Where are those TASERs when you need them? A patient visiting his wife in the hospital began acting irrationally. Hospital employees called police who took the man to the ED for a psych evaluation. The man then left and went to a different part of the hospital where he again began acting erratically. This time hospital staff had to restrain him (apparently 10% of the security force was laid off due to budget cuts). More than one employee was injured in the incident. The man was allegedly placed in a choke hold (the hospital denies the choke hold allegation) and lost consciousness. He never regained consciousness and died three weeks later. Now the family has hired an attorney.
A three year study shows that discharging heart failure patients from the emergency department increases the risk of short term death by more than 33%. But at least it saves money in all of those government-insured Canadian patients, though.
Another ED closes. Another urgent care center takes its place.
Need Tamiflu? Go see a lawyer. Tamiflu may be in short supply in some areas, but according to the cited article, the Boston law firm of Ropes & Gray made sure that hundreds of its employees and their families got all the Tamiflu they needed to protect themselves from the swine flu. Maybe Gerry Spence was right after all. Of course, the CDC recommends that only seriously ill patients receive Tamiflu to prevent resistance, but when you and your colleagues can sue someone if they don’t get what they want, who cares? Denny Crane is on the job.
Want to visit a patient in the ED? Don’t bother. After the Queensway-Carleton Hospital was so overcrowded that patients had to stand against the wall while visitors were sitting in chairs, the hospital instituted a “no visitors” policy unless the patient was a child or a frail elderly person. Everyone else got to wait in the cafeteria so they could spread germs on eating surfaces. A secret plan to increase business?
Even Pokemon have to wait for emergency care. A T-shirt depicting several Pokemon characters waiting in line to be seen in the emergency department at Pokemon General Hospital makes you wonder just who pays for all their self-destructive fighting behavior. Unfortunately, the T-shirt is already out of production. I would have bought a few of them.
California struggles with more uninsured ED visits. Total number of ED visits increased by 15% while visits by uninsured patients increased by almost 50% at one Modesto hospital emergency department. Overall, 57% of hospitals surveyed by the California Hospital Association noted an increase in the number of uninsured patients seeking emergency care. Last year, California hospitals wrote off nearly $1.2 billion in bad debt and $973.4 million in free care – nearly double the amount from just 4 years ago. How much longer will hospitals remain financially viable?
With cuts in payments go cuts in services. Grady Memorial Hospital in Atlanta is apparently skating on thin ice. It needed a cash infusion of $10 million in September just to meet payroll and has an operating deficit of more than $30 million for the fourth straight year. Now it is laying off 140 employees and closing one third of its satellite clinics. Clinics that remain open are setting strict rules requiring patients to demonstrate citizenship and to produce pay stubs from jobs. As a result, more patients are ending up in the emergency department.
Sanctioned for coaching a witness. A Connecticut medical malpractice defense attorney didn’t get the hint the first four times she was sanctioned for coaching a witness. The fifth time a judge issued a $11,484 sanction against her and accused her of violating the rules of professional conduct. According to logic used by some readers of this blog, this turn of events means that all medical malpractice defense attorneys are unethical churls. Dang.
At least health care reform is good for plaintiff’s attorneys. Check out Section 2531 (page 1432) of the revised health care bill. It requires “incentive payments” to states that have “alternative medical liability law”. In order to qualify for the incentive payments, the laws must include “(A) [a] certificate of merit, early offer, or both; and (B) the law does not limit attorneys’ fees or impose caps on damages.” I must have missed the part of the bill where the states would receive additional payments for not limiting what medical providers could earn. Oh, yeah, that’s right. Payments to medical providers are getting cut by 21.5%. Great bill. Lawyers make more, health care providers make less. Hat Tip to Cato@Liberty.
New York jury recently awards $43 million to cerebral palsy patient born … in 1984 (the case was actually filed in 1990 and has been dragging on for the past 19 years). Don’t worry, docs. We have nothing to fear. Nothing to fear at all.
That’s a lot of martinis. Drunk driving has a total estimated cost of $51 billion annually in the US. In addition, treating a drunk driver in the ED costs four times as much as a sober driver.
