Medical cannabis is apparently patented ... by the U.S. government.
US Patent 6630507 - "Cannabinoids as antioxidants and neuroprotectants" was issued to The United States of America as represented by the Department of Health and Human Services on October 7, 2003.
Source: http://www.patentstorm.us/patents/6630507.html
Discuss.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,368902,00.html
Doctors 'Cure' Skin Cancer Patient Using His Own Blood Cells .....
This is a very positive and exciting development.
Obama wants to change medicine as we know it. Does that mean we will not have the US innovation that is on display in Seattle? Are we eliminating the engine of innovation with this change?
85% of the people in this county have access to the best health care in the world. If Obama wins, those 85% could be faced with this.
"Jacques Chaoulli is a doctor who provided home appointments to patients. He attempted to get a licence so he could offer his services as an independent private hospital, but was rejected due to provincial legislation prohibiting private health insurance."
Today I choose which doctor I go to. Tomorrow, someone like Rod Blagojevich might be deciding for me.
A NOW PBS special (Hat Tip: VA Watchdog.org) discussing a long standing problem with recent military personnel being misdiagnosed with Personality Disorder and other pre-existing conditions that often result in denied benefits, both by the military and the Veterans Affairs system after they're discharged:
Of the thousands of U.S. troops getting discharged from the Army each year, many who are suffering from post traumatic stress disorder and brain injuries aren't getting the vital care they need. The Army claims these soldiers have pre-existing mental illnesses or are guilty of misconduct. But advocates say this is a way for the Army to get rid of "problem" soldiers quickly, without giving them the treatment and benefits to which they're entitled.
Here's one of the soldier's personal accounts of the problem (Click to see the 6 minute video):
It's still happening. In spite of the outrage last year over it. And may be getting even worse as now government employees are getting caught sending "suggestions" like this down the chain.
This is beyond infuriating. Not just because it is happening... but because it appears that nothing has been done to effectively stop it.
I believe I may have linked this story before, but this article points it out again and it bears repeating:
Eventually the rocket shrapnel was removed from Town's neck and his ears stopped leaking blood. But his hearing never really recovered, and in many ways, neither has his life. A soldier honored twelve times during his seven years in uniform, Town has spent the last three struggling with deafness, memory failure and depression. By September 2006 he and the Army agreed he was no longer combat-ready.
But instead of sending Town to a medical board and discharging him because of his injuries, doctors at Fort Carson, Colorado, did something strange: They claimed Town's wounds were actually caused by a "personality disorder." Town was then booted from the Army and told that under a personality disorder discharge, he would never receive disability or medical benefits.
Town is not alone. A six-month investigation has uncovered multiple cases in which soldiers wounded in Iraq are suspiciously diagnosed as having a personality disorder, then prevented from collecting benefits. The conditions of their discharge have infuriated many in the military community, including the injured soldiers and their families, veterans' rights groups, even military officials required to process these dismissals.
A reasonable person may be inclined to ask, "Why the hell would they do such a horrible thing to our veterans?"
Easy answer: $$$
In the Army's separations manual it's called Regulation 635-200, Chapter 5-13: "Separation Because of Personality Disorder." It's an alluring choice for a cash-strapped military because enacting it is quick and cheap. The Department of Veterans Affairs doesn't have to provide medical care to soldiers dismissed with personality disorder. That's because under Chapter 5-13, personality disorder is a pre-existing condition. The VA is only required to treat wounds sustained during service.
Soldiers discharged under 5-13 can't collect disability pay either. To receive those benefits, a soldier must be evaluated by a medical board, which must confirm that he is wounded and that his wounds stem from combat. The process takes several months, in contrast with a 5-13 discharge, which can be wrapped up in a few days.
...
One military official says doctors at his base are doing more than withholding this information from wounded soldiers; they're actually telling them the opposite: that if they go along with a 5-13, they'll get to keep their bonus and receive disability and medical benefits. The official, who demanded anonymity, handles discharge papers at a prominent Army facility. He says the soldiers he works with know they don't have a personality disorder. "But the doctors are telling them, this will get you out quicker, and the VA will take care of you. To stay out of Iraq, a soldier will take that in a heartbeat. What they don't realize is, those things are lies. The soldiers, they don't read the fine print," he says. "They don't know to ask for a med board. They're taking the word of the doctors. Then they sit down with me and find out what a 5-13 really means--they're shocked."
