Illinois Deserves the Truth

Enough with the pharma ads!

I wanted to share an insightful editorial from this morning's St. Louis Post-Dispatch.  Everyone knows how crazed drug manufacturers are over advertising to consumers.  It's no surprise, since their efforts are successfully undermining physician authority and bloating the industry.

One recent medical study found that advertising is creating markets for drugs that would otherwise not exist. It's one reason that more than half of all insured Americans are taking at least one prescription medication for chronic health problems.

The number of direct-to-consumer ads more than doubled between 2003 and 2007. Among them was a campaign for the cholesterol drug Vytorin...

Ads for the drug, made jointly by Merck and Schering-Plough, were pulled in January after release of a study that showed Vytorin is no more effective at reducing cholesterol build-up than a cheaper drug called Zocor, which is available as a generic.

Merck and Schering-Plough sat on that study for two years, advertising heavily the whole time. Last year, after data had been collected but before it was released, Vytorin rang up sales of $5.1 billion.

The editorial goes on to stress the importance of efforts currently on the legislative agenda.

U.S. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., has sponsored a bill that would ban consumer advertising for the first three years a new drug is on the market. That would give regulators time to better assess its potential risks. The idea is endorsed by Consumers Union, publisher of Consumer Reports.

A Senate committee today will is scheduled to hear testimony on a proposal to require that all drug ads list a telephone number where consumers can file reports about drug side-effects...

The FDA must do a better job of policing drug ads. But it won't until Congress gives it the tools it needs. Lawmakers should do so without delay.

Kudos to the Post-Dispatch editorial board for such a strong endorsement.

Exxon CEO talks gas prices

Rex Tillerson, CEO of Exxon Mobil, talked with Matt Lauer this morning about energy efficiency and consumers struggling with high gas prices.  Actually, when Lauer asked him what Exxon was doing to control gas prices, Rex was shockingly candid about what his job is: to please shareholders, not consumers.  He even sounded defensive, saying his shareholders enjoyed only an "average" profit margin last year.  That’s putting lipstick on an ugly pig, since Exxon still reaped record profits of over $40 billion. Meanwhile, Rex got a 25% pay raise and a $20 million bonus.  And how much do you suppose Exxon has spent so far on their upcoming Supreme Court case against victims of their massive oil spill?

Of course it’s understandable that corporations are out to make money.  That’s fine.  But as Lauer points out, most corporations don’t directly impact people’s livelihoods like Exxon does.  People can't just stop buying gas.  I think most would agree that somewhere Exxon needs to draw the line and make an effort to ease the burden on people.  Sadly, Rex never entertains this idea.

Watch:

Well Said!

Cross posted from The Pop Tort by John Guyette

Today, actor Dennis Quaid gave incredibly strong testimony in Congress about the near-fatal drug mixup involving his newborn twins and the need to hold pharmaceutical companies accountable through our legal system.

Click here to watch Quaid's full testimony on CNN.

It is important to highlight what he had to say about the civil justice system.  The following except is taken from his written testimony.

I have also learned a lot about the legal system – and it was surprising, I have to tell you. Like many Americans, I believed that a big problem in our country was frivolous lawsuits. But now I know that the courts are often the only path to justice for families that are harmed by the pharmaceutical industry and medical errors. Yet the law is stacked against ordinary people.  For instance, in my home state of California, a 1975 law caps compensation to malpractice victims. The cap has never been raised for inflation. The practical effect is that people without the wealth to pay legal fees up front are unable to get their cases before a judge or jury.

Now we face something with potential to be even more sweeping and even more unjust: federal preemption. The Supreme Court is about to decide whether to bar most lawsuits over drugs and their labeling, as long as the drug was approved for marketing by the FDA. After many years of rejecting arguments that FDA actions should preempt lawsuits involving injuries from products regulated by the FDA, White House appointees at the FDA reversed that position in 2002, and now argue that FDA approval immunizes the manufacturers of dangerous products from liability for the deaths and injuries they cause.

We sued Baxter Healthcare Corporation in November 2007. Baxter has filed a motion to dismiss the case, relying on the same preemption argument that the drug industry and the FDA has made before the Supreme Court – that when the FDA allowed its Heparin drug onto the market, it gave Baxter the government's seal of approval – a "get out of jail free" card that denies us the right to hold the company accountable. (Of course, Baxter never mentions the FDA regulations that encourage and sometimes require manufacturers to fix their drug labels immediately, without getting the FDA's permission first.) So, says Baxter, our suit may not be heard by a judge or jury.

