Joint replacements are the #1 expenditure of Medicare. The process of approving these medical devices is flawed according to the Institute of Medicine. It is time for patients' voices to be heard as stakeholders and for public support for increased medical device industry accountability and heightened protections for patients. Post-market registry. Product warranty. Patient/consumer stakeholder equity. Rescind industry pre-emptions/entitlements. All clinical trials must report all data.
Please share what you have learned!
Twitter: @JjrkCh
Showing posts with label defective device. Show all posts
Showing posts with label defective device. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 3, 2017

Could One Company Be . . . Medtronic? St. Jude?



By FRED SCHULTE and CHRISTINA JEWETT   OCT. 2, 2017  The New York Times
WASHINGTON — Medicare paid at least $1.5 billion over a decade to replace seven types of defective heart devices, a government watchdog says. The devices apparently failed for thousands of patients.
A report released on Monday by the inspector general’s office for Health and Human Services said officials needed to do a better job tracking these costly product failures to protect patients from harm. More detailed reporting could lead to earlier recognition of serious problems with medical devices and faster recalls of all types of “poorly performing” ones, the inspector general’s office said.
The report marks the first effort by anyone in government to assess the losses to taxpayers and patients 65 and older from medical gear that proves faulty.
Officials said the $1.5 billion lost from the seven devices from 2005 through 2014 was a “conservative estimate.” Patients also paid $140 million in out-of-pocket costs for this care, the report noted.
The report found that nearly 73,000 people on Medicare had one of the seven devices replaced because of recalls, premature failures, medically necessary upgrades or infections. It did not outline specific injuries that patients suffered as a result.

The inspector general did not identify the manufacturers of the seven devices, but officials said they included implanted cardio defibrillators and a pacemaker that had either been recalled because of flaws or had “prematurely failed.” Pacemakers and implantable defibrillators are small devices placed under the skin to help treat irregular heartbeats.
How best to identify these defects and cut Medicare spending associated with fixing them has been under consideration at various times since 2007, according to the report. But it remains a contentious issue.
The inspector general recommended that hospitals and doctors be required to submit detailed information identifying failed devices, like serial and batch numbers, during the billing process.
“This could help reduce Medicare costs by identifying poorly performing devices more quickly, which could also protect beneficiaries from unnecessary costs and improve their chances of receiving appropriate follow-up care more quickly,” the report said.
David Lamir, an official in the inspector general’s Boston office, said the $1.5 billion figure represented a “drop in the bucket” of the true costs to Medicare from medical products that malfunction. He said device failures not only waste money, but also can expose patients to a “high risk of illness,” including needless surgeries.

The report said that medical device recalls nearly doubled from 2003 through 2012 and noted that they have probably cost Medicare billions of dollars. In the past five to six years, more than 200 cardiac devices have been recalled, according to the inspector general’s office. In most cases, manufacturers withdrew their products voluntarily after reports surfaced of injuries or malfunctions. Device makers are required to report problems they learn of, often from doctors and hospitals, to a database run by the Food and Drug Administration.
Diana Zuckerman, president of the National Center for Health Research who has testified before Congress on device safety, said her organization supports making hospitals report malfunctioning devices when they seek Medicare payments to cover an implant surgery. She said the change would help officials pinpoint faulty devices before issuing a recall for tens of thousands of products in patients.
“It would be much more obvious much more quickly which implanted devices were causing problems,” she said.
Ms. Zuckerman noted that the report did not touch on other high-profile device failures, like metal-on-metal hip implants or vaginal mesh.
Medical device companies and some doctors have opposed tighter reporting, arguing that it would be costly and difficult to integrate with existing payment claim forms and might not yield useful information.
“It is abundantly clear that data collected in electronic health records is a far superior and more cost-effective method for monitoring the performance of medical devices,” said Mark Leahey, who heads the Medical Device Manufacturers Association. The trade group represents nearly 300 device companies.
Mr. Leahey said that the electronic health record “captures the full clinical history of the patient, their changing health status and detailed information on their medical treatments,” including any surgically implanted devices.
A spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said the agency had not seen the report and would have no comment.
But in written remarks included in the report, Seema Verma, the agency’s administrator, said the tighter reporting requirement was “under consideration” and that the agency would “carefully evaluate the potential that this policy would impose a burden on physicians unnecessarily.”
This article was produced in collaboration with Kaiser Health News, an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation. 
  • https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/02/health/heart-devices-medicare.html?_r=0