I can't tell you how sick I am of hearing that same story from completely different people. I don't have the words for this kind of bureaucratic nonsense that does so much harm to save a buck, and is such a Milgram-esque clusterfuck of a mess with no hands knowing, or at least not being responsible for, what the other hand is doing... making it nearly impossible to know how much of this crap is going on with pre-existing conditions in general, not just Personality Disorder that was being looked at by congress.
Sadly, it's still going on. And doesn't appear to be stopping any time soon.
Following up on other posts:
Shhh...afting Veterans: VA employee caught red handed suggesting that her staff misdiagnose PTSD patience in order to save money.
What's More Disgraceful?: New stories of the military misdiagnosing service connected ailments as a pre-existing Personality Disorder, and the denial of benefits that result.
Psychological "Friendly" Fire: Veterans struggling with the VA claims backlog and bureaucracy and how the misconceptions and deceptions pushed by the Pentagon are making it even harder for returning veterans to deal with the VA bureaucracy.
Pentagon Disorder: The Personality Disorder Scam. The DoD takes service connected disabled vets and says they have pre-existing mental problems that get the government off the hook for paying for benefits for their war time and service connected disabilities. A real travesty.
More Vet Funding But...: Some good improvements on Vet funding, but still no movement on the Personality Disorder scam being used to deny benefits to veterans.
A couple months back I noted the increase in VA travel pay rates:
VA Watchdog.org was pointing out that the VA has upgraded the travel compensation pay for disabled veterans who qualify. Unfortunately the deductible is going up as well per law, so if you're 54 miles or closer according to the VA there is still no compensation even for those who otherwise qualify for travel compensation.
I made a quick 'n dirty excel chart showing the old versus new rates and compared for gas costs (assuming $3 per gallon and a car averaging 30mpg).
One important thing to point out here is that the mileage for gas costs is based on actual miles whereas the mileage assigned by the VA is often under actual mileage. For example, many people here in Champaign have been assigned a VA mileage of 66 miles in spite of the shortest round trip distance from the closest Champaign exit to the Danville VA hospital being 73 miles.
Unfortunately this leaves many disabled veterans in the Champaign area still paying more to get to their required hospital visits than they're compensated for. The VA does not typically reimburse veterans for health care treatment outside of the VA system unless there is a needed service that is not available at the VA hospital.
Unfortunately that gas price estimate is no longer quite valid, even though it seemed reasonable at the time. Only a few months back... oof!
Seeing gas stations locally hitting over 4 bucks a gallon, and noting the VA appointment I have this week... I figure that graphic deserves an update assuming $4 per gallon instead:
At least we're not stuck at the old rates.
Still, it has me leaning more and more towards McCain's idea of allowing veterans to get more of their basic care at hospitals/clinics of their choice instead of forcing them to make these absurd round trips (roughly an hour and half total for me), burning through a resource we are otherwise attempting to cut back usage on, and using up the time/energy/funding resources of a system that is generally overwhelmed.
I'd still want to keep the VA hospitals themselves in charge of more specialized care for veterans, and still allow the option of getting basic care at the VA hospitals if the veteran prefers it, as McCain's stated plan also does.
It just makes sense to me. The hysterical criticisms of it, do not.
Majority of Americans satisfied with their healthcare plans.
Gallup's annual Healthcare survey, conducted Nov. 11-14, finds 57% of Americans saying they are satisfied with the total cost they pay for their healthcare, while 39% are dissatisfied. These percentages have been quite stable in recent years, after a slight dip in reported satisfaction between 2001 (64%) and 2002 (58%).
That stability is somewhat at odds with other recent trends in the poll. For example, of the roughly 6 in 10 Americans who have private health insurance plans, a shrinking number report that that their employers pay their full premiums. In 2001, 24% said their employers paid the full premium; now, just 15% do. During that time, there has been an increase in the percentage saying the premiums are shared between themselves and their employers.
Implications: Americans may express a desire for changing the U.S. healthcare system but a perhaps surprisingly large number are content with the health insurance and health coverage they currently have.
(Emphasis added)
My question to those who are pushing universal single payer health care has always been: how do you convince the majority of Americans who are relatively happy with their current health insurance to support such a drastic change?
There's more here.
(Hat tip: Stephen Bainbridge)
I just watched a documentary by PBS's Frontline on the different health care systems around the world. I thought the program to be very informative and a little less reductionist than Michael Moore's Sicko. It is reductionist to call all healthcare systems in European industralized countries "socialized medicine" as each one is different with many even having private delivery and insurance options. Let's not play that game.
