Saturday, June 09, 2007

Health Lawyers News, June 8

From the folks at American Health Lawyers Association comes this week's issue of Health Lawyers News:

Top Stories

Articles & Analyses

Current Topics

Table of Contents © AHLA, 2007. Reprinted by permission.

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, June 07, 2007

On the day before the House passed the stem-cell funding bill (S. 5 passed in the Senate on April 11), which Pres. Bush has promised to veto, there was interesting, potentially revolutionary (but potentially not) news on the stem-cell science front: Skin cells from mice have been reprogrammed to act as stem cells. If that carries over to humans and the results are consistently reproducible, we're looking at a way to avoid using embryonic stem cells, thus mooting the pro-life objection against destroying an embryo (even one you created as a clone of yourself) to obtain a fresh supply of stem cells. Here are some links and summaries from AHLA:
  • NBC Nightly News (6/6, lead story, 3:05, Williams) led its broadcast with "an amazing piece of science" having to do "with medicine," as well as "with a hugely divisive political issue, embryonic stem cells and their potential to cure the sick and disabled." NBC (Bazell) added, "This is indeed an astounding and elegant piece of scientific research. It's not going to end the debate about embryonic stem cells, but it could be a big step in that direction."

  • The CBS Evening News (6/6, story 3, :30, Couric) noted that "researchers say they have found a way to make stem cells out of ordinary skin cells in mice. If the technique works in humans, scientists might using human embryos. Experts believe stem cells could be used to treat diseases ranging from diabetes to Parkinsons."

  • The Chicago Tribune (6/6, Kaplan) reports, "If the discovery applies to human cells -- and researchers are optimistic that it will -- it would offer a straightforward method for creating a limitless supply of cell lines tailor-made for patients without any ethical strings attached. ... 'This is truly the Holy Grail -- to be able to take a few cells from a patient, say a cheek swab or some skin cells, and turn them into stem cells in the laboratory,' said Dr. Robert Lanza, an embryonic stem-cell researcher and head of scientific development at Advanced Cell Technology Inc. in Worcester, Mass., who was not involved in the research. 'It would be like turning lead into gold.'"

  • In a front-page article, USA Today (6/7, 1A, Vergano) says that "the findings, by three teams publishing in the journals Nature and Cell Stem Cell, mean the reprogrammed cells may offer a non-controversial way...to make rejection-free tissues for transplant patients. But research still hasn't shown that the same cells will work in humans too, the study's authors say."

  • The Wall Street Journal (6/7, Naik) runs a similar report under the headline "Stem-Cell Breakthrough May Ease Ethical Debate." On its front page, the New York Times (6/7, A1, Wade), meanwhile, says that "the technique seems likely to be welcomed by many who have opposed human embryonic stem cell research. It 'raises no serious moral problem, because it creates embryoniclike stem cells without creating, harming or destroying human lives at any stage,' said Richard Doerflinger, the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops' spokesman on stem-cell issues."

  • The Christian Science Monitor (6/6, Spotts) adds, "many researchers say that progress in the U.S. has been hampered by limits...Bush imposed on federally funded human embryonic stem-cell research nearly six years ago." But "the limits also have prompted some labs to hunt for alternate ways to derive cells."

  • In a front-page article, the Washington Post (6/7, A1, Weiss) reports, "Acutely aware that their new work could undermine that key political goal, the scientists cautioned that their success with mouse cells does not guarantee quick success with human cells." They "called for Congress to pass the bill, which would give federally funded researchers access to embryos slated for destruction at fertility clinics. 'A human is not a mouse, so a lot more work has to be done,' said Marius Wernig, who led one team with Rudolf Jaenisch of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Mass."
  • Along those lines, the New York Times (6/7, A32, Pollack) runs another story titled: "A Long, Uncertain Path For New Cell Technique."
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, June 04, 2007

TB quarantines are usually a local matter, rarely federal

That's what last night's AP story on Drew Speaker reported. True enough, and this case illustrates that local authority is still pretty much hit-or-miss. Maryland officials claimed not to have the authority to detain or quarantine him, but as the AP reports, many state and local jurisdictions do. Speaker was being kept in quarantine pursuant to a federal order -- the first in 44 years -- but that order lapsed Saturday night, when it was replaced by a local Denver order.