Wednesday, September 13, 2017

Mandamus Denied. The Trial Begins September 18 in Dallas.

Update: September 20, 2017 is the first day of the trial.  September 18 was a pre-trial meeting(lawyers only, no observers) and a questionnaire to potential jurors.

In Re DePuy, 17-10812 (5th Cir. 08/31/2017)

September 12, 2017


  • United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
  • 17-10812
  • JERRY E. SMITH, CIRCUIT JUDGE
  • Over 9300 plaintiffs alleged the defendants designed, manufactured and distributed an allegedly defective hip-implant device. Their lawsuits were transferred to the Northern District of Texas by the Judicial Panel on Multi-district litigation. While an MDL court can conduct all pretrial proceedings, it can only try cases over which it had venue without its MDL status, unless the parties otherwise waive arguments regarding venue (a " Lexecon objection"). The parties worked with a special master to identify cases to be tried as "bellweather" cases. The special master's report to the MDL court proposed four trials from a group of eight, and stated that the defendants would not raise Lexecon objections. A first trial, of a single case, resulted in a defense verdict. A second trial, consisting of five cases filed by Texas plaintiffs consolidated as a bellweather trial, resulted in a plaintiffs' verdict. A third trial, consisting of six cases filed by California plaintiffs, resulted in a plaintiffs' verdict. Prior to the third trial, the defendants argued they had only waived their venue objections for the first two trials; the MDL court found that they had waived them for all MDL trials. When the MDL court selected ten cases involving New York plaintiffs for a fourth bellweather trial, the defendants sought a writ of mandamus. The court agreed that the defendants only waived their venue arguments with respect to the first two trials, and that the MDL court erred by declaring a global and permanent waiver to venue and personal jurisdiction. It also held that mandamus relief would otherwise be appropriate, given that the MDL court apparently intended to apply the "waiver" to all trials. But, the court held, the defendants had not shown that they had no other adequate means to obtain relief, because the defendants could appeal from any adverse verdict on personal jurisdiction grounds. The court held that, while the defendants would undoubtedly incur significant defense fees in the trials, this was not a basis upon which to order mandamus The court accordingly denied the petition for a writ of mandamus. In re Depuy Orthopaedics, Inc. Fifth Circuit, No. 17-10812, 8/31/17.

Friday, September 8, 2017

$57M Verdict: J&J Pelvic Surgical Mesh harmed Ella Ebaugh

J&J unit ordered to pay $57.1M to Pa. woman in pelvic mesh suit
Updated: SEPTEMBER 7, 2017 — 4:18 PM EDT

A Philadelphia jury on Thursday ordered a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson to pay $57.1 million in damages to a Pennsylvania woman who was left chronically incontinent and in constant pain after receiving defective pelvic mesh implants.

Ella Ebaugh, 51, of York County, received two implants of the Ethicon devices, which later eroded into her urethra, said her attorney, Kila Baldwin of Kline & Specter. Surgeons operated three times to remove the devices.
The Common Pleas Court verdict is the fifth, and largest yet, awarded in a pelvic mesh suit, Baldwin said, It included $50 million in punitive damages. In December 2015, an Indiana woman was awarded $12.5 million; in February 2016, a New Jersey woman received a $13.5 million award; in April 2017, a Cinnaminson woman was awarded $20 million; and in June, a Pennsylvania woman received $2.1 million.

