Wednesday, August 31, 2011

60% Of Hospital Uniforms Filled With Dangerous Bacteria

Fierce Healthcare has;

Gross but true: Up to 60 percent of uniforms worn by the medical and nursing staff tested positive for having potentially pathogenic bacteria, including drug-resistant organisms, according to a new study published in the American Journal of Infection Control.

Researchers tested the abdominal, sleeve, and pocket areas of physicians' and nurses' uniforms at an university-affiliated hospital. More than half (58 percent) of the medical and nursing staff said they changed their uniform every day and about three-quarters (77 percent) rated their hygiene as excellent. However, 65 percent of nurses' uniforms had pathogens, including 21 drug-resistant pathogens. Similarly, 60 percent of doctors' uniforms had pathogens, including six drug-resistant ones.

"It is important to put these study results into perspective," said APIC 2011 President Russell Olmsted in a press release today. "Any clothing that is worn by humans will become contaminated with microorganisms. The cornerstone of infection prevention remains the use of hand hygiene * to prevent the movement of microbes from these surfaces to patients."

Although the accrediting bodies offer guidance on hygiene and patient risk, many institutions decide for themselves how to carry out individual policies. For example, some institutions ban wearing ties and watches for patient safety. Although some institutions require that physicians limit wearing the traditional white coat, physicians tend to gravitate to wearing them, especially as evidence shows long versus short sleeves make no difference in bacteria growth.

For more information:
- read the
press release
- check out the study

Related Articles
Hospital pillow fail, filled with bacteria
Deadly hospital infection rates vary within states, hospital systems
Copper surfaces kill 97% hospital bacteria, cut infection

Thank You Fierce Healthcare & Ms Cheung

So let's all pay Rapt Attention and Blindly Swallow the BS we keep getting from Doctors, lecturing us about their 'Ethics', when 60% of their Industry can't even operate a Washing Machine.

And These Dirty Birds have the unmitigated Gall to Illegally Disable, Cripple & Kill their Defrauded customers based on Their Ideated, Moral Superiority in the Arena of 'Behaviors'.

* "Hand Hygiene" see what "Hand Hygiene" is actually Worth, in San Francisco's Government Hospital.

Even With Hall Monitors to chase them off to the wash basin they Still couldn't housebreak 18% of the Slobs.

This is what you're Paying for America.

How do you like it?

VA, PTSD, & Risperdal: Age Of Aquarius STUPIDITY Continues

After 10 Years of poisoning our Vets with Risperdal for being Officially BILLED as 'Ideationally PTSD Broken & Disposable', ....... by Quacks who've never Cured Jack, and those same Quacks having Witnessed 1st hand & in person that their Risperdal was No Better Than Placebo at mitigating Their Opinion of an 'Incurable Illness', ...... our Veterans Administration is pursuing the Same, Psychiatric Stupid it has enshrined as its Official "Triumph of Hope Over Experience" with Risperdal for the drug's Primary, On Label Indication of Schizophrenia.

Yes, the VA is going to buy even More of this Brain Damaging Neurotoxin in their Cover Fiction that if they just Keep Poisoning people with it, Somehow, When Their Moon is in the Seventh House and Jupiter aligns with Mars*, They & their New Age Science's Peace will Guide the Planets and Love will Steer the Stars Concurring MARXIST, psychiatric parasites** will Someday, achieve at least ONE, ....... Positive, Ideation.

** parasite |ˈparəˌsīt|noun: an organism that lives in or on another organism (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the host's expense.derogatory a person who habitually relies on or exploits others and gives nothing in return. Parasites exist in huge variety, including animals, plants, and microorganisms. They may live as ectoparasites on the surface of the host (e.g., arthropods such as ticks, mites, lice, fleas, and many insects infesting plants) or as endoparasites in the gut or tissues (e.g., many kinds of worm), and cause varying degrees of damage or disease to the host.ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via Latin from Greek parasitos ‘(person) eating at another's table,’ from para- ‘alongside’ + sitos ‘food.’

parasite: noun: she longed to be free of the parasites in her family: hanger on, cadger, leech, passenger; informal: bloodsucker, sponger, bottom feeder, scrounger,freeloader, mooch.

