Charlottesville Personal Injury Lawyer - Miscellaneous

Guardian Insurance Cancels Policies in Certain States

Greg Webb — Sun, 25 Oct 2009 18:19:05 GMT

Guardian Life Insurance, a New York-based insurance company, has begun canceling lines of coverage and specific policies in entire states in order to avoid paying high-cost claims; they are canceling coverage in entire states, such as Colorado, and certain policies in states such as New York, New Jersey and South Carolina because they are barred from discriminating specifically against policyholders that file large claims each month. The company only took aim at the plans whose claims were the highest.

For example Guardian discontinued its coverage of Ian Pearl, a muscular dystrophy victim, because his medical care costs about $1 million a year. In an e-mail, a Guardian Life executive called such high-cost patients “dogs” that the company could get rid of. A federal court has deemed this action legal, so unless the federal Department of Health and Human Services decides to intervene, Pearl and many like him will lose their coverage on December 1. A Guardian spokesman claims the policy Pearl had, which offered unlimited home nursing, became too expensive for new small-business customers to buy so the demand was diminished and a new plan was instated; the spokesman went further to state that neither Medicaid nor Medicare offer twenty-four hour home nursing. As a last resort, Ian can be admitted to the hospital under Medicaid, however his parents feel this is a death sentence since Ian needs one-on-one medical care.

Ian’s father claims Guardian Life Insurance have been trying to find a way out of paying Ian’s medical costs for years, sending private investigators to his workplace and to the family’s home to try to catch them in a lie. Guardian Life Insurance, which is a 150-year-old mutual company, reported profits of $437 million last year, a 50 percent increase over its $292 million profit in 2007. According to its annual report, it paid dividends of $723 million to policyholders and had $4.3 billion in capital reserves. The company's investment income totaled $1.5 billion that year, a small increase from the year earlier.

In July, Judge William Pauley, of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, ruled in Guardian’s favor saying the move by the insurance company was meant to increase its competitive position by reducing what it paid out in claims; this would help lower the overall rates and allow them to compete for more business. The judge also found that the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) could only be enforced by the Department of Health and Human Services and private citizens cannot sue under it, as the Pearl family was attempting to do.

Guardian executives claimed they were no longer offering the plan Ian Pearl was under because it was too expensive and small businesses were not willing to purchase it. As a result, they were forced to offer different plans. The Pearl family is continuing to pursue a trial in order to get Ian’s policy reinstated.

In a recent flip-flop, probably because of media pressure and the public outcry, Guardian reversed its position and stated that it would restore Ian's policy. Guardian also apologized to Ian and his family for what occurred, and also for calling the policy a "dog" in internal emails.

One question remains for this writer: what about the others that have had their policies canceled because of Guardian's internal policies? Will Guardian only restore the policy for which a public outcry is made?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Professional Football Careers May Lead to Memory-Loss

Greg Webb — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 01:00:00 GMT

A recent telephone study done by the University of Michigan at the request of the NFL has found that retired NFL players may be more prone to cases of dementia and Alzheimer’s disease than non-football players of the same age.

The survey asked over 1,000 former NFL players if they’d ever been diagnosed with a memory-loss related condition or disease. Two percent of former players between the ages of 30 and 49 said “yes.” According to the MSN article, “Ex-NFL players report higher rates of dementia,” that’s 19 times higher than normal. The results were 5 times higher for retirees over 50.

David Weir, the lead author, emphasized (perhaps downplayed) that the findings did not show a direct causal link between football and memory loss, only that the risk is worth studying. msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/10148102/Ex-NFL-players-report-higher-rates-of-dementia

This writer is a huge football fan. But the fact is, a concussion is a brain injury, and to the extent football players are getting concussions (repeatedly, in many cases), they are getting brain injuries. The NFL needs to do something to take care of these guys, who literally sacrifice their bodies for this game, nothwithstanding they make a good living. Given what they put their bodies through, the money they make is justified. When guys weighing between 200 and 350 pounds, who move very fast, are pounding each other at high speeds, concussions (and other debilitating orthopedic injuries) are simply going to happen. The NFL needs to do more for them as they develop dementia, Alzheimer's, and other neurologic injuries.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Private Insurance Bureaucracies Abusing the System?

