If you don't already have a dart board with Edward Liddy's face on it maybe you should get one. Edward Liddy is the former CEO of Allstate Insurance and the current CEO of AIG. You know AIG from the television commercials and the fact they are most recently in the news for receiving bailout money to the tone of $50 Billion, some of you may even have them as your insurance provider.
On March 19th, Liddy sat in front of a congressional committee and explained why he feels $165 million of the federal bailout money should go to AIG employees as bonuses. Chairman Kanjorski questioned Liddy's priorities, pointing out Liddy's role and stance while at the helm of Allstate, Liddy's company denied contract insurance claims. Kanjorski asked why taxpayers should be forced to pay $165 million in bonuses to AIG employees on the basis of contract, when it appeared that Liddy had no problem denying insurance contract claims made against Allstate, his former company.
Liddy changed the way that Casualty insurance is done in the world. Edward Liddy completely redesigned how the Property and Casualty insurance company pays claims. Liddy implemented a plan to deny and otherwise underpay contract claims to Allstate policy holders. These plans and denials of your claims have secured over $350 million in salary and stock options for Mr. Liddy. To learn more about Mr. Liddy you can read the book, Good Hands to Boxing Gloves: How Allstate Changed Casualty Insurance in America.
Wednesday, March 25, 2009
Monday, March 9, 2009
Rate your Doctor!!
In this day in age you can go online and rate just about anything you want. Some sites do a number rating system and others allow you to have a forum for what or who you are rating and why you are giving it or them the said favorable or unfavorable comments. There are at least three sites that allow you to do this forum style rating in the medial feild, Zagat’s, Angie’s List, and RateMDs.com.
There are Doctors that are requiring patients to sign a form stating that the patient will not post any material online that has a negative connotation to it, in relationship to the doctor or his or her place of practice. Doctors are essentially demanding a gag order on patients who are not happy with the service they receive at their doctor’s office.
John Swapceinski, creator of RateMDs.com said, “They’re (Doctors) basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment right, and I really find that repulsive!” A “Wall of Shame”, naming all doctors who use patient waivers is in the works.
The question is for you as a patient is do you believe every thing you read online or do you take everything with a grain of salt and determine for yourself what is worthy of concern. Question the medicine not the wait in the lobby.
There are Doctors that are requiring patients to sign a form stating that the patient will not post any material online that has a negative connotation to it, in relationship to the doctor or his or her place of practice. Doctors are essentially demanding a gag order on patients who are not happy with the service they receive at their doctor’s office.
John Swapceinski, creator of RateMDs.com said, “They’re (Doctors) basically forcing the patients to choose between health care and their First Amendment right, and I really find that repulsive!” A “Wall of Shame”, naming all doctors who use patient waivers is in the works.
The question is for you as a patient is do you believe every thing you read online or do you take everything with a grain of salt and determine for yourself what is worthy of concern. Question the medicine not the wait in the lobby.
Who's in your Doctors pocket?
Pfizer has set aside $2.3 billion for EXPECTED fines for illegal marketing practices for this coming year. Drug and medical device companies have been faced with greatly increase fines for illegal marketing tactics, over the past year. An illegal marketing tactic is when a company pays a doctor excessively to hock their product. The main issue is not that the doctors are being paid to sell products, the main issue is that the doctors are not educated on the overall value or usefulness of the products. We as patients are not holding them accountable to taking care of us when we are sick or injured. We assume that doctors know the best treatment for us, fact is some doctors take the word of the drug companies and the device companies that their product is ideal for you.
Much of the debate surrounds the manufacturers repeatedly giving consulting payments in illegal schemes to persuade doctors to prescribe drugs or devices in inappropriate and unapproved ways. Federal officials are planning on attacking the connection between the manufacturers and the people. Doctors are now the focus of the Federal Regulators, hoping to expose those that are excepting kickbacks from those manufactures and to hit them with heavy fine and possible jail time for essentially accepting bribes to prescribe particular products.
Federal Regulators will also be pushing for similar laws, which are already in place in Minn. Drug and device company's would be required to publicly post any payments to doctors over $500. This in Minn. has given way to hospital systems regulating themselves to a higher degree, in what is in and used within their systems.