NextGov has;

this is the fourteenth story in an ongoing series.

The Veterans Affairs Department continues to issue contracts to purchase an anti-psychotic drug to treat post-traumatic stress disorder despite research showing the drug, risperidone, is no more effective than a placebo.

Nextgov reported Aug. 22 that VA spent $717 million over the past decade to purchase risperidone, the generic name for Risperdal, asecond-generation anti-psychotic drug originally developed by the Janssen Pharmaceuticals division of Johnson & Johnson to treat severe mental conditions such as schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

VA doctors prescribe the drug to treat PTSD, but a study by department researchers published Aug. 2 in the Journal of the American Medical Association concluded, "treatment with risperidone compared with placebo did not reduce PTSD symptoms."

Despite these findings, on Aug. 11, VA awarded a contract to Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. for more than 200,000 bottles of risperidone containing more than 20 million pills in multiple dosages. The announcement of the contract to the Morgantown, W.V., generic drug manufacturer did not provide a dollar value for the contract.

The Defense Department, Indian Health Service and Bureau of Prisons also can order off the Mylan contract, which has four option years.

The contract with Mylan is just one of more than 90 Federal Supply Schedule contracts for risperidone that VA has with other generic drug manufacturers and Janssen, according to the department's onlinepharmaceutical catalog.

The Food and Drug Administration has approved risperidone only for treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, and irritability associated with autistic disorder in children and adolescents, but clinicians can prescribe it for other conditions, a practice known as "off-label" use.

Janssen is under investigations by the Justice Department and several state attorneys general for its sales and marketing practices regarding Risperdal, according to Johnson & Johnson's quarterly report filed July 3 with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

A 2007 paper by two VA doctors who examined the marketing of second-generation anti-psychotic drugs provides insight into sales practices that contribute to such drugs' off-label use.

The paper, co-authored by Dr. Robert Rosenheck, a psychiatrist at the West Haven, Conn., VA medical center, reported that 639 department psychiatrists who responded to a Web survey said they were contacted an average of 14 times per year by pharmaceutical sales representatives, and were invited to attend continuing medical education seminars conducted by the companies.

Rosenheck, who also co-authored the Aug. 2 study on risperidone, reported that only half the assertions made by pharmaceutical sales representatives were consistent with FDA-approved labeling. "These findings suggest that there have been substantial discrepancies between information clinicians report having received in their contacts with industry representatives and FDA-approved information," he wrote.

Stay up-to-date with federal technology news alerts and analysis - sign up for Nextgov's email newsletters.

Thank You NextGov, & a Hat Tip to Involuntary Transformation for pointing this, yet One More Reason why Government Healthcare is a Rotten idea, out.

photo cred to RCA

Tuesday, August 30, 2011

Obamacare: State Exchanges: More Waste & Heavy Handed Federal Interference

Michigan Capitol Confidential has;

"By JACK MCHUGH | Aug. 24, 2011

The Washington Post reported this week that in the face of hesitation and outright resistance from governors and legislatures, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is "working on a new partnership model to let state agencies help run the exchange — perhaps without the need for legislative authorization."

The department says just 11 states have "embraced" the exchange idea, which is a core component of Obamacare. Under the law, if a state does not create a state exchange that complies with an extensive array of federal regulations, then the federal government will create its own exchange in the state. Health care experts critical of Obamacare say there will be little or no difference between state-created exchanges compared to a federal one, except that state-level taxpayers will have to pay the costs of the former.

In Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder has not yet decided whether to create a state Obamacare exchange, according to a state Department of Community Health spokesperson. The department has already performed the groundwork to create one, however, after accepting a $1 million Obamacare grant for the purpose. It convened a series of "work groups" comprised of individuals representing various special interests. Among other things, the process resulted in draft legislation that would authorize a state exchange.