  • CDC's Division of Tuberculosis Elimination has some good information about the case.

  • The ACLU has published some comments on the Speaker case. Although it says there is no indication that federal law has been violated by his quarantine, the group emphasizes the need to get judicial review of Speaker's continued detention. It also has links to its comments on the CDC's proposed rule on quarantining travelers (70 Fed. Reg. 71892-71948 (Nov. 30, 2005)).
Posted by at No comments:

Top SSRN downloads in public health law

Here are the top 10 SSRN downloads in public health law as of the end of May:
Posted by at No comments:

Sunday, June 03, 2007

Groopman on medical error: it's not all about systems

There's an interesting blog post by Rob Cunningham over at Health Affairs, ostensibly about Jerome Groopman's new book, How Doctors Think. Here's a sample:

[T]he subtlety of the cognitive biases associated with diagnostic error in Groopman’s work and other studies suggests a daunting re-education challenge. Greater reciprocity in doctor-patient relations is a part of the answer that is consistent with many IT champions’ vision of patient-centered care. Other problems are not nearly as well recognized. Mark Graber and colleagues, cited above, found “premature closure,” or the inclination of physicians to settle on a diagnosis before they have gathered enough information or considered all the alternatives, to be the single most common source of cognitive failure. But there are a whole slew of other mental and behavioral weaknesses that may enter into the clinical encounter and drive it into a ditch.

The bottom line, according to Groopman, is that doctors often don’t ask the right questions and don’t listen carefully enough when the patient answers. . . .

It's an interesting problem, and not just for medical schools and training programs. Earlier in the blog post, Cunningham referred to "rushed patient encounters and imperious, overconfident practitioners [as] merely the most obvious symptoms of what can go wrong." I don't know what legislators and regulators can do about imperious and overconfident practitioners, but it's certainly worth asking what systemic conditions have contributed to the rushed patient encounters, as well as other health-care ills -- e.g., "an apparent decline in physicians’ clinical skills, driven at least in part by increasing dependency on high-tech diagnostic tools and financial incentives to see more and more patients."

When we get the health care system we deserve, we also get the practitioners (and practices) we deserve, as well.

Meanwhile, Groopman made an appearance on the Colbert Report recently. Here are the (somewhat predictable) results:

Shouldn't someone at his publisher's have told Dr. Groopman he was going onto a comedy show?

Posted by at No comments:

Art Caplan on Dr. Death's release and legacy

I'm glad Art sees this guy the same way I do. Here are some nuggets:
  • I believed Kevorkian was a very dangerous killer [in 1994], and I still believe it now. He helped dozens of depressed and disabled people die without trying very hard to convince them to live.

  • Kevorkian believes in suicide on demand. He thinks that doctors have an obligation to help anyone who decides that their life is not worth living, whatever their reason. Some of the 130 people he helped die had no terminal illnesses. Some were clearly depressed. Others had histories of mental illness. Only a few got any counseling. Kevorkian helped them all to die.

  • Kevorkian’s problem was and is that he likes death way too much. The enthusiasm he brought to his cause was always deeply troubling. No doubts, no ambivalence, ever seemed to cross his mind as he dispatched his victims. The fact that he helped some to die within hours of meeting them, the fact that he would turn a disabled man’s death into a national spectacle by giving a tape of his murder to "60 Minutes" — never mind that they used it! — and the fact that he never seemed to try particularly hard to talk those who came to him out of their decision to die made him morally suspect then and hardly worth hearing from now.

As Caplan points out, the carefully crafted Oregon Death with Dignity Act has resulted in relatively few actual suicides, while at the same time providing the encouragement to develop more effective (and available) palliative care programs. On balance, I am still against legalizing physician-assisted-suicide, but public opinion is slowly swinging in favor of legalization and Oregon has demonstrated that, at least in a state like Oregon, it's possible to avoid the abuses that people like me have worried about.

