MD Whistleblower

Who says that bipartisanship is dead?  Just recently, Governors Cuomo and Christie – a Democrat and a Republican – were shoulder to shoulder as they announced a new and improved Ebola policy to protect their voters,  I mean citizens.  Now, every individual who was arriving at Newark and Kennedy International Airports from Liberia, Guinea and Sierra Leone who had direct contact with an Ebola patient, would face a mandatory 21 day quarantine.  This policy exceeds restrictions advocated by the Center for Disease Control and Doctors Without Borders, two organizations who presumably are better qualified in infection control than politicians are. Might this policy discourage our health experts from traveling to West Africa to help to control the Ebola epidemic as they would face a 3 week quarantine upon their return home? Might some folks who are returning home who don’t agree with this new policy lie about their Ebola contacts? What if travelers returning home from West Afr

While I haven’t devoted significant space on this blog to the news media, it is not because I do not have strong opinions on the current state of journalism.  Indeed, I could write an entire blog on the subject, and many have. News acquisition and analysis have always been important facets of my adult life.  I spend many hours every week reading various newspapers and other materials to gain new perspectives on the issues of the day.  Nearly every morning, I send items of interest to a close circle of friends and family.  I read news and opinion, although sometimes it’s hard to tell one from the other.  I am always drawn to opinions that differ from my own. While there is excellent journalism today, the profession is deeply flawed by a blow-dried approach that appeals to our tabloid lust and their desire for increased ratings.  Just because it’s above the fold on Page 1, doesn’t mean it truly deserves this prime real estate.  Pick up your own newspaper and see what the leading

One catch phrase in health care reform is cost-effectiveness.  To paraphrase, this label means that a medical treatment is worth the price.  For example, influenza vaccine, or ‘flu shot’, is effective in reducing the risk of influenza infection.  If the price of each vaccine were $1,000, it would still be medically effective, but it would no longer be cost-effective considering that over 100 million Americans need the vaccine.  Society could not bear this cost as it would drain too many resources from other worthy health endeavors.  Economists argue as to which price point determines cost-effectiveness for specific medical treatments.  As you might expect, insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies might reach different conclusions when the each perform a cost-benefit analysis.  Remember, it’s not just cost we’re focusing on here, but also effectiveness.  If a medicine is dirt cheap, but it doesn’t work, it’s not cost-effective.  Get it? Pharmaceutical companies who are

Giving prescription refills is not quite as fun as it used to be.  Years ago, we doctors would whip out our prescription pads – often sooner than we should have – and we’d scribble some coded language that pharmacists were trained to decipher.  I’m surprised there were not more errors owing to doctors’ horrendous penmanship.  On occasion, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) would require a pharmaceutical company to change the name of a drug so it wouldn’t be confused with another medicine with a similar name.   The name of the heartburn drug Losec was too similar to congestive heart failure drug Lasix, so the former drug name was changed to the familiar Prilosec.  Pharmacists Used the Rosetta Stone to Decode Prescriptions Photo Credit Nowadays, we physicians refill medicines with point and click techniques within our electronic medical record (EMR) system.  When this works, it’s a breeze.  Three clicks and the refill has been transmitted to the patient’s pharmacy. Alert