Active members of the military may be able to sue government for malpractice. The Feres Doctrine has prevented those serving in the military from suing the government for the past 59 years. Now a bill to repeal the Feres Doctrine has been approved in the House Judiciary Committee. Be interesting to see what effect the multimillion judgments have upon the government’s willingness to provide health care to those in the military.
” I must have missed the part of the bill where the states would receive additional payments for not limiting what medical providers could earn.”
Really, this is what caps on damages are all about isn’t it? Physicians made their bargain with the govt. to get paid, and it turns out dealing with the govt. sucks and is a long term loser for the individual, so now you want to punish everyone.
There is no limit on what you can earn. There’s just a limit on what the government will pay you. If you don’t like it, don’t take their money and stop whining. Don’t punish everyone else because you and your predecessors cut a bad deal.
As to your criticism of the law firm with 1900 employees trying to make sure its employees get the flu shot, and thus you getting the chance to damn all lawyers through it, perhaps you missed this:
“Roche similarly said it had complied with government guidelines when it sold or set aside stores of the drug for nearly 300 US companies.”
matt, the issue was not vaccinations it was about stockpiling tamiflu which is given to people who are high risk for flu complications after getting the flu. stockpiling it for a healthy poplulation who may or may not need it is not a good thing. and kinda reeks of elitism.
maybe it was roche’s way of cozying up to the lawyers and playing nice-nice. you know I’ll scratch you back and you scratch mine.
What would be the explanation for the other 300 companies then? Roche just picked a randam 300? Do we even know if this firm represents Roche?
Your lawyer conspiracy theories are getting out of hand.
Although I thought we protected vaccine companies and gave them a special court so we would have plenty of vaccines. I guess there goes another justification out the window!
Matt,
My god, way to prove you are an elitist piece of S%#T. “Roche similarly said it had complied with government guidelines when it sold or set aside stores of the drug for nearly 300 US companies.” Yes, Roche complied with federal regulations that allow businesses other than pharmacies to purchase medications of certain types. These are the guidelines they are referring to. Outside of some special circumstances, only pharmacies, hospitals or physicians who dispense are allowed to purchase prescription medications.
Read the whole article – while Roche may have legally sold the company the drug, it is NOT being used in accordance with CDC guidelines. “But federal and state health officials said that in some cases the practice runs counter to US Centers for Disease Control guidelines that the drug be reserved for seriously ill flu patients and people at risk of dangerous complications.
Providing the drug to healthy people – who may take it inappropriately, such as for a cold or mild case of the flu – could encourage the emergence of a strain of H1N1 resistant to Tamiflu just when the need for effective treatment is greatest, health officials said.
“We are very concerned about resistance,’’ said Bill Hall, a spokesman for the US Department of Health and Human Services. “Prescribing antivirals indiscriminately is not consistent with our guidance. Most people [who get H1N1] don’t become severely ill and don’t need to have antivirals.’”
Now which part of this do you not understand? BEcause if you would like a lesson, I’d be happy to give you a tour through our ICU where we have lost 7 to influenza A novel subtype 2009 H1N1.
But hey, as long as a lawyer doesn’t have the sniffles in court it is o.k. if some teenagers die.
Way to defend idiocy.
Did I understand this correctly? States must eliminate caps on damages to get “incentive payments”? What are those?
According to http://www.medical-malpractice-directory.com/info/damage-awards.htm
It looks like many states limit damages.
I believe that in order to get new money to try different med mal options, you have to eliminate the caps on damages that were supposed to solve all the problems already. In other words, you don’t get something for nothing.
Many of those damage limits are on punitives, which typically aren’t a factor in med mal unless the provider is drunk, high, etc. I guess it’s important to give those people protection.
all I know is my oldest daughter teaches english in KC magnet high school and has zero access to tamiflu other than going to urgent care…it apparently doesn’t matter she is exposed to a high risk group or possibly falls into a high risk because of her age. she’s just a teacher…who cares.
Why isn’t there enough tamiflu? Physicians and pharmaceutical cos say that litigation is the cause ofshortages in medicine and such. They say we need protection so there will be plenty for all. We took vaccines out of the civil litigation arena two decades ago. Were they lying?
