You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2010.

“The existing process in some way thwarts innovation. By definition, the 510K approval is designated for substantial equivalence. That is, the device must do something in the same way as an existing device that was previously approved.”


What drives the wild swings in medical malpractice premiums? Insurance premiums are no different in bonds in how they fluctuate in prices based on the return in investments.

Each bond pays a fixed coupon payment, usually every six months. That payment determines the rate of return, or the interest. For instance, if a bond pay $50 every six months and costs $1,000 to buy then the interest rate is $100/$1000 = 10%.   However, if investors bid up bond prices then the interest rate falls because the coupon payment does not change. For example, if the bond price is bid higher to $2,000 then the interest rate is $100/$2000 = 5%

Insurance companies have to invest the premiums they receive from doctors. This means that they have to adjust their rates based on the return on investment because they have to maintain their reserves.

So how does it work? If I can invest $1.00 at 8%, I’ll have $1.71 in seven years. If I can only invest at say 3%, I’d need $1.39 to have $1.71 in seven years. That would imply a 39% rate increase just on that factor.

You can easily see that large fluctuations in premiums could very well be driven by the insurance companies investments.

“I was first ignored, then pressured to change my scientific opinion, and when I refused to do that, I was intimidated and ultimately terminated,” he said in an interview. “And I’m going to tell the committee exactly that at this meeting.”

I have one question regarding this news report. Why did the FDA miss this? Was it not reported by the drug company? Why did the drug company just not do this on their own?


“Ex-Toyota lawyer says documents prove company hid damaging information”

What if you had lost your infant in a Toyota. If you were in California or Texas there is a cap of $250,000 on pain and suffering.

Who is looking out for you? California has a cap of pain and suffering of $250,000. Is this the reason even after this happened to seven infants at one hospital no action was taken.

Once again the jury, the common man, has spoken but with no real voice.

Money can buy you safety from the justice and the Republicans are very happy to obliged. Be careful because you could be next as the Chamber of Commerce marches down the tort reform list industry by industry.

The award probably will not stand because the cap in Texas for punitive damages is $2 million. The people have spoken but the those with power and money with the Republicans have the final say because they drive the tort reform debate and laws.

“A jury has ordered Houston homebuilder Bob Perry to pay $51 million to a retirement-age Mansfield couple who fought for a decade over a defective house that Perry Homes refused to fix. Perry is the biggest campaign contributor in Texas and a major figure in tort reform championed by Gov. Rick Perry (no relation) to limit lawsuits and cap jury awards against business.”

Another example of a frivolous lawsuit. I wonder if this woman is suing this clinic? Were these chambers really that old or is this a disgruntled employee?

And, of course if you lived in Texas or California your burns would be worth $250,000.

“A highly flammable oxygen chamber at a private clinic exploded into flames Friday, critically burning a woman and a young boy who was plucked from the fiery bed by a Broward Sheriff’s Office deputy.”

Again what percentage of all lawsuits are frivolous? What percentage of all medical malpractice results in a lawsuit?

Share this blog

Bookmark and Share