Posted by at No comments:

SSRN: Top health law downloads

End-of-month (or beginning-of-month) recap of the top 10 SSRN downloads in health law (look for public health law rankings tomorrow):
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, June 02, 2007

Tubercular lawyer's world-wide travel raises public health questions

"Drew" Speaker, and every public-health office and official he encountered in the past couple of weeks, are now at the center of a serious controversy. The best single story that summarizes what we know so far appeared in this morning's New York Times. In addition to a full account of Speaker's travels and discussions with public-health officers, John Schwartz asks all the right questions:

  1. "Why would a well-informed person aware of medical concerns get on an airplane after receiving a diagnosis of a disease that could be fatal to others?"
  2. "Why would he flee from health authorities once the diagnosis became even more grave?"

  3. "How could the man’s father-in-law, an expert in tuberculosis at the C.D.C., accede to the trip?"

  4. What does this saga tell us about the legal and practical gaps in our ability to limit the public's exposure to an infected individual, especially one with a motive -- whether benign or malicious -- to be evasive?

  5. How much freedom -- of movement, from surveillance -- will Americans tolerate in order to limit their exposure to infectious disease?
One of the more interesting lessons of this story revolves around Speaker's decision -- which he admits, "In hindsight, maybe it wasn't the best decision" -- to ignore the CDC's instruction not to fly home from Rome on a commerical airliner:
He said that when he was contacted by a representative of the Centers for Disease Control in Rome, he was told that he could not fly home unless he chartered a plane — at a cost of $100,000 — and that he should check into a local hospital. “I felt very abandoned,” he said, emphasizing that he firmly believed he could not infect others. He said he feared he might end up “stuck in an Italian hospital indefinitely, where I could die.”
As Michael Osterholm, an epidemiologist who directs the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, observed:

“Short of a military state where you have 24/7 surveillance on someone, you have to count on the good will of the individual.

He called this a fact of life in an open society, one that could lead to major problems in an outbreak of pandemic influenza, in which many people would probably be boarding planes knowing they were sick to get away from an epidemic. “They would say, ‘I want to make sure I get out,’ ” whatever the risk to others. In that kind of situation, he said, the public health system would inevitably be unable to keep up.


There are a couple of AP stories today that add to what we know about Speaker:

  • TB Lawyer Called 'Pillar' of Community photo
    ATLANTA (AP) - The story of how Andrew Speaker met his future bride still draws laughs from his friends. The young attorney met Sarah Spence Cooksey, an aspiring lawyer, at an Atlanta pub and handed her his fancy business card. When she called, she asked for "Mr. Speaker." But the man she ended up...

  • TB Patient Faces 2 Months in Hospital photo
    DENVER (AP) - The man quarantined with a dangerous strain of tuberculosis will likely spend up to two months in a hospital while he receives a battery of antibiotics and is evaluated for possible surgery, his doctors said. Andrew Speaker is the first infected person quarantined by the U.S....
The most comprehensive coverage of this story seems to be over at the Harvard Public Health School's World Health News site. Here are the stories they've featured:
  • Man With TB Apologizes for Putting Others at Risk
    Lawrence K. Altman and John Holusha (The New York Times, June 1, 2007)
    "The Atlanta lawyer who flew on crowded airplanes while infected with a dangerous form of tuberculosis said today he did not think he presented a danger when he flew and he apologized to his fellow passengers." See also: TB Treatment a 'Challenge,' Doctor Says (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, June 1, 2007)

  • Agent at Border, Aware, Let In Man With TB
    Lawrence K. Altman (The New York Times, June 1, 2007)
    "The man with a dangerous form of tuberculosis who flew to Europe for his wedding and honeymoon was identified yesterday as a 31-year-old Atlanta lawyer. Department of Homeland Security officials said he re-entered the country from Canada when a customs agent let him pass despite knowing that the man was being sought by health authorities." Free registration required.
  • Case of TB Traveler Reveals Holes in Global Disease Control
    Elisabeth Rosenthal (International Herald Tribune, May 31, 2007)
    "The U.S. health authorities failed to notify their Italian counterparts that an American tourist with an extremely dangerous form of tuberculosis was staying in a Rome hotel this month until he was leaving the country, Italian officials said Thursday. That time lapse allowed him to leave Rome and fly to Prague and Montreal, potentially exposing dozens of people to an often lethal germ."