Greg Webb — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 14:52:07 GMT

A House subcommittee held a hearing last Tuesday regarding private insurance bureaucracies’ abuse of the health insurance system. "The hearing was part of a continuing Democratic effort to promote an overhaul of the nation’s health care system by focusing on alleged abuses by health insurers" reported The Washington Post in a September 17 article entitled, "House Subcommittee Hearing Focuses on Alleged Insurer Abuses".

The need for the hearing stemmed from "the actions of insurance company bureaucrats in causing needless delays and denials for coverage for prescribed treatment," said Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio), chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy.

Jim Jordan, the subcommittee’s ranking republican, said that he feels insurers cancelling policies on policyholders when they become sick is, naturally, "inexcusable." He also noted that he feels "most Americans instinctively realize that trading some challenges with the insurance companies for the bureaucracy of the federal government is not the solution." Despite the Republican stance that "legislative proposals would put government bureaucrats between patients and doctors," the hearing was effective in showing that "patients now contend with private insurance bureaucracies."

When questioned about how much they were paid, some insurance company executives were expectedly withdrawn. Executives were given the choice to either answer at the hearing or submit their answers in writing.

That didn’t stop Colleen Reitan, executive vice president of Health Care Services Corp. from sharing, however. Her company does business as Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Illinois, New Mexico, Oklahoma and Texas, and she confessed that she makes $728,000. Rep. Patrick J. Kennedy (D-R.I.) claims that what he finds so disconcerting about all of this is that Cigna's head earned $11 million last year. Rep. Kennedy also believes that the insurance company earnings are coming from denied claims.

As an example, Kucinich cited the story of cancer patient Esther Dardinger. Esther was successfully undergoing chemotherapy treatment when her insurer, Anthem Blue Cross & Blue Shield, decided to stop paying for it. "The decision was based on a 10-minute review of the case, according to court records" reported The Washington Post. Although she appealed, Anthem maintained its position, eventually leaving her family to cover the cost of the treatment itself. Esther Dardinger died at the age of 49, and "would have lived an additional eight months to two years, ‘maybe longer,’ if her chemotherapy had not been interrupted, her doctor testified during the litigation."

Furthermore, Kucinich cited a recent report done by the California Nurses Association that claims "six of the largest insurers operating in California rejected 47.7 million claims – 22 percent of the total" filed from 2002 through the first half of 2009

The executives of these companies testified last Thursday that, in actuality, the rejected population is much smaller than the percentages claimed by the study. Wellpoint, now the parent of Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Ohio, said "the nurses association used data from a regulatory filing that included claims initially rejected for any reason – for example, if patients had not met their deductibles or the claims lacked supporting information."

Tom Richards, senior vice president of CIGNA, told the subcommittee, "[o]ur mission is to improve the health, well being and sense of security of the customers we serve."

This writer has to respectfully disagree with Tom Richards. I think CIGNA's mission, and the rest of the insurance industry, is to make money, and hold onto the money they have, as long as possible. That is what I see.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Ghostwriting Issues Abound in Scientific, Medical Publications

Greg Webb — Thu, 17 Sep 2009 20:43:04 GMT

A September 11 article published in the New York Times entitled, “Ghostwriting Is Called Rife in Medical Journals,” reports on the findings of a recent survey conducted by the editors of The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) that addresses the amount of ghostwriting that takes place in the creation of scientific literature.

JAMA created an online questionnaire that found “Among authors of 630 articles who responded anonymously…7.8 percent acknowledged contributions to their articles by people whose work should have qualified them to be named as authors on the papers but who were not listed.”

The NY Times article defines ghostwriting in scientific literature as “major research or writing contributions” done or made by professional medical writers to articles that get published under the names of other academic authors.

What has editors really in a tizzy, though, is that it appears “six of the top medical journals published a significant number of articles in 2008 that were written by ghostwriters” according to the study, with The New England Journal of Medicine having the highest rate at 10.9 percent. In a twist of irony, JAMA’s study found a rate of 7.9 percent of ghostwriting in…JAMA.

Joseph S. Wislar, “a survey research specialist and lead author of the study,” is calling for greater action to ensure all contributors are at least acknowledged if not credited as authors.