Much of the debate surrounds the manufacturers repeatedly giving consulting payments in illegal schemes to persuade doctors to prescribe drugs or devices in inappropriate and unapproved ways. Federal officials are planning on attacking the connection between the manufacturers and the people. Doctors are now the focus of the Federal Regulators, hoping to expose those that are excepting kickbacks from those manufactures and to hit them with heavy fine and possible jail time for essentially accepting bribes to prescribe particular products.
Federal Regulators will also be pushing for similar laws, which are already in place in Minn. Drug and device company's would be required to publicly post any payments to doctors over $500. This in Minn. has given way to hospital systems regulating themselves to a higher degree, in what is in and used within their systems.
Thursday, February 26, 2009
Cases Against Nursing Homes Impeded by New Rule Enacted by Bush Administration
The new rule designates state inspectors and Medicare and Medicaid contractors as Federal employees. Federal employees are usually shielded from providing evidence for either side in private litigation. This new restriction will affect abou 16,000 nursing facilities and 3 million residents in the US.
The Practical effect of this rule is to force attorneys to go to greater lengths to get inspection reports or depositions for cases. "This Change hurts nursing-home residents and their families by allowing bad practices to be kept in secret by nursing homes and inspectors," said Eric M. Carlson, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center in Los Angeles. "Government inspectors have the right to go into nursing homes and investigate. and they learn things that residents and families otherwise could never find out."
The new rule generally prohibits state health departments and contractors from participating in pricate lawsuits involving facilities that are in the federal assistance program without approval by the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Once fairly routine, the request for information is now stalled between federal and state officials.
The Practical effect of this rule is to force attorneys to go to greater lengths to get inspection reports or depositions for cases. "This Change hurts nursing-home residents and their families by allowing bad practices to be kept in secret by nursing homes and inspectors," said Eric M. Carlson, an attorney with the National Senior Citizens Law Center in Los Angeles. "Government inspectors have the right to go into nursing homes and investigate. and they learn things that residents and families otherwise could never find out."
The new rule generally prohibits state health departments and contractors from participating in pricate lawsuits involving facilities that are in the federal assistance program without approval by the head of the Department of Health and Human Services.
Once fairly routine, the request for information is now stalled between federal and state officials.
Monday, February 16, 2009
Nursing Homes: Quality Care?
Sarah Wentworth, 89, was too frail to get out of bed or change her clothes without assistance, yet she died alone in the courtyard of her nursing homes' below freezing temperatures on Feb. 5th. She was found wearing only her hospital gown and her ankle bracelet that should have triggered an alarm when she went through an exit door. Wentworth was outside in the freezing temperatures for at least 90 minutes before being found, authorities say.
Sarah Wentworth had lived in the Arbor of Itasca nursing home for two years prior to the Feb. 5th, incident, her daughters said that they never had been concerned about their mother's safety at the nursing home up to this point. They were surprised to learn that since the beginning of 2008, the Department of Public Health in Illinois had conducted 12 separate investigations on the facility in response to complaints.
What do you know about your loved ones care facility? How up to date are you on what's going on with your loved one? Nursing home malpractice is a significant problem throughout the United States. Comprehensive government investigations have discovered that approximately thirty percent of all nursing homes in the nation have committed intentional or negligent acts which have caused significant harm to nursing home residents. One study of nursing home resident death certificates listed more than 4000 deaths caused by dehydration, malnutrition, and bedsores; all of which are caused, in whole or part, by nursing home malpractice. In 2003 USA Today reported that half of all nursing home residents suffer from untreated pain.
In response to these atrocities, the federal government has attempted to regulate the nursing home industry. In 1987 the Federal Nursing Home Care Reform Act was passed, setting a set of minimum standards of care and quality of life that nursing home facilities must meet or exceed. The primary objective of this law is to ensure that facilities provide services that facilitate, "the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for each resident." State agencies conduct periodic investigations of nursing home facilities, order corrective action and pursue cases of abuse and neglect when applicable.
State agencies have also been established to investigate complaints of abuse in nursing homes. These can be complaints made by, or on behalf of, nursing home residents. These complaints can be about any deficiency in required nursing home services or may involve cases of obvious abuse. The government can investigate these cases and has the authority to issue a citation, impose a fine, and/or require corrective action.