Another odd thing about this is that this firn hired physicians to handle the distribution to it’s employees. If the firm is sp horrible for lawfully acting to benefit it’s employees, what of the physicians who will actually dispense it presumably knowing the immorality of these people getting it?
It’s interesting to watch physicians who often rail against the government and it’s hold over them and argue that healthcare is not a right turn around and criticize those who act in the free market. And use “the good of society” (according to them) to justify their position.
Yes. In essence, if you try and enact tort reform, they’ve got you by the balls. So, either repeal the laws in the states or lose the incentive from Uncle is how I understand it.
matt read again..they stockpiled not the vaccine but the antiviral med used to treat influenza patients WHICH should be going to the young and pregnant women who seem to be the most at risk for H1N1 complications..as far as the lawyer comment I think I noticed something about big pharma and lawsuits on their homepage..just sayin’
They may well be tight with big pharmaceuticals. Your large law firms generally have lots of major corporate clients. And they generally look out for their clients’ interest and sometimes vice versa. Why do you think Philip Howard heads up Common Good?
I was just noting that it seemed silly to use this to damn all lawyers when it appeared hundreds of companies got the benefit. And half the people at this firm at least are not lawyers.
“I was just noting that it seemed silly to use this to damn all lawyers when it appeared hundreds of companies got the benefit. And half the people at this firm at least are not lawyers.”
There is no evidence that any other company is issuing the drug, or creating an “access” program so that their employees can “have the drug on hand” while across the country, shortages have kept those who need the drug (by CDC guidelines) are going without. Should any other examples come to light, they should be similarly castigated.
However, lawyers add so little to society that I can not envision how this firms inclusion in the program helps as a whole. In my eyes a few less trial lawyers equals a good thing. Now, if a rail or trucking company, law enforcement agency, airline, etc. needs to keep their workforce healthy, and the drug is issued only when needed (not to “keep on hand”), I could at least see the logic…
well I don’t know anything about the other 299 companies but since the high risk group are the young and pregnant women and tamiflu is getting stretched a little thin maybe they should have had the kahunas (sp?) to decline the doses and have their employees get it the way the peons do. unless they have alot of high power uber smart 19 year olds lawyers working there.
“There is no evidence that any other company is issuing the drug, or creating an “access” program so that their employees can “have the drug on hand” while across the country, shortages have kept those who need the drug (by CDC guidelines) are going without. Should any other examples come to light, they should be similarly castigated.”
Other than the 300 other companies mentioned in the article, you are correct.
“However, lawyers add so little to society that I can not envision how this firms inclusion in the program helps as a whole.”
Other than enforcement of contracts, assisting people who are wrongfully accused of crimes, protecting individual rights, etc. you are correct.
By the way, of the 1900 employees at that firm, less than half will be lawyers. Of course, I assume they incur your ire because they lack your intelligence (which goes without saying) and they dare to work for an attorney. And of course, since the vast majority of lawyers in that firm will not be trial lawyers at all, but doing things like preparing docs that secure indebtedness for loans, or protecting patents, or drafting employment agreements, all of which will benefit even brilliant people like yourself, perhaps your disgust is not as well founded as you’d hoped.
Again, of course, we all recognize up front that none of them could hope to possible add the contribution to society that you do – but just to be sure, can you post your resume again. That was certainly illuminating the first 3 times you did it.
Actually Matt, when you read the article it says that 300 companies have arranged to participate in the program. Most of these companies are critical infrastructure groups (rail, communications, security, medical, etc.). I do not consider litigation one of these. Second, just because a company participates in a pharma “set aside” doesn’t mean that they have arranged with a physicians’ group to prescribe the drug contrary to the CDC guidelines as this group of pompous a$$ lawyers have done. And I don’t need to post my resume to prove that the actions of this firm are against the greater good. Their actions speak for themselves. As do yours (as usual).
Again fry, I realize you’re the expert on, well everything, but litigation isn’t all a firm of that size does. And while I appreciate that you are impervious to harm or misfortune of any kind, or apparently even death itself, and thus find everything a lawyer does to be worthless, others (who lack your gifts of course) find our services quite valuable in a wide variety of areas. But again, I understand we commoners lack your enlightenment.