It is hard for me to imagine that this is what Congress intended. You tell me, Mr. Chairman: When it passed the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act in 1938, did Congress intend to give appointed bureaucrats at the FDA the right to protect a drug company from liability, even when the company cuts corners and jeopardizes our safety? A federal ban on lawsuits against drug companies would not just deny victims compensation for the harm they experience. It would also relieve drug companies of their responsibility to make products as safe as possible, and especially to correct drug problems when they are most often discovered – years after their drugs are on the market.

Permitting bureaucrats who are under pressure from their bosses and the drug companies themselves to yank our access to the courts is incomprehensible. We have all heard about understaffing and backlogs at the FDA, and about drug-safety scrutiny that is patchy at best. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the drug companies, it will eliminate one of the most effective deterrents to letting the bottom line win out over public health and safety.

...

We can hope that the Supreme Court will not put more barriers in front of patients who are harmed by drug companies. But if the Court goes along with the FDA and rules for the drug companies, I respectfully ask this Congress to pass corrective legislation on an emergency basis, just as it should do immediately to correct the recent Supreme Court decision immunizing the makers of defective and mislabled medical devices. We Americans need some balance on the scales of justice in our country.

Loyola medical liability conference

Last week we went to a Loyola sponsored conference on “Medical Liability and the Illinois Civil Justice System”.  Speakers were lined up to talk about various topics, some tired (no-fault insurance schemes), some fresh (full disclosure malpractice programs).

CJ&D’s Executive Director Joanne Doroshow was asked to talk about “health courts,” which are basically administrative panels designed to replace civil courts as a way of settling malpractice claims.  “Tort reformers” like to think they would speed up the settlement and payment process, but really they are a terrible idea. The health care industry would be the "experts" that the administrative panel would have to turn to, so the courts would almost always favor corporate interests over injured victims. In any case, health courts don’t have much support, since they are impractical and unconstitutional (read the CJ&D report "Why Health Courts are Unconstitutional" for more).

I thought the most interesting topic discussed was full disclosure programs for reporting physician errors at hospitals.  Tim McDonald, the chief safety officer at the University of Illinois Medical Center Chicago, talked about how the full disclosure program he installed has resulted in across-the-board improvements in areas like quality of care and speedy malpractice payouts.  I was pleased that the first statement out of his mouth was that he was not in favor of tort reform and never will be.  He went on to talk about how much of a struggle it was to implement his philosophy at the medical center.  For example, he told a story about how in interviewing defense firms, he opened with this hypothetical situation: a man undergoes surgery to have a leg removed, but doctors mistakenly amputate the wrong limb.  There is no question the hospital is at fault.  What would you advise?, he asked them.  13 out of 16 firms interviewed advised the hospital to deny fault anyway.

His talk was the most popular of the day, which was surprising since much of the crowd came from the health care industry or from defense firms.  Hopefully this is a sign that more hospitals are open to exploring ways of improving patient safety and increasing accountability, instead of just toeing the insurance company line of avoiding payouts by denying fault at all costs.

Update: Latin School deal

For those interested in this Latin School story we've been updating, here's some more...

Last week a court officially stopped construction of the soccer field at Lincoln Park, where the park district entered into a controversial quid pro quo with the Latin School.  It turns out they forgot to seek public input.  The latest is that the Park Board will meet on Wednesday to vote on whether to “enter into a termination agreement with the Latin School of Chicago regarding the soccer field being constructed in south Lincoln Park.”

This could be the beginning of the end for the deal gone bad.  It sounds like by and large the neighborhood finds it unfair, so I for one am hoping for a vote of "termination."

Update: Chicago Tribune gets it wrong about construction safety bill

Bravo!  Finally the Tribune publishes someone who understands the importance of HB 2094.   

While we commented on how wrong the Tribune's view of the Illinois Construction Act of 2008 is and submitted a letter to inform them.  Philip Corboy, Jr. did the same in a letter that was published today in the Trib.  In particular he is right on the money when he wrote:

This legislation is not about lawyers.

It's about construction workers making it home safely and being able to sit down at the dinner table with their families.

Right on! 

This legislation is all about protecting workers and making people accountable in the civil justice system.   This is important legislation that should be passed.   