  • TB Patient's Father-in-Law a CDC Microbiologist
    (Associated Press, May 31, 2007)
    "The honeymooner quarantined with a dangerous strain of tuberculosis was identified Thursday as a 31-year-old Atlanta personal injury lawyer whose new father-in-law is a CDC microbiologist specializing in the spread of TB and other bacteria."

  • Near Misses Allowed Man With Tuberculosis to Fly
    Lawrence K. Altman and John Schwartz (The New York Times, May 31, 2007)
    "A series of 'understandable' near misses accounted for a Georgia man’s odyssey to Europe in which he might have exposed fellow passengers on a series of commercial flights to an exceptionally dangerous form of tuberculosis, federal officials said [Wednesday]." Free registration required.

  • Isolating an Evasive TB Patient
    Editorial (The New York Times, May 31, 2007)
    "Congressional oversight committees ought to examine whether health officials dropped the ball -- and what steps can be taken to ensure that patients infected with deadly contagious diseases protect others from infection." Free registration required.

  • Earlier:
    CDC May 29 Media Relations Telebriefing Transcript
    Atlantan Quarantined with Deadly TB Strain (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 30, 2007) Free registration required.
    CDC Warns of Possible TB Exposure on Atlanta-Paris Flight (The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, May 29, 2007) Free registration required.
Posted by at No comments:

Dr. Death out of prison

I can't let the moment pass without acknowledging the release -- after 8 years in the Michigan prison system -- of Jack Kevorkian, a former pathologist who performed active euthanasia (a/k/a "murder") on a patient, filmed it, and allowed "60 Minutes" to air the event (AP, courtesy of Forbes). ("60 Minutes" will broadcast an interview with Mike Wallace this Sunday.)

He's a ding-bat, to be sure. Even many proponents of physician-assisted suicide cringe at the mention of his name. In the name of physician-assisted suicide ("PAS"), he helped strangers, not patients, kill themselves without ensuring that they were terminally ill, without assessing their mental state, and without seriously exploring less drastic means of addressing the concerns that led these citizens to seek out Kevorkian's services. Most, if not all, of the safeguards built into the Oregon Death With Dignity Act were routinely ignored in his quest for publicity for his cause. He shone a spotlight on an issue that needed to be examined and debated, but the way he did it might well have set the PAS movement back years, if not more. The New York Times has a good article on Kevorkian and the status of PAS around the country.
Posted by at No comments:

Dutch reality tv program -- "Big Donor Show" -- a hoax

Wouldn't you know: One of the stories that lured me out of semi-retirement and back to HealthLawBlog -- the one about the Dutch tv network that was about to air a show featuring a terminally-ill patient interviewing three candidates in kidney failure to decide which one would get her kidney -- turns out to be a hoax by the network, designed to pressure government officials to reform organ-transplantation laws in the Netherlands. According to the AP (courtesy of The Washington Post), the terminally-ill patient was simply a role played by a Dutch actress (Leonie Gebbink, looking none-too-ill in her publicity shot).

It appears that organ-transplant officials the world over are a pretty conservative lot, adverse to publicity that could be seen as sensationalistic in any way, and of course there was plenty about this "show" not to like. But count this episode as one of many that illustrate the widespread feeling of frustration that "business as usual" isn't getting the job done in the organ-transplant field. The waiting-list statistics at UNOS tell a pretty grim tale:
  • there are currently 96,047 registered patients on various waiting lists

  • over the past 5 years, waiting-list registrations have skyrocketed for livers, kidneys, and lungs; the number of transplants has increased modestly, and the number of patients who died waiting for a transplant has either gone up modestly (livers and kidneys) or stayed about the same (lungs) despite heroic efforts to increase donations; for hearts, the number of deaths on the list has gone down slightly, but not because of an increase in the number of transplants, which has stayed about the same:

[click to enlarge]







