Closed mental institutions don't exist anymore. Since the late 60's we have, as a society, been systematically closing these vital institutions. This has made our penal system our de facto long term option for people like this with untreatable mental disease.
The person that hired me was interested not in my current knowledge, but in my talents and in my ability to learn and adapt/grow. You can't learn that in college, and the smart managers know that.
Your university degree is a concrete example of your ability to "learn, adapt/grow." Don't discount the value of the time, energy and money you invested in that degree.
...how to put it politely? Nope, can't think of a gentle way to say it, so quite bluntly, you are an idiot.
You may be the best programmer in the world, but without studying the things you now consider to be a waste of your time, you do not know how to think or communicate.
Being better at what you consider your job is not everything. You need general education to be able to handle all of the other work-place and meat-space things that are not programming related.
I disagree completely. He's not an idiot, he is probably a good programmer, and that is all he wants to be, and there is nothing wrong with that. He is missing the boat, that a broad, general education will take him further, but what I got out of his question is that he wants to be a good and employed programmer. Not everyone needs to know about the Peloponnesian War, or say Chaucer.
People who have the interest and are willing to bear the work and price and acquire a general education have a significant advantage in life, politics and business. The OP, however, doesn't want that, and we don't have to force everyone through the same post-secondary general education to have a well educated and productive workforce.
What you're saying is almost EVERY University outside of the United States is just a trade school. (emphasis mine)
You are making the mistake that "trade school" is a dirty word. Yes, post-secondary (university) education can be a "trade school" if it focuses solely on core competencies of a particular profession. This also includes medical and law degrees that are seen in the US as the pinnacle of being educated. There is nothing wrong with programs being run by universities that are essentially post-secondary trade-schools (medical schools, law schools, engineering programs). But don't mistake advanced "trade-school" training with a true education.
I agree with you that in the attempt to force a general education on all comers to the university they do dumb down those courses to the point that they are likely a waste of time. If you've ever taken real university general education courses you know that they aren't there to teach the basic mechanics of writing, comprehension, etc. That is the job of the secondary schools. Real university courses are teaching critical thinking and expression, as well a exposing you to a slightly larger slice of the sum of human knowledge.
If you don't see the value of a broad education, you likely don't need one and won't get the benefits of one if offered to you!
If you don't have those things, that's fine, but that's not a BS or a BA, thats a trade school education.
I'd mod up to +6 if I could. Vocational and trade education is undervalued in our society. Vocational and professional education programs (including MD, JD, etc) are not general education. The value of broad (read liberal-arts) post-secondary education is easy to underestimate, as it's benefits are subtle. I personally believe engineers with a broad general education will likely be the real innovators, but it's not necessary for much of the real work being done everyday. So for people who don't want the general education requirements we should have high quality programs that provide the necessary technical skills to allow them to work in industry.
This is very cool, but it looks more like a personal helicopter than a true jetpack. Certainly could get people into inaccessible areas, but with how much gear, and you couldn't bring much of anything back (like an injured hiker, etc..).
Still, quite a feat of engineering. I hope he gets investors!
FUCK THIS SHIT, and fuck all the Apple astroturfers like Paska just below [slashdot.org].
I'm not sure how this comment is insightful. If you look at the comment numbers for these stories, the community is interested. Just because Apple seems to offend you in some way doesn't make stories about their products inappropriate. If there were five stories and almost not interest in them (as measured by comments), then I would agree with you, but the community is interested!
If you don't want to see continued Apple stories, stop reading and commenting. If they stop garnering the heavy traffic, then you'll get your wish; fewer stories. But then what you would you spend your time doing, and where would you put your comments?
You can't keep doing that because technology does not evolve at the pace people want new gadgets. So, people get disillusioned, you push out new products in hopes of quelling the whining and your products can't live up to their reputation. Maybe jobs is just planning on being relevant for 10 years, dunno.
This reminds me of the joke of the two campers who are surprised at night by a bear. The first camper calmly begins putting on his shoes while the second one freaks out and begins to run screaming "those shoes won't help you outrun the bear." The first camper answers "I don't have to outrun the bear."
Your statement is probably true. But if Apple is successful in vertical integration they can stay ahead of their competition in offering new and compelling devices, even if not quite up to consumer expectations. They have a pretty good track record over the last decade.
Vertical integration has substantial risks, and is difficult to pull off. Many companies try and end up selling off the acquired assets at a loss a few years later. If Apple can pull it off, I doubt they'll be the flash in the pan you suggest.
