Think the PI industry isn't a healthcare cost problem?

Think again. There's a law firm advertising on local channels in the Philly market, Stark & Stark, fishing for Vioxx suits, which led me to do a little research.

Here are just a few of the stellar examples of why this crap needs to stop:

http://www.vioxxsettlements.com/

http://www.williamsbailey.com/practices/vioxx-landing-page.shtml

http://www.injury-vioxx.com/

http://www.branchlawfirm.com/vioxx.shtml

http://www.personal-injury.com/practice_areas/Vioxx_Lawsuit.asp

http://vioxx.poweradvocates.com/vioxx_lawsuit.html

http://vioxxlawsuit.lawinfo.com/

http://www.alexanderlaw.com/vioxx/

http://www.opolaw.com/defective-drugs/vioxx/

http://www.classactionamerica.com/Current-Cases/vioxx-lawsuit.asp

These slimeballs can't get their web sites updated fast enough.

Rodger, what's your take on this?

 

In the Sunday Fort Worth Startle Gram there were no less than eight Viox-law firm ads...

:down:

 

My wife took Viox... Luckily she has suffered no ill effects and has switched to a different class 2 inhibitor.

If she would have been seriously harmed would we be wrong to seek justice?

Mal-practice costs represent LESS than .5% of medical costs in this country. Medical malpractice premiums represent less that 1.5% of same. (seems insurors are doing ok as well) This is a large number in Dollar figures but a very small percentage of the whole. (my insurance costs as a track day provider are WELL into the double digits as a percentage of my sales)

I admit that nusince siuts are bad but when the largest Phamicutical company on the planet screws the pooch like this and people die they MUST be held responsible for their actions.

This medication was not experimental or even considered risky. Docs were handing this shit out like candy. Two other class 2 inhibitors seem to be problem free.... Hmmmm.

The rewards in this industry are the highest (check earnings reports for this market segment) the risk are also very high. High risk and high reward go hand in hand for a reason. I realize that development and time to market costs are huge as well but it seems to be working, my portfolio has done VERY well in this sector even after Merk adjustment.

Should attorneys be banned from advertising? This seems very unfair. There are ALOT of potential folks out there that may have been harmed by Viox.

I feel that advertisment is just fine. The judicial system needs to decide which cases have merrit and which do not.

My .02 worth

 

I think you should be able to sue the fda for it they passed it. Merk pulled it by itself however there were facts pointing that way that got them to spend the millions on the studies.

 

I dont think anyone is particularly against law suits altogether its just the ridiculous frivolous amounts these vultures are shooting for the past decade or so.

 

Your number includes only the cost of medical malpractice torts against providers, not all torts related to healthcare, so it's significantly understated and not representative of the total cost of litigation. It does not include, for example, the cost of torts against medical device manufacturers or pharmas. Medical malpractice torts account for 10% of the entire US tort system, costing every man, worman and child in America $85 per year in 2002. Since 1975, medical malpractice tort claims have risen an average of 11.9% per year vs. 9.3% for all other torts. As a result, about every major insurance company has exited the medical malpractice insurance business due to high cost from rising tort claims.

I don't see how you can blame the company. Pharmaceuticals are regulated by the FDA, and there are extensive clinical trials performed by pharma companies and submitted to the CDER before a drug goes to market. Nobody, that means even the pharma companies can forsee all of the effects of any drug until there is widespread exposure. How is that "screwing the pooch"? And, what were the "actions" you want to hold them responsible for - manufacturing a drug that can improve the life of patients?

Humans and the machines and other things that they invent, like pharmaceuticals, are not perfect, nor should they be expected to be. Nobody holds a gun to anyone's head and forces them to take any prescription drug. Doing so accepts a given amout of risk, and one should be prepared for the consequences. Every prescription drug I've ever taken comes with a packet that discloses the risks of using the drug. Even the FDA does not claim that drugs that they approve are safe for everyone - only that on balance the benefits outweigh any adverse reactions.