Maybe my letter will get published too, but I am not holding my breath. :-)

Update: Millstadt construction accident

Back in March, two workers in downstate Millstadt died when a trench caved in on them.  It turned out the work site had previous citations for violating OSHA safety standards and that this accident, too, warranted investigation (the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ran our letter about it).  Now, the family of one of the victims is filing a wrongful death lawsuit against the construction company for failing to take proper safety precautions.

Tragedies like this remind us why we need to do more to keep workers and pedestrians safe from dangerous construction sites.  House bill 2094 - the Construction Safety Act of 2008 - is designed to protect the rights of families involved in accidents like the one in Millstadt, which may have been preventable.  It includes broader safety standards for construction sites and would make it easier for innocent victims and their families to seek redress through the civil justice system.

Click here for more on why HB 2094 is so important.  Also, read the CJ&D report, Deadly Trade: Construction Safety in Illinois since the Repeal of the Structural Work Act.

Small claims courts: "The Great Leveler"

Reading the paper yesterday I came across an article about an unheralded consumer tool: small claims courts.  When most people hear those words, they probably think of TV shows like Judge Judy, but small claims courts are an essential part of our judicial system and can be an important tool for anyone who has been wronged.  The writer called them the "Great Equalizer" (that's what I might call the civil justice system as a whole, but it's not far off).

Unfortunately, the article only briefly mentions Big Business’ attacks on this institution--not to mention the entire civil justice system.  Credit card companies and others use mandatory arbitration agreements to take away our right to seek a trial by jury when we are scammed.  Learn more about the pitfalls of binding arbitration agreements from Public Citizen’s report, “The Arbitration Trap: How Credit Cards Companies Ensnare Consumers”

Midwest EPA Official Ousted for Fighting to Protect People and Wildlife

The Chicago Tribune ran this story late last week of Mary Gade, the regional administrator for the  midwest for the US Environmental Protection Agency, detailing how she was forced out of her position because of her willingness to take on manufacturing giant Dow Chemical.  Gade has been rightfully tough on Dow for dumping chemicals leading to high levesl of Dioxin, which has been linked to cancer, infertility, and other serious illnesses and death, in areas as far as 50 miles from their Midland, MI plant.  The concentrations in some areas are thousands of times higher than the amounts the federal government requires to be cleaned up.  She has been fighting this battle with Dow to clean up there mess, while they have been maneuvering politically to avoid any costly cleanup. 

It is a sad state when a person is forced out because she is doing what is required by law and human decency. 

CJ&D recently released a white paper, Corporate Empowerment and the Decline of Public Safety, which looks at how the corporate take-over of federal agencies, including the EPA, and preemption of legal rights has hurt the public health and safety. (Membership required)

Nursing homes escaping liability

Chicago's ABC affiliate ABC 7 aired a story on how Illinois nursing homes are not required to carry liability insurance.  We’ve talked about this for a while, but it looks like the mainstream press is finally catching on to the severity of this issue.  Estimates of how many nursing homes go without liability insurance are as high as 20%, and that’s not even counting nursing homes that are considered underinsured, or homes that carry policies from overseas insurers that don’t have to follow U.S. court orders.  All of this means that when your loved one is mistreated or abused in a nursing home, chances are it will be very difficult to hold the facility accountable and seek compensation.

Last year, fines for nursing home violations in Illinois totaled over $3.5 million.  Less than $1 million of that total has been collected.  These fines aren’t just for petty infractions.  According to the IDPH, there were 177 Type A violations in Illinois in 2007.  These are situations in which there is a “substantial probability that death or serious mental or physical harm will result.”  To give you a better picture, here are a few examples of A violations from recent IDPH reports:

•    "Failure to prevent sexual abuse of a resident, and not reporting the incident to the proper authorities."
•    “Using restraints for staff convenience, resulting in possible mental abuse.  A resident was locked in a linen closet and two residents were tied to their beds with sheets."
•    “Failure to prevent a medication error when staff gave a resident ten times the amount of the ordered dose. Staff also failed to notify the resident’s doctor about the overdose.  The resident died two days later."

ABC also highlighted a few of the many tragic stories of loved ones dying from nursing home abuse.

"I didn't know that nursing homes were not required to carry insurance," said Jill Szczekocki, granddaughter.