I remember when that Cobra (or, Corba?) thing was passed, making it possible to keep your health insurance between jobs. Big joke. My insurance was costly while I was employed. When I was laid off, the price quadrupled.
It's COBRA (consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1986), and you are wrong. The price didn't quadruple, you are just now responsible for all of the premium. Prior to losing your job your employer was fitting 3/4 of the bill, and you kicked in the rest. COBRA benefits allow you to continue your coverage as long as you pay all of the premium. Which is still a deal, especially if you have ongoing medical needs when you lose your job. See here for details.
the new system incentivizes everything backwards. It is now optimal for healthy people to go without health insurance, perhaps with just catastrophic coverage
scenario is, however, anticipated and covered in the new bill. Insurers are not allowed to vary premiums by more than a ratio of 1:3. This means that if you offer a high deductible/co-pay plan (your catastrophic coverage) to young and healthy individuals for $100/mo, you must also offer the same coverage to anyone else who will pay you for no more than $300. This prevents insurance companies from picking off the young and healthy by offering low cost insurance they know will rarely be used, and pricing plans for groups with more medical needs astronomically high, to avoid signing up any of those customers. The companies will continue to try to tailor benefit packages to attract healthier customers, and they'll be successful to some extent, but this problem has been anticipated.
If I were running US healthcare one of the first laws I'd pass was that hospitals would need to publicize a full price list, and that EVERYBODY pays the same price.
This is naive. Do we also apply this rationale to auto mechanics, window cleaners, lawyers and all other corners of our economy? Hospital and physicians often offer lower prices to certain insurers who can guarantee a certain volume of business. An example: If I run a surgery center and I know that an insurer will bring me 200 cholecystecomies (gall bladder removal) a year to be done in my center I can buy supplies in bulk (less cost, except in your world where everyone pays the same all the time), I can hire the appropriate extra personnel to be available to do the procedures and I can schedule time in advance in the operating rooms. All of this saves significant money. I then pass some (if not most) of those savings on to the insurer who is guaranteeing me a minimum level of business. The price I give the insurer is less than the cost of providing the procedure on an ad-hoc basis, so if I was required to bill every one the same, I would lose money on many of the procedures.
Now, I am a fan of medical cost transparency, but eliminating the ability of providers to negotiate their fee structures with payers is lose-lose scenario.
Why is it when we have health care discussions, the media tends to quote widows and widowers? They are not experts in health care and they are not unbiased. Sure, her story is interesting and compelling, but does it tell us anything useful about medicine in the US?
Yes it does. This article is excellent. This widow asks more probing questions about the economic underpinnings of our broken medical system than our leaders do while trying to overhaul it. RTFA-A(gain).
It is not free!!!!!! Repeat after me, "quality health care is not free." Even though you want to think it is and it appears so from your (and most other citizens') point of view. The economic costs of providing medical care are real, and cost benefit trade offs do have to be made. In a truly socialized system such as in Sweden those trade off decisions are made by government agencies establishing what care will and won't be paid for. The basis is usually a balance between compassionate availability of care for the sickest patients and wise use of funds to wring the maximum population benefit per dollar (or krona) spent. In the US system we make those decisions based on less rational criteria; for non-emergent care it is based on whether or not you can pay, in emergency situations hospitals and doctors are required by law to deliver care without regard for ability to pay until the emergent problem is resolved. This perverse system provides crazy incentives for the way care is provided and our current mess. But I digress. The point is that health care is expensive, even in systems where it has the appearance of being free, there are complex decisions being made on how to muster economic resources so that you can get care.
It's time to quit when the patient says it's time, and it's not the business of the spouse, the church, or the government to decide otherwise.
Who pays the bill in your scenario? It is easy to say it's the patients choice, and if the patient is paying the bill no problem. The problem becomes when we socialize the financial risk of serious medical illness (either through government run programs like Medicare and Medicaid, or through premiums paid to private insurance corporations). Now other people are fitting the bill! That is what this whole article is about. Patients often make different decisions on proceeding with care based on whether they or some third party is fitting the bill. I've seen it first hand more times that I can count. Treatment A has a 10% chance of giving you 6 more months but costs $10,000. If a third party is paying 80-90% of patients jump at the chance. If it is out of their pockets (even in patients who can afford that kind of money) this rate drops significantly.