Historians of organ transplantation may well look back on 2007 as the year of the first big crack in the facade. I am thinking of HHS' opinion earlier this year that the prohibition against buying and selling organs (42 U.S.C. § 274e) would not be violated by paired exchanges of living donor kidney transplants. This is the situation when A donates a kidney to D in exchange for C's donation of a kidney to B, where A would otherwise be a living related donor to B, and C would otherwise be a living related donor to D, but for A-B and C-D incompatibility. (A variation on this theme occurs when a living related donor who is incompatible with a family member on the waiting list donates to a stranger, in exchange for which the patient on the waiting list receives some priority on the waiting list, which may substantially shorten his or her waiting time.) Every first-year Contracts student can spot the valuable consideration in these arrangements, but DOJ said the practice does not violate federal law. It can only be a matter of time before the supposed distinction between mutual promises (or the performance thereof) and the exchange of cash for a promise (or performance thereof) will crumble.

Posted by at No comments:

Friday, June 01, 2007

Health Lawyers News, June 1

From the folks at American Health Lawyers Association comes this week's issue of Health Lawyers News:

Top Stories

  • CMS Implements New Marketing, Education Requirements For PFFS Plans
    Abby L. Block Director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services’ (CMS’) Center for Beneficiary Choices sent a memo May 29 to Medicare Advantage (MA) Private fee-for-service (PFFS) plans reminding them that CMS is requiring new outreach processes to ensure beneficiaries and providers are informed about the distinctive features of Medicare PFFS plans. Full Story
  • Baucus, Grassley Urge IRS To Update Reporting Forms For Nonprofits
    Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-MT) and Ranking Member Charles Grassley (R-IA) sent a letter May 25 to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson urging him to update Form 990 and Form 990 PF that nonprofits file with the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) in order to gain greater transparency into the workings of tax-exempt organizations including charities. Full Story

Articles & Analyses

Current Topics


Table of Contents © AHLA, 2007. Reprinted by permission.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, May 31, 2007

NIH creates and confers new AID research awards

This is a little late in hitting the usually up-to-the-moment HealthLawBlog (!), but it's still worth noting. NIH has created the NIH World AIDS Day Awards to recognize truly brilliant, trail-blazing work by researchers and program managers whose contributions to AIDS research have probably saved the lives of millions. One of the recipients this past year was Bob Yarchoan (who, I am proud to say, was a college classmate of mine). Here's what the award citation said about Bob:

A joint award to Robert Yarchoan, M.D. and Hiroaki Mitsuya, M.D., Ph.D. of the National Cancer Institute — for their individual and combined achievements, groundbreaking discoveries and innovative and original scientific contributions that have significantly advanced HIV treatment research. Their landmark clinical studies, demonstrating that AZT could result in partial restoration of the immune response and temporary clinical benefit, established the first treatment for HIV infection and launched the era of effective therapy for HIV/AIDS. Their work significantly advanced this field, directly impacting on the development of new and better strategies to prevent and treat HIV disease in this country and around the world.

Congratulations, Bob!
Posted by at No comments:

Wednesday, May 30, 2007

China's ex-regulator of food and drug gets death penalty

And I thought we took food and drug regulation pretty seriously over here! This is from the AP (courtesy of The Boston Globe), and thanks for the tip to Peter Leibold, the EVP at American Health Lawyers Association:

China's former top drug regulator was sentenced to death Tuesday for taking bribes to approve untested medicines, as the country's main quality control agency announced its first recall system targeting unsafe food products.

The developments are among the most dramatic steps Beijing has publicly taken to address domestic and international alarm over shoddy and unsafe Chinese goods -- from pet food ingredients and toothpaste mixed with industrial chemicals to tainted antibiotics.

The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court convicted Zheng Xiaoyu for taking bribes in cash and gifts worth more than $832,000 when he was director of the State Food and Drug Administration, the official Xinhua News Agency said. The court then issued the death penalty, the report said.

Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, May 29, 2007

Dutch reality tv: who will get my kidney?

