As a Nutrition/Pre-Pharmacy student at the University of Arizona, I am highly intrigued when medical studies performed there offer hope to trauma patients and survivors. Most recently, as featured on the University's home page (http://www.arizona.edu/), there has been progressive work in new therapies for cancer patients. The story discusses Laurence H. Hurley's prediction that groundbreaking chemicals to be used to kill cancer cells could be introduced to the public in as little as three or four years. The fascination progress being made at the impressive school provides hope for the cure for cancer and the entire field of medicine.
Read the full article below.
New Drug Therapies Can Turn Off Cancer Cells
After more than a decade of following a novel research path, a UA College of Pharmacy scientist is poised to see his work pay off with a new class of breakthrough drug therapies aimed at the elusive ability to kill cancer cells without harming healthy cells.
Laurence H. Hurley, the Howard Schaeffer Endowed Chair in Pharmaceutical Sciences, estimated that the development of chemical agents to control the growth of or kill cancer cells may well result in treatments that could reach the public in three to four years.
"For years, cancer patients have been pumped full of poisonous cytotoxins to kill cancer cells," Hurley says. "But this conventional treatment has also resulted in the death of the surrounding healthy cells."
Typically, chemotherapy drugs target proteins responsible for a cancer's growth. But Hurley's study of DNA has found new ways to attack the disease.
"My longtime objective was to find a way to target oncogene or cancer gene expression using small drug-like molecules," he says. "Oncogenes can help turn a healthy cell into a cancerous one. So the Holy Grail in cancer research has been to target the on/off switch mechanism that controls oncogenes."
Hurley's study of DNA quadruplexes is paving the way for a new class of cancer drugs. Quadruplexes are four-stranded structures found on the single-stranded ends of chromosome telomeres, where replication of DNA in cells takes place.
"Under certain circumstances, DNA's duplex strands open up to form single-stranded regions and result in quadruplexes," Hurley says. "Our research group began to make real progress in identifying a new molecular target when we began looking at DNA as not only a static molecule that has a defined structure, but thinking about DNA as an exceedingly dynamic molecule that can form many different structures as it writhes, twists and untwists."
Hurley's research team used a number of techniques, including molecular modeling, to come up with molecules that would target these new nuclear receptors very selectively.
"Our mission is to find a way, with small drug-like molecules, to be able to target the switch mechanism that controls the oncogenes that can turn off a cancer cell, Hurley said. "We've discovered a new way to target this on/off switch that came from a fresh understanding of the nucleic acid itself, like DNA, which, under certain dynamic stresses, forms unusual globular structures that look like ‘knots.'
"What we now know is that these knot-like structures are in areas of the DNA that control the switch mechanism. And with that understanding, we have been able to design molecules that selectively target these globular structures," he says.
"We figured that, if these structures were in the ends of chromosomes of cancer cells, we could target them and preferentially kill cancer cells over normal cells," he says. "So we've worked toward designing and making molecules that interact with these ‘knot-like' structures to disrupt the events that happen at the ends of chromosomes, which are critical for cell reproduction."
Hurley's research ideas initially were met with skepticism from the research community, funding entities and scientific journals, but they now have embraced his findings.
"In recent years, hundreds of other scientists have cited our work published in Journal of Medicinal Chemistry and Proceedings of the National Academy of Science," he says.
Found at: http://www.arizona.edu/features/new-drug-therapies-can-turn-cancer-cells
Monday, August 16, 2010
Wednesday, August 4, 2010
Trauma and the Supreme Court
Trauma victims often affect major court decisions that will serve as the standard for court cases that may follow. Read below to see one attorney's opinions on the matter.
Here's the full article:
Will Michigan Accident Victims Be Treated More Fairly Due to Recent Supreme Court Ruling?
Mark Bello
Attorney
The much anticipated Michigan Supreme Court opinion in McCormick v Carrier has been issued. I have read the entire opinion and it seems to be well reasoned; it also seems to restore some fairness to the previous unfairness established by the case it overruled, Kreiner v Fischer, which was an opinion that "misinterpreted" the Michigan legislature's 1995 amendment to the liability threshold established in Michigan's historic 1973 "No-Fault" law, the only one of its kind in the United States.