NO, this is exactly why the patent trolls can get away with this. You are correct about the patent game between "real" companies. But the patent troll companies aren't real. They don't produce anything except for lawsuits, so IBM can't counter-sue them!
if the negative side-effect rate in the population is low-enough, its still something that should be mandated in order to ensure that the population as a whole is resilient to some of the Big Nasties
I agree, but in modern America, this argument goes nowhere. As a society we have lost the ability to rationally calculate risks, and a sizable portion of our population is unwilling to accept even a vanishingly small (or imaginary) risk of a vaccine to their child to benefit society as a whole. This is a variation of the tragedy of the commons.
I'd think part of the problem is a feedback loop-- Doctors can charge more, so both the value of their services, the value of their mistakes (as a consequence of both "refund cost" and "repair cost"), as well as the apparent ability for them to compensate mistake victims go up. You've been rated insightful, but you are way off the mark.
The feedback loop doesn't include the doctors. Doctor fees have seen decline nearly every year in the last decade. For example Medicare reduced the average physician reimbursement rate 4.4% beginning Jan 1, 2007, while the cost of running a practice continues to increase every year by nearly twice the rate of inflation (my employees seem to think they deserve cost of living raises); you do the math. Before you post a comment about how most people are insured by plans other than medicare, please realize that all but one of my contracts with private insurers are indexed to medicare, so a 4.4% decrease in medicare is a 4.4% decrease across the board, while my expenses went up nearly 9%. Plus in my state 1 in 5 people are uninsured, and I collect nothing, and can't even deduct the loss!
Your comments about the average consumers' ability to shop around are true, and this does keep the normal rules of economics from containing medical costs. However, the average hospital bill is 8-10x the physician reimbursement. Hospital costs, the cost of drugs, medical equipment, durable medical equipment, etc. is far more important in determining medical inflation that what docs bill and collect.
The tort system IS broken, and it has nothing to do with the physician charges. I am not a proponent of doing away with the tort system. Patients harmed by medical negligence deserve redress, but the system we have now does nothing to address that. A no-fault system for all but the most egregious of offenses is what is wanted. The average medical consumer is not helped by large awards in cases of honest mistakes with minimal patient injury. The adversarial system we have now creates few winners (and most of them lawyers). Patients harmed by medical care not meeting the community standard of care deserve compensation, but without the built-in overhead of an adversarial system.
No you're not radical, it just doesn't work all of the time. In a typical operating room all sponges, needles, blades, and depending on the surgery being performed, instruments, are counted. This is done by direct visual inspection by at least two persons in the operating room, usually the scrub and circulating nurse. That count is recorded by the circulating nurse who is in the room the entire case. If you need new sponges, needles, or blades, those are also counted out of the package by the same two people (to avoid the uncommon situation of 9 or 11 sponges being in a ten sponge package), and that is added to the count. Then at the end of the case there are two counts, one when the surgeon begins to close, and then a final count when the procedure is to a point where no further sponges, etc. could enter the incision. This is also done by direct visual inspection of each item by two persons.
Believe it or not even with these safeguards there are mistakes made that leave sponges, etc. in patients. Now if the counts by the nurses are incorrect you never finish closing or leave the room without an xray of the surgical site to make sure the lost sponge isn't in the patient. In most cases of sponges left in patients the counts were correct. Example: you used 30 sponges, one is hidden in the surgical site, but when the nurses count they say they have all 30. Not likely but it happens. The only time I have ever left anything in one of my patients the counts were correct, ugh!
There were approximately 28.5 million surgical procedures performed in 2004, if there are 1500 such incidents that leaves an incidence of.0052%, or 1 chance in 20,000. Unfortunately, the consequences of leaving a sponge in can be fatal, so all accrediting bodies have taken the stance that there is no acceptable level of such mistakes. Retained sponges are also very costly from a medical-legal standpoint, where our broken tort system routinely hands out awards in the lower 6 figures for such events, even when there are no long term consequences for the patient, and much much more when there is true patient injury.
Just helping to add some facts to this discussion!
Slashdot Mirror
For that, closed mental institutions exist.
Closed mental institutions don't exist anymore. Since the late 60's we have, as a society, been systematically closing these vital institutions. This has made our penal system our de facto long term option for people like this with untreatable mental disease.
You are an idiot.
Women between the ages of 30 and 50 (i.e. mothers) have the lowest fatality and accident rates of any other age or gender group.
See here as one example of easily obtainable information: http://www.iihs.org/iihs/topic...