According to AP this morning (courtesy of the Chicago Sun-Times), the BNN television network in The Netherlands plans to go forward with its reality program, "Big Donor Show," in which a terminally ill 37-year-old woman will interview and choose from among three transplant candidates. The network says they intend the show to serve as a public-service message about the number of Dutch patients (2,000) who die each year while waiting for a kidney transplant. Really? It's not about the cruel exploitation of desperate, dying people in order to boost ratings? Really? Really?
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, May 28, 2007

Emergency research protocols expand

It was controversial when the FDA amended its version of the Common Rule (21 CFR Part 50) in 1996 to add a provision that allows for emergency research when true informed consent isn't possible (§ 50.24) -- the first time human subjects could be legally enrolled in research without their consent. The FDA defended the move as a modest exception for the relatively rare instances in which research would be stymied because of the impossibility of obtaining consent that would otherwise be required. As an article in yesterday's Washington Post makes clear, such research is getting considerably less rare, renewing the decade-old debate about whether the FDA's exception is really needed or is encouraging, as BU's George Annas says, " lazy investigators not wanting to try to get informed consent in situations where it is difficult to get it, so they say it is impossible."


Department of full disclosure: I have been a member of a consultation group in Dallas in connection with the emergency research discussed in this article ("Clinical Trial of the Active Compression-Decompression (ACD) and Inspiratory Threshold Valve (ITV) Devices vs Standard CPR").
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, March 31, 2007

California health reform

Ned Spurgeon (Utah and visiting distinguished chair at McGeorge this semester) has done a really nice piece on California health reform. It's been posted by Elizabeth Ann Weeks (Kansas) on the Jurisdynamics blog page.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, March 24, 2007

Living with an incurable genetic disease

The N.Y. Times ran a remarkable story last Sunday describing the life changes that occur when a person chooses to learn whether she has the genetic condition -- Huntington's Disease (or HD) -- that killed her grandfather and afflicts her cousin. Is it a good idea to find out, or is it an invitation for sorrow, stigmatization, and loss of insurability? The issues are explored sensitively and in detail in this article, which I didn't see last Sunday as I prepared for and gave a talk to The Institute for the Humanities at Salado on, of all things, medical privacy and the uses to which genetic information may be put. Thanks to college classmate Rick Goggans, M.D., for pointing this one out to me!

Links to HD resources (provided by The Times):

Posted by at No comments:

Fen-phen lawyers defrauded plaintiffs, court rules

Physicians, other health care professionals, hospitals, and other health-care entities take their lumps here with some regularity, so it is perhaps only fitting that I should note this story from yesterday's N.Y. Times:

W. L. Carter knew there was something fishy going on when he went to his lawyers’ office a few years ago to pick up his settlement check for the heart damage he had sustained from taking the diet drug combination fen-phen.

The check was, for starters, much smaller than he had expected. And his own lawyers threatened to retaliate against him if he ever told anyone, including his family, how much he had been paid. “You will be fined $100,000, you will go to jail and you will be sued,” Mr. Carter recalled them saying.

Mr. Carter was right to have been suspicious. The lawyers defrauded their clients, a state judge has ruled in a civil case, when they settled fen-phen lawsuits on behalf of 440 of them for $200 million but kept the bulk of the money for themselves. Legal experts said the fraud might be one of the biggest and most brazen in legal history.

This week, several clients testified before a federal grand jury that has begun to investigate potential criminal wrongdoing arising from the settlement.

“It enrages me,” said Sonja Pickett, a retail manager, who testified Thursday before the grand jury. “They robbed us.”. . .

The basic facts are not in dispute. When the clients sued the drug maker, they agreed to pay the lawyers 30 percent to 33 percent of any money that was recovered, plus expenses. In this case, that would have left the 440 clients to divide perhaps $135 million.

But the clients received only $74 million. An additional $20 million went to a questionable “charitable fund.” The rest — $106 million — went to lawyers. Though amounts of the individual settlements remain sealed, court papers suggest they were from $100,000 to $5 million. On average, plaintiffs received less than 40 percent of what the settlement agreement specified, instead of the roughly 70 percent to which they were entitled.

Had the lawyers merely taken what they were contractually entitled to, they would have become very rich men, said Tracy Curtis, a mortgage loan officer who is also suing her former lawyers. “They could have taken the high road,” Ms. Curtis said. “They would have made plenty of money.”