 

REPLY: Insurance companies simply need to stop insuring BAD doctors or raise pemiums so high they MUST quit. You have a good driving record you get good rates. I have a bad one I get put in teh high risk pool and pay out my ass. Why not attack the problem which is bad doctors?? Why not open records so we AND insurers can find bad Docs and get rid of them? Because the AMA is even stronger than the Trial Lawyers when it comes to influence on The Hill.

How can one NOT blame the drug company? Who else can be blamed. Merk developed, tested, maketed and profited from years and years of selling this drug. Regarding widespread exposure.... This wasn't some brand new drug Frank. This and Celebrix hit the market at nearly the same time and have been widely used for years. Anymore widespread and it would be an otc med.

Merk should have noticed this serious side-effect in data from clinical trials or at the very least in long-term follow on studies. They missed something somewhere and it wasn't trivial. They made a ton of cash and now they will pay a little of it back. Unfortunately poeple died as a result.


So if "Mrs. Angel" died from heart problems brought on by using this drug would Frank be ok with it becasue it brought her "quality of life" while she was alive??

 

The Medical and Legal professions need to have self regulation removed,,,, If Lawyers would sue each other with the same zeal they sue the medical profession this would be a better country!

 

The rate of malpractice claims has not changed since 1975 according to the CBO - 15 of every 100 doctors are hit each year. 30% of those result in an insurance payment. Are you claiming that 15% of doctors in the US are "bad doctors"?

However, the same CBO study reveals that malpractice awards rose by 100% from 1996 through 2000.

That's an oversimplification. It has been well known that an adverse reaction to COX-2 inhibitors and NSAIDS is congestive heart failure and other cardiac problems. Vioxx is by no means unique in this regard. Even ibuprofin has been found to cause heart failure. Was your wife aware of the possible risk? Are you saying that Vioxx patients are unaware of the risk of possible adverse reactions to the drug they were taking and somehow that's Merck's fault?

I think I've adequately described my position on this. With prescription drugs, like other things in life, you pay your money and you take your chances. Patients using drugs should understand the risk for adverse reactions and asses the risk vs the benefit before using them.

Until it is proven that Merck acted recklessly by continuing to sell the drug knowing that it was directly responsible for heart failure, or that they concealed the possible adverse reactions then IMHO Vioxx lawsuits can be filed directly in the greed hopper.

 

FA you forgot to say according to NEJM that the doctors that were judged more competent by thier peers had a higher number of suits brought against them.

most suits that are settled are settled by the insurance company often against the doc's wishes.

 

Well this is funny, check out the SPAM I just got.

Return-Path: <[email protected]>
Received: from serv22.hangsip.com (serv22.hangsip.com [206.81.89.22])
by mail.ecomnet.net (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id i9K388TC024333
for <xxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:08:08 -0400 (EDT)
To: xxxxxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:07:18 -0800
Message-ID: <[email protected]>
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2173.0
From: class-action<[email protected]>
Subject: Breaking news for all Vioxx users
MIME-Version: 1.0
Comments: senaxn^rpbzarg(arg
Content-type: text/html;
Content-disposition: inline
X-UIDL: 1p<!!Ol_!!n#^"!_%R"!

 

I've palyed a little Devil's advoctate here...

All of you guys have some really valid points and so do I.

The Doc who perscribed the Viox for my wife is one of the best Docs I have ever dealt with. Younger sports med guy who actually listens to his patients and is not a pretentious "I know more than you" a-hole.

Defensive medicine costs us a very large percentage of our expenditures. I ran my finger through a chain a few years back.
All I needed was cleaning and and a couple of stitches. The poor GP had a fit when I refused X-rays. (I'm not big on useless gamma exposure, I figure I'll save my doses for when I really need it) He said that if there were no films that he would need me to sign a waiver saying that I refused... So I did. Finger works just fine, it's the middle one and I use it a lot!

This was a very simple example of defensive medicine.

Why would judges want to stop lawsuits?? I mean heck, where do judges come from.. The solution is not to remove the victims rights but to actually place lawyers and plaintiffs under some sort of responsability clause with financial and professional penalties for bullshit suits.

We don't have enough bandwidth here to go into this issue even 10%.

I still stand by my opinion that Merk needs to take reponsability for a defective product. They will and Merk will go on helping millions of people and making money for its shareholders. This is a bump in the road, nothing more for them.