Here is a little history: The Michigan No-Fault Statute was passed in 1973. The law provided insured accident victims with what I consider a fair trade. They had to trade their right to sue a party who caused a minor accident and minor injuries for the right to collect out-of pocket expenses, sooner, directly from their own, 1st party carrier. Thus, the victim of a "minor" auto accident would be entitled to collect medical expenses, wage loss, and vehicle repair costs from his own insurance company. The other interesting feature is that these benefits were made available to all accident victims, regardless of whether they were the victim of someone else's negligence or were the at-fault driver. Medical expenses under the law were and still are unlimited, for either the victim or the at-fault driver. And this is the main reason for the trade-off. If insurance companies were required to pay unlimited medical benefits, they needed relief from having to pay liability benefits in smaller cases; as I indicated, I considered this a fair trade at the time (I have been an attorney for almost the entire history of no-fault litigation) and I still consider this a fair trade. Thus, according to the 1973 version of the law, only someone who has suffered a "serious impairment of body function", "death" or "serious disfigurement" could sue the responsible party for tort liability damages.
Because a definition of "serious impairment of body function" was not supplied by the legislature, insurance companies started denying almost every claim, spawning significant litigation. Several important decisions were issued and lawyers on both sides of Michigan Automobile practice began to gain wisdom as to what level of injury constituted a "serious impairment of body function".
Along came Governor John Engler, trial lawyer hater, insurance company suck-up. Engler took office at the right time for insurance companies and the wrong time for accident victims. He passed anti-victim legislation; appointment anti-victim judges, several of whom now serve on Michigan's Supreme Court. In 1995, it was the Engler legislature that passed a stricter standard of "serious impairment"; it was the Engler Supreme Court that made "Kreiner" the law of the land. Kreiner took the 1995 amendment and created such an onerous standard of interpretation that almost no injury, short of death or serious disfigurement could qualify for recovery. And this standard remained until a sitting supreme court justice was defeated and replaced by a judge with a more sensible approach to victims' rights. This is the backdrop that leads us to McCormick.
The McCormick decision restores the rights of innocent victims to recover compensation for serious injuries caused by negligent and drunk drivers, by returning to the specific legal standards that were enacted by the 1995 amendments. Remember, this is not new law, but rather a return to the no-fault threshold passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1995. The decision recognizes that Kreiner was nothing more than judge-made law that constituted a
radical departure from the specific language and overall intent of the Michigan No-Fault Act. The Act required a seriousness standard; it did not seek to prevent the vast majority of accident victims from recovery.
It has been argued that returning to an appropriate standard of proof in serious impairment cases will result in an increase in Michigan automobile accident litigation. On the contrary, it is reasonable to expect that this decision will actually reduce the number of lawsuits filed in circuit court for the reason that under the Kreiner decision, victims were forced to file lawsuits by insurance companies intent on defeating legitimate claims in court by imposing
the draconian legal standards of the Kreiner case. Hopefully, this practice will end under McCormick, and insurance companies will recognize legitimate claims and deal with innocent victims in a fair and just manner. As to the appellate courts, McCormick should dramatically decrease the amount appeals, thus returning Michigan to the stable and less litigious environment that existed prior to the Kreiner decision. Prior to Kreiner, less than 10 Court of Appeals cases per year were filed in controversy over the tort threshold; in the nine years since Kreiner, there have been over 250 appellate decisions pertaining to this single issue. Obviously, less appeals amounts to considerable tax savings.
Insurance industry spokespeople are already indicating that rates will rise because of the opinion. Shame on them! As usual, these corporate interests are lying to the detriment of the public interest. Here's the truth:
1. Michigan auto insurance carriers have enjoyed low statutory minimum policy limits of $20,000-$40,000 for the entire time (33 years) that I have been a lawyer. The majority of citizens buy insurance coverage at the state minimum. Thus, under Kreiner, if you were catastrophically injured, you collected $20,000; if you were seriously hurt you collected nothing. Insurance companies have been laughing at (and substantially profiting from) Michigan citizens for years. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
2. Changes in the law regarding the coordination of no-fault benefits and health insurance benefits have significantly reduced the amount of medical benefits that these carriers have had to pay. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
3. Insurance companies employ doctors who's job it is to evaluate injured people and provide a reason to cut-off the plaintiff's no-fault benefits. They pay these cut-off doctors millions of dollars for defense medical examinations; the sole purpose of which is to stop the flow of needed benefits to seriously injured people. Aside from being a despicable practice that insurance companies use against their own customers, this practice saves them millions in benefit pay-outs and spawns needless litigation. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
A return to fairness and sanity should not raise insurance premiums, unless insurance companies decide to gouge the public in response to McCormick. Like any and all of the tort reform, lawsuit abuse nonsense, this is nothing more than sour grapes, the same sour grapes that was espoused by the dissent in McCormick. Hopefully, this decision will provide hope for thousands of injured Michigan citizens who were shut out of the legal system by Kreiner. I am cautiously optimistic for the first time in a long time.
Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life funding is needed during litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.
http://voices.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/michigan-automobile-accidents-victims-may-be-treated-more-fairly-because-of-recent-michigan-supreme-court-ruling.aspx?googleid=283464
Here's the full article:
Will Michigan Accident Victims Be Treated More Fairly Due to Recent Supreme Court Ruling?
Mark Bello
Attorney
The much anticipated Michigan Supreme Court opinion in McCormick v Carrier has been issued. I have read the entire opinion and it seems to be well reasoned; it also seems to restore some fairness to the previous unfairness established by the case it overruled, Kreiner v Fischer, which was an opinion that "misinterpreted" the Michigan legislature's 1995 amendment to the liability threshold established in Michigan's historic 1973 "No-Fault" law, the only one of its kind in the United States.
Here is a little history: The Michigan No-Fault Statute was passed in 1973. The law provided insured accident victims with what I consider a fair trade. They had to trade their right to sue a party who caused a minor accident and minor injuries for the right to collect out-of pocket expenses, sooner, directly from their own, 1st party carrier. Thus, the victim of a "minor" auto accident would be entitled to collect medical expenses, wage loss, and vehicle repair costs from his own insurance company. The other interesting feature is that these benefits were made available to all accident victims, regardless of whether they were the victim of someone else's negligence or were the at-fault driver. Medical expenses under the law were and still are unlimited, for either the victim or the at-fault driver. And this is the main reason for the trade-off. If insurance companies were required to pay unlimited medical benefits, they needed relief from having to pay liability benefits in smaller cases; as I indicated, I considered this a fair trade at the time (I have been an attorney for almost the entire history of no-fault litigation) and I still consider this a fair trade. Thus, according to the 1973 version of the law, only someone who has suffered a "serious impairment of body function", "death" or "serious disfigurement" could sue the responsible party for tort liability damages.
Because a definition of "serious impairment of body function" was not supplied by the legislature, insurance companies started denying almost every claim, spawning significant litigation. Several important decisions were issued and lawyers on both sides of Michigan Automobile practice began to gain wisdom as to what level of injury constituted a "serious impairment of body function".
Along came Governor John Engler, trial lawyer hater, insurance company suck-up. Engler took office at the right time for insurance companies and the wrong time for accident victims. He passed anti-victim legislation; appointment anti-victim judges, several of whom now serve on Michigan's Supreme Court. In 1995, it was the Engler legislature that passed a stricter standard of "serious impairment"; it was the Engler Supreme Court that made "Kreiner" the law of the land. Kreiner took the 1995 amendment and created such an onerous standard of interpretation that almost no injury, short of death or serious disfigurement could qualify for recovery. And this standard remained until a sitting supreme court justice was defeated and replaced by a judge with a more sensible approach to victims' rights. This is the backdrop that leads us to McCormick.
The McCormick decision restores the rights of innocent victims to recover compensation for serious injuries caused by negligent and drunk drivers, by returning to the specific legal standards that were enacted by the 1995 amendments. Remember, this is not new law, but rather a return to the no-fault threshold passed by the Michigan Legislature in 1995. The decision recognizes that Kreiner was nothing more than judge-made law that constituted a
radical departure from the specific language and overall intent of the Michigan No-Fault Act. The Act required a seriousness standard; it did not seek to prevent the vast majority of accident victims from recovery.
