Vascular Device Forum

Paul Shirly's Musings

As you know, this blog is dedicated to vascular devices however when current events assume a prominent position in our lives, it's is hard not to comment on them. That's the great thing about blogging...there are no rules. With that in mind-I came across this very controversial article by a former NBA journeyman player, paul shirley. Read it for yourself and reflect. It suggests that in some way, America and other members of our society are enablers to the less fortunate groups of the world. At the very least perhaps it possessess some degree of truth. It is clearly provocative.

I do not know if what I’m about to write makes me a monster. I do know that it makes me a part of a miniscule minority, if Internet trends and news stories of the past weeks are any guide.

“It”, is this:

I haven’t donated a cent to the Haitian relief effort. And I probably will not.

I haven’t donated to the Haitian relief effort for the same reason that I don’t give money to homeless men on the street. Based on past experiences, I don’t think the guy with the sign that reads “Need You’re Help” is going to do anything constructive with the dollar I might give him. If I use history as my guide, I don’t think the people of Haiti will do much with my money either.

In this belief I am, evidently, alone. It seems that everyone has jumped on the  “Save Haiti” bandwagon. To question the impulse to donate, then, will probably be viewed as analogous with rooting for Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacy, or the Spice Girls.

My wariness has much to do with the fact that the sympathy deployed to Haiti has been done so unconditionally. Very few have said, written, or even intimated the slightest admonishment of Haiti, the country, for putting itself into a position where so many would be killed by an earthquake.

I can’t help but wonder why questions have not been raised in the face of this outpouring of support. Questions like this one:

Shouldn’t much of the responsibility for the disaster lie with the victims of that disaster?

Before the reader reaches for his or her blood pressure medication, he should allow me to explain. I don’t mean in any way that the Haitians deserved their collective fate. And I understand that it is difficult to plan for the aftermath of an earthquake. However, it is not outside the realm of imagination to think that the citizens of a country might be able to: A) avoid putting themselves into a situation that might result in such catastrophic loss of life.  And B) provide for their own aid, in the event of such a catastrophe  read more

Bad news for Marine Polymer Technologies?

I recently blogged on what I feel is a promising new hemostasis agent from Marine Polymer Technologies, the Syvek Patch. We have used the patch and it has performed well as a leave nothing behind agent to achieve puncture site hemostasis-most commonly at the femoral artery.

From MSN:

Vascular Solutions, Inc. (Nasdaq:VASC) announced that the First Circuit of the U.S. Court of Appeals has affirmed the judgment in its favor in its product disparagement litigation with Marine Polymer Technologies...

This appears to be bad news for a small publicly held company. 

Vascular Surgery -Medical Malpractice Reform...Has the Ship has sailed

The following is a New York Times article from June 16, 2009. In it President Obama looking to create support for Healthcare reform, speaks of addressing the malpractice issue. No disrespect intended to the Commander-in-Chief (take notes Dick Cheyney) but Blah, Blah, Blah. Look where the audacity of hope has landed us this time!!  

 

It reads: Hoping to enlist support for his campaign for health care reform, President Obama told the American Medical Association this week that he would work with doctors to limit their vulnerability to malpractice lawsuits. That was a reasonable offer — provided any malpractice reform is done carefully.    

Whether malpractice reform would save much money is unclear. Malpractice claims do drive up insurance premiums paid by doctors in some high-risk specialties, such as obstetrics and neurosurgery. Those costs are presumably passed on to patients. There is also concern that doctors may overprescribe costly tests and treatments to avoid possible lawsuits. But the evidence is inconclusive, according to the Congressional Budget Office, that doctors engage in enough “defensive medicine” to have a significant impact on costs.

The office estimates that caps on damages would ultimately reduce malpractice premiums for medical providers but would have a “relatively small” impact on total health spending, reducing it by less than half a percent. Even that could save billions of dollars a year, which is not trivial. But malpractice claims are probably not a major cost driver.

Still, most doctors are convinced that malpractice suits are unfair and burdensome, so it is worth exploring the issue, if only to gain their help in reforming the health care system. Whatever the alternative — tribunals, mediation — patients must retain the right to go to court and seek higher damages than they have been offered. That is the only way to deter negligence by doctors, hospitals and other health care providers...  

I was personally convinced that hopes to control the explosive growth of medical malpractice were all but extinguished until I read this article from Physician News Digest.:

 

Vascular surgery expert witness

CBO Confirms its Support of Med Mal Reform

4 January 2010 One Comment

Supposing the passage of medical malpractice reform, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) upped their projected savings to $54 billion from $5 billion over the next 10 years.  Several lawmakers, particularly former ambulance chasers, were not satisfied with the new estimates and asked for more detail.

Last week, the CBO sent an 8-page letter to Rep. Bruce Braley (D-Iowa), who was once the head of Iowa’s trial lawyer association, to answer his concerns about savings and reform would result in loss of care.

The CBO explained that the new estimates are larger, in part, because “they incorporate the effect of a gradual reduction in the utilization of health care services resulting from changes in the practice patterns of providers” such as fewer “defensive medicine” expenses;  and “a proportionately larger reduction in federal spending on health care than in other spending on health care.”

As for any changes in care, no one can answer that one.  The suggestion is that fewer tests may result in poorer outcomes.  However, the reduction of those extra tests, which are potentially unnecessary other than to cover the provider’s liability, would definitely result in savings.  You can read the full letter here.

It looks like there still may be some hope....

 

 

vascular surgery expert witness