--
cheers - ben
Sounds like the "beta level simulation" in Alastair Reynolds' "Revelation Space" universe.
What one, what desert? ;-)
The person that hired me was interested not in my current knowledge, but in my talents and in my ability to learn and adapt/grow. You can't learn that in college, and the smart managers know that.
Your university degree is a concrete example of your ability to "learn, adapt/grow." Don't discount the value of the time, energy and money you invested in that degree.
...how to put it politely? Nope, can't think of a gentle way to say it, so quite bluntly, you are an idiot.
You may be the best programmer in the world, but without studying the things you now consider to be a waste of your time, you do not know how to think or communicate.
Being better at what you consider your job is not everything. You need general education to be able to handle all of the other work-place and meat-space things that are not programming related.
I disagree completely. He's not an idiot, he is probably a good programmer, and that is all he wants to be, and there is nothing wrong with that. He is missing the boat, that a broad, general education will take him further, but what I got out of his question is that he wants to be a good and employed programmer. Not everyone needs to know about the Peloponnesian War, or say Chaucer.
People who have the interest and are willing to bear the work and price and acquire a general education have a significant advantage in life, politics and business. The OP, however, doesn't want that, and we don't have to force everyone through the same post-secondary general education to have a well educated and productive workforce.
What you're saying is almost EVERY University outside of the United States is just a trade school. (emphasis mine)
You are making the mistake that "trade school" is a dirty word. Yes, post-secondary (university) education can be a "trade school" if it focuses solely on core competencies of a particular profession. This also includes medical and law degrees that are seen in the US as the pinnacle of being educated. There is nothing wrong with programs being run by universities that are essentially post-secondary trade-schools (medical schools, law schools, engineering programs). But don't mistake advanced "trade-school" training with a true education.
I agree with you that in the attempt to force a general education on all comers to the university they do dumb down those courses to the point that they are likely a waste of time. If you've ever taken real university general education courses you know that they aren't there to teach the basic mechanics of writing, comprehension, etc. That is the job of the secondary schools. Real university courses are teaching critical thinking and expression, as well a exposing you to a slightly larger slice of the sum of human knowledge.
If you don't see the value of a broad education, you likely don't need one and won't get the benefits of one if offered to you!
If you don't have those things, that's fine, but that's not a BS or a BA, thats a trade school education.
I'd mod up to +6 if I could. Vocational and trade education is undervalued in our society. Vocational and professional education programs (including MD, JD, etc) are not general education. The value of broad (read liberal-arts) post-secondary education is easy to underestimate, as it's benefits are subtle. I personally believe engineers with a broad general education will likely be the real innovators, but it's not necessary for much of the real work being done everyday. So for people who don't want the general education requirements we should have high quality programs that provide the necessary technical skills to allow them to work in industry.
This is very cool, but it looks more like a personal helicopter than a true jetpack. Certainly could get people into inaccessible areas, but with how much gear, and you couldn't bring much of anything back (like an injured hiker, etc..). Still, quite a feat of engineering. I hope he gets investors!
FUCK THIS SHIT, and fuck all the Apple astroturfers like Paska just below [slashdot.org].
I'm not sure how this comment is insightful. If you look at the comment numbers for these stories, the community is interested. Just because Apple seems to offend you in some way doesn't make stories about their products inappropriate. If there were five stories and almost not interest in them (as measured by comments), then I would agree with you, but the community is interested!
If you don't want to see continued Apple stories, stop reading and commenting. If they stop garnering the heavy traffic, then you'll get your wish; fewer stories. But then what you would you spend your time doing, and where would you put your comments?
You can't keep doing that because technology does not evolve at the pace people want new gadgets. So, people get disillusioned, you push out new products in hopes of quelling the whining and your products can't live up to their reputation. Maybe jobs is just planning on being relevant for 10 years, dunno.
This reminds me of the joke of the two campers who are surprised at night by a bear. The first camper calmly begins putting on his shoes while the second one freaks out and begins to run screaming "those shoes won't help you outrun the bear." The first camper answers "I don't have to outrun the bear."
Your statement is probably true. But if Apple is successful in vertical integration they can stay ahead of their competition in offering new and compelling devices, even if not quite up to consumer expectations. They have a pretty good track record over the last decade.
Vertical integration has substantial risks, and is difficult to pull off. Many companies try and end up selling off the acquired assets at a loss a few years later. If Apple can pull it off, I doubt they'll be the flash in the pan you suggest.