It has been argued that returning to an appropriate standard of proof in serious impairment cases will result in an increase in Michigan automobile accident litigation. On the contrary, it is reasonable to expect that this decision will actually reduce the number of lawsuits filed in circuit court for the reason that under the Kreiner decision, victims were forced to file lawsuits by insurance companies intent on defeating legitimate claims in court by imposing
the draconian legal standards of the Kreiner case. Hopefully, this practice will end under McCormick, and insurance companies will recognize legitimate claims and deal with innocent victims in a fair and just manner. As to the appellate courts, McCormick should dramatically decrease the amount appeals, thus returning Michigan to the stable and less litigious environment that existed prior to the Kreiner decision. Prior to Kreiner, less than 10 Court of Appeals cases per year were filed in controversy over the tort threshold; in the nine years since Kreiner, there have been over 250 appellate decisions pertaining to this single issue. Obviously, less appeals amounts to considerable tax savings.
Insurance industry spokespeople are already indicating that rates will rise because of the opinion. Shame on them! As usual, these corporate interests are lying to the detriment of the public interest. Here's the truth:
1. Michigan auto insurance carriers have enjoyed low statutory minimum policy limits of $20,000-$40,000 for the entire time (33 years) that I have been a lawyer. The majority of citizens buy insurance coverage at the state minimum. Thus, under Kreiner, if you were catastrophically injured, you collected $20,000; if you were seriously hurt you collected nothing. Insurance companies have been laughing at (and substantially profiting from) Michigan citizens for years. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
2. Changes in the law regarding the coordination of no-fault benefits and health insurance benefits have significantly reduced the amount of medical benefits that these carriers have had to pay. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
3. Insurance companies employ doctors who's job it is to evaluate injured people and provide a reason to cut-off the plaintiff's no-fault benefits. They pay these cut-off doctors millions of dollars for defense medical examinations; the sole purpose of which is to stop the flow of needed benefits to seriously injured people. Aside from being a despicable practice that insurance companies use against their own customers, this practice saves them millions in benefit pay-outs and spawns needless litigation. Have they reduced your premiums as a result?
A return to fairness and sanity should not raise insurance premiums, unless insurance companies decide to gouge the public in response to McCormick. Like any and all of the tort reform, lawsuit abuse nonsense, this is nothing more than sour grapes, the same sour grapes that was espoused by the dissent in McCormick. Hopefully, this decision will provide hope for thousands of injured Michigan citizens who were shut out of the legal system by Kreiner. I am cautiously optimistic for the first time in a long time.
Mark Bello has thirty-three years experience as a trial lawyer and twelve years as an underwriter and situational analyst in the lawsuit funding industry. He is the owner and founder of Lawsuit Financial Corporation which helps provide cash flow solutions and consulting when necessities of life funding is needed during litigation. Bello is a Justice Pac member of the American Association for Justice, Sustaining and Justice Pac member of the Michigan Association for Justice, Business Associate of the Florida, Tennessee, and Colorado Associations for Justice, a member of the American Bar Association, the State Bar of Michigan and the Injury Board.
http://voices.injuryboard.com/automobile-accidents/michigan-automobile-accidents-victims-may-be-treated-more-fairly-because-of-recent-michigan-supreme-court-ruling.aspx?googleid=283464
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Disaster Victims Share Story
Three years have passed since the shock of the Interstate 35W bridge collapse and the victims involved in the disaster still live with the trauma from the experience. This collapse caused the death of 13 people and injury to 145 others. Many of those survivors shared their intense experiences and memories in a documentary about the incident, made by Dan Kenney. The film, titled, "One Day in August", is still being worked on with the intent to accurately share the participants' personal stories.
The process of healing for trauma victims can be very slow and strenuous. It often helps for such people to talk about their suffering as a step to recovery. Being featured in a documentary such as "One Day in August" will hopefully help those bridge collapse survivors to come to peace with their pain and to help them mourn the losses of those who were taken by the incident.
Read the full story at:
http://wcco.com/local/bridge.collapse.survivors.2.1837175.html
The process of healing for trauma victims can be very slow and strenuous. It often helps for such people to talk about their suffering as a step to recovery. Being featured in a documentary such as "One Day in August" will hopefully help those bridge collapse survivors to come to peace with their pain and to help them mourn the losses of those who were taken by the incident.
