Copyright

(c) 2010-2024 Jon L Gelman, All Rights Reserved.

Thursday, January 17, 2013

Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: FDA Issues a Alert on Potential Risks

The US FDA has issued an alert concerning Metal-on-metal hip implants consist of a ball, stem and shell, all made from cobalt-chromium-molybdenum alloys. 
There are two types of metal-on-metal hip implants:
  • Traditional total hip replacement systems
  • Resurfacing hip systems
Purpose: In February 2011, the FDA launched a metal-on-metal hip implant webpage. The FDA is providing updated safety information and recommendations to patients and health care providers.  This new information is based on the FDA’s current assessment of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the benefits and risks, the evaluation of the published literature, and the results of the June 2012 Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Advisory Panel meeting.

Summary of Problem and Scope:
Metal-on-metal hip implants have unique risks in addition to the general risks of all hip implants.
In metal-on-metal hip implants, the metal ball and the metal cup slide against each other during walking or running. Metal can also be released from other parts of the implant where two implant components connect.  Metal release will cause some tiny metal particles to wear off of the device around the implant, which may cause damage to bone and/or soft tissue surrounding the implant and joint. This is sometimes referred to as an “adverse local tissue reaction (ALTR)” or an “adverse reaction to metal debris (ARMD).”
Soft tissue damage may lead to pain, implant loosening, device failure and the need for revision surgery (a surgical procedure where the implant is removed and another is put in its place). Some of the metal ions released will enter the bloodstream and travel to other parts of the body, where they may cause symptoms or illnesses elsewhere in the body (systemic reactions).
Presently, the FDA does not have enough scientific data to specify the concentration of metal ions in a patient’s body or blood necessary to produce adverse systemic effects.  In addition, the reaction seems to be specific to individual patients, with different patients having different reactions to the metal wear particles.
Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons:
Before Surgery
  • Select a metal-on-metal hip implant for your patient only after determining that the benefit-risk profile of using a metal-on-metal hip implant outweighs that of using an alternative hip system (metal-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-polyethylene, ceramic-on-ceramic or ceramic-on-metal).  Factors to consider include the patient’s age, sex, weight, diagnosis, and activity level.
    • Note that a 2012 FDA advisory panel of experts identified young males with larger femoral heads as the best candidates for hip resurfacing systems. 
  • Inform patients about the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip implants, including the risk that the hip implant may need to be replaced. Also discuss the patient’s expectations and review the potential complications of surgery with a metal-on-metal hip implant.
  • Pay close attention to patient populations for which metal-on-metal hip systems are contraindicated.  Be aware of the risk factors that may predispose a device to excess wear and early failure. 
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for orthopaedic surgeons before, during and immediately following metal-on-metal hip replacement surgery can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
Patient Follow-Up
  • Follow-up of asymptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, including physical examinations and routine radiographs, should occur periodically (typically every 1 to 2 years).  If the hip is functioning properly, the FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely perform additional soft tissue imaging or assess metal ion levels in the blood.
  • Be aware that there are certain patients who are at risk for increased device wear and/or adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR) and should be followed more closely. They may include:
    • Patients with bilateral implants
    • Patients with resurfacing systems with small femoral heads (44mm or smaller)
    • Female patients
    • Patients receiving high doses of corticosteroids
    • Patients with evidence of renal insufficiency
    • Patients with suppressed immune systems
    • Patients with suboptimal alignment of device components
    • Patients with suspected metal sensitivity (e.g. cobalt, chromium, nickel)
    • Patients who are severely overweight
    • Patients with high levels of physical activity.
  • Pay close attention to signs and symptoms that may be associated with metal-on-metal hip implants. Please see the website for a list of common ALTRs and systemic symptoms/complications.
  • Conduct a thorough evaluation if a patient with a metal-on-metal hip experiences local symptoms such as pain or swelling at or near the hip, a change in walking ability or a noise from the hip joint more than three months after metal-on-metal hip implant surgery. 
  • Follow symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants at least every 6 months.
Additional information on the FDA’s recommendations for patient follow-up can be found in Information for Orthopaedic Surgeons.
For additional information regarding soft tissue imaging or assessing metal ion levels, please review the FDA’s recommendations below.
Imaging
For some symptomatic patients with metal-on-metal hip implants, additional diagnostic imaging is required to assess and diagnose soft tissue findings surrounding the implant.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of using different types of diagnostic imaging procedures (e.g. MRI with metal artifact reduction, CT, or ultrasound) as well as the availability of specialized radiology expertise when determining the most appropriate imaging modality for each patient.
If you determine that an MRI of a metal-on-metal hip implant patient is appropriate, the FDA recommends the following:
  • Consult with the radiologist to evaluate the benefits and risks of utilizing MRI with metal artifact reduction;
  • Review the available device-specific labeling from manufacturers for MRI Conditions; and
  • Inform the MRI site that the patient has a metal-on-metal hip implant.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations about imaging a patient with a metal-on-metal hip implant, please see Imaging Evaluation.
Assessing Metal Ion Levels
Some patients with a metal-on-metal hip implant may have elevated metal ion levels (e.g. cobalt and/or chromium) in their bloodstream.  Several factors can impact the accuracy, reproducibility, and clinical interpretation of metal ion test results.  Please be aware of the FDA’s recommendations:
  • The FDA does not believe there is a clear need to routinely check metal ion levels in the blood if the orthopaedic surgeon feels the hip is functioning properly and the patient is asymptomatic.