I remember when that Cobra (or, Corba?) thing was passed, making it possible to keep your health insurance between jobs. Big joke. My insurance was costly while I was employed. When I was laid off, the price quadrupled.
It's COBRA (consolidated omnibus budget reconciliation act of 1986), and you are wrong. The price didn't quadruple, you are just now responsible for all of the premium. Prior to losing your job your employer was fitting 3/4 of the bill, and you kicked in the rest. COBRA benefits allow you to continue your coverage as long as you pay all of the premium. Which is still a deal, especially if you have ongoing medical needs when you lose your job. See here for details.
the new system incentivizes everything backwards. It is now optimal for healthy people to go without health insurance, perhaps with just catastrophic coverage
scenario is, however, anticipated and covered in the new bill. Insurers are not allowed to vary premiums by more than a ratio of 1:3. This means that if you offer a high deductible/co-pay plan (your catastrophic coverage) to young and healthy individuals for $100/mo, you must also offer the same coverage to anyone else who will pay you for no more than $300. This prevents insurance companies from picking off the young and healthy by offering low cost insurance they know will rarely be used, and pricing plans for groups with more medical needs astronomically high, to avoid signing up any of those customers. The companies will continue to try to tailor benefit packages to attract healthier customers, and they'll be successful to some extent, but this problem has been anticipated.
Health care reform should be 100% about bringing transparency and predictability to the costs. Only then can you look at how to cover more people.
This is why you could never be elected; for the love of god, man, how 'bout those death panels! ;-)
RTFA, she states the real dollar cost was ~250K of which they were personally responsible for about 10K.
If I were running US healthcare one of the first laws I'd pass was that hospitals would need to publicize a full price list, and that EVERYBODY pays the same price.
This is naive. Do we also apply this rationale to auto mechanics, window cleaners, lawyers and all other corners of our economy? Hospital and physicians often offer lower prices to certain insurers who can guarantee a certain volume of business. An example: If I run a surgery center and I know that an insurer will bring me 200 cholecystecomies (gall bladder removal) a year to be done in my center I can buy supplies in bulk (less cost, except in your world where everyone pays the same all the time), I can hire the appropriate extra personnel to be available to do the procedures and I can schedule time in advance in the operating rooms. All of this saves significant money. I then pass some (if not most) of those savings on to the insurer who is guaranteeing me a minimum level of business. The price I give the insurer is less than the cost of providing the procedure on an ad-hoc basis, so if I was required to bill every one the same, I would lose money on many of the procedures. Now, I am a fan of medical cost transparency, but eliminating the ability of providers to negotiate their fee structures with payers is lose-lose scenario.
Why is it when we have health care discussions, the media tends to quote widows and widowers? They are not experts in health care and they are not unbiased. Sure, her story is interesting and compelling, but does it tell us anything useful about medicine in the US?
Yes it does. This article is excellent. This widow asks more probing questions about the economic underpinnings of our broken medical system than our leaders do while trying to overhaul it. RTFA-A(gain).
It is not free!!!!!! Repeat after me, "quality health care is not free." Even though you want to think it is and it appears so from your (and most other citizens') point of view. The economic costs of providing medical care are real, and cost benefit trade offs do have to be made. In a truly socialized system such as in Sweden those trade off decisions are made by government agencies establishing what care will and won't be paid for. The basis is usually a balance between compassionate availability of care for the sickest patients and wise use of funds to wring the maximum population benefit per dollar (or krona) spent. In the US system we make those decisions based on less rational criteria; for non-emergent care it is based on whether or not you can pay, in emergency situations hospitals and doctors are required by law to deliver care without regard for ability to pay until the emergent problem is resolved. This perverse system provides crazy incentives for the way care is provided and our current mess. But I digress. The point is that health care is expensive, even in systems where it has the appearance of being free, there are complex decisions being made on how to muster economic resources so that you can get care.
It's time to quit when the patient says it's time, and it's not the business of the spouse, the church, or the government to decide otherwise.
Who pays the bill in your scenario? It is easy to say it's the patients choice, and if the patient is paying the bill no problem. The problem becomes when we socialize the financial risk of serious medical illness (either through government run programs like Medicare and Medicaid, or through premiums paid to private insurance corporations). Now other people are fitting the bill! That is what this whole article is about. Patients often make different decisions on proceeding with care based on whether they or some third party is fitting the bill. I've seen it first hand more times that I can count. Treatment A has a 10% chance of giving you 6 more months but costs $10,000. If a third party is paying 80-90% of patients jump at the chance. If it is out of their pockets (even in patients who can afford that kind of money) this rate drops significantly.