Ginny Barbour, chief editor of PLoS Medicine, told the NY Times that she considers her journal’s policies “tough” and “explicit,” yet even she feels that “we’ve basically been lied to.”

It should be noted that “the response rates from authors of articles varied widely, ranging from 58.3 percent for one journal to 85.9 percent for another journal.” In addition, there has been some backlash, especially from The New England Journal of Medicine, whose spokeswoman Karen P. Buckley issued a statement claiming JAMA “used an improperly broad definition of ghostwriting” in its study.

Annette Flanagin, a JAMA editor and co-author of the report, claims that they used “the standard definition.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

New Study Shows Imaging Tests Expose Patients To Excessive Radiation

Greg Webb — Tue, 08 Sep 2009 01:00:00 GMT

According to a new study in The New England Journal of Medicine, at least four million Americans under the age of sixty-five are exposed to high doses of radiation annually from medical imaging tests; more than 400,000 of these patients receive very high doses, more than the maximum annual exposure permitted for staff at nuclear power plants or anyone else who works with radioactive material. The use of imaging tests has risen dramatically over the past two decades. Many researchers attribute this increase to more physicians buying CT and PET scanners to use in their offices. In 2007, the Department of Health and Human Services estimated that the number of CT scans given to Medicare patients almost quadrupled from 1995 to 2005, while the number of PET scans rose even faster. The use of scans has even increased from 2005 to 2007.

The paper was based on a survey from 2005 to 2007 that covered almost one million patients insured by UnitedHealthcare; it did not, however, estimate the number of cancer cases the radiation may cause over the next several decades. One doctor who has extensively studied the use of medical imaging believes it will probably result in tens of thousands of additional cancers. Although each patient is only at a minor risk for developing cancer from the test, because tests are now conducted on so many patients, the cumulative risk is significant. By looking at the study, researchers have calculated that the amount of radiation Americans receive averages about three millisieverts each year from all sources. The study found, however, that in at least one of the three years, 1.9 percent of the UnitedHealthcare patients received at least seven times the average exposure, or 20 millisieverts of radiation. Of that group, about ten percent, or 0.2 percent of all patients, received at least fifty millisieverts, which is more than the annual maximum limit that nuclear regulators permit; these figures suggest that about four million Americans each year receive cumulative doses exceeding twenty millsieverts.

The radioactive tests are given for hundreds of different reasons but have become particularly common in cardiology, where doctors use them to check for the buildup of plaque in the arteries and the heart’s ability to pump blood. Some cardiologists are now encouraging patients to have routine heart scans even if they are having no clinical symptoms of heart problems, such as shortness of breath or chest pains. Unfortunately, however, the study did not show what percentage of these test are medically necessary. Though physicians are allowed to profit from the use of scan machines, researchers believe this is only part of the reason the number of tests has risen. Culture is another cause because doctors use imaging as opposed to examination. One researcher suggests patients ask if scans are really necessary because in many cases it has been proven that scans are not better than examinations.

In an editorial accompanying the paper, the director of prevention and epidemiology at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute called for large clinical trials that would determine whether the potentially hazardous scans improve care and lead to better outcomes for patients. Until then, he asks that patients and physicians discuss the risks of the tests and keep a close eye on the overall radiation dose the patient is receiving.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

“Don’t Let Us Get Sick” – Consumer Reports Surveys Patients, Nurses on Hospital Sanitation

Greg Webb — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 18:46:44 GMT

Consumer Reports ("CR") recently took a “side-by-side” survey regarding the sanitary conditions of hospitals across the country. In 2009 it interviewed 731 nurses who worked in different areas of the hospital (ranging from the E.R. to the operating room), and in 2008 it heard from 13,540 readers who reported their various experiences with staying in hospitals, whether personal or referencing a family member, during 2007. (Note: Consumer Reports admits that their readership is nowhere close to representing a sample of the United States population as “they are especially well-insured.”)

Regardless, CR found the conclusions of their little survey “startling.” Why?

Why is CR so surprised to find that one’s perspective on a hospital visit – and more so, hospital sanitation – depends on one’s role within the context of the hospital environment? Its article states, “About 4 percent of patients said they saw problems with cleanliness, compared with 28 percent of nurses. Thirteen percent of patients said care wasn’t coordinated properly, while 38 percent of nurses said that was a problem. Five percent of patients—but 26 percent of nurses—said hospital staff members sometimes did not wash their hands before approaching a patient.” Why is this so shocking? Certainly the numbers are a bit surprising, and upon first glance it appears as though they speak for themselves.