  • Patients with metal-on-metal hip implants who develop any symptoms or physical findings that indicate their device may not be functioning properly, should be considered for metal ion testing.  
  • If measuring metal ions, consider obtaining and following serial measurements (using the same sample type, the same measurement method, and preferably the same laboratory) in determining metal ion levels in symptomatic patients.
  • At this time, the FDA is not recommending a specific metal ion level as a trigger for revision or other medical intervention.  The metal ion concentration values, including increases in metal ion levels over time, should be considered in addition to the overall clinical scenario including symptoms, physical findings, and other diagnostic results when determining further actions.
For additional information on the FDA’s recommendations on metal ion test methods, selecting a test lab and interpreting test results, please see Metal Ion Testing.
Device Revision
The decision to revise a metal-on-metal hip implant should be made in response to the overall clinical scenario. In case of adverse local tissue reactions (ALTR), revision of a metal-on-metal hip implant may have a worse prognosis than revision of other types of bearing surfaces.
In selecting components for revision:
  • Consider the benefits and risks of all bearing surfaces for each patient.
  • Check the specific device labeling for compatibility of device components.
  • If a patient is suspected to have developed metal sensitivity, carefully select the materials of the revision components (potentially avoiding materials with nickel or chromium). 
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations on device revisions, which includes our recommendation for a retrieval analysis of every failed metal-on-metal hip implant.
Summary of FDA Recommendations for Orthopaedic Surgeons
Symptomatic PatientsAsymptomatic Patients
Regular Clinical Evaluation At least every six months Typically at least once every 1 to 2 years
Soft Tissue Imaging Consider the benefits and risks of MRI, CT and ultrasound for each patient. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
Metal Ion Testing Consider monitoring serial metal ion levels.  Currently, the most reliable test results are available for cobalt in EDTA-anticoagulated blood*.  In repeat tests, use same sample type, measurement method and preferably the same laboratory. Not necessary if you feel the hip is functioning properly.
*For chromium testing, a validated method that resolves potential interferences must be used.  Please reviewFDA’s recommendations for chromium testing.
Recommendations for Health Care Providers:
Metal-on-metal implant patients with systemic symptoms are more likely to visit their primary care practitioner than their orthopaedic surgeon, which makes it important for all health care providers to be aware of metal ion adverse events that may occur in metal-on-metal hip implant patients. Based on case reports, these events may include:
  • General hypersensitivity reaction (skin rash)
  • Cardiomyopathy
  • Neurological changes including sensory changes (auditory, or visual impairments)
  • Psychological status change (including depression)
  • Renal function impairment
  • Thyroid dysfunction (including neck discomfort, fatigue, weight gain or feeling cold.
Patients with systemic findings that are thought to be related to a metal-on-metal hip implant should be advised to follow-up with his or her orthopaedic surgeon to determine the appropriate course of action.
For additional information, please review the FDA’s considerations to Health Care Professionals.
Recommendations for Patients Considering Hip Implants:
  • Be aware that every hip implant has benefits and risks.
  • Discuss your options for hip surgery with your surgeon. 
A list of some questions to ask your orthopaedic surgeon can be found in Patients Considering a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
Recommendations for Patients with Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants:
  • If you are not having any symptoms and your orthopaedic surgeon believes your implant is functioning appropriately, you should continue to routinely follow-up with the surgeon every 1 to 2 years.
  • If you develop new or worsening problems such as pain, swelling, numbness, noise (popping, grinding, clicking or squeaking of your hip), and/or change in your ability to walk, contact your orthopaedic surgeon right away. 
  • If you experience changes in your general health, including new or worsening symptoms outside your hip, let your physician know you have a metal-on-metal hip implant.
Additional information for patients with a metal-on-metal hip can be found in Patients who have a Metal-on-Metal Hip Implant.
FDA Activities:
The FDA is committed to providing reliable safety recommendations to patients and health care providers about the utilization of these devices.  Recent activities include:
  1. On May 6, 2011, the FDA instructed manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement (THR) systems to conduct postmarket surveillance study of these devices.  Five manufacturers currently market metal-on-metal hip implants in the U.S. and all five have approved postmarket surveillance study plans.  Data from these studies will provide patients and health care providers with additional information about the safety profiles of the implants, including the effect of metal ion concentrations in the bloodstream.
  2. On June 27-28, 2012, the FDA convened the Orthopaedic and Rehabilitation Devices Panel of the Medical Devices Advisory Committee to seek expert scientific and clinical opinion on the benefits and risks of metal-on-metal hip systems. Information from this panel meeting has helped form these recommendations.
  3. On January 17, 2013 the FDA issued a proposed order requiring manufacturers of metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems to submit premarket approval (PMA) applications.  Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were evaluated under the 510(k) premarket notification program. Metal-on-metal total hip replacement systems were marketed in the U.S. prior to 1976 legislation that gave the agency premarket authority over medical devices. As “preamendment devices,” they were designated as Class III (higher risk) devices but were regulated under the 510(k) premarket notification program.
Additional information on FDA ongoing activities are provided in FDA’s Role and Activities.
Other Resources:
For additional resources, see Metal-on-Metal Hip Implants: Other Resources.
Reporting Problems to the FDA:
Prompt reporting of adverse events can help the FDA identify and better understand the risks associated with medical devices. If you suspect a problem with a metal-on-metal device, we encourage you to file a voluntary report through MedWatch, the FDA Safety Information and Adverse Event Reporting program. Health care personnel employed by facilities that are subject to the FDA's user facility reporting requirements should follow the reporting procedures established by their facilities. Device manufacturers must comply with the Medical Device Reporting (MDR) regulations.