There's more, and it's all ugly. Shameful.
Posted by at No comments:

Federal bill prohibiting genetic discrimination analyzed by Congressional Budget Office

H.R. 493 (the "Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act of 2007") would broadly prohibit genetic discrimination by employers (including states and their political subdivisions), unions, employment agencies, and insurers. It has 221 co-sponsors, which is more than enough (assuming they all vote for the bill in the form in which it hits the floor and after amendments, if any) to pass in the House. Here's the Congressional Research Service's summary of the bill:

  • Amends the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and the Public Health Service Act to expand the prohibition against discrimination by group health plans and health insurance issuers in the group and individual markets on the basis of genetic information or services to prohibit: (1) enrollment and premium discrimination based on information about a request for or receipt of genetic services; and (2) requiring genetic testing. Sets forth penalties for violations.

  • Amends title XVIII (Medicare) of the Social Security Act to prohibit issuers of Medicare supplemental policies from discriminating on the basis of genetic information.

  • Extends medical privacy and confidentiality rules to the disclosure of genetic information.

  • Makes it an unlawful employment practice for an employer, employment agency, labor organization, or training program to discriminate against an individual or deprive such individual of employment opportunities because of genetic information. Prohibits the collection and disclosure of genetic information, with certain exceptions.

  • Establishes a Genetic Nondiscrimination Study Commission to review the developing science of genetics and advise Congress on the advisability of providing for a disparate impact cause of action under this Act.

For a more detailed discussion of the bill, go to H. Rept. 11-28 (Part I), March 5, 2007. Also, a number of states already have similar laws on their books. The National Conference of State Legislatures has a handy list of such laws (last updated Nov. 2006 (employment) and June 2005 (insurance)).

Yesterday, the CBO published its cost estimate for H.R. 493. Over 10 years, the federal treasury would be out about $2 million (because premiums for some of the new insureds would be tax-deductible) and the CBO estimates increased outlays of about $2 million (assuming appropriations are approved) for the Departments of Labor, Treasury, and HHS. There will be additional state and private-sector mandates in connection with the anti-discrimination law, but CBO figures the cost will be low for the states and below the threshold in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act for the private-sector actors.

If there's a surprise in any of this, it might be in the estimated number of citizens expected to benefit from this law: 600. Is there any chance this is a typo?

Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, March 22, 2007

From CMS today (see new COP in Friday's Federal Register (I'll supply the link when it's available tomorrow)):



NEW MEDICARE HOSPITAL CONDITIONS OF
PARTICIPATION FOR TRANSPLANT CENTERS


The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule today setting forth the requirements that transplant centers must meet to participate in the Medicare program that moves Medicare covered transplant programs toward an outcome-focused system.

This final rule will move Medicare-covered transplant programs toward an outcome-focused system that reflects the clinical experience, resources and commitment of the transplant program. The rule contains comprehensive conditions of participation for transplant programs serving Medicare beneficiaries.

It will ensure effective oversight of transplant centers by advancing coordination between CMS, State survey agencies, the Health Resources and Services Administration, the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network and the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients.

“This is a major milestone in our efforts to make sure that people needing transplants get the best possible care, while giving transplant centers and physicians comprehensive and reliable guidance,” said Leslie V. Norwalk, CMS acting administrator. “This rule both improves the current transplant outcome measure requirements and strengthens the protection of the health and safety of patients and living donors.”

In recent decades, remarkable strides in transplantation technology and pharmacology have turned organ transplantation into a mainstream treatment for many patients in end stage organ failure. CMS issued coverage decisions related to heart transplants in 1987, liver transplants in 1991, lung transplants in 1995, and intestine transplants in 2001 and updated in 2006. Kidney transplant centers have been regulated in the Code of Federal Regulations since 1976. This rule will consolidate all transplant center requirements into one regulation.

All transplant centers that continue to participate in Medicare, including kidney transplant centers, are required to submit a request for initial approval. Once approved by Medicare, transplant centers are eligible for re-approval every 3 years.

Transplant centers with current Medicare approval, that have applied for initial approval within 180 days from the effective date of the final rule may continue to provide transplant services and receive payment from Medicare until CMS makes a decision on the transplant center’s request for approval.

