Archive for February 3rd, 2009

Missed it by That Much III

February 3rd, 2009 | No Comments | Source: Wall Street Journal

Each year between 2003 and 2007, University of Wisconsin spine surgeon Thomas Zdeblick told the school he received $20,000 or more from Medtronic, the nation’s largest producer of spinal devices.

waittillthebosshearsthis1 Missed it by That Much IIIHis disclosure was consistent with university policies which do not require scientists to specify the amount received if it exceeds $20,000.

But Republican Senator Charles Grassley, who has raised exposing conflicts of interest in health care to an art form, just informed the University that Zdeblick raked in an astounding $19 million from Medtronic over that period.

“I am concerned that Wisconsin’s reporting requirements do not go far enough to fully capture a physician’s potential conflict of interest,” Grassley understated in a letter obtained by the Wall Street Journal.

Robert Golden, the medical school dean had no choice but to come clean. He agreed the University’s disclosure policies were “indefensible,” and vowed to toughen them up.

mrclean Missed it by That Much III“Clearly there is a big difference between $20,000 and $20 million,” Golden told the Journal. 

Charles Rosen, a spine surgeon who is president of the Association for Medical Ethics, said Wisconsin’s disclosure policies were in line with other medical schools, for whatever that’s worth.

“When you are advocating devices or procedures, it can’t be said this is a private matter and that no one should know how much this company is paying me,” he told the Journal.

Zdeblick maintains he doesn’t take royalties for products he uses, and that he has informed patients of his relationships with Medtronic. 

medtroniclogo2 Missed it by That Much IIIYears ago, Medtronic employees accused the company of inducing surgeons to use its spinal devices with perks and payoffs. In 2006, Medtronic paid $40 million to settle the allegations. As part of the settlement, employees dropped their claims and Medtronic denied unlawful behavior.

comments


Subject(s): ,

Cape Wind Wins One

February 3rd, 2009 | No Comments | Source: NY Times, Wall Street Journal

Last week, the Department of the Interior concluded that a proposed 24 square-mile wind farm 5 miles off Cape Cod posed no threat to the environment.

viewfromkennedycompound 300x141 Cape Wind Wins OneThe conclusion represented a victory for the Cape Wind project, which wants to become the nation’s first offshore wind farm.

Many Cape residents, including Senator Edward Kennedy oppose the project on grounds that it would hurt wildlife and tourism, not to mention mess with the views from certain family compounds in Hyannis.

Cape Wind would cost $1 billion to build. It would include 130 turbines rising 440 feet above Nantucket Sound. On clear days, turbines would be visible a half inch above the horizon.

The project’s contractor is Energy Management Inc. Its president, Jim Gordon hopes construction can begin this year and that Cape Wind can produce electricity in 3 years.

 “We think this wind farm is going to be embraced by…Cape Cod (and)…the nation” Gordon told the New York Times.  “It has already encouraged other states to look at developing…coastal wind resources.”

So now it’s up to the Big O administration to rule on the decision. If it favors Cape Wind, it’s free and clear to lease an appropriate part of the Sound to Energy Management.

Except maybe not so fast. Turns out the FAA has to decide whether the farm would interfere with airplane radar, and the Coast Guard needs to assure it doesn’t mess with marine radar.

Also pending is an investigation by the inspector general at the Department of the Interior which was requested by locals who raised concerns about procedural issues in the review.

Project advocates believe Cape Wind can supply 75% of the electricity required by the Cape, Nantucket and Martha’s Vineyard while cutting emissions by an amount equal to that produced by 175,000 cars. Detractors say it will double electricity costs.

comments


Subject(s):

Youth Dropping Sleepers

February 3rd, 2009 | No Comments | Source: NY Times

Sleeping pill utilization tripled in young adults between 1998 and 2006, according to a Thomson Reuters analysis of claims from a cohort of employers.

shouldadroppedambienlastnite Youth Dropping SleepersAt the beginning of the period, there were 599 users per 100,000 young- and college-aged adults. By 2006, the number had risen to 1,525 users, or 1.5% of this population.

Still, sleeper dropping was much less common in this group than adults in the 35 to 44 age bracket. There, utilization increased from 3.3% to 4.4% over the same period.

The most popular sleepers were Lunesta and  Ambien CR which cost a small fortune compared to generic benzodiazepines which are so yesterday and believed by some to have a higher dependency risk.

In young adults chronic insomnia is a frequent presenting symptom of mental health problems like anxiety disorders and depression, and by the way Mary Susan Esther, president of the American Academy of Sleep Medicine can’t believe how non-conducive college dorms are to sacking out.

Having walked on these campuses,” she recounted for the New York Times, “I can tell you it’s changed a lot. It used to be fairly quiet by 2am. Now that is sort of midday. That’s the part I worry about most.”

Changing cultural attitudes toward prescription drug use are driving increased sleeper utilization, according to Eric Plakun, a psychiatrist and director of admissions at Austen Riggs Center.

“This is a generation that was raised on Ritalin and Adderall,” he told the Times. “They and their parents have turned to medication and found (it) can be helpful.”

By the way, most of the users got prescriptions from their family doctors or internists, not some spam pharmacy deal.

comments


Subject(s):

We just want the site to look nice!
  • Comment Policy


    Pizaazz encourages the posting of comments that are pertinent to issues raised in our posts. The appearance of a comment on Pizaazz does not imply that we agree with or endorse it.

    We do not accept comments containing profanity, spam, unapproved advertising, or unreasonably hateful statements.



























Contact us if interested