I trust the irony of you calling others pompous is not lost on you.
Matt,
You are 100% correct. I am wrong. This law firm in the article is absolutely crucial to society. There are several services they provide that, if delayed a day or two by illness, would cause detrement to a large section of society. I stand corrected.
The irony was ungotten apparently.
Yeah, the irony was entirely lost as I just signed the chart for a teenager I admitted to the ICU last week. His college dispensary was out of Tamiflu, so he didn’t get any before seeing me (despite his significant risk factors). He died today – but I’m real glad that a junior associate at Ropes and Gray has some “on hand” in case they get a sniffle. Couldn’t possibly stand for that crucial firm to miss one day of work even of a secretary in the pool. Please Matt, will you come here and explain this to that kids family? As you know, I am only a physician, not a wordsmith like you…
(And this isn’t a hypothetical case so consider your response carefully)
Frydoc:
I am sorry to hear of that loss. We have a shortage of Tamiflu here as well and have already lost some high risk patients. I can not help but think that the unavailability of both vaccine and Tamiflu have played a major role in these deaths.
I think it is ironic that a law firm has gone to such extent to get Tamiflu for its personnel since lawsuits are partially the reason why so many US firms no longer make vaccines of any type.
Again, it seems your beef would be with Roche, or the federal government, or the physicians who don’t have your keen sense of morality and are prescribing these shots.
I’m not sure why you’re angry with the paralegals and secretaries at this firm who may get this shot. Do they not have families that matter to you? Even the junior associates you despise – are their children of no importance to you and their loss if their parent died?
It’s also interesting that previously you were telling me how important it is that people employed in key infrastructure roles get this shot, now you’re telling me it’s important for this teenager, who was a student, get it.
Your justifications seem to shift pretty easily. It really comes down to one, though – you hate people simply because of a job they do and because you think you’re smarter than them, even though you don’t know what the job is, what exactly is involved, and have never even met them and have no idea what kind of people they are.
Matt,
Just admit that they’re right: Tamiflu should be RATIONED.
Oh dear, there’s that bad, bad word. Keep yer hands off my healthcare!
Now I don’t know what to think – do we ration? Do we not?
I think it’s appalling Ropes & Grey can stockpile Tamiflu while there are shortages in places that need it more. But, hey, that kind of “free market medicine” is what physicians have been demanding for years, including most of the folks here.
I’m all for free market medicine in situations when the actions are medically appropriate. According to CDC guidelines, Ropes & Grey’s actions were not.
What’s next? Stockpiling OxyContin “just in case” someone gets injured? Maybe they could use it to draw in Rush Limbaugh as a client … or as a paralegal for that matter.
Max,
Thank you for so succintly stating the shifting positions of the “free market” types here.
matt, you’re dying on the vine on this one…frydoc’s last comment on the tragic consequence of not having tamiflu availble was the fat lady singing and very tragic. Shame on Roche and any company who had employees that were in a low risk job that stockpiled the drug.
So this unknown teenager’s death is tragic, but were a secretary with 3 kids at this firm, or any of the other 300 companies that have this, were to die, that’s less tragic?
It’s funny how you guys reject emotional appeals when people make them in malpractice cases, but don’t hesitate to use them to your own ends. You want to have the market involved in healthcare and reject universal care, but now you want to criticize those employers who do all they can for their employees, which is what happens in a free market. You want to criticize government health care plans which will ease access to care for all, but then you want to complain about shortages in the current situation.
Again, where’s your criticism of the physicians that play such a prominent role in this? Pretty hypocritical, guys.
There is a finite amount of vaccine and anti-virals available so decisions have to be made where it goes. It needs to be available for the high risk groups. And not stockpiled. I can’t believe this was even an option. My hospital has no antivirals squirreled away. Why this company? And why the use of “this unknown teenager”. That just sounds harsh and cold. And yes , I would question the physicians participating in this. I’ve got a pretty good idea why they are and it’s called green pictures of dead presidents.
I agree with you, decisions have to be made. And evidently the federal government made a decision that made it available to these 300 companies. Those companies, acting in the best interest of their employees, chose to act lawfully. In fact, they even employed physicians to help them do so.