Reports to the FDA about adverse events related to metal-on-metal hip systems include, but are not limited to: pain, malposition, adverse local tissue reaction, metallosis, hypersensitivity (allergy), loosening, and dislocation.
To help he FDA learn as much as possible about the adverse events associated with metal-on-metal hip implants, please include the following information in your reports, if available:
  • Date of implantation
  • Date of implant removal (if applicable)
  • Clinical cause for revision (if available)
  • System components affected by the adverse event.
Read more about Hip Implants and Workers' Compensation
May 16, 2011
"The FDA is continuing to gather and review all available information about currently marketed metal-on-metal hip systems, including information related to adverse events that may be associated with increase levels of cobalt ...
Aug 27, 2010
Johnson and Johnson has recalled 2 Hip Implants because of failure. The two implants were made by the DePuy Orthopaedics unit of Johnson and Johnson. The decision to withdrawn the products was based upon the fact ...
Jul 10, 2012
Under Administrative Code section 80.32(3), a “total hip prosthesis” carries a minimum 40% PPD. Based on previous Wisconsin Court and LIRC decisions, generally any subsequent invasive surgery resulting from the same ...
Dec 17, 2010
The workers' compensation insurance system is about to be the initial payor for joint replacement surgery and for the complications of defective artificial hip joint damage that were said to be inadequately tested because of a ...

EPA Acts To Lower Toxic Old Diesel Engines in NY & NJ

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has provided a total of $2.7 million to help two organizations reduce air pollution in the New York metropolitan area by replacing old, dirty diesel engines on a tug boat and two trains with less polluting models. The projects will cut emissions of harmful nitrogen oxides by 70 tons per year and particulate matter by three tons per year. These pollutants are linked to health problems, including asthma, lung and heart disease and even premature death.