Read the full story at:
http://wcco.com/local/bridge.collapse.survivors.2.1837175.html
Tuesday, July 27, 2010
More Benefits for Veterans with PTSD
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, also known as PSTD, is a ailment affecting many people in the world. This is a common disorder affecting United States veterans, who have to fight to receive benefits, such as retirement and disability, after serving their country. There are some existing organizations, such as Bart Stichman's National Veterans Legal Services program, that are taking legal action to see to it that these respectable veterans are being cared for in ways that will improve their quality of life.
I have an immense respect for the men and women who risk their lives to protect our country and feel that they should be allowed more resources to recover from their difficult careers and the resulting trauma they may experience. Let's hope that such efforts, much like the event covered in the article, are able to win those benefits successfully.
See the full story at:
http://news.opb.org/article/9756-lawsuit-seeks-lifetime-medical-care-veterans-ptsd/
I have an immense respect for the men and women who risk their lives to protect our country and feel that they should be allowed more resources to recover from their difficult careers and the resulting trauma they may experience. Let's hope that such efforts, much like the event covered in the article, are able to win those benefits successfully.
See the full story at:
http://news.opb.org/article/9756-lawsuit-seeks-lifetime-medical-care-veterans-ptsd/
Monday, July 26, 2010
Hospital's Trauma Center Revived!
For trauma patients, it is imperative that they have the necessary facilities, resources, and support for healing. With certain budget cuts and complications with contract renewals, some hospitals, like Memorial Hospital in Colorado Springs, have come close to losing these centers for trauma recovery. The fact that this center could be saved is extremely significant for the patients who depend on it. They would have otherwise needed to transfer to other facilities and deal with more stress than needed. The experienced doctors at Memorial, like Dr. McVicker, have been especially important to the special patients there who can receive the medically attention they need in an area close to home. Good news in trauma is always welcomed and appreciated!
Read the full article here:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/memorial-101626-hospital-ago.html
Read the full article here:
http://www.gazette.com/articles/memorial-101626-hospital-ago.html
Friday, June 25, 2010
Quick Instructions on How to Fill Out a RateADrug.com Survey
I thought I should take the time to tell you just how to fill out a quick, 5 minute RateADrug.com survey on any medication you have taken in your medical history. There are several quick links on the right margin of the blog. The medications listed are all relevant to trauma and recovery.
To take a survey for a medication not listed on the side, follow these easy instructions:
1. Please go to http://rateadrug.com/Default.aspx
2. In the blue box, type in/select a medication you've taken at some time in your life to take the survey.
3. Answer the questions and submit. Write a detailed comment if you can.
4. On the confirmation page, select "PPREP Student Intern" from the drop down menu.
5. Type in "kimn" as the alias and submit!
You can take as many surveys as you want, for any medication.
Thanks so much for the help! I really appreciate it. You'll be hearing from me soon!
To take a survey for a medication not listed on the side, follow these easy instructions:
1. Please go to http://rateadrug.com/Default.aspx
2. In the blue box, type in/select a medication you've taken at some time in your life to take the survey.
3. Answer the questions and submit. Write a detailed comment if you can.
4. On the confirmation page, select "PPREP Student Intern" from the drop down menu.
5. Type in "kimn" as the alias and submit!
You can take as many surveys as you want, for any medication.
Thanks so much for the help! I really appreciate it. You'll be hearing from me soon!
New Medication Provides Hope
Being a Nutrition/Pre-Pharmacy student at the University of Arizona, I am always interested in reading about new medications that are coming into use in the world of trauma and recovery. I am fascinated with the idea that humans can engineer and manufacture drugs and treatments to cure the illnesses in the world.
Very recently, a medication called tranexamic acid, or TXA, has been the topic of much excitement and optimism in the world of pharmaceuticals and trauma care. It is able to reduce the chances of bleeding to death by an entire 15%, a highly impressive statistic.
A fact that stands out most to me is that TXA is cheap and easy to make. It is not common that new advances in medicine are cost efficient. Furthermore, researchers' fears of side effects such as blood clots, strokes, or heart attacks are dissipated by the knowledge that none of these issues have been found in their study. For now, TXA doesn't seem to have a downside and hopefully, it stays that way for trauma patients. Imagine the possibilities!
I am hoping to hear more about the medication as new research is made. Discoveries like these make me excited to pursue a career in Pharmacy.