Regarding 15% of all Docs being incompatant, yes I think that is an accurate figure. The 80/20 rule applies to most everything. 20% of teh profession is causing 80% of the problems. Same with Lawyers. My former "spousal unit" came from a big family of Doc's and the stories were really scarry. Doctors either pass or fail boards. That means they could be in the bottom 1% and still head on out and be your Blue Cross Blue Shield primary! Heck with HMO's choice is very limited in many cases and you are forced to take what they give you.

The average person taking these meds does not posess teh medical aptitude to evaluate risk factors. That is why we place so much trust in Doctors, Phamacists and the drug companies themselves to test these compounds.

Drug interaction and risk are a fact of life. However, when a company breeches the public and professional trust, they will be held resonsible and rightly so.

 

This really does suck and I feel that Merck is responsible but I don't think that they should be required to make millionaires out of a bunch of people that MAY have some negative affect from Vioxx. That is what usually happens in these cases from my experience(based on a father that retired from the insurance business).

These lawsuits and their impacts are way understated with that 1% claim that the two lawyers running against Bush are spewing. The lawyers and the insurance companies are scamming everyone right now.

We do alot of contracting for Merck. This is NOT going to be a bump in the road for them. This is going to tear their ass up bad when it all pans out. What is sad is that they probably delayed pulling the stuff for a bit to "make sure" the data is correct. Hell, it should have gained them some money to help with legal fees though.

 

I don't think they waited to pull Vioxx, the data was so alarming they pulled it before the end of the study! This was a good move on their part.

I beleive they will come through it. They have a very capable CEO and he is a realist as well. God knows they have mad enough money over the years.

If for some reason they do not make it, this is corporate Darwinism.

Remember, one of the key rules of business...... "we succeed as long as we earn enough money to pay for our mistakes"

BTW - Our legal system does not hand out jury awards for people who "MAY" have beed harmed. The burden of proof is on the plaintiff. Sometimes companies choose to settle with those who "may" have been harmed and this is thier choice, not the systems.

 

Those settlements are actually what I typically refer to since they are what happens more times than not. Settlements way outnumber the actually jury decisions and that is part of why the problem at hand with health care cost and lawyers is so understated.

I hope you are right about Merck but I don't think you are. This is going to hit them hard. Who knows though with the amount of buyouts that take place within the phama industry. Shit we have trouble cutting and pasting work plans and contracts because their official names change so often. Merck seems to be one of the more stable though so maybe they can weather it.

I also hope you are right about them pulling the product early. I haven't looked into the details of it. It is definitely a smart thing to do.

 

frank is right. my company had an issue with a aortic graph a couple of years back. as soon as the product was disclosed, the product was pulled. the original problem was found by the original company, but was squashed by them so that theu get be bought by my company. well, guess who took the hit? that's right, my company, and the doctors who used it. funny thing is, that there were few adverse effects, and i believe one or two deaths that COULD have been attributed to the device. these same bullshit law ads popped up all over the place, many of them with just plain WRONG information on them. but of course, people will try to be millionares, and a good company will suffer. lawyers are doing great things for people.

hate to break it to folks, but many clinical studies have been body bag counts at the end.

 

More often than not I'm guessing.

Miracle drugs are called miracle drugs for a reason.

 

Yes Brad and people CHOOSE to be included in these studies. Correct? The understand that what they are about to engage in could and very well might be risky. Much different than some poor sob on Vioxx because his wrists ache from CTS....

 

STT, you can argue for PI lawyers all you want. the fact is, they hurt medicine, and are merely leaches on what they percieve as a bottomless money pit.

 

Not sure about other states, but it is VERY difficult to bring a med mal suit agaisnt a doctor in NY - in Buffalo there are few firms that will even take those case for a plaintiff unless the injuries are horrific and the liability is clear. And at one point there were 27 defense verdicts in a row in Erie County Supreme Court med mal cases.


The real med mal insurance crisis: The med mal insurance companies are not making as much off their investments because of market volitility and pass that loss along to the docs.

My message to docs who complain about lawsuits: Do a better job of policing your own and keep the incompetent docs from killing and crippling their patients.