In another case at Rosewood in 2006, Szczekocki's grandmother was left alone in a washroom; according to state records, by a new employee who hadn't finished orientation or been told of the 93-year old's mandatory care needs. Mae Blake fell and hit her head.

"Six weeks later, she was put on hospice and she passed away," said Szczekocki.

It is long past time we hold nursing homes responsible for such incidents.  We can do this with house bill 5213 (we blogged about it here).  HB 5213 would make it mandatory for nursing homes to carry a minimum amount of liability insurance.  It would also make information on home’s coverage plans available to the public, so people like Ms. Szczekocki will know what to expect in the case of an accident.  Nursing home residents deserve a guarantee that if they are victimized, they or their families will be fairly compensated.  All Illinoisans should get behind this bill.

Click here to watch the ABC story.

Happy "Law Day"

Cross posted from The Pop Tory by John Guyette

Goodbye April and hello May.  For most countries today is "May Day," a holiday akin to labor day that celebrates workers. However, in the US today is "Law Day," created in 1958 to counter May Day which was perceived to be a communist celebration.  So its been 50 years and President Bush commemorated the occasion by renewing the holiday and proclaiming this day once again as Law Day.  Am I missing something?  Here is a snippet from Bush's proclamation:

"The American legal system is central to protecting the rights and freedoms our Nation holds dear. The theme of this year's Law Day, "The Rule of Law: Foundation for Communities of Opportunity and Equity," recognizes the fundamental role that the rule of law plays in preserving liberty in our Nation and in all free societies. We pay tribute to the men and women in America's legal community. Through hard work and dedication to the rule of law, members of the judiciary and the legal profession help secure the rights of individuals, bring justice to our communities, and reinforce the proud traditions that make America a beacon of light for the world."

Throughout his administration, Bush has relentlessly advocated taking away the legal protections of average Americans, attacked lawyers, and supported a corporate movement that seeks to undermine the independence of judges, threatening a tradition of judicial independence that has served and protected us for over 200 years. 

Besides eating, drinking and being merry, my Law Day festivities will recognize the importance of the tort system for average Joe's injured by corporate malfeasance who seek justice.  I won't be inviting the President.

New Bill Seeks to Hold Foreign Manufacturers Accountable for Unsafe Products

Cross posted from The Pop Tort by John Guyette

There are good ideas and there are great ideas.  For example...cheese - good idea.  Cheese in a can - great idea!  Well perhaps not everyone agrees with me on this.  But most would agree that corporations should not get off scott-free when their products maim, injure or kill consumers.  Corporate accountability - good idea.  Actually introducing and enacting legislation that holds corporations accountable for faulty products that hurt consumers - great idea!

Thankfully, Congress moved one step closer to better protecting American consumers hurt by products from foreign manufacturers.  Like the toys that contain excessive amounts of lead paint or the bad batches of the drug thinning drug, heparin.  Today, U.S. House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers and Commercial and Administrative Law Subcommittee Chair Linda Sánchez put the cheese in a can so to speak by introducing the "Protecting Americans from Unsafe Foreign Products Act." In addition to Conyers and Sánchez, the bill has three other original co-sponsors.  Sounds like a great idea to me.

I only hope the rest of Congress and the President realize the merit of this legislation.  Corporations whether at home or abroad just like everyone else should be held accountable for the damage they cause.  It just makes sense!

Chicago Tribune gets it wrong about construction safety bill

Today the Chicago Tribune wrote an editorial about the Construction Safety Act of 2008, House Bill 2094, and got it totally wrong.  This important legislation will help protect Illinois construction workers and we should fight to get it passed.

One of the points that the editorial makes is that the Workers' Compensation System is " is fair, and relatively quick and inexpensive. It works."  I believe if you ask the thousands that have  experienced it they will tell you a different story.  CJ&D  released a good study, Workers' Compensation - A Cautionary Tale, in 2006 about the pitfalls of the system.  It is an informative and interesting read about the subject.   

In response to the editorial we wrote a letter to the editor (below),

The Tribune’s editorial “The Lawyers-get-work act” (April 29, 2008) gets it wrong.  The Construction Safety Act of 2008 would be good for workers and Illinois and it should pass. 

Construction is one of the most dangerous job in the state.  In 2006, there were over 13,000 construction worker injuries.  More construction workers die each year than firemen and police combined. New York, which already has a similar law on the book, has some of the lowest construction death and injury rates in the country.

