Bad Anesthesiologist Busted By Patient Recording

A patient planned to use his smartphone to record his post-colonoscopy home instructions. When he listend afterwards, he found that he inadvertently recorded the whole procedure, including while he was unconscious during sedation.

To his dismay, this included extremely unprofessional discussions:

But as soon as he pressed play on his way home, he was shocked out of his anesthesia-induced stupor: He found that he had recorded the entire examination and that the surgical team had mocked and insulted him as soon as he drifted off to sleep.

In addition to their vicious commentary, the doctors discussed avoiding the man after the colonoscopy, instructing an assistant to lie to him, and then placed a false diagnosis on his chart.

The patient sued and was awarded total damages of $500,000.  For more details read the full piece, "Anesthesiologist trashes sedated patient — and it ends up costing her" (Washington Post, 6/23/2015).

On a related note, I do think that patients should consider recording their conversations with doctors in an open fashion, with mutual consent.  I discuss this in my recent Forbes piece, "Why You Should Record Your Doctor Visits" (Forbes, 2/16/2015.)

(Pictured below, Dr. Tiffany Ingham, the anesthesiologist in question.  Image from Washington Post article cited above.)

IJ Tackles CONs

The Institute for Justice is now taking on CON (Certificate of Need) laws, using Virginia as their test case.

They've posted details at: "CON JOB: How A Virginia Law Enriches Established Businesses by Limiting Your Medical Options, and How IJ Is Going to Stop It".

IJ attorney Darpana Sheth also has a nice OpEd in the 6/5/2012 Washington Times, "Requiring higher health care costs".

Here's an extended excerpt:

Dr. Mark Monteferrante, a board-certified radiologist with more than 19 years of experience. Dr. Monteferrante specializes in interpreting images of the brain and spine. He and his team of radiologists and staff offer services in nine offices in Maryland and one in the District.

Dr. Monteferrante wants to open an office in Northern Virginia to bring his team’s special expertise diagnosing bone and joint injuries to the area. He and his team are all licensed to practice in Virginia. They have a great client base and access to capital to buy an MRI scanner, which they need in order to open a new office.

The only problem is that Virginia makes it a crime to purchase an MRI scanner without first getting special permission from the government. Under Virginia’s “certificate-of-need” program, Dr. Monteferrante must first prove to the Department of Health that there is a “need” for his radiology services and a new MRI machine in Northern Virginia. To make matters worse, existing businesses are allowed to participate in the process to oppose Dr. Monteferrante’s application.

Under Virginia’s complicated scheme, Dr. Monteferrante must submit to a lengthy and costly application process which, on average, lasts eight months and costs $20,000, plus hundreds of thousands of dollars more in consulting and attorney fees. After all that time and money, approval is far from certain...

Here's their short explanatory video:



I've practiced medicine in states without and with such Certificate of Need requirements.

These CONs jack up prices and reduce access for patients, to benefit those providers with enough political "pull" to restrict competition.

Kudos to the Institute for Justice for tackling this important issue!

Virginia Update

David Catron explains the importance of the latest positive court decision on Virginia's challenge to ObamaCare.

Ilya Somin offers some additional legal analysis.

Virginia Legislature Outlaws Mandatory Insurance

From the February 12, 2010 New York Times:

Virginia Legislature Passes Ban on Insurance Mandate

The Virginia House of Delegates on Friday passed legislation intended to shield citizens from any federal requirement that they purchase health insurance. The bill goes to the governor for signing.

Assuming the governor signs this bill, it means that any attempt by the federal government to impose mandatory insurance could create a constitutional issue that might ultimately need to be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Quick Links: Minnesota, Virginia, Catron

Great story about a Minnesota concierge physician who makes house calls.

Virginia state senate says "no" to mandatory insurance. With bipartisan support.

"Who Killed ObamaCare?" According to David Catron, it wasn't "Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, the Tea Party movement, insurance lobbyists or even Scott Brown." Find out here.

Basu: "Who Should Pay for Autism Treatment?"

The March 1, 2009 Undercurrent has an excellent discussion of Virginia's proposed autism coverage mandate by Rituparna Basu. Here's an excerpt:

Who Should Pay for Autism Treatment?

Medical treatment for autism is exceedingly expensive. Many parents of autistic children take out a second mortgage on their homes and some even file for bankruptcy because they are unable to pay the costs of autism treatment that insurance does not cover. Many believe that this situation is not fair and that the government should step in to alleviate the hardships these parents endure.

In Virginia, proponents of House Bill 83 are trying to pass a law, similar to one already passed in eight other states, that would require insurance companies to cover the medical costs of treating children with autism.

...Insurance companies' costs will obviously increase if they are forced to pay for the treatment of autistic children. To offset this additional cost, insurance companies will do one of two things: they will either offer fewer medical services to maintain the current premiums or increase the premiums for everyone. In the former case, vital medical services will no longer be covered, and patients who rely on these services will have to pay more for them. In the latter case, all insured individuals will be charged a higher premium, which means that some people who have health insurance will no longer be able to afford it and fewer employers will be able to offer health insurance to their employees.

...People work hard to earn money in order to attain those goods and services that make their lives enjoyable and worth living. Consider what this bill means to those who do not have autistic children: instead of spending their money on that which they value, now they will be forced to spend that money on other people's autistic kids. Many families who already find health insurance difficult to afford will now be forced to decide whether they want to spend more for their health insurance or instead use this money for other important expenses, such as investing it towards a college education for their children or paying their rent or mortgage. If it is unfair for parents of autistic children to have to pay their children's medical bills, how much more unfair is it for other parents to have to pay the same bills? Demanding that people hand over their hard-earned money without regard for the consequences such an action will inflict on their lives is unjust.

Read the whole thing here.

I especially like the fact that Ms. Basu integrates the economic and moral arguments against insurance mandates. IMHO, we badly need more such health policy analysis along these lines.