See also: Michigan Creeps Closer to Obamacare 'Exchange'"

Thank You CapCon, & if you think That was a hurler;

The WSJ article linked in it under"extensive array" ought to Really Blow Your Lunch.

The Wall Street Journal has;

Exchange You Can't Believe In

"Maybe the most unknowing moment from President Obama's debt-limit press conference the other day was when he said that "I'd rather be talking about stuff that everybody welcomes, like new programs." Define everybody—and, please, let us know when the new programs are going to stop.

The latest to roll out are ObamaCare's insurance "exchanges," which will go live in 2014. On Monday the Health and Human Services Department released draft regulations telling the states how they must run these organizations, which are the core of the new entitlement and are where people will receive heavily subsidized coverage. HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius and the rest of the Obamacrats are using the language of choice and flexibility to sell their handiwork, but this is the triumph of euphemism over reality.

In principle, an exchange isn't the worst idea, and a transparent clearinghouse might even command bipartisan support. The individual and small-business insurance markets in the states are often patchy and opaque. A portal like an exchange could help restore price discovery to health care by allowing consumers to weigh costs against benefits and encouraging competition on insurance value. Utah built a pilot exchange on this model in 2009, though the results so far are mixed and the rules are still being fine-tuned.

Associated Press

HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius

HHS, unsurprisingly, envisions the exchanges as 50 (or more) new regulatory agencies designed to let politics run health markets, while letting Washington give orders to the states. The word "require" appears 811 times in the 244-page rule and its 103-page supplement. "Must" shows up 580 times—and this is merely HHS's first batch of exchange mandates.

Speaking of unknowing, try to decipher this passage: "The intent of this proposed rule is to afford States substantial discretion in the design and operation of an Exchange. Greater standardization is proposed where required by the statute or where there are compelling practical, efficiency or consumer protection reasons." Guess which of the impulses in those contradictory sentences won out?

The draft rules command that the structure of every exchange needs federal approval, much as in Medicaid, which in practice means an HHS veto of market-based innovation. State standards for the "certification, recertification, and decertification of health plans" will also be subject to HHS. This means Washington will dictate rules about which insurers are allowed to sell plans in the exchange, and thus which insurers will continue to exist as viable commercial concerns. It also looks as if HHS will require the exchanges to enforce de facto price controls on premiums.

This is the exchange model that prevails in Massachusetts, where Mitt Romney's "connector" has become a tool for controlling the insurance industry and picking health-care winners and losers. But at least the Bay State adopted the connector voluntarily, if unwisely. HHS is conscripting the states as its agents, directing their resources and making them complicit in the insurance disruptions to come.

Related Video

Deputy editor Daniel Henninger and Joseph Rago of the editorial board analyzes President Obama's Friday press conference.

Ms. Sebelius's false gesture toward federalism—states can do whatever they want, as long as they want to do exactly what she wants—also comes with a killer caveat: If states don't set up an exchange, or the exchange they create doesn't clear HHS scrutiny, HHS will impose its own version. The details of this federal fallback will come in a future regulation, timetable indefinite.

Many of our right-leaning friends are encouraging Republicans to refuse to set up an exchange, as an act of civil disobedience. In that sense HHS's delusions of competence could be a gift: As the agency has been implementing this defective law over the last year, it has made things even worse than they needed to be.

The dilemma for Governors is that their states are full of real insurance businesses and customers, and thus they have a responsibility to try to mitigate some of the regulatory damage. A posture of indifference is tempting, but it also means an all but certain death warrant for businesses and jobs when HHS eventually takes over.

A poorly designed exchange could send many insurers into a death spiral of unpayable claims, hastening consolidation, reducing competition, and increasing the political demand for government to run everything. This was precisely the goal of many Democrats who wrote the Affordable Care Act, and we suspect it is also HHS's motivation.