Moreover, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is supposed to assure the safety and health of America’s construction workers - but is ill-equipped to do so.  At their current staff levels it would take over 121 years to inspect everything they are responsible for overseeing.  In other words, more needs to be done to ensure the safety of Illinois' construction workers.

This important legislation would provide the financial incentive for owners and contractors to provide safe scaffolds and other potentially deadly equipment, and to prevent the hiring of low-bidding subcontractors, who are tempted to work as quickly and cheaply as possible while cutting safety corners to save money.  It places responsibility for safety practices at a construction site on the owner and general contractor—where it belongs. 

Jason Held
Staff Director,
Center for Justice & Democracy-Illinois

Lets see if they publish it.  I am not holding my breath.

If you haven't already, please contact your State House Representative to let them know you support HB 2094.  Click here to locate your state House Representative

Oil companies paying up

A suit in downstate Hartford is causing two oil companies to compensate residents who had to face serious health risks from leaking gas fumes.

Hartford residents have complained for years about hydrocarbon vapors that make them feel ill and wreck property values. Experts think the underground pool has been accumulating for more than 75 years.

The companies are supposedly working with the EPA to keep the toxic vapors out of people's homes, but obviously it is still a problem.  It often takes settlements like this one to get companies to really clean up their act, so let's hope that's the case here.

To read more about how the civil justice system protects consumers and the environment, go to the CJ&D report, “How the civil justice system protects environmental health”

When Doctors Dose Themselves

Men'sHealth published a disturbing article about drug addict doctors - focusing on the high concentration of anesthesiologists  who rank high among addict doctors.  It is very sobering to think of what can go wrong under the best of circumstances, but what happens when the person in charge of your life is addicted to drugs? 

The article tells a sad story of Herman Cole and his, 36-year-old wife, Sadie, who was to have a straightforward tubal ligation, and ended up with severe brain damage.  After Herman was told by a doctor that her injuries centered around mysterious circumstances, a nurse who was in the operating room pulled him aside and told him he should hire an attorney and start asking questions.  Herman took her advice and hired Richard Silver, who began digging around and found out the truth.

Sadie's anesthesiologist -- Dr. Jay Angeluzzi -- had behaved bizarrely during the procedure. First, he'd failed to recognize that Sadie had stopped breathing, even after the electronic monitor's alarms sounded. Then, instead of examining her, he'd turned off the alarms and left the room. It would be 9 critical minutes before anyone noticed Sadie was not responsive. By the time she was revived, her brain had been oxygen starved and ruined.

Dr. Angeluzzi, Silver discovered, had a history of drug abuse, psychiatric treatment, and failed institutional rehabilitations. He'd left Connecticut's Hospital of St. Raphael in 1985 after abusing tranquilizers while on duty, and had moved to Massachusetts, where his license was put on probation and he had to submit to special monitoring. But after a few years, Dr. Angeluzzi applied for a job at Norwalk Hospital, never mentioning his drug problems. One of his old bosses even made it easy for him, saying that Dr. Angeluzzi had moved to Massachusetts because of "family problems."

What makes this story even more tragic is that the doctor after this incident was allowed to practice medicine, even at the same hospital, until sadly he did this again to another patient which lead to death.  This horrific tale is unfortunately not isolated.  As we in Illinois saw with the Marion VA hospital, a bad doctor, Jose Veizaga-Mendez, was allowed to jump states, be hired and contribute to the deaths of at least 13 patients.  (It just so happens that both Veizaga-Mendez and Angeluzzi practiced in MA.)

While, one of the things that shocked me the most about this article is that the profile of a junkie doctor is, "...tend to be young, ambitious, highly talented physicians who graduated at the top of their medical-school classes and are ranked among the most popular and requested at their hospitals."  I must say all of the attributes are the ones I tend to look for in my healthcare provider.

As the article hints that many doctors continue to practice even with severe drug addictions and their colleagues turn a blind eye, a patient needs every resource available to help protect themselves and hold bad doctors accountable.  This is why accessibility to doctor's disciplinary and legal action information is very important to everyone.  Illinois is one of the few states to have a website devoted to providing this important information.  (You can access it at  http://www.idfpr.com/)

Additionally, we need to allow victims of medical malpractice to have clear access to the Civil Justice System, where they can hold doctors accountable and warn others of potential bad doctors.  Lawsuits help warn others of potentially bad doctors and is an effective tool to get rid of them.