Drywall Victim Insurance Protection Act: Prayer in H*ll?

November 18th, 2009. By AbiK

While we’re waiting on the Chinese drywall trials to get going in 2010, there’s no shortage of activity on the subject. Just yesterday, a federal bill was filed called the Drywall Victim Insurance Protection Act (sponsored by Rep. Charlie Melancon, D-La). Now, if you’re sitting in a home sniffing the sulfuric fumes, that might sound like good news, right? A bill that would prohibit insurers from canceling or altering coverage of homes that contain Chinese drywall sounds like a nice safety net for folks wondering if they’re about to be dropped from their homeowners’ policies. Ah, but there’s a rub…

The issue is that the insurance industry isn’t regulated at the federal level; it’s regulated at the state level. So, as quoted at BradentonHerald.com (11/18/09), Michael Barry, a spokesman for the Insurance Information Institute, stated the proposed bill “would have little or no effect” if passed.

Clearly that’s not what homeowners want to hear.

So why submit a federal bill that will, in effect, be meaningless?

Well, take the case of Citizens Property Insurance Corporation. They recently felt the effects of some bad press when they told a Colorado couple with a home in Punta Gorda (with, of course, Chinese drywall) that they weren’t renewing their policy. The news hit the media airwaves bigtime and wouldn’t you know it, Citizens Property reversed the decision to not renew. Translation: the more press, the more results—or so the theory would go.

And clearly that must be the thinking shared by U.S. Senator Bill Nelson, D-Fl, who was quoted via a spokesman, Bryan Gulley, in the BradentonHerald.com article as stating, “While homeowner insurance largely is governed by state laws, it doesn’t hurt to press wherever possible, and Nelson certainly supports Rep. Melancon’s effort.”

Asbestos News Roundup: 11.17.09

November 17th, 2009. By LucyC

A roundup of recent asbestos-related news, asbestos lawsuits and the latest asbestos hot spots-places where asbestos has been found-and that you should be aware of.

Asbestos Lawsuits

Jefferson County, TX: A Texas-based carpenter has filed an asbestos-related disease lawsuit against 38 companies, claiming that his asbestos-related disease was wrongfully caused, that the defendant companies failed to test the asbestos-containing products before they were introduced into the marketplace, and that they failed to warn him about the dangers of asbestos. 

The named as defendants in the suit are : A.O. Smith Corp., A.W. Chesterton Co., American Optical, Ametek, Babcock Borsig Power, Bayer Cropscience, Bechtel, CBS Corp., Certainteed, Cleaver Brooks, Coltec Industries, Crane Co., Crown Cork & Seal, D&F Distributing, Exxon Mobil, Fluor Enterprises, Fluor Maintenance Services and Foster Wheeler.

And: Garlock Sealing Technologies, General Electric, Georgia Pacific, Goulds Pumps, Green Tweed, Henry Vogt Machine Co., Honeywell International, Industrial Holdings Inc., Ingersoll Rand, John Crane, Kelly Moore Paint Co., Minnesota Mining and Manufacturing, Pneumo Abex Corporation, Sepco Corp., Treco Construction Services, Uniroyal Holdings, Washington Group International and Zurn Industries. (SETexasRecord.com) 

Asbestos Hot Spots

Alberta, Canada: Asbestos has been found at Suncor Oil operations in the Canadian Oil Sands, Read the rest of this entry »

Online Pharma Advertising…can’t wait

November 17th, 2009. By AbiK

Actually I can. You know how drug advertisements look in magazines—it can be like 3 pages of text (aka “product disclosure”) that runs on and on and interrupts whatever you’re reading. Heaven help you if you’re reading Reader’s Digest where 3 pages suddenly becomes 5 due to the smaller format. And if you do take a moment to glance at the ad, you’ve got to be thinking that something that takes that much explaining maybe shouldn’t be taken at all. Be that as it may, enter the brave new world of online advertising…

Well, there’s just no room online to be putting all that junk. Those tightly designed banner ads would become full-page ads with all the disclosure notices included and I guarantee that after coming face to face with a few “impressions” of those, you’ll never click on that website again.

And don’t the drug companies know it. But they need to be pushing their wares online—that’s where all the “growth” is these days. So now, get this—the drug industry’s big guys like Eli Lilly and Pfizer are turning to the FDA for guidance on how to push their goods online. Why? The current FDA guidelines for advertising in traditional print media (magazines, newspapers) or t.v. require all that disclosure information is shown prominently. But there aren’t really any guidelines set for new media—so everyone’s playing by the rules of traditional media, and clearly that’s not good.

Not good for who? Big pharma, but also the bigger online media companies. See the online Read the rest of this entry »

What’s in Your Kid’s Favorite Drink? (Big Brother wants to know…)

November 16th, 2009. By LucyC

College kids, caffeine and alcohol. How many red flags does that sentence raise for you? Well, it’s raised a few at the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), specifically, is adding caffeine to alcoholic beverages legal, and is it safe from a health perspective? Short answer: the Agency isn’t sure…or at least that’s how it appears. 

So, last week the FDA issued a press release alerting the public about its latest course of action on this issue—which by the way is not new. The Wall Street Journal wrote a piece on this in August, stating “Last year, [2008] about a dozen attorneys general secured settlements with beer giants Anheuser-Busch InBev NV and MillerCoors LLC, which agreed to remove caffeine, guarana and other stimulants from drinks such as Sparks.” 

But that’s another story. I digress. The FDA press release informed the public that it has issued letters to 30 manufacturers of caffeinated alcoholic beverages—basically putting them on advisement that the whole issue is under investigation. The crux of the matter is:

“Under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a substance added intentionally to food (such as caffeine in alcoholic beverages) is deemed “unsafe” and is unlawful unless its particular use has been approved by FDA regulation, the substance is subject to a prior sanction, or the Read the rest of this entry »

Musing about Merck, Zetia and Gardasil

November 15th, 2009. By AbiK

So you caught the news recently that Merck’s Gardasil was approved by the FDA for use in boys ages 9 to 26. No one really expects much from this news—ie, doctors aren’t expected to be offering it to their male patients (or their parents as the case may be). But I find it interesting none the less.

First, the background…Gardasil is the vaccine that’s supposed immunize young girls (ages 9 – 26) from the HPV virus—aka, human papillomavirus, the sexually transmitted one that can lead to cervical cancer. There’s a lot of heated debate on Gardasil in girls–we’ve blogged on it as well–and the New York Times recently reported that in order to be effectively immunized with Gardasil, it requires a series of three injections, each costing $130 (translation, around $400; translation, it ain’t cheap). 

But now let’s just take a look at that NYT report again. I read on through the whole article…la Read the rest of this entry »