The final rule went on public display today at the Office of the Federal Register for publication on Friday, March 23, 2007.
Posted by at No comments:

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

IRS releases "Good Governance Practices" for charitable organizations

I meant to post this earlier, but the posts have been few and far between this month, and Davis & Tremaine beat me to the punch, so I have to give them credit for this one: The IRS has announced the release of a staff discussion draft of "Good Governance Practices for 501(c)(3) Organizations." Major sections of the draft include these topics: Mission Statement, Code of Ethics, Due Diligence, Duty of Loyalty, Transparency, Fundraising Policy, Financial Audits, Compensation Practices, Document Retention Policy. It's about three (3) pages long and its content shouldn't surprise anyone with a passing familiarity with the law of exempt orgs.

The IRS seems to be saying that adoption of these good governance practices is not a criterion for obtaining or retaining exempt status, but that an organization that departs to a significant degree from them is more likely to engage in practices that put its exempt status in jeopardy. Interestingly, if somewhat bizarrely, the Service inserted a comment about board size into its introduction that doesn't appear -- either implicitly or explicitly -- in the Good Governance Practices themselves. It's the trite-but-true "Goldilocks" principle that boards that are too small have difficulty representing "a public interest" and boards that are too large "may be less attentive to oversight duties." Presumably boards that are "just right" are more likely to see that their duties are carried out in a manner that promotes, in the case of exempt hospitals, community benefits.
Posted by at No comments:

Monday, March 05, 2007

GAO testimony on DOD/VA care problems for injured soldiers, vets

GAO released the text of its testimony today before the Subcommittee on National Security and Foreign Affairs of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The witness list and links to testimony and related documents are here. What is fairly clearly emerging is a sense that the problems with outpatient care at Walter Reed Army Hospital -- described in a series of articles in The Washington Post last week -- are the tip of the iceberg. That's the gist of an article by Anne Hull and Dana Priest in today's Post.

It may be true, as Paul Krugman writes in today's op-ed (paid TimesSelect subscription required) in the N.Y. Times, that the worst of the worst in terms of quality care (or the lack thereof) is in the military hospitals, which are separate and distinct from the VA. And the VA may still be the exemplar of quality that it's been touted to be for the past 10 years (although that's not what I hear from the medical students who rotate through the VA hospital here, and that's not the message from vets in today's Post article by Hull and Priest). But the testimony of the GAO witness documents some of the ways that the care in the VA system breaks down when a patient is handed off from the military's hospital system to the VA's.
Posted by at No comments:

To be middle-class and uninsured

Robert Pear has an interesting front-page article today in the N.Y. Times ("Without Health Benefits, a Good Life Turns Fragile") on the growing phenomenon of employees and independent contractors whose arrangements don't include health insurance. The main focus is about a 50-year-old real-estate agent with Century 21, Vicki Readling, who makes about $60,000 but can't afford a health-insurance policy that is priced -- on account of her pre-existing diagnosis of cancer -- at $27,000:

[T]he uninsured are not necessarily the poor, the unemployed and the undocumented. Solidly middle-class people like Ms. Readling are one of the fastest growing subgroups.

And that is one reason, according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, that the problems of the uninsured have jumped to the top of the domestic political agenda in Washington and on the campaign trail.

Today, more than one-third of the uninsured — 17 million of the nearly 47 million — have family incomes of $40,000 or more, according to the Employee Benefit Research Institute, a nonpartisan organization. More than two-thirds of the uninsured are in households with at least one full-time worker.

The article offers a good illustration of the problems encountered by the uninsured.

To save money, Ms. Readling said, she defers visits to the doctor and stretches out her cancer medication, which costs her about $300 a month. She takes the tiny pills three or four times a week, rather than seven days a week as prescribed.

“I really try to stay away from the doctor because I am so scared of what everything will cost,” said Ms. Readling, who is divorced and has twin 18-year-old sons. Before every doctor’s visit and test, she asks, “How much are you going to charge me?” She says she tries to arrange “the best deals I can.”

But in many cases, the price is still unaffordable, and “I have to do without.”

Undertreatment and general mismanagement of chronic conditions will, in the long run, result in more expense, not less, but if short-term cash flow makes the cost of care prohibitively expensive, where's the safety net for patients like Ms. Readling? It doesn't exist.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)