NO, this is exactly why the patent trolls can get away with this. You are correct about the patent game between "real" companies. But the patent troll companies aren't real. They don't produce anything except for lawsuits, so IBM can't counter-sue them!
if the negative side-effect rate in the population is low-enough, its still something that should be mandated in order to ensure that the population as a whole is resilient to some of the Big Nasties
I agree, but in modern America, this argument goes nowhere. As a society we have lost the ability to rationally calculate risks, and a sizable portion of our population is unwilling to accept even a vanishingly small (or imaginary) risk of a vaccine to their child to benefit society as a whole. This is a variation of the tragedy of the commons.
Hell, I did vote for him in the primary. And I think this country wouldn't be worse off if he'd been president for the last 8 years.
I'll go one further. If McCain had been president over the past 8 years we be much better off than we are now. And I'm a lifelong democrat.
But he sold his soul for the brass ring this time around, and that level of intellectual whoredom I cannot abide.
As well said as I have seen anywhere.
I think you owe Doug Adams (rip) for that!
The feedback loop doesn't include the doctors. Doctor fees have seen decline nearly every year in the last decade. For example Medicare reduced the average physician reimbursement rate 4.4% beginning Jan 1, 2007, while the cost of running a practice continues to increase every year by nearly twice the rate of inflation (my employees seem to think they deserve cost of living raises); you do the math. Before you post a comment about how most people are insured by plans other than medicare, please realize that all but one of my contracts with private insurers are indexed to medicare, so a 4.4% decrease in medicare is a 4.4% decrease across the board, while my expenses went up nearly 9%. Plus in my state 1 in 5 people are uninsured, and I collect nothing, and can't even deduct the loss!
Your comments about the average consumers' ability to shop around are true, and this does keep the normal rules of economics from containing medical costs. However, the average hospital bill is 8-10x the physician reimbursement. Hospital costs, the cost of drugs, medical equipment, durable medical equipment, etc. is far more important in determining medical inflation that what docs bill and collect.
The tort system IS broken, and it has nothing to do with the physician charges. I am not a proponent of doing away with the tort system. Patients harmed by medical negligence deserve redress, but the system we have now does nothing to address that. A no-fault system for all but the most egregious of offenses is what is wanted. The average medical consumer is not helped by large awards in cases of honest mistakes with minimal patient injury. The adversarial system we have now creates few winners (and most of them lawyers). Patients harmed by medical care not meeting the community standard of care deserve compensation, but without the built-in overhead of an adversarial system.
No you're not radical, it just doesn't work all of the time. In a typical operating room all sponges, needles, blades, and depending on the surgery being performed, instruments, are counted. This is done by direct visual inspection by at least two persons in the operating room, usually the scrub and circulating nurse. That count is recorded by the circulating nurse who is in the room the entire case. If you need new sponges, needles, or blades, those are also counted out of the package by the same two people (to avoid the uncommon situation of 9 or 11 sponges being in a ten sponge package), and that is added to the count. Then at the end of the case there are two counts, one when the surgeon begins to close, and then a final count when the procedure is to a point where no further sponges, etc. could enter the incision. This is also done by direct visual inspection of each item by two persons.
.0052%, or 1 chance in 20,000. Unfortunately, the consequences of leaving a sponge in can be fatal, so all accrediting bodies have taken the stance that there is no acceptable level of such mistakes. Retained sponges are also very costly from a medical-legal standpoint, where our broken tort system routinely hands out awards in the lower 6 figures for such events, even when there are no long term consequences for the patient, and much much more when there is true patient injury.
Believe it or not even with these safeguards there are mistakes made that leave sponges, etc. in patients. Now if the counts by the nurses are incorrect you never finish closing or leave the room without an xray of the surgical site to make sure the lost sponge isn't in the patient. In most cases of sponges left in patients the counts were correct. Example: you used 30 sponges, one is hidden in the surgical site, but when the nurses count they say they have all 30. Not likely but it happens. The only time I have ever left anything in one of my patients the counts were correct, ugh!
There were approximately 28.5 million surgical procedures performed in 2004, if there are 1500 such incidents that leaves an incidence of
Just helping to add some facts to this discussion!