Why the use of “unknown teenager”? Because I don’t know them. I’m sorry for their loss, but frankly, it’s just fry telling a story which may or may not be true. If I tell you a story about someone who died without a name or anything other than my guess as to why, how do you refer to them?
We are talking about this student, but would they have been in the target group for Tamiflu even using it more judiciously? None of you know. But you want to wave their death around for your own purposes when it suits you. Yet, when someone tells their own tragic story about injury or death as a result of alleged malpractice, you accuse them of trying to overcome the facts with “emotional appeals”. It’s hypocritical.
This is the biggest clusterf*ck I’ve seen. I personally don’t give a rat’s ass what the federal government decided.You know, the bottom line is they could have declined and said maybe there are people that would be better served with Tamiflu availability. And how would I refer to a young man who died..probably something along the lines of “the young man that died”. That isn’t too hard. BTW, lawful and physicians does not always equal right or moral. Can you say Tuskegee?
You don’t know when they, or any of the other 300, purchased. You don’t know if Roche told them there would be a shortage, etc. And you’re comparing these 300 companies and the physicians to those who did the Tuskegee experiments? Really? For all you know the only way it’s profitable for Roche to make this vaccine is to sell some in the private market and if they couldn’t they wouldn’t make it.
You have condemned 300 companies and a bunch of docs based on Monday morning quarterbacking of a game you didn’t see!
Matt is just being willingly obtuse and it’s pretty typical of left-minded thinkers. Oh. Did I say that out loud? If it’s right for them, then it becomes the responsibility of someone else, not that this particular law firm exhibited excessive selfishness and another child is dead. His kind of people make me sick. Another typical liberal bent is that *we* have families, too. Yeah, here’s a freaking quarter, loser. The whole point is to give it to those at risk for complications and this law firm circumvented the protocol set forth by suing. Is THAT the right thing to do, just because you can?
Matt wants to be right, no matter what. I’d say it sucks to be him.
Frydoc, I’m sorry, too.
It’s ironic to hear tort reformers accuse others of being politicially left. What political persuasion is it that reaches conclusions without facts, Defend? The law firm didn’t sue anyone to get this. Like 300 other companies it purchase it. Don’t let facts get in the way of your Half baked political psychoanalysis.
“I think it is ironic that a law firm has gone to such extent to get Tamiflu for its personnel since lawsuits are partially the reason why so many US firms no longer make vaccines of any type.”
Throck, you’re opining on things you know nothing about again. Vaccine makers have been protected for 20 years. You cannot sue them directly, but instead have to go through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
Lawsuits aren’t the reason there aren’t enough vaccines. There aren’t enough vaccines because governments are the primary buyers, they’re ridiculously low margin, and they are only good for a year, basically.
Do you use any facts in reaching your conclusion?
Throck, for your further edification:
http://www.hrsa.gov/Vaccinecompensation/
Your “blame it on lawyers we don’t have vaccine” claims were heard 25 years ago, and we have this program.
So why a shortage now? Who you going to blame the current shortage on?
Matt:
We went from 26 vaccine producers to 4 then 2. Why do you think this is. The vaccine compensation program has not helped. Production of vaccines in time intensive, high risk and low proffit. You combine high risk and low proffit and guess what, no one wants to make them. Why do you think the HHS secretary had to make special provisions to shield the makers of the H1N1 vaccine from liability? As to why we have a shortage? We dont have companies to make it, the ones that do would not make it until the Federal government helped them with the liability. Guess what, the person in charge of it, Sebelius is a trial attorney!
I think it’s because when your primary product has a limited shelf life and a government as the primary borrower, and requires you to reconstitute it anew every year, it’s hard to make money.
How you blame lawsuits after 20 years of the Vaccine program, I don’t know. Certainly not based on any actual facts.
” Guess what, the person in charge of it, Sebelius is a trial attorney!”
Throck, do you do ANY critical thinking before arriving at conclusions? Sebelius doesn’t even have a law degree. If she was a trial lawyer, she’s probably been sanctioned for the unauthorized practice of law.
My bad:