Showing posts with label patients charter of rights. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patients charter of rights. Show all posts

Saturday, November 15, 2014

Free Health Camps: Time for an audit

After witnessing many "health camps" in the past two decades, I have been advocating against such practice.

These are nothing but useless programs aimed at self promotion, business promotion, corporate advertising, catch volunteers for a clinical trial ; it suits the interests of self declared social activist organizations - to add to their scrap book. It also shows the failure of the health systems to reach the masses.

Remember that during these health camps, doctors have to discharge their duties under sub optimal conditions, patients are subjected to violation of their rights to privacy. Surgical health camps like dental/ cataract/ sterilisation are even more disastrous.

It is better to have screening camps instead, and get them to the hospital for proper care. CODS Manipal, OEU in KH, OBG in KH, SDM in Dharwad have successfully done it for years. Subsidized care through insurance based health cards is also a great way to spread health care.

However the publicity hungry, new age health administrators are more interested in the photograph with banners in the media, than actual health care to the needy.

Bilaspur sterilisation camp disaster should be ring the warning bell for the health administrators…avoid such camps in sub optimal conditions, avoid playing with the lives of people with contaminated generic medicines…


The Final Word to health administrators: If profit & publicity are your aim in life, join some tobacco/gutkha or liquor company…it gives you both.

Thursday, February 6, 2014

End of monopoly & restrictive trade practices at Private Hospitals

1. Generic medicines/ Branded Generics are not necessarily cheaper than Branded medicines!
Generics/ Brand Generics pass on close to 800% margin to the retailer, while the price may be just cheaper by 40% (click here for info) or check table:

In some corporate hospitals price of the Brand Generic can be higher than Branded medicines as brand generic suppliers can stamp the MRP dictated by the administrators! 

Example: Injection Meropenem: Meromac -branded MRP is Rs 871, Merofit- Brand Generic: Rs 2494. The hospital supply rate for both are around Rs 750. 

2. No pharmacist can substitute a Brand Generic medicine, without doctors prescription/ permission. (Reference: Rule 65 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and Rules 1945, amended till 1995)
3. Debate required on : whether a hospital can insist on medicines to bought in its own pharmacy, where choices are limited, and drugs from non FDA listed drug companies.
4. Remember: you have placed your trust with your DOCTOR. He knows what is the best for you. It is well within your right, to expect "no substitution" and choice of medicines at a pharmacy. Restrictive trade practices have been banned in India! (through MRTP Act, 1969)

While even your cooking salt is branded, why settle for an unbranded life saving medicine?

Sunday, November 24, 2013

The Second Opinion & Facebook


Every patient has a right for second or third opinion. Likewise, when approached by a patient, doctor too has the privilege of giving his opinion. Patient has the liberty to choose the treatment from the doctor he/ she trusts.However, patient or his relatives have NO RIGHT to malign the first opinion/ defame the doctor on the social networking sites. It is also a punishable offence under section 66 (A) of the Information Technology Act for causing damage to public image.


Background:
A patient is brought to a hospital with an ankle injury. Orthopaedic Surgeon examines the patient, after X Ray, patient is advised to undergo internal fixation by surgery. However, patients husband decides to seek second and third opinions, where non operative management was advised. Upon hearing the second and third opinions, patients husband posts the x ray with his version of the story, ridiculing the first opinion, thereby indirectly suspecting the motives, ethics of treatment of the hospital/ surgeon who gave the first opinion.
The post goes viral on the Facebook (in fact patients husband runs an application based on facebook- besides the point!), within 2 days with 22000 shares.

Question here:
is not about the validity of first/ second or third opinions on the patient/ x ray in question. It is about the gross misuse of a social networking site, for maligning an institution- hospital, defaming an orthopaedic surgeon of repute. Sadly, Dr Attique Vasdev (Manipal University Alumnus) who was at the receiving end of the facebook post, is not on facebook. He came to know about the post through his friends & Orthopaedics- Manipal University Alumni group on facebook. All efforts to post Dr Attique`s version of the incident, were promptly removed by the patients husband.

Dr Attique Vasdev`s version:
“The patient was referred to me by an old patient and came into the ER on the eve of 18th of November. I recommended an X-ray which indicated a Lateral Malleolus Fracture with Syndismotic Disruption. In view of the fact that this kind of fracture can lead to degenerative changes or painful joints, as per the AO [Arbeitsgemeinschaft für OsteoDePuy Synthesefragen or translated to Association for the Study of Internal Fixation ] guidelines of fracture management for ankle injuries the recommended strategy is surgery as the best course of action. My opinion was in the best interest of the patient, and the patient alone. I did not at any point state whether this was a ‘grade 3 fracture’. That is not terminology we use and was not used in your case.”
Dr Ashok Rajgopal, Chairman, Bone and Joint Institute, Medanta :The Medicity has reviewed the case and his view is as follows, "I am honestly shocked at the contents of the post going viral. The x-rays show a very clear indication for intervention. Anyone with experience in fracture treatment and who has attended any AO [Arbeitsgemeinschaft für OsteoDePuy Synthesefragen or translated to Association for the Study of Internal Fixation] course, which is the bible of fracture treatment, would endorse, whole heartedly, the opinion given by Dr Attique."
Medanta Medicity (post on FaceBook):(however removed by the patients husband): 
“It is extremely unfortunate that irresponsible statements of this nature have been disseminated. We uphold the highest standards of professionalism and ethics. Your post attempts to malign the reputation of the doctor concerned and the institution, on the basis of allegations that are patently false.”

Note from this Blog Editor:

Of late it has become a fashion to criticize the treatment protocols, treatment options suggested by the doctors. Remember that medical profession is guided by many regulatory bodies apart from highest level of practice of ethics by the professionals. There are periodic checks to ensure adherence to current treatment protocols. It takes many years for a surgeon, before he can build his practise & repute. It is also true that difference of opinion is common in the medical science, hence the patients have been provided with the privilege of second opinion, under patients charter of rights. Now, professional bodies (IMA, MCI, State Medical Councils) should pass resolution, that if a doctor is defamed on the social networks before complaining to the statutory bodies, the complaint should not be registered.

Defamatory posts on social networking sites, can do little damage to the reputation of the surgeons/ hospitals, however it can definitely cause a major damage to the most essential link in the treatment chain – TRUST.