Diesel engines are durable and often remain in use a long time. Older diesels that predate current and stricter air pollution standards emit large amounts of air pollutants. EPA grants such as those announced today are helping to reduce air pollution from some of the more than 11 million older diesel engines that continue to emit higher levels of pollution.

“EPA grants to replace dirty diesel engines with cleaner models protect people’s health, create jobs and cut fuel costs,” said EPA Regional Administrator, Judith A. Enck. “Older diesel engines generate significant amounts of air pollution that can make people sick. Replacing old polluting diesel engines reduces asthma attacks and other respiratory ailments, lost work days and many other health impacts every year.”

Conservation Law Foundation Ventures, a not-for-profit organization, will use a $1.3 million EPA grant to replace an old engine on the Coral Coast, a 120-foot marine tug boat that operates out of New York harbor, with a new and cleaner EPA-certified engine. The new engine is estimated to emit 70% less nitrogen oxides and 83% less particulate matter than the current engine. The project is expected to reduce emissions of nitrogen oxides by 57.7 tons per year and particulate matter by 2.7 tons per year in addition to conserving 42,558 gallons of fuel annually.

The Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management will use a $1.4 million EPA grant to replace two old engines on locomotives operating in northern New Jersey with new and cleaner engines. The trains will also be equipped with either an automatic engine stop/start system or an auxiliary power unit, which will reduce idling. The new engines are estimated to reduce nitrogen oxides by as much as 12.8 tons per year and particulate matter by as much as 0.3 tons in addition to conserving 14,000 gallons of fuel per year.

The EPA grants to groups in New York and New Jersey announced today are part of nearly $30 million in grant funds awarded by the agency nationwide in 2012 for clean diesel projects.

For information about EPA’s clean diesel initiatives, visit: http://www.epa.gov/cleandiesel and the Northeast Diesel Collaborative http://www.northeastdiesel.org.

Read more about "diesel" and workers' compensation
Workers' Compensation: Diesel Exhaust Linked to Cancer
Jun 13, 2012
After a week-long meeting of international experts, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC), which is part of the World Health Organization (WHO), today classified diesel engine exhaust as carcinogenic to ...http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/
Apr 30, 2009
Diesel exhaust continues to be a major health hazard for certain workers. The American Lung Association has reported that, "Truck drivers, dockworkers and railroad workers may face higher risk of death from lung cancer and ...
Mar 14, 2012
Metro-North also must post an OSHA notice for employees in the Harmon Diesel Shop and on its internal website, and provide all diesel shop employees with information on employee protections for reporting work-related ...http://workers-compensation.blogspot.com/


Wednesday, January 16, 2013

NFL, Like M.D.'s, Was Slow to Recognize Concussion Risk =Orentlicher & David

Professor George W. Conk
The internationally recognized expert on complex liability claims, Professor George W. Conk,  of Fordham Law School reports in his blog, TORTS TODAY, of a forthcoming law review article, Concussion and Football: Failures to Respond by the NFL and the Medical Profession, 8 (1) FIU Law Review.

He states, "Brain injury in the NFL has gained the attention of public health authorities who have documented that NFL players die of neurodegenerative disorders at a rate triple the national average.  The NFL finds itself and the game on the defensive."

Click here to read the complete blog post: NFL, Like M.D.'s, Was Slow to Recognize Concussion Risk =Orentlicher & David

Read more about "brain concussions" and football

Dec 19, 2012
Football Concussions – An Epidemic Failure of Safety. Story after story is now emerging of the tragedy of head concussions incurred during the sport of football. While the a battle is brewing over jurisdictional issues involving ...
Apr 19, 2010
He remarked that former football players have donated their brains for pathological research concerning CTE and its association with multiple concussions playing the sport. It has been alleged that CTE results in early ...



Monday, January 14, 2013

Second Injury Fund: Missouri Auditor Says Fund It, or Shut It Down

"The fund is currently insolvent, with unpaid liabilities totaling over $28.1 million, and no means to pay the benefits required by statute. To remedy this situation, the Governor and legislature need to work together to determine whether the fund's statutory purpose remains the state public policy or the program should be reduced or eliminated. If it is decided the program should be continued, a plan should be adopted to re-capitalize the fund and ensure future revenues are adequate to cover statutorily required benefits in the future."