A better option is to resist strangulating federal control by fighting HHS over the shape and role of the exchange. Indiana's Mitch Daniels and 21 other governors specifically asked HHS for more exchange flexibility in February, though their letter went unanswered and the substance, obviously, went unheeded.

Today more than ever, rationalizing U.S. health care means fighting on many fronts, and the GOP doesn't have a chance if it walks off the field. Governors—and Republicans in Congress—should be telling voters how bad the new HHS rule is and the damage it will do if it is implemented."

Thank You CapCon And WSJ.

The WSJ serves the business community. The WSJ/Dow Jones is suing to open our Medicare Payments database so that America can find out WHO is actually defrauding them out of, Oh God, it's anybody's guess at this point, but at least $100-$120 Billion a year is going Lost to crooked Doctors & Junk Science Therapists every year.

Our current Administration wants to waste MORE money to buy MORE of the same, while telling the State Governments to Get In Line, or Washington will Get them in Line.

Who would You rather have running America?

At Least the WSJ Knows FRAUD when it sees it, ..... and Does Something About It.

Is The AMA Covering Up Medicare Fraud?

Here's 2 more Fraud Busters

Monday, August 29, 2011

PTSD: VA Wastes Hundreds of $Millions On Deadly Antipsychotics for NO BENEFIT has;

Friday, August 26, 2011

Institute Of Medicine Provides 'Medical' Cover For Sebelius

Andrew Brietbart's BIG GOVERNMENT has;

Institute of Medicine Provides ‘Medical’ Cover for Sebelius

by Dr. Susan BerryThere is a lot of talk, during these pre-presidential election days, of whether Republicans should stick to fiscal policy issues or include social issues as well in their platforms. Liberals are attacking fiscal/social conservatives, and some “establishment” Republicans are also criticizing their socially conservative colleagues, fearful that Independents will be turned off by the thought that Republicans are appearing rigid, strict, and hard.

Political strategy aside, however, what often strikes me about these debates, which always seem centered on how conservative Republicans are trying to force their social views on the nation, is that liberals do it all the time and are successful at it. Their belief that the government should take care of everyone, from birth till death, has permeated our national policies and slowly destroyed our economic stability.

Nowhere, in this most liberal of all administrations, is the forcing of liberal social ideology on the nation more clearly visible than in Obamacare, and in the person of Kathleen Sebelius, secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), who will be the most powerful woman in the United States if Barack Obama is re-elected in 2012.

As many of us heard earlier in the month, the Obama administration has approved a recommendation from the Institute of Medicine that the new healthcare law guarantee full health insurance coverage for birth control, including the “morning after” pill. Beginning August 1, 2012, health insurance plans will be required to provide full coverage- without co-payment, co-insurance, or deductible- not only for contraception, but also for breast-feeding support and other services. Ms. Sebelius said, “I want to thank the Institute of Medicine for providing this important report recommending additional preventive services for women’s health and well-being. This report is historic.”

According to Ms. Sebelius:

“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start…These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need.”

The Institute of Medicine (IOM) describes itself as “an independent, nonprofit organization that works outside of government to provide unbiased and authoritative advice to decision makers and the public.” The IOM states that its mission is to serve as “adviser to the nation to improve health.” Apparently, it focuses on much more than just health.

The IOM’s recommendations for full health insurance coverage for birth control are contained in itsreport, Clinical Preventive Service for Women, in which the IOM states that it was “charged” by the DHHS to review “what preventive services are important to women’s health and well-being and then recommending which of these should be considered in the development of comprehensive guidelines.”

The IOM’s response: just about all services should be covered by Obamacare, including a “fuller range of contraceptive education, counseling, methods, and services, services for pregnant women…and screening and counseling for interpersonal and domestic violence.”