Let’s attempt to look at this data objectively for a moment, however. First , the pools are not even remotely close to being the same size. In this survey, the nurse pool is less than 6% the size of the patient pool. If this was intended to measure anything, what really should have happened here is CR should have interviewed X number of patients from hospitals W, Y, Z, etc. Then, the nurses interviewed should have equaled the number of patients per hospital. So if CR interviewed 20 patients from St. Francis in Hartford, Connecticut, it should have interviewed 20 nurses from St. Francis as well. Yes, the national nurse population is smaller than the national patient population. However, when measuring something like the opinion of hospital sanitation from the perspectives of two distinct groups, those groups should be equal in size so as to provide the surveyor with the most objective and accurate data. If they were measuring something like patient care quality, only then would the national nurse population – and the fact that it is altogether smaller than the patient population – come (hugely) into play. As it stands now, the patients surveyed could have attended the finest hospitals in the country while the nurses interviewed were working in the worst. There is no proper gauge here to determine the legitimacy of this survey other than CR asking a random number of random people about their experiences.

Second, of course, the nurses see the worst of the circumstances. Patients, while certainly aware of their own treatment, are not aware of the treatment of the other 300 patients in the hospital. A nurse, however, who is exposed to multiple patients per day, would naturally, logically and obviously encounter and be exposed to far more instances of mistreatment and/or mishandled situations than any single patient in the entire hospital. It is like eating at a restaurant. Sure, one out of every twenty customers may be dissatisfied with the service or the food; but, in the end, the waitresses and the chefs are the only ones who know what goes on behind those kitchen doors. Chances are the waitresses and chefs who wouldn’t eat at their own restaurants outnumber the customers who get bad food/service and never return.

But we are not talking about restaurants, we are talking about hospitals, and CR does end its article with some good points on how to improve a hospital stay regardless of where one is located.

CR suggests researching hospitals before one is admitted. Obviously, if one needs to be rushed to the ER, one should go local. But if one is having an operation or an elective procedure done, or is going to be admitted regularly for a recurring condition, this may be good advice (obviously, one should confer with his/her doctors about such decisions). It is wise to have up-to-date information for the important contacts within one’s health insurance’s network. In addition, one should not settle on a hospital because it is around the corner or because it is in one’s health network; one should try to find reports of past user experiences and records of the hospital’s reputation before admittance. While CR’s survey is, by its own admission, not derived from an entirely accurate sampling of the U.S. population, the advice appears to be sound.

CR also makes a good point in mentioning the unreliability of a hospital’s electronic database. With it being fairly easy for a patient who is constantly changing wards within a hospital to have conflicting medications prescribed or to have medications mixed-up, it suggests being one’s own “record-keeper.” While this is difficult to do when unconscious after surgery, it’s beneficial for an individual to have a relative or friend keep tabs on what is going into his/her body while he/she is not coherent.

CR further suggests “avoiding chaotic care,” which apparently means avoiding repeat and unnecessary tests. It makes a point of saying that patients have the option to contact a social worker or patient advocate if the coordination is being mishandled. Further, it suggests staying “vigilant” about problems and making sure one understands the plans for one’s discharge.

While these points seem obvious, they tie together nicely to support CR’s major concern: one should approach one’s hospital care very carefully, ensuring that the institution he/she selects is safe, reliable, and in a condition in which one feels comfortable, suiting one’s specific needs.

For more information on the survey, please see: ConsumerReportsHealth.org

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Family Medicine Doctor Numbers Declining

Greg Webb — Tue, 01 Sep 2009 17:40:44 GMT

In recent years, there has been a decline in the number of medical students who want to pursue family medicine, though many say it is the frontline for wellness and preventive-care programs that can help reduce healthcare costs. According to the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the number of U.S. medical students going into primary care, which includes family physicians, general internists and general pediatricians, has dropped 51.8% since 1997. Medical specialists have cited the decline to such factors as longer days, lower wages, less prestige and less administrative headaches. Some experts believe the biggest problem is the payment model because the more procedures a doctor performs, the more money he or she makes. This encourages medical students to pursue a procedure-based specialty as opposed to a primary-care track.