Thomas A. Schweich, MO State Auditor (Jan. 11, 2013)

Click here to read to report

Read more about "Second Injury Funds" and workers' compensation


Mar 20, 2012
Workers' Compensation: Are Second Injury Funds Going to be History Soon? As the Second Injury Fund debate in Missouri becomes more heated, one must consider the underlying issues challenging its existence. Whatever ...
Apr 21, 2010
The Missouri legislature failed to pass legislation that would rescue the state's Second Injury Fund (SIF) from financial collapse. The SIF has been long targeted for extinction by Industry in Missouri. The Attorney General order ...
Jan 25, 2010
NJ Second Injury Fund Is In Financial Trouble. Governor Christie's transition team reported that the NJ Second Injury Fund (SIF) is insolvent. Several options were presented, if the SIF is going continue to operate. The SIF was ...
May 09, 2011
In an editorial it declares that injured workers should receive benefits that they have been awarded un the Missouri workers' compensation Second Injury Fund which is now underfunded and unable to meet payment.


Saturday, January 12, 2013

NJ Contractor Sentenced By Federal Court for Illegal Asbestos Removal

Asbestos continues to be a major health concern. The known cancer causing substance that was manufactured and installed decades ago in the US, and still not banned, continues as a significant health threat. The Federal Government continues to vigoriously enforce safety regulations for the removal of asbestos fiber.

A Bergen County, N.J., man was sentenced today to three years of probation, including six months of home confinement, for conspiring to violate the federal Clean Air Act by improperly removing asbestos from a building, U.S. Attorney Paul J. Fishman announced. 

Vele Bozinoski, 61, of Elmwood Park, N.J., previously pleaded guilty before U.S. District Judge Noel L. Hillman to an Indictment charging him with violating the Clean Air Act’s asbestos work practice standards and with conspiring with others to commit that offense. Judge Hillman imposed the sentence today in Camden federal court.

According to documents filed in the case and statements made in court:

In February 2007, Bozinoski hired workers to remove insulation at the former Garden State Paper Mill, a facility that contained more than 160 linear feet of asbestos-containing material. Bozinoski conspired with others to fail to thoroughly inspect the facility for the presence of asbestos or to notify the Environmental Protection Agency of the presence of asbestos, prior to commencing insulation removal, as was required by federal law. Bozinoski also conspired with others to fail to ensure that material containing asbestos was wet prior to stripping it off pipes and other facility components or to seal asbestos-containing material in leak-tight containers until it was collected for disposal.

U.S. Attorney Fishman credited special agents of the FBI, under the direction of Acting Special Agent in Charge David Velazquez; and special agents of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Criminal Investigation Division, under the direction of Special Agent in Charge William V. Lometti, with the investigation leading to today’s sentence.

The Government is represented by Assistant U.S. Attorney Kathleen P. O'Leary of the U.S. Attorney's Office Health Care and Government Fraud Unit in Newark.

....
Jon L.Gelman of Wayne NJ is the author NJ Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson) and co-author of the national treatise, Modern Workers’ Compensation Law (West-Thompson). For over 3 decades the Law Offices of Jon L. Gelman 1.973.696.7900 jon@gelmans.com have been representing injured workers and their families who have suffered occupational accidents and illnesses.

Read more about illegal "asbestos removal violations

Jun 22, 2012
They allegedly engaged in asbestos removal without the required license from the New Jersey Department of Labor, and their illegal activities allegedly caused the release of asbestos dust and debris. Kouvaras, the owner of ...
 
Jan 06, 2011
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Inspector General has just signed an "Early Warning Report" that will shut down a dangerous and unapproved asbestos removal method that two EPA offices have been testing for ...
 
Aug 14, 2009
US EPA Cites Vermont Companies for Asbestos Removal. A Vermont company was cited by the US EPA for failing to test for asbestos. The company had been demolishing a building and failed to first test for the presence of ...
 
Aug 01, 2012
“Asbestos must be removed in a safe and legal way in order to protect people's health and reduce the risk of exposure,” said Cynthia Giles, assistant administrator for EPA's Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance.