A spokeswoman for Ethicon said the company would appeal the verdict.
“We believe the evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT and TVT-Secur devices were properly designed, Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the products, and the products were not the cause of the plaintiff’s continuing medical problems,” said Kristen Wallace.
Thousands of women are believed to have been implanted with the devices, said Baldwin, who tried the case with Tracie Palmer and Elia Robertson, also of Kline & Specter.

Evidence introduced during the trial asserted J&J intentionally manipulated the literature regarding problems with the products and withheld information about complications and injuries from doctors, Baldwin said.
“I am pleased the jury recognized the reckless conduct of Johnson & Johnson,” Baldwin said, “and I hope the company takes notice of this verdict and the other verdicts in Philadelphia and amends its practices accordingly so as not to hurt other women.”

https://www.law360.com/articles/961734
BREAKING: J&J Slammed With $57M Verdict In Philly Mesh Case
Law360, Philadelphia (September 7, 2017, 2:48 PM EDT) -- A Philadelphia jury on Thursday awarded $57.1 million in damages to a woman who accused a Johnson & Johnson unit of manufacturing a defective pelvic mesh implant that scarred her urethra and left her incontinent. 
The award, which included $50 million in punitive damages, easily eclipses verdicts won by plaintiffs in four prior cases tried in the Philadelphia County Court of Common Pleas as part of a mass tort program over allegedly defective pelvic mesh implants sold by Ethicon Inc.

The jury on Thursday unanimously backed claims from plaintiff Ella Ebaugh that a pair of negligently and defectively designed mesh devices had “mutilated” her urethra and left her with little control over her urinary flow.

Kila Baldwin, an attorney with Kline & Specter PC representing Ebaugh, said she hoped the verdict sent a message to Ethicon.

“Hopefully they recognize that their conduct was reckless,” she told Law360. “I hope this sends a clear message that they did something wrong with these products and that they really think, going forward, about what they do.”

Ebaugh’s case, which kicked off in early August, focused on two Ethicon mesh products — the TVT- Secur, which is no longer on the market, and the company’s “standard” TVT product, which is still being sold.

Ebaugh was implanted with a so-called TVT-Secur mesh device in May 2007 to treat symptoms of stress urinary incontinence and ultimately received a second TVT implant in the summer after her condition did not improve.

After reporting to her doctor three years later that she was having sudden urges to urinate and significant pelvic pain, it was discovered that the mesh had eroded into her urethra.

A series of surgical interventions followed that included one operation in which Baldwin said her client was cut open from “hip to hip” in an effort to remove as much of the mesh as possible. Despite the operations, scarring from the mesh implants had essentially propped open her urethra and left her all but incontinent, Baldwin told jurors during closing arguments on Tuesday.

Ethicon came into the Ebaugh case with a losing record after four out of five juries in prior trials in Philadelphia County sided with plaintiffs to the tune of nearly $50 million in total damages.

A jury in the fifth case decided in June that while the TVT-Secur had been defectively designed, it was not the cause of an Ohio woman’s injuries. A judge, however, agreed a month later that the verdict was inconsistent and ordered a new trial on damages.

Until Thursday, the largest verdict the company had faced in a mesh case in Philadelphia had been a $20 million award handed down in April. That award included $17.5 million in punitive damages.

Ethicon spokeswoman Kristen Wallace said in a statement on Thursday that the company "empathized" with individuals suffering from urinary stress incontinence and stood behind the safety and efficacy of its products.

"We believe the evidence showed Ethicon’s TVT and TVT-Secur devices were properly designed, Ethicon acted appropriately and responsibly in the research, development and marketing of the products, and the products were not the cause of the plaintiff’s continuing medical problems," she said.

She added that the company planned to appeal.

Ebaugh is represented by Kila Baldwin of Kline & Specter PC.

Ethicon is represented by W. Curt Webb and Kat Gallagher of Beck Redden LLP.

The case is Ella Ebaugh et al. v. Ethicon Inc. et al., case number 130700866, in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania.


--Additional reporting by Dan Packel. Editing by Christine Chun.