木瓜直播

Welcome to the latest edition of Investigative Roundup, highlighting some of the best investigative reporting on healthcare each week.

Junior Scientist, Prominent Oncologist Clash Over Research Credit

An early-career nephrologist at MD Anderson Cancer Center is alleging that a prominent oncologist "interfered" in the wake of the former's findings "that could potentially help both save the kidneys of cancer patients and propel her career as a physician-scientist hoping to one day run her own lab," .

Jamie Lin, MD, has filed a lawsuit against Padmanee Sharma, MD, alleging that Sharma "derailed the publication of papers based on Lin's work, threatened to undermine her fledgling career, and made defamatory comments about her in retaliation for resisting making Sharma an author on a paper and saying the senior researcher had made no substantial contribution to it," STAT reported.

"The contentious case underscores just how important scientific papers are to launching and sustaining a researcher's career," STAT wrote. "It's not uncommon for scientists to disagree over authorship. But it's highly unusual for researchers to try to resolve these disputes in court rather than debate them behind closed doors."

Sharma has denied each of Lin's allegations in a response filed in court, STAT reported. She has also asserted immunity from being sued over the alleged conduct as a government employee (MD Anderson is a part of the University of Texas), STAT noted. And Sharma's response further "invokes the legal doctrine of 'unclean hands,' which holds that a plaintiff's claim can be dismissed if the defense can prove that they've acted deceitfully or in bad faith," the outlet added.

Sharma did not respond to STAT's requests for comment.

MD Anderson told STAT that it does not comment on internal employee matters. However, in a statement provided to STAT it did say the following: "We can share that the institution has established processes for addressing concerns filed by any MD Anderson employee. Upon receiving a concern, the institution immediately initiates its review process. In some cases, an external review may be required. Upon completion of each review, the institution addresses the findings and closes the matter."

Uptick in Catheter Bills Suggestive of Medicare Scam

Linda Hennis, a retired nurse who lives in a suburb of Chicago, noticed something strange on her Medicare statement in January, .

It said that a company called Pretty in Pink Boutique, based in Texas, had been paid about $12,000 for sending her 2,000 urinary catheters, the Times reported. But Hennis had never heard of the company, and had never needed or received any catheters. And she was hardly alone in her experience.

Hennis is among more than 450,000 Medicare beneficiaries whose accounts were billed for urinary catheters in 2023, the Times reported citing a new report from the National Association of Accountable Care Organizations. This figure is up from about 50,000 in previous years.

"The massive uptick in billing for catheters included $2 billion charged by seven high-volume suppliers, according to that analysis, potentially accounting for nearly one-fifth of all Medicare spending on medical supplies in 2023," the Times wrote. "Doctors, state insurance departments and healthcare groups around the country said the spike in claims for catheters that were never delivered suggested a far-reaching Medicare scam."

Dara Corrigan, who runs the Center for Program Integrity at CMS, declined to say whether the agency was investigating the catheter billings, the Times reported. She told the Times that, when the federal government suspects fraud, it sometimes holds payments in escrow while it reviews claims. However, she would not say whether this happened for any of the catheter payments.

Pretty in Pink Boutique, which reportedly billed Medicare at least $267 million for catheters between October 2022 and December 2023, could not be reached by phone, the Times noted.

Lack of Transparency in Philips Breathing Device Recall?

Email exchanges "reveal a startling lack of transparency by both Philips and the government while patients and their doctors struggled to make sense of one of the largest and most tumultuous medical device recalls in years," .

The emails, written throughout 2022, were obtained by ProPublica and the Post-Gazette the news organizations filed against the FDA, they noted.

Philips had previously said that an industrial foam used in its recalled breathing devices could break apart and send potentially toxic and carcinogenic particles and fumes into users' masks, ProPublica and the Post-Gazette wrote. But in late 2021, the company said that its breathing devices had and did not appear to pose a health threat to their millions of users.

The FDA "quickly rejected those safety claims, telling Philips that the new tests failed to account for the impact on patients who had used the devices for years," ProPublica and the Post-Gazette reported, citing emails the news organizations obtained. However, the agency "did not publicize its assessment," they added.

In October of last year, the FDA , stating that testing and analysis were not "adequate" and that Philips had agreed to conduct more studies, ProPublica and the Post-Gazette noted.

"The FDA defended its handling of the matter, saying it released the statement in October after completing an analysis of the company's test results," ProPublica and the Post-Gazette reported. "'Any health determination made by the FDA is science-driven and based on thorough analysis of the information presented to the agency,'" the agency told the news organizations in part.

Philips did not respond to specific questions from ProPublica and the Post-Gazette, the news organizations reported. However, the company has continued to defend the safety of its breathing devices.

Last month, Philips stated that, as of now, it would in the U.S. , ProPublica and the Post-Gazette reported.

Comment