 

9/11 VCF Claims: Motley Rice Attorney to Speak About Claims Process

Vincent I. Parrett
Motley Rice attorney Vince Parrett has been invited to speak to a group of N.J. lawyers and judges at a New Jersey Institute for Continuing Legal Education seminar on Jan. 29, 2013, to discuss “New 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund Claims: What Attorneys Need to Know.”

Parrett, who represents 9/11 survivors and victims’ families, has been an advocate for the rights of cancer-stricken 9/11 survivors who were exposed to toxins at the 9/11 crash sites and a strong supporter of the efforts made to allow them to seek compensation under the “New” Victim Compensation Fund (VCF).

In addition to the thousands who lost their lives or were injured during the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, many others were hurt by exposure to environmental toxins that the attacks or cleanup work caused. Signed into law by the President in 2011, The James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act of 2010 broadened the scope of the original September 11th VCF and expanded eligibility for compensation to first responders, cleanup workers, volunteers and others involved in the rescue and debris removal efforts.

This reactivated VCF began the process of providing economic relief to people who were physically injured or suffered toxic exposure. Among those who might be eligible for compensation are first responders, cleanup workers and residents in the Canal Street area who suffered injuries, illness or death resulting from work or toxic exposure at the World Trade Center, Pentagon or Shanksville, Penn., crash sites.

Most recently, on Sept. 10, 2012, federal authorities added 58 types of cancers to the list of covered illnesses. This action enables first responders and others who were at Ground Zero to receive medical care for certain cancers they developed post-9/11.

Learn more about the Victim Compensation Fund.

Click Here to Register Now: for the January 29, 2013 Seminar

Read More About "9/11 Claims" and Workers' Compensation Law.

Dec 19, 2012
The lawmakers wrote in a September 28th letter to OMB Acting Director Zients, “[W]e all agree that applying sequestration to these two programs [established by the James Zadroga 9-11 Health and Compensation Act] does .

Oct 19, 2012
Lawmakers Advocate for the Heroes Who Answered the Call of Duty on 9/11 to be Treated With Same Dignity As Military Veterans -- Slashing 9/11 Treatment and Compensation Funds Violates Congressional Intent and ...

Sep 11, 2012
The National Institute for Occupational Health and Safety today announce publication of a Rule that will allow for medical treatment coverage for 9/11 cancers suffered by 1st responders and residents of lower Manhattan as a ...

Jun 08, 2012
The New York Times is reporting this afternoon that The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) has approved for compensation payments 50 types of cancers from the $4.3 Billion Zadroga 9-11 Fund.

Medical Outcome Based Compensation - Essentially a Workers' Compensation Concept Already

Outcome Based Medicine Being Adopted by NYC
The idea of compensation medical providers for the end result, or benefits of medical care provided, is not a new concept as it is already embraced theoretically by the workers' compensation system. Employers, who usually control the delivery of medical benenfits, not only pay for medical benenfits, but also compensate the injured worker for the outcome through permanent disability awards.

In actuality the workets' compensation system rewards the employer for the most favorable outcomes by theoretically awarding lower permanent disabillity benenfits to those with the most favorable outcomes.
Adopting this concept to the nation's entire medical care system, is a wise step and one that is being advanced in the New York City Hospital system.

"In a bold experiment in performance pay, complaints from patients at New York City’s public hospitals and other measures of their care — like how long before they are discharged and how they fare afterward — will be reflected in doctors’ paychecks under a plan being negotiated by the physicians and their hospitals."

Click here to read New York Ties Doctors’ Pay to Quality of Care (NY Times)
Nov 09, 2012
On Tuesday, the American people expressed its support for a unified medical care program that will embrace all aspects of life, including industrial accidents and diseases. They validated, as did the Supreme Court, the ...
Jan 10, 2013
Soaring medical costs have afflicted the workers' compensation industry with economic distress and have severely impacted the efficient and effective delivery of medical care to injured workers. Both increased costs/profits ...
Nov 16, 2012
Adopt the new carpal tunnel syndrome (CTS) medical treatment guidelines (MTG) as the standard of care for the treatment of injured workers with carpal tunnel syndrome;; Modify current MTGs to include new maintenance ...
Jan 01, 2013
Medical costs continue to be shifted to other programs including employer based medical care systems and the Federal safety net of Medicare, Medicaid, Veterans Administration and Tricare. While a trend continues to ...