Read the full article at: http://cbs3.com/health/life.saving.medications.2.1753119.html
Very recently, a medication called tranexamic acid, or TXA, has been the topic of much excitement and optimism in the world of pharmaceuticals and trauma care. It is able to reduce the chances of bleeding to death by an entire 15%, a highly impressive statistic.
A fact that stands out most to me is that TXA is cheap and easy to make. It is not common that new advances in medicine are cost efficient. Furthermore, researchers' fears of side effects such as blood clots, strokes, or heart attacks are dissipated by the knowledge that none of these issues have been found in their study. For now, TXA doesn't seem to have a downside and hopefully, it stays that way for trauma patients. Imagine the possibilities!
I am hoping to hear more about the medication as new research is made. Discoveries like these make me excited to pursue a career in Pharmacy.
Read the full article at: http://cbs3.com/health/life.saving.medications.2.1753119.html
Tuesday, June 22, 2010
Interesting Article from ScienceDaily.com
I stumbled upon this article online and thought it was worth sharing. It's clear that trauma affects people in a great deal of ways. It is important for those patients to be well-educated and offered all the resources that could help them.
"Uninsured More Likely to Die from Trauma Than Patients With Insurance, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (June 14, 2010) — Trauma patients without insurance are more likely to die of their injuries from auto accidents and gunshot wounds than privately insured patients with similar injuries, according to findings of an analysis of 193,804 patients from 649 facilities conducted by University Buffalo emergency medicine physicians.
In addition, the authors found that Medicaid patients who were injured in motor vehicle accidents had a lower death rate than those with private insurance, indicating that factors other than the level of financial remuneration for medical services are influencing trauma outcomes.
Patients covered by any of the insurance plans studied -- Medicaid, Medicare, private and managed care organizations such as HMOs -- had better mortality rates for all injuries than persons without insurance, the analysis showed.
Results of the study were presented June 4 at the 2010 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Ariz.
Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine and first author on the study, says these findings suggest that the causes of this difference are many and probably are not based just on quality of care.
"Generally we don't know a trauma patient's insurance status when we treat them initially in the emergency department, which makes us ask if there are differences in these populations other than the delivery of care," says Jehle. "This finding was a little surprising.
"Both race and insurance status are independent predictors of mortality rates for trauma outcomes, and of the two, insurance status, specifically lack of coverage, is the most significant," he continues. "This is not unexpected, since uninsured adult patients in general have a 25 percent greater morality rate than insured adults for all medical conditions."
Lack of insurance could influence mortality in a number of ways, notes Jehle. With no way to pay for care, persons may delay getting treatment. Those without insurance frequently are from ethnic groups who face language or literacy problems, and may be afraid to go to a hospital.
Other factors could include differences in risk-taking behaviors. Studies have shown a relationship between not wearing seat belts and lack of health insurance, and that the uninsured are likely to drive older, less safe vehicles.
In addition, says Jehle, people without insurance have poorer health status in general, which would lessen their ability to survive a traumatic injury, and they often are treated differently. "Research shows that, for other than trauma injuries, the uninsured may actually receive less aggressive treatment and fewer diagnostic procedures," he says.
Universal health coverage could change these statistics, Jehle says. "For instance, there would be no need for patients to delay treatment with universal health coverage, and such coverage could improve the overall health status of injury victims and increase their survival rates."
The study data was extracted from the National Trauma Data Bank for 2001-05. The researchers concentrated on patients between the ages of 18 and 30 to eliminate those more likely to have chronic health conditions, leaving 191,666 patients in the analysis with complete data, including 150,332 blunt trauma patients and 41,334 penetrating trauma patients.
Blunt trauma patients were most commonly in motor vehicle accidents, with smaller subgroups of patients with falls or assaults. The penetrating trauma patients included all gunshot wounds, plus small subgroups of injuries from stabbings.
"If health care reform progresses," says Dietrich, "it would be interesting to revisit these findings."
Kris Attwood, a UB biostatistics graduate student, and Seth Gemme, a UB medical student, also contributed to the study."
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611123844.htm
"Uninsured More Likely to Die from Trauma Than Patients With Insurance, Study Finds
ScienceDaily (June 14, 2010) — Trauma patients without insurance are more likely to die of their injuries from auto accidents and gunshot wounds than privately insured patients with similar injuries, according to findings of an analysis of 193,804 patients from 649 facilities conducted by University Buffalo emergency medicine physicians.