Because it takes about ten to eleven years to educate doctors, health-care experts are worried that the decline will cause a shortage of 40,000 family physicians in 2020 when the demand is expected to spike. Eleven of the top conventional medical schools in the U.S., including Johns Hopkins and Harvard, do not even have a separate family-medicine department. Finding a doctor will become increasingly difficult; there will be longer waits in the waiting rooms and more people will turn to the emergency rooms to get help because the waves of patients will be enormous. When patients visit the doctor’s office, they may also see a nurse practitioner or physician’s assistant instead of the doctor due to the increasing demand. This practice of involving nurse practitioners and physician’s assistants in care is already in place to alleviate physicians from time-consuming tasks in order to focus on the continuity of quality care.

While the U.S. healthcare system has about 100,000 family physicians, it will need 139,531 in ten years; the current environment is only attracting half the number needed to meet the demand. At the heart of the rising demand for primary-care physicians is not only the current group of underserved patients, but the baby boomer generation also, born from 1946 to 1964. This generation will be turning sixty-five in 2011 and will need increasing medical care. If Congress passes healthcare legislation that extends coverage to a significant part of the forty-seven million that do not have insurance, the number of people requiring care will continue to escalate.

In March 2009, U.S. medical school graduates only filled forty-two percent (1,083) of the 2,555 resident positions for family medicine. More than two hundred positions were left unfilled nationwide. More than half of the other spots were filled by non-U.S. students educated internationally, U.S. citizens educated internationally and graduates of colleges of osteopathic medical schools, though graduates of international medical schools and osteopathic medical schools seem to be losing interest in primary care also. This presents the problem of some foreign students with poor English skills not being able to communicate well with their patients.

Members of Congress have taken notice of the potential “crisis” associated with the lack of primary care physicians and have begun looking into bills that could help doctors who choose primary care with loan forgiveness or other debt relief and payment increases for their services.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Antidepressant Use in US Doubled To Over 10% in Ten Years

Greg Webb — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 11:04:47 GMT

A recent study released by Columbia University has found that compared to data from 1996, the number of Americans taking antidepressants doubled to 10.1 percent of the U.S. population in 2005, increasing across both income and age groups. Another recent study also found that diagnoses of major depression in adults increased from 3.3 percent in 1991-1992 to 17.1 percent in 2001-2002. It is unclear, however, whether there are more people with depression or if doctors are prescribing antidepressants more readily. The study also found that the number of children aged 6-17 that take antidepressants jumped to 78 percent during this time period as well. By 2005, an estimated 26 million Americans ages six and older were taking the drugs, while their use of psychotherapy declined.

The data further showed a jump in the use of antidepressants across demographic groups, with the exception of African Americans; the rate of use of the medications among the black population in 2005 was 4.5 percent less than in whites. The new study also found a greater emphasis placed on medicine solving the problem of depression, not therapy, which resulted in a decline in non-drug therapy. In 1996, about 36 percent of people being prescribed antidepressants also underwent therapy, while in 2005 the number decreased to 20 percent. Mark Olfson, the lead author of the study, says the decline in therapy could be caused by the fact that people have to pay more out of pocked for that treatment. He goes further to say that therapy and medication together is the most effective way to treat depression.

Each person treated for depression in 2005 also filled their prescription more than they did in 1996, 5.6 times in 1996 and 6.9 times in 2005. This surge in antidepressant sales propelled this class of treatment to become the top selling U.S. medication in 2005, surpassing blood-pressure medications. Olfson stated these findings emphasize the need for doctors who are not psychiatrists and who prescribe these medications to be trained to diagnose and manage depression so patients receive the most effective treatment. Rising use of the drugs may be a result of more Americans acknowledging they are depressed, the introduction of new antidepressants, an increase in direct-to-consumer advertising, and a lessening stigma for seeking mental health care.

