a treating physician in a hospital where you’ve never visited? Several are available.

Like most areas of our life there is growing interest in the medical records area from a technological standpoint. You would probably benefit from the implant that is available and holds a copy of your medical records and physician contact information. One alternative by the VeriChip Company offers an option where your records are kept on the Internet and the chip, embedded under your skin allows medical personnel access to a code and the website address to check what is stored. The chip is described as about the size of a grain of rice.

"A small but increasing number of people are getting a portable health record in an intimate way -- by having a computer chip implanted in their arms.

When read by a scanner, the chip, the size of a grain of rice, would give an identification number physicians and hospitals would use to log on to a secure Web site containing that patient's identification and medical information. The chip and technology is produced by VeriChip, whose corporate parent owns another company -- Digital Angel --that has sold 6 million similar chips implanted in dogs and cats since 1991. Former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson is a VeriChip board member and has pledged to get himself "chipped."

As of April 22, 2008 the VeriChip Corporation is providing these radio frequency identification systems (RFID) directly to consumers. You can learn more by visiting their site, or calling 800-970-2447 or emailing info@verichipcorp.com. The online information includes a YouTube link.

People with serious medical conditions may find this solution a valuable solution.

Be aware, know your rights, protect yourself from personal injury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Steve Lombardi