I think this Frontline program would be a bit more palatable for everyone across the spectrum. Though the reporter is unmistakably critical of the America's system, he includes the pitfalls of the non-American systems too. And I'm sure he chose to omit some things. As critical consumers of media - as I sure everyone is ;) - everything should be taken with a grain of salt.
It's important to recognize that no health care system is perfect and that every system has many facets to it. What's important is to have an open, rational dicussion about it.
You can watch the full program online here.
Frontline also breaks down the four main health care systems here.
Update: I updated my poor grammer and spelling! I thought there was a spell check on this blog.
This article is a great series of quotes put together by News-Gazette reporter Paul Wood, featuring the thoughts of Champaign County Board members on the County Nursing Home, in their own words.
An example:
"I favor keeping a publicly funded public Champaign County nursing home that breaks even financially or even makes a profit. There will be times when state Medicaid/Medicare rules change payment unexpectedly and an infusion of money will be needed. We have unforeseen overtime in the sheriff's department, but nobody says privatize that; we have massive attorney bills for outside counsel in murder trials, etc. I favored a much higher operational levy when the issue was placed before the voters, as I knew the one adopted would be inadequate. I think we need to ask the voters in November to vote yes or no on a realistic operational levy. If they say no, then it is time to consider selling the 'business.'" – Tom Betz, D-District 8
There will be a special meeting Tuesday evening to discuss the nursing home.
VA Watchdog.org put out a "Call To Action" on a bill in Congress that would expand dental benefits from only the highest rated VA patients to all disabled vets:
CALL TO ACTION: BILL WOULD GIVE DENTAL BENEFITS TO
ALL DISABLED VETS -- Have your elected Representative
support H.R. 5595 which would give dental coverage to
all vets with at least a 10% service-connected rating.
Time to get busy Brother and Sister veterans.
H.R. 5595 would give full dental benefits to any veteran with a service-connected disability of at least 10%.
It's about time!
Get hold of your Member of the House and make sure they support this bill.
If this doesn't pass...it's our fault for not pushing it.
I'm personally a bit torn on this issue since the bill doesn't seem to address funding to expand the dental services or require that such funding/expansion be addressed if passed. I honestly don't mind the idea of expanding dental care coverage to vets but here's my two big worries:
Currently at the local Danville VA hospital the wait times for a dental appointment is often one to two months at current levels.
This bill would multiply the number of eligible vets by a factor of 12... from 5,000 to over 60,000. Even if the actual result was only double the dental patients as opposed to 12 times the number of patients... how the heck is anyone going to get timely care? The bill doesn't appear to fund extra staff/equipment/facilities... nor does it expand the fee basis allowances to outsource the work to local dentists to cut back the backlog.
This seems to be an extremely well intentioned bill with some really big holes. Whether or not the funding/expansion can be done to do this is a whole other problem... or if this is even the appropriate place to start looking at expanding services versus making sure current services can at least run efficiently first.
Nationwide this bill would boost eligibility by a factor of 10, from roughly 250,000 vets to 2.5 million. For a VA consistently getting dogged for it's long wait times, both in claims, and at the hospitals themselves, this seems like really bad timing for an otherwise good idea. I'd rather fix the current problems than add more problems to the heap and hope that somehow those other problems with resolve themselves.
The VA needs better funding and management right now. Then add more services once you can meet the current demand for the current services.
If you disagree... call your representatives and let them know. What do I know anyways?
Here's the related news article:
More dental coverage sought for vets
March 28, 2008Veterans with service-connected disabilities would get expanded dental coverage under bipartisan legislation introduced by U.S. Rep. Mark Kirk, R-Highland Park.
The "Make Our Veterans Smile Act" (House Resolution 5595) was co-introduced by Kirk and fellow Navy Reserve intelligence officer U.S. Rep. Chris Carney, D-Pa.
Currently, only 100 percent disabled, homeless or prisoner-of-war veterans are eligible for dental benefits. The bill, if signed into law, expands dental coverage to any service-connected disabled veteran, regardless of disability rating starting Jan. 1, 2009.
...
According to the Veterans Administration, 258,000 veterans currently are eligible for dental benefits. More than 2.5 million additional disabled veterans would receive coverage under the Kirk-Carney bill.
In Illinois, coverage would expand from nearly 5,000 veterans to more than 60,000 veterans, according to the Congressional Research Service.
You make the call.