In cases of nursing home malpractice, a nursing home lawsuit may also be filed by the victim of the abuse. A nursing home lawsuit is the vehicle through which a victim is personally compensated for his/her losses. The most common type of nursing home lawsuit is one that involves abuse, neglect, or wrongful death. A wrongful death nursing home lawsuit can be filed by the family and/or beneficiaries of a nursing home resident who has died as a result of nursing home malpractice.
It is important to keep in mind that each state has a statute of limitations which restricts the amount of time a person has to file a nursing home lawsuit. Retaining the services of a qualified and experienced legal professional is a crucial aspect to filing a nursing home lawsuit. An attorney can evaluate the facts of your case to determine your legal rights and options in a nursing home lawsuit. This legal professional knows the laws applicable to your case and can protect and maximize your interests.
Information for this blog taken from the Chicago Tribune Times and http://www.nursing-home-abuse-resource.com/.
Sarah Wentworth had lived in the Arbor of Itasca nursing home for two years prior to the Feb. 5th, incident, her daughters said that they never had been concerned about their mother's safety at the nursing home up to this point. They were surprised to learn that since the beginning of 2008, the Department of Public Health in Illinois had conducted 12 separate investigations on the facility in response to complaints.
What do you know about your loved ones care facility? How up to date are you on what's going on with your loved one? Nursing home malpractice is a significant problem throughout the United States. Comprehensive government investigations have discovered that approximately thirty percent of all nursing homes in the nation have committed intentional or negligent acts which have caused significant harm to nursing home residents. One study of nursing home resident death certificates listed more than 4000 deaths caused by dehydration, malnutrition, and bedsores; all of which are caused, in whole or part, by nursing home malpractice. In 2003 USA Today reported that half of all nursing home residents suffer from untreated pain.
In response to these atrocities, the federal government has attempted to regulate the nursing home industry. In 1987 the Federal Nursing Home Care Reform Act was passed, setting a set of minimum standards of care and quality of life that nursing home facilities must meet or exceed. The primary objective of this law is to ensure that facilities provide services that facilitate, "the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being for each resident." State agencies conduct periodic investigations of nursing home facilities, order corrective action and pursue cases of abuse and neglect when applicable.
State agencies have also been established to investigate complaints of abuse in nursing homes. These can be complaints made by, or on behalf of, nursing home residents. These complaints can be about any deficiency in required nursing home services or may involve cases of obvious abuse. The government can investigate these cases and has the authority to issue a citation, impose a fine, and/or require corrective action.
In cases of nursing home malpractice, a nursing home lawsuit may also be filed by the victim of the abuse. A nursing home lawsuit is the vehicle through which a victim is personally compensated for his/her losses. The most common type of nursing home lawsuit is one that involves abuse, neglect, or wrongful death. A wrongful death nursing home lawsuit can be filed by the family and/or beneficiaries of a nursing home resident who has died as a result of nursing home malpractice.
It is important to keep in mind that each state has a statute of limitations which restricts the amount of time a person has to file a nursing home lawsuit. Retaining the services of a qualified and experienced legal professional is a crucial aspect to filing a nursing home lawsuit. An attorney can evaluate the facts of your case to determine your legal rights and options in a nursing home lawsuit. This legal professional knows the laws applicable to your case and can protect and maximize your interests.
Information for this blog taken from the Chicago Tribune Times and http://www.nursing-home-abuse-resource.com/.
American Medical Association Suing CIGNA, & Aetna!
"We can no longer ignore improper business practices of health insurers who decide to play by their own rules without regard to patients or the legitimate costs required to care for them," is the quote from Dr. Nancy H. Nielsen, president of the AMA. The AMA is claiming that the two insurance providers have short changed the doctors of out of millions of dollars of out of network healthcare.
Several insurers, including Aetna have already agreed to pay millions in settlements to the NY Attorney General's investigation in this matter; however none of that money is going towards restitution for the physicians lost wages. This money has been set aside to create a new database to replace the one run by Ingenix, a UnitedHealth Group unit that is known to be problematic.
