August 17, 2008
Are Your Really Willing To Sign This Contract With The Medical Profession Limiting Your Damages?
I, the undersigned, agree to the following terms regarding medical care provided to myself, my family, relatives and friends:
1. I believe compensation limits are a good thing, no matter how negligent a hospital or doctor may be.
2. I will limit my medical malpractice compensation to $250,000 no matter what the circumstances or extent of injury and harm. This includes serious injury and death.
3. Even if I, my spouse, children, parents, relatives or other loved ones are crippled, disfigured, blinded, live in chronic and severe pain or humiliation for the rest of our lives, the most anyone should ever be able to receive for the harm is $250,000.
4. If my spouse or child is killed by the negligence of a hospital or doctor and a jury of my peers awards me One Million Dollars after listening to all of the facts and evidence, I agree to let the attorneys for the hospital and judge reduce the amount awarded to the arbitrary figure of $250,000.
5. It is OK for the hospital or doctor to sue me for any amount they wish.
6. I agree to pay back to my own insurance company 100% of the medical bill reimbursement I receive from my case against the hospital or doctor.
7. I accept that the hospital and doctor have superseding rights and can place restrictions on my personal rights and ability to get on with my life.
8. I agree in advance that no matter how bad a hospital or doctor may harm me, I will keep everything about it a secret. Even if they have harmed other people in the past and will harm more people in the future.
Dated: ___________ Signed: ______________
August 8, 2008
“A majority of adults look to the next president to lead by proposing reforms that could improve the quality of healthcare, ensure affordable care, and decrease the number of uninsured,” the survey report said. “Across income levels, region, and political affiliation, adults want presidential candidates to focus on health reforms in each of these areas.
“About nine of 10 adults say it is important for presidential candidates to have reform proposals that would improve the quality of care (90%), ensure care and insurance are affordable (93%), and decrease the number of uninsured (88%). In fact, a majority think these policy priorities are very important.”
Irrespective of income, 32% of the respondents called for a completely rebuilt health system and another 50% percent thought it required fundamental changes.
Eighty-one percent of respondents who were insured all year and 89% who were uninsured at some point during the year called for fundamental change or complete rebuilding.
About nine out of 10 respondents think the next president should take steps to improve healthcare quality, reduce the cost of healthcare and decrease the number of uninsured people.
The majority of respondents (73%) expressed frustration with their recent healthcare encounters including difficulty getting regular doctor’s appointments, receiving advice and seeing a clinician during non-office hours.
August 4, 2008
WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 — Congress is kicking around the idea of funding ostensible truth squads to disseminate unbiased reports on prescription drugs in an effort to counter claims made by drug company representatives.
A bill, introduced in both congressional chambers yesterday, would set up a grant program to send healthcare professionals to physicians’ offices armed with independent data about the relative risks, benefits, and costs of the drugs.
The bill stipulates that the healthcare field representatives — most likely nurses or pharmacists — would be barred from receiving money from any drug company.
“This bill will provide an important alternative to the way doctors currently get their information about drugs — from the drug companies themselves,” said Herb Kohl (D-Wis.), the sponsor of the Senate bill. “By providing physicians with thorough, independent research on all the drugs available to them, we believe we can improve the quality of healthcare and reduce the cost of prescription drugs in America.”
The bill would provide grants to academic medical centers, government entities, nonprofits, or research institutes to create educational materials on prescription and non-prescription drug information safety, effectiveness and costs, compared with other alternatives.
The bill would provide 10 grants for a public entity, a nonprofit, a private company, or an academic institution to develop a curriculum and to train those with appropriate clinical backgrounds to visit physicians’ offices to discuss medications.
“For far too long, most of the information physicians receive to make prescribing decisions has come from the drug companies’ marketing reps, not independent experts,” said Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the sponsor of the House version of the bill. “This important legislation will go a long way toward giving doctors another, less biased perspective.”
The bill is backed by the Prescription Project and the National Coalition for Appropriate Prescribing, which are calling the move toward a more education-based approach to prescribing “academic detailing.”
“We need a program like this to counter the pharmaceutical industry’s marketing free-for-all,” said Robert Restuccia, executive director of the Prescription Project. “Academic detailing programs already exist in other countries and in several states, and they’ve been shown to improve care and generate savings.”
The bill contains no projected price tag.