I wouldn’t want to be a nurse administering heparin and I wouldn’t be surprised if seasoned nurses are reluctant to inject their patients with the blood thinner.
Most everyone is familiar with the incident that happened with actor Dennis Quaid’s twins: in 2007 a nurse picked up the wrong bottles of Heparin and the newborns were given an overdose that almost killed them. The “tired” nurse was blamed, and now Quaid has launched a campaign for better bottle-labeling systems. Wouldn’t better labeling be the responsibility of the drug manufacturer?
In October, US officials announced that heparin’s potency will be reduced by about 10 percent. So some patients will receive a higher-than-usual dose or number of units of heparin. (Sounds like good news for the manufacturer-unless the price of heparin drops by 10 percent. ) According to the FDA, recommended doses of heparin described in the drug’s label have not changed, and it does not recommend that clinicians increase a patient’s heparin dose to compensate for the reduced potency. Does that mean a patient has a higher risk of blood clots?
Researchers at the University of Oxford say that the risk of having a potentially fatal blood clot after surgery is higher and lasts for longer than had previously been thought. What if a patient isn’t given enough of the low-dosage heparin?
It’s very confusing.
According to HealthDay News, the decrease in potency will make it easier to spot impurities. The new lots will be identified by either the letter “N” placed next to the lot number or expiration date (three manufacturers) or a numeric code (one manufacturer). Got that?
Officials say that the correct dosing of heparin “has always been highly individualized and requires intense monitoring, which is a protocol that will remain in effect.” Dr. Dwaine Rieves, director of the FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Division of Medical Imaging and Hematology Products, said, ”The use of heparin is closely tied into monitoring and doses adjusted based on that.” If I were a nurse, I’d be thinking about Quaid’s twins who were given too much heparin; I’d be thinking about amputee James Bradley, who was given too much.
If some employers gaze into their crystal balls about now, they might want to start treating their workers better because 60 percent of employees intend to pursue new job opportunities now that the economic downturn is on an upswing.
According to a survey by Right Management Inc. that polled 904 North American workers, 21 percent said they “might” look for a new job and another 6 percent said a career move is unlikely, but they’ve updated their resumes anyway. So that leaves only 13 percent who intend to stay where they are. “Employees are clearly expressing their pent-up frustration with how they have been treated through the downturn,” said Right Management president Douglas Matthews.
Given those statistics, it’s gonna be interesting to see how many employees will stay loyal to a company that laid them off or basically took advantage of the economic climate to not pay overtime and other benefits.
Right Management also surveyed over 1,000 US employers and discovered that 9 out of 10 companies are willing to rehire former workers, mainly because they are “familiar with the jobs and the organizational culture”.
Maybe rogue employers should start paying overtime compensation. And they might have to dangle a pretty big carrot to get their former employees back…
At the risk of patting myself—and LawyersAndSettlements.com (LAS)—on the back, I want to share these comments from someone who filed a complaint with LAS. Two years ago I interviewed Blanco Alonzo regarding his unpaid overtime complaint against Maximus corporation. Yesterday I talked with Blanco about a separate issue regarding California labor law violations and he brought me up to speed on the Maximus case…
“You really helped in 2007,” says Blanco. “Right after you interviewed me about my overtime case, about 20 attorneys called, and now I am the lead plaintiff.
“I selected one lawyer based in Texas who had a lead in California. My case is very strong and it is currently being determined whether it will be a class action lawsuit presented at the federal or state level.
“I always think about you because if it wasn’t for you I would never have gotten an attorney in 2007. And now so many cases against Maximus are being pursued after my case became nationally known.
My case number is BC381220 assigned to Judge Jane Johnson in Los Angeles, and it was filed November 26, 2007. We could have already settled but Maximus tried to file bankruptcy. I always read that article you wrote about me and tell people, ‘Jane wrote this case so well’ and I am so happy to communicate with you again. As well, my lawyer said the article was great and they get a lot of clients through LawyersAndSettlements.com.”
Bayer is likely seeing its Tylenol sales drop these past few weeks after the FDA finally took aim at acetaminophen over-the-counter (OTC) products and the media made it headlines.
Many consumers are loyal to certain brands and I’ve taken my fair share of Tylenol over the years, but for me, Tylenol’s had its day in the sun. What’s most disturbing is that the FDA has known since at least 1977 that severe liver damage can occur as a result of acetaminophen overdose. Back then, their advisers recommended explicit warnings not to exceed the dose or take acetaminophen for more than 10 days, but the FDA never took action.
So now the agency is making up for lost time and warning people that taking a few extra Tylenol pills here and there, thinking OTC meds are safe, could result in acetaminophen toxicity. Isn’t that like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted? Since 1977!
And the German drug maker (with HQ in New Jersey) may soon take a dive in profits-there’s a new kid on the block touting a safe alternative to acetaminophen.
BioElectronics Corp. recently completed an acetaminophen comparison study and its results will be announced next Monday, November 16. Their timing is ripe to introduce ActiPatch and Allay, alternatives to Tylenol and other acetaminophen products.
“We believe this is important research especially considering the many health concerns expressed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration relative to Tylenol, NSAIDs and other over the counter pain medications,” said Andrew Whelan, CEO of BioElectronics, Corp. ” We look forward to reviewing the full study data and submitting it to FDA in support of our current pending 510(K) applications and additional applications we plan to file in the future.”
In the meantime, no doubt consumers are studying labels on OTC meds more carefully these days, especially after the FDA’s recent announcement about the dangers of acetaminophen overdose in children’s meds. The FDA committee has insisted that all children’s and infant’s acetaminophen products be sold at the same concentration, simplifying dosing instructions. Currently the labels are confusing– there are several different strengths of liquids, chewables, and “Junior” tablets that give dosage instructions by weight and age.
What I find mind-boggling is how Bayer has controlled OTC pain meds for so long while there are safer alternatives.
Back in July Pleading Ignorance looked at Moneygram and its involvement, if any, to consumer fraud. We really did plead ignorance because it turns out that Moneygram isn’t the reputable company we believed it to be. Although we weren’t scammed financially as countless unfortunate US consumers were, “The wool got pulled over our eyes”, as the old saying goes.
The FTC recently charged that the second-largest money transfer service in the US allowed its money transfer system to be used by fraudulent telemarketers to bilk consumers out of tens of millions of dollars. And it has to pay the FTC a hefty $18 million to compensate consumers.
That sounds like a lot of dough, but it’s a measly amount to pay back, considering that many consumers likely didn’t report a loss. And a recent FTC survey reported almost 80 percent of all MoneyGram transfers of $1,000 or more from the US to Canada over a four-month period in 2007 were fraud-induced.
And if that’s not enough to make you shake your head, MoneyGram itself received more than 20,600 fraud complaints that cost consumers more than $44 million to cross-border money-transfer frauds between 2004 and 2008 alone. Combine that with losses reported by U.S. consumers on money transfers within the US and that number almost doubles to a whopping $84 million! Cha-ching!
According to the FTC, MoneyGram knew that its network has been used over the last few years by telemarketing scammers to prey on US consumers. And worse, some MoneyGram agents were also scam artists but the money transfer service more or less turned a blind eye. Big mistake: the FTC had MoneyGram in its eagle eye.
This is how the scam works. Con artists prefer to use money transfer services because they can pick up transferred money immediately, the payments are often untraceable, and unknowing consumers can’t do anything about it. Until now, that is.
The FTC has a new Consumer Alert, available on its website, titled “Money Transfers Can Be Risky Business.” And consumers interested in the process of redress administration should call 1-202-326-3755.