The Ingenix systems is being accused of skewing data that is collected on what is considered "reasonable and customary" to pay physicians who do not participate in their networks.
Cynthia Michener, a spokeswoman for Aetna, said her company is "disappointed the medical community has chosen to litigate on top of already pending consumer litigation on the topic." She added: "Both members and providers cannot be paid for the same claim under these cases. Ultimately, increasing health care costs increases the number of uninsured and the cost of health care for everyone."
I guess one need's to wonder if the insurance companies had been responsible to begin with if they would have felt the need to release in a statement that they "WILL" be passing on that cost to the doctors and patients. They will need those millions of dollars that weren't paid to the doctors for the legal fees, and PR to remind us how much we need "Big Insurance" to take care of us, right?
Several insurers, including Aetna have already agreed to pay millions in settlements to the NY Attorney General's investigation in this matter; however none of that money is going towards restitution for the physicians lost wages. This money has been set aside to create a new database to replace the one run by Ingenix, a UnitedHealth Group unit that is known to be problematic.
The Ingenix systems is being accused of skewing data that is collected on what is considered "reasonable and customary" to pay physicians who do not participate in their networks.
Cynthia Michener, a spokeswoman for Aetna, said her company is "disappointed the medical community has chosen to litigate on top of already pending consumer litigation on the topic." She added: "Both members and providers cannot be paid for the same claim under these cases. Ultimately, increasing health care costs increases the number of uninsured and the cost of health care for everyone."
I guess one need's to wonder if the insurance companies had been responsible to begin with if they would have felt the need to release in a statement that they "WILL" be passing on that cost to the doctors and patients. They will need those millions of dollars that weren't paid to the doctors for the legal fees, and PR to remind us how much we need "Big Insurance" to take care of us, right?
Protect Your Fundamental Rights!!!!
SCAJ responds to introduction of "tort reform" legislation (H. 3489) in the S.C. House
Legislation would strip away fundamental rights, hurt small business, protect special interests
COLUMBIA, SC - South Carolina Association for Justice (SCAJ) Executive Director Mike Hemlepp released the following statement on S.C. House Bill 3489, which was introduced today (Tues., Feb. 10, 2009) in the S.C. House of Representatives:
"Speaker Bobby Harrell has worked tirelessly to correct our state's current economic difficulties and we all respect him for his service. However, this proposed legislation will not produce positive results for our state's business climate. In fact, it will do the opposite.
"Thousands of families in South Carolina are on the verge of losing their jobs, their homes and their way of life. In many cases, it is only the protection of the law that prevents them from losing everything. When innocent people fall victim to code violations, bad judgment and deceptive trade practices, the law provides a safety net at a time when they are most vulnerable.
"This proposed legislation would strip away fundamental rights from citizens in order to protect special interest groups from accountability for their misdeeds. These special interest groups pretend to care about small business when, in fact, this bill is simply a ruse to satisfy the greed of Wall Street millionaires with virtually no ties to our communities.
"SCAJ urges a bipartisan effort to protect our system of civil justice by opposing this unwise legislation."
Legislation would strip away fundamental rights, hurt small business, protect special interests
COLUMBIA, SC - South Carolina Association for Justice (SCAJ) Executive Director Mike Hemlepp released the following statement on S.C. House Bill 3489, which was introduced today (Tues., Feb. 10, 2009) in the S.C. House of Representatives:
"Speaker Bobby Harrell has worked tirelessly to correct our state's current economic difficulties and we all respect him for his service. However, this proposed legislation will not produce positive results for our state's business climate. In fact, it will do the opposite.
"Thousands of families in South Carolina are on the verge of losing their jobs, their homes and their way of life. In many cases, it is only the protection of the law that prevents them from losing everything. When innocent people fall victim to code violations, bad judgment and deceptive trade practices, the law provides a safety net at a time when they are most vulnerable.
"This proposed legislation would strip away fundamental rights from citizens in order to protect special interest groups from accountability for their misdeeds. These special interest groups pretend to care about small business when, in fact, this bill is simply a ruse to satisfy the greed of Wall Street millionaires with virtually no ties to our communities.
"SCAJ urges a bipartisan effort to protect our system of civil justice by opposing this unwise legislation."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)