VA Watchdog.org was pointing out that the VA has upgraded the travel compensation pay for disabled veterans who qualify. Unfortunately the deductible is going up as well per law, so if you're 54 miles or closer according to the VA there is still no compensation even for those who otherwise qualify for travel compensation.
I made a quick 'n dirty excel chart showing the old versus new rates and compared for gas costs (assuming $3 per gallon and a car averaging 30mpg).
One important thing to point out here is that the mileage for gas costs is based on actual miles whereas the mileage assigned by the VA is often under actual mileage. For example, many people here in Champaign have been assigned a VA mileage of 66 miles in spite of the shortest round trip distance from the closest Champaign exit to the Danville VA hospital being 73 miles.
Unfortunately this leaves many disabled veterans in the Champaign area still paying more to get to their required hospital visits than they're compensated for. The VA does not typically reimburse veterans for health care treatment outside of the VA system unless there is a needed service that is not available at the VA hospital.
There is a monthly limit on the deductible so if you're there a great deal, 4 or more times a month, then you may start coming out ahead. Otherwise not so much.
This is still an improvement over the earlier rates, but the deductible still throws it off so that disabled veterans aren't fully compensated.
From today's News-Gazette:
A Champaign County judge today dismissed an antitrust lawsuit filed by Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan against Carle and Christie clinics.
But the matter may not end there.
Judge Richard Klaus granted motions by the two clinics to dismiss the state's complaint but gave the attorney general's office another chance to refile it addressing facts more specifically within the framework of the state's antitrust law.
The state has 30 days to refile its complaint.
Discuss.
This link is to an article about toy manufacturer compliance with standards to protect workers in overseas plants and to ensure the safety of their products--a somewhat more important, but less visible issue than my last blog post about baseball and drug use. The artcile focuses mostly on Mattel. Partcipants in this forum who invoke the term "nanny-statism" or have interest in protecting people as well as whales should have some comment
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/magazine/23Mattel-t.html?th&emc=th
From Saturday's News-Gazette:
The Champaign County Board could create an advisory board for its nursing home, under a plan championed by its administrator and county board Chairman C. Pius Weibel.
The board will vote on creating the board at its regular monthly meeting at 7 p.m. Tuesday at the Brookens Center, 1776 E. Washington St., U.
Nursing home administrator Andrew Buffenbarger and the county's co-administrator, Debra Busey, had earlier floated the idea of having a board and a consultant firm hired, which in turn would employ Buffenbarger.
That idea died in committee.
Under the new proposal, the board of directors would have seven members, two of whom would be county board members.
Discuss.
Carle is suing over their exempt status. Article tonight in the Gazette.
You can read their suit here.
Some of the more passionate discussions on this blog have been about the use of embryonic stem cells in medical research and the funding of that research by the state and federal governments. So the recent developments that might obviate the use of embryonic stem cells is worthy of another go around.
But what I found equally intriguing, are the moral qualms of the pioneer in embryonic stem cell research, James Thomson, a U of I grad and professor at the University of Wisconsin. The Corner has a clip from his comments that are available in full at the NY Times if you're willing to sign up for free. The statement that stands out most is this.
“If human embryonic stem cell research does not make you at least a little bit uncomfortable, you have not thought about it enough,” he said.
This sort of admission is largely missing from the propenents of embryonic stem cell research. Instead, those who oppose the research are largely portrayed as scientific neanderthals. As Katherine Jean Lopez says, it would have been nice to have had Prof. Thomson saying this during the middle of this contentious debate. But I'll take this late admission on his part that the morality and ethics behind this issue are not easily brushed aside as some would do.
For those who advocate universal, government-provided health insurance, Gov. Rod Blagojevich's bungling manipulation of Illinois' Medicaid and All Kids programs isn't inspiring trust.
Dr. David Deutsch, a Rockford pediatric gastroenterologist, said he does not limit his public aid caseload but that many other local doctors, particularly specialists, do. He said it’s difficult to make referrals.
“We’re having trouble getting patients into those practices,” he said. “Some of them are having to go to Chicago to be seen. It really is an issue for access.”
There are also questions about whether the Blagojevich administration successfully implemented the two initiatives it said would save the money needed to fund All Kids. By requiring All Kids and Medicaid enrollees to join primary-care case management and disease management programs, the administration planned to save about $56 million over the first year of All Kids, which was expected to cost $45 million annually.
Those two managed-care initiatives are designed to reduce emergency-room use and referrals to specialists, help patients stay healthy and make it easier for patients to find doctors willing to accept payment from the state.
