Hospital Survey by HHS

• Did doctors treat patients with courtesy and respect?
• How often were the room and bathroom cleaned?
• Was the area around the room quiet?
• Did the patient get immediate help after pressing a Call button?
•  www.hospitalcompare.hhs.gov  To review the results.

These are some of the questions that were asked in a recent survey taken from patients at random from 2,500 hospitals nationally.  

You will not be surprised to learn that many patients feel that they were poorly treated while in the hospital.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

United States v. Arizona

The Supreme Court heard argument on Arizona's controversial law that is intended to target illegal aliens.  The United States sued Arizona claiming that the US Government was the sole authority regarding immigration law and enforcement.

Apparently Chief Justice Roberts aggressively questioned the government's lawyer.  Roberts characterized the law as merely information gathering by the state.

However, because the law requires a person suspected of being illegal to prove his or her citizenship status prior to the police releasing them, a US citizen who walks their dog at night without the necessary identification could spend the night in jail.  Balancing the rights of those legally in the country with those who are not consumed much of the argument.  Justice Scalia expressed his view that we should simply deport "these people."

For more:  http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/26/opinion/arizona-v-united-states.html?_r=1

by Michael Quinn, Esq.

Unlimited Spending By Corporations and Unions - Bad For Democracy

In 2010 the United States Supreme Court concluded that the Congressional ban on unlimited spending by special interest groups was unconstitutional.  Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 08-205 (2010), 558 U.S. ––––, 130 S.Ct. 876 (January 21, 2010.  


We have seen some of the effects of this in the Republican primaries where a single rich individual or corporation can effectively continue to prop up a candidate when the public has lost interest in that candidate.  It allows for vicious attack ads that no candidate has to take responsibility for and it effectively allows one candidate to spend disproportionately to other candidates.


The real danger from this decision comes in local, state and judicial elections.  In these smaller elections a candidate who angers a large corporation or union in his or her district may find a well financed attack machine that is spending out of proportion to the candidates themselves.  The effect is likely to result in the district having representatives who rubber stamp anything the corporation or union wants.  This is not good for democracy because it gives a disproportionate voice to the person, union or corporation that has the money to drown out other voices.  


You will hear discussions of this during the 2012 Presidential race.  The place to look for its real effect is at the local and state level.


by Michael Quinn, Esq,

Some Hospitals Using Collection Agencies to Register Patients

Accretive Health, a collection and management company has contracts with struggling hospitals around the country to assist with the collection of hospital bills.  In some cases the registration and billing departments of some hospitals have been turned over to collection agencies.  In an investigation in Minnesota, for example, it is claimed some patients have been required to pay prior to receiving medical services.

 Accretive reported net income of $29.2 million dollars last year up 130%.

There have been complaints by the medical  staff at hospitals where these techniques are being employed, that patients are failing to seek life saving procedures because of these collection techniques.

This raises more questions about what will happen if the new health care law is struck down.  Many of the people who are prey to these collection agencies lack health insurance.  Without a health care plan the numbers of people subjected to these strong-are tactics will only increase.   For more go the Bloomberg News.

awayne3@bloomberg.net

by Michael Quinn, Esq.

Antibiotics in Animals: The Human Impact

The FDA has proposed a rule change regarding the use of antibiotics in animal feed and water.  For 35 years the FDA has been working with farmers who raise chickens, pork and beef to limit the use of antibiotics in otherwise healthy animals.  Currently 80% of all antibiotics sold in the United States is used in animal feed and water, almost all for healthy animals.  The rule change would simply require a prescription for the use of antibiotics in animals.

The concern with the excessive use of antibiotics is the development of resistant strains of bacteria that cause disease in humans.  Each year 99,000 humans die from hospital-acquired infections.  In an earlier post I  discussed MRSA one of the most wide spread of the super-bugs.   For more information go to www.fda.gov and  fda.gov/downloads/AnimalVeterinary/SafetyHealth/AntimicrobialResistance

by Michael Quinn, Esq.

For-Profit Hospitals

The Westerly Hospital has announced that a company out of New Jersey that turns financially troubled hospitals into for-profit hospitals is interested in purchasing Westerly Hospital.  Westerly Hospital which ended the 2011 financial year $5.7 million dollars in the red certainly meets that criteria.  The hospital is still being run as an independent hospital under receivership. For-profit hospitals generally do not have emergency rooms and will not accept medicaid, insurance for the poor.  That means L&M hospital in New London will be the only hospital in miles that will see poor patients.  Bad news for L&M, which like most city hospitals, already struggles.

Although those deciding the fate of Westerly Hospital say they hope to keep the hospital independent, the reality may be that its only viable suitor is a for-profit corporation.

Michael Quinn, Esq.

Are Civil Lawsuits Good For Society?

There is almost no one who would answer yes to that question. That is, no one who has ever been injured by a defective product or through medical negligence. The decision to bring a claim is always a difficult one. Our clients always tell us how hard a decision it was to just consider bringing a claim. Ultimately, the conclusion reached is that a claim is the only way to gain a degree of compensation for their loss.

Civil claims have a broader social value as well. Consider the Ford Pinto. Ford knew that there was a design defect in the placement of a bolt adjacent to the gas tank. The cost to remedy $3. It elected to produce the vehicle without the protection. Ford entered into a cost/benefit analysis of payments they would have to make from injury claims compared to the fix. In the 1972 case involving death of a 13 year old child who was killed when the family Pinto was rear ended and burst into flames. The jury took into account the company's cost benefit analysis in making its award. Awarding the entire amount Ford thought it would pay for all such claims.

Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 1 19 Cal.App.3d 757, 174 Cal. Rptr. 348 (1981).

Civil lawsuits have the potential to have companies and individuals act more responsibility at the front end, making ours a safer society and ultimately reducing the number of claims.

Michael Quinn, Esq.