In addition, the authors found that Medicaid patients who were injured in motor vehicle accidents had a lower death rate than those with private insurance, indicating that factors other than the level of financial remuneration for medical services are influencing trauma outcomes.
Patients covered by any of the insurance plans studied -- Medicaid, Medicare, private and managed care organizations such as HMOs -- had better mortality rates for all injuries than persons without insurance, the analysis showed.
Results of the study were presented June 4 at the 2010 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Ariz.
Dietrich Jehle, MD, UB professor of emergency medicine and first author on the study, says these findings suggest that the causes of this difference are many and probably are not based just on quality of care.
"Generally we don't know a trauma patient's insurance status when we treat them initially in the emergency department, which makes us ask if there are differences in these populations other than the delivery of care," says Jehle. "This finding was a little surprising.
"Both race and insurance status are independent predictors of mortality rates for trauma outcomes, and of the two, insurance status, specifically lack of coverage, is the most significant," he continues. "This is not unexpected, since uninsured adult patients in general have a 25 percent greater morality rate than insured adults for all medical conditions."
Lack of insurance could influence mortality in a number of ways, notes Jehle. With no way to pay for care, persons may delay getting treatment. Those without insurance frequently are from ethnic groups who face language or literacy problems, and may be afraid to go to a hospital.
Other factors could include differences in risk-taking behaviors. Studies have shown a relationship between not wearing seat belts and lack of health insurance, and that the uninsured are likely to drive older, less safe vehicles.
In addition, says Jehle, people without insurance have poorer health status in general, which would lessen their ability to survive a traumatic injury, and they often are treated differently. "Research shows that, for other than trauma injuries, the uninsured may actually receive less aggressive treatment and fewer diagnostic procedures," he says.
Universal health coverage could change these statistics, Jehle says. "For instance, there would be no need for patients to delay treatment with universal health coverage, and such coverage could improve the overall health status of injury victims and increase their survival rates."
The study data was extracted from the National Trauma Data Bank for 2001-05. The researchers concentrated on patients between the ages of 18 and 30 to eliminate those more likely to have chronic health conditions, leaving 191,666 patients in the analysis with complete data, including 150,332 blunt trauma patients and 41,334 penetrating trauma patients.
Blunt trauma patients were most commonly in motor vehicle accidents, with smaller subgroups of patients with falls or assaults. The penetrating trauma patients included all gunshot wounds, plus small subgroups of injuries from stabbings.
"If health care reform progresses," says Dietrich, "it would be interesting to revisit these findings."
Kris Attwood, a UB biostatistics graduate student, and Seth Gemme, a UB medical student, also contributed to the study."
Link: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100611123844.htm
Let's start with the basics: Trauma, Recovery, & RateADrug.com
Trauma is, as defined by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, "1. an injury (as a wound) to living tissue caused by an extrinsic agent 2. a disordered psychic or behavioral state resulting from severe mental or emotional stress or physical injury 3. an emotional upset, the personal trauma of an executive who is not living up to his own expectations." For others, trauma cannot be defined. It is an immensely personal experience that each sufferer comes into and experiences differently. For most, there are feelings of depression, anxiety, lack of power, loneliness, and helplessness. There are several symptoms and disorders that may follow a significant trauma.
There are several events that can cause trauma, including assault, rape, transportation accidents, natural disasters, war, prison, and many other kinds of physical, emotional, or psychological abuses and violence. These can all be life-changing situations that causes a person to change their personality, living habits, location, relationships with others, and all other aspects of normal life. With advances in supportive treatments and medications, trauma sufferers are able to regain the lives they once had and live happily and healthily.
This blog is dedicated to the causes, symptoms, medications, treatments, resources, and news pertaining to trauma and recovery, in conjunction with RateADrug.com. The free, online database contains a wealth of information on the effectiveness and side effects of several medications, including those used by trauma patients. The easy, quick surveys offered by RateADrug.com allow users to contribute to the site by sharing their experiences and opinions about drugs with other users. Keep reading this blog as it gets updated to learn more about trauma and recovery. There is a lot more information to be made available.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)