Below is a list of some of the IOM’s other, most recent, reports:

  • Legal Strategies in Childhood Obesity Prevention, in which the IOM answers the question, “Could legal restrictions and regulations help combat childhood obesity?”

IOM’s answer is: more regulation.

  • Medical Devices and the Public’s Health: The FDA 510(k) Clearance Process at 35 Years, a study which was requested by the FDA, an agency of DHHS, in which the conclusion drawn is that “FDA’s finite resources should be invested in developing an integrated premarket and postmarket regulatory framework.”

IOM’s conclusion is: more funding for more regulation.

  • Learning What Works: Infrastructure Required for Comparative Effectiveness Research, in which the IOM bemoans the fact that “only a small fraction of health-related expenditures in the U.S. have been devoted to comparative effectiveness research,” and hopes that, with more funding, the nation’s healthcare system will be more “evidenced-based” and of “higher value.”

This will be a report that the president’s Medicare Independent Payment Advisory Board (IPAB) will likely use as their bible to determine whether spending more money on the elderly’s healthcare is based on sound “evidence” that the money will be well spent, and of a high enough “value” for the rest of society. Here again: more funding for more regulation.

  • A Nationwide Framework for Surveillance of Cardiovascular and Chronic Lung Diseases, in which the IOM calls upon DHHS to adopt its recommended national surveillance system.

More mandatory regulation for research.

  • Improving Access to Oral Health Care for Vulnerable and Underserved Populations, in which the IOM states it was “asked” by the Health Resources Services Administration and the California HealthCare Foundation to assess the current oral health care system and make “recommendations on ways to improve access to care for vulnerable and underserved populations.” The IOM’s recommendations: “incorporate oral health care into overall health care…and change how oral health care is financed and delivered.”

IOM’s answer is: more federal regulation so that oral healthcare is fully covered in the national insurance program.

The “independent” Institute of Medicine does not appear to be quite so “independent” after all. When we read the list of reports prepared by the IOM, it seems that many, if not most, of its “recommendations” have been incorporated into Obamacare, or set up as “guidelines” that become requirements for private health insurance providers. We might logically conclude from this relationship between IOM and the Obama administration that its directors will also be members of the “independent” IPAB and other such “panels.”

In fact, following the IOM’s recommendations on full birth control coverage and “other” preventive services for women, one member of the IOM panel, Dr. Anthony Lo Sosso of the University of Illinois, dissented to these very recommendations. Dr. Lo Sasso stated that IOM generated recommendations without engaging in sufficient time to fully review all the evidence before it, and that the decisions made by IOM were made based on politics, rather than science:

“The view of this dissent is that the committee process for evaluation of the evidence lacked transparency and was largely subject to the preferences of the committee’s composition. Troublingly, the process tended to result in a mix of objective and subjective determinations filtered through a lens of advocacy.”

With this self-professed “independent” research institute at her side, providing her with “medical” and “science” coverage, Kathleen Sebelius is fast on her way to becoming the most powerful woman in the nation, a realization that should urge members of Congress, the peoples’ representatives, to do everything possible to repeal and replace Obamacare before the legislation cannot be undone. A run of interference by the Supreme Court to declare the individual mandate “unconstitutional” is only an assist for the real operation- which Congress must perform- to cure us of this onerous legislation that will do to our healthcare system what has already been done to our economy.

According to Ms. Sebelius:

“The Affordable Care Act helps stop health problems before they start…These historic guidelines are based on science and existing literature and will help ensure women get the preventive health benefits they need.”

Would those preventative health benefits also include 'End of Life' Counseling?

And how many women would even Want a child anyway, after being Gouged out of their eye teeth & into the street to Pay for this Pack of Socialist FRAUDS.

So what's next from our fearless leaders? A One Child policy?

Whether You like it or Not, ...... abortions, birth control etc, ...... have NO business being paid for by Government, ....... as they are NOT, unforeseeable, unavoidable medical developments.

They are the product of BEHAVIORS, and As Such, None of Government's business.