In August, a report by the California-based Kaiser Commission on Medicaid and the uninsured said those initiatives had “implementation problems.” It warned that successful implementation “is critical for the program’s long-term viability.”
The administration said it had phased in both initiatives, but it acknowledges a mandatory referral system won’t be in place until at least early next year. That system, under which patients in primary-care management are prohibited from seeing providers out of network, is a key to controlling costs.
Less like this, please.
From today's News-Gazette.
Carle Clinic has cut some jobs at its branch facility in Bloomington, but doesn't anticipate making any similar cuts at its clinics in the Champaign-Urbana area, Carle officials say.
The cuts in Bloomington – which affected seven people, plus about 12 vacant positions – were all non-medical staff positions added to support additional doctors, said Mike Bukosky, chief administrative officer for the Urbana-based clinic system.
However, he added, the support staff was ramped up over the last 18 months in anticipation of more doctors than the clinic was actually able to hire.
Discuss.
McLean County Pundit says:
From sources inside Carle Clinic:
$2 million in debt?
Fired 7 nurses Friday-walked them to and out the door
Hiring replacements at $10/hour to replace the nurses “because they can do the same thing the nurses do at $25/hour”
DEVELOPING. . .
I doubt there's anything serious to it - Carle is expanding into SE Urbana and SW Champaign and adding to their main campus. What do you think?
An interesting tidbit off of VA Watchdog.org the other day:
Ignoring the long litany of charges about the defects in the VA system and statutes and abuses of veterans, the government argues that all claims by anyone about the treatment of our veterans must be “channeled” through that same system, however flawed. Defendants belittle the Complaint as merely raising “frustrations with political processes,” and urge that the problems described therein can only be addressed to “representative branches of government.”
...
Ironically, the government’s motion to dismiss addresses the veterans’ complaint that the laws and procedures applied by the VA are constitutionally inadequate by suggesting that veterans have no rights at all, no forum to raise their complaints, and no access to our district courts. Relying on the archaic principle that “the King can do no wrong,” the government argues that all claims by veterans against the government are barred by sovereign immunity.
The actual motion to dismiss and the arguments described above are available here: Motion to Dismiss
It's an interesting part of the equation of government run programs that is often ignored: sovereign immunity. It's a legal concept that carried over from our English roots that basically means you cannot sue the king in the king's court. In our king-less system it generally applies to our government. The exceptions are the exceptions that the government itself makes that allow you to sue them.
It's a legal concept that doesn't apply to insurance companies. If they violate your contract, you can sue. If they cause you harm by not fulfilling their legal contractual obligations, you can sue. If they have a systemic legal problem an entire class of litigants can sue for damages or force them into a settlement that either corrects or compensates for their behavior.
Some people point to the dirty tactics employed by private insurance companies to deny rightful benefits to their clients as proof that we need the government to fulfill their role. The problem with that argument is that the government and private insurance companies have this trait in common. The almighty dollar still comes into strong play, often at the expense of the needs of those who qualify for benefits but are denied. In the private insurance world the drive is to ensure the company is profitable. With the government the problem lies more with limited budgets and agencies competing for that tax revenue.
At the heart of the cold and uncaring bureaucratic image both seem to obtain is the fact that the people at the top making the rules are looking at the numbers and the budgets and making the rules accordingly. The workers who have to implement those rules and actually have to deal with the customers/citizens are not empowered to bend those rules, no matter how strange or unfair they seem when actually applied. If they did they probably wouldn't be employed much longer.
So what's your recourse if you're getting hosed?
If it's the terms of your insurance being changed prior to an illness then with private insurance the option is to take your business elsewhere. With the government you'd have to hope that your fellow citizens agree and are willing to make votes reflective of that view in consequent elections. If they agree but other issues take priority for them you'll still be hosed. The bet rests on whether enough support can be built specifically on the issue to influence current or future legislators. If it's a rule that affects few you'll have your work cut out for you. Whereas with private insurance, the only person it has to affect is you for a change to be instigated. You can take your business elsewhere.
If you are being denied coverage for something you are entitled to during an illness you can spend months or years dealing with the internal government claims processes before the government will allow you, within a narrow scope, to question the denial in an actual court. With insurance companies you can hold them fully accountable to their contractual obligations and for any resulting damages in a court of law. Neither situation is ideal to say the least. But one obviously gives an injured party far more leverage. With private insurance though such incidents can be taken into consideration when shopping for insurance so it can even play a role beyond the individual plaintiff.
The Safety Net
These arguments fall on deaf ears to someone who can't afford private insurance or their current medical costs. What good is all that choice and the ability to hold insurance companies accountable if you can't afford to be their customer in the first place? The answer: no good at all.
The above arguments are the most applicable to those who can afford private insurance but believe that the government can offer a better system for everyone. They are only setting themselves up for disappointment if they believe that government coverage would be better for them.
For those that don't have the option they need a safety net. Some libertarians argue that the government need not be involved in this safety net. They argue that private charities could fulfill this need if it wasn't for the extreme tax burden faced by potential donors. Democrats tend to lean more towards a wide government safety net that includes preventative care as well. Republicans tend to hold positions in between.
My federalist views on State authority and accountability and my belief that healthcare is a legitimate need of the people, even those that can't afford it, leads me to support a more broad safety net for those who have limited income/assets, disabilities, etc. I don't believe the federal government can be held appropriately accountable to ensure these programs are run to the satisfaction of the citizenry. It would necessitate a significant shift in the national tax burden to the individual States but I consider this long overdue.
What Else?
The other big issue for me is the rising costs of healthcare that are pushing more and more people into the group that simply cannot afford to pay for it or insurance rates for it. The libertarians may not be totally off base with wanting a more free-market solution to the problem. I'm not sure if I buy into the idea that charities alone could fulfill the need out there even if the tax burden was drastically reduced, but perhaps there is more that could be done to coordinate charities and other non-profit groups to fill the void in both covering the costs and providing healthcare.
I'm also greatly annoyed at the "cut-off" style rules governments often employ for healthcare programs. A more progressive subsidizing system after a certain income level would make more sense so that the government isn't inadvertently discouraging people from advancing. If getting a promotion and raise means your kid gets cut off from needed healthcare you still can't otherwise afford, would you still take the promotion?
I'd also like to see employers and employees demand that any group insurance coverage they sign on to covers them for at least some reasonable time after someone loses their job for whatever reason. A buffer period between jobs seems a pretty reasonable request, especially since the job loss may have to do with family medical issues.
And of course I'd also like to ensure that cases of fraud, overbilling, etc by heathcare providers and coverage groups are prosecuted as that only makes it more expensive for everyone. Speaking of which. When government programs do not pay the full amounts for healthcare, that seems to only push the burden on those who pay directly or through or other private coverage groups. Any ideas to help reduce costs and make healthcare more affordable I'm willing to listen to. I'm not going to support empowering the government to do anything and everything to do it though. When you empower the government you have to assume the people you disagree with will abuse that power when the get into office, not just look at what the people you agree with will do with it.
Imagine the Democratic Party's outrage if HillaryCare turned into HalliburtonCare down the road. Sure it might be great to see the look on their faces, but it wouldn't be worth it.
Oh maybe it'd be worth it for a minute or two.
Okay just for a minute.
The closing of four streets in Urbana for the expansion of Carle Foundation Hospital was unanimously approved at Monday's Urbana City Council meeting. Urbana will be paid $1 million collectively for the four streets. Charlie Smyth, Ward 1, said most of the money paid to the city will purchase a new traffic signal on Church Street.
The council's approval may allow the closing of portions of Park Street between Busey and Coler avenues, of Coler Avenue between Park and Church streets, and of Coler Avenue between University Avenue and Park Street.
One of the proposed closings, a portion of Busey Avenue between University Avenue and Park Street, was deleted from the agreement between the city and Carle because it will only be used for construction equipment. The other streets have been designated as future sites for the additions to the facility.
John Snyder, executive vice president and chief operating officer for Carle Hospital, said the streets will be closed within the next six to nine months, pending approval by the health facility planning board. The expansion is currently a $144 million project, he said.
Discuss.
Over the summer, I got a letter from a former health insurance provider saying that Christie Clinic had submitted a claim to them for services rendered in April. This was strange since I hadn't been one of their patients since 2005. Of course, the claim had been denied since I no longer had an insurance policy with them - otherwise, I'm assuming that it might have been paid. I called Christie customer service, and after spending some time on hold, I talked to a representative who told me that it had been a mistake and they'd take care of it.
Guess what just arrived in the mail yesterday? A bill from Christie for $300-some dollars for services rendered in April. Of course, I still hadn't received any health care services from Christie since 2005, so I guess it's not too surprising that I've never met the doctor listed on the bill. Has anyone else had similar experiences with Christie?
Please consider a donation to support this site:
Thank you to our generous supporters!