The data in the study was collected from the 1996 and 2005 Medical Expenditure Panel Surveys, which are sponsored by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Study - Gym Class Injuries Increased Dramatically Since 1997

Greg Webb — Thu, 27 Aug 2009 10:57:59 GMT

A new pediatric study has shown that children these days are more likely to get injured in gym class than they were a decade ago. Dr. Lara McKenzie of National Children's Hospital in Columbus, Ohio, the lead researcher on the study, suggests the reason for this 150% increase in physical education (PE)- related injuries treated at emergency departments from 1997-2007 could be a lack of supervision a decrease in full- time school nurses, and a change in the PE curriculum.

Because schools have reduced the numbers of full-time nurses on staff, injured children must now go to the hospital to see what is wrong. Schools may also be packing too many students into classes; for instance, just 36% of the schools that require PE set a maximum student/teacher ratio. Finally, the PE curriculum has shifted from the traditional team sports to fitness activities that students can pursue throughout their lifetime, such as biking and rock climbing. However, McKenzie is quick to add the benefits of PE far outweigh the risks of children developing a lifestyle that encourages obesity. She claims more gym teachers, more training, more nurses and more equipment could solve the injury increase.

McKenzie and her research team looked at data from the United States Consumer Product Safety Commission’ National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, which tracks recreation and sports-related injuries that are treated at a nationally representative sample of about 100 US hospital emergency departments. While the system reported about 24,347 PE-related injuries in 1997, it reported there were about 62,408 only a decade later; the increase was seen in both girls and boys across all age groups.

About one in five injuries were strains or sprains of the leg, while about one in seven were broken arms, or arm sprains or strains. About 70% of the injuries were related to six sports: soccer, basketball, running, football, volleyball, and gymnastics. Another recent look at the agency’s data showed cheerleading is the sport that causes the most catastrophic injuries, or those usually resulting in spinal cord damage, among high school and college students; high school cheerleading accounted for seventy-three such incidents.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb

Former Insurance Executive Outs Insurance Companies in Healthcare Debate

Greg Webb — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 21:34:28 GMT

Wendell Potter, the former head of communications for health insurance giant Cigna, understands why many people across the country are showing up to town hall meetings extremely upset when members of Congress try to explain why the government needs to expand its role in the health care system. He admits to having many conservative friends who are worried about a government takeover of healthcare. Both the people in the town hall meetings and Potter’s conservative friends have the same ideology: the less government control in our lives, the better. Potter further illustrates his point by providing the example of a man standing in line to get free healthcare at Remote Area Medical’s recent health care endeavor at the fairgrounds in Wise County, Virginia. Although the man knew firsthand the desperation many Americans feel every day for affordable health care, he told reporters he was dead set against President Obama’s health care reform proposal because he was worried about the increase in taxes; he would rather wait in a long line to see volunteer doctors in animal stalls than pay more taxes. Potter does, however, feel that there needs to be reform in order to ensure the safety and prosperity of the American people and wants the American public to realize that a lot of the information against Obama’s healthcare reforms was started by the healthcare industry itself.

In a recent press conference, which was later reported about on the radio, Potter claimed insurance companies funded many of the protestors against President Obama’s healthcare plan. What the radio report failed to include, however, was how health insurance companies and their public relations team influence everyone’s opinions without us even knowing it; after all, before Potter quit his job last year he was one of the leaders of this PR army. It was Potter’s job to “promote and defend” the company’s reputation by trying to persuade journalists to write positive stories about the industry’s reform ideas. During the last few years of his career, however, Potter became concerned about the American people. He was scared the high deductible plans insurers were now pushing would force more and more people into bankruptcy; he also saw how the insurance companies would drop people after they became sick in order to increase profits and reward Wall Street investors. In response, Potter decided he could not be an industry mouthpiece and kill much needed reform, so he quit.

Potter further explains how the healthcare industry funnels millions of its policyholder premiums to PR firms. In return, the firms will use their close connections with the conservative media in order to scare people away from industry reform. He wants to inform Americans that the healthcare horror stories, such as Canadians waiting in lines for hours to see doctors, is part of a script written by the insurance industry; the industry has been using these scare-tactics since they campaigned to kill President Clinton’s reform plan. Potter says the “death panel” rumor is a prime example of the health care industry sponsored rumors. Potter concludes his commentary by saying that whenever you hear someone warning against a “government takeover” of healthcare, or that the healthcare reform is down a “slippery slope to toward socialism,” know that one of his former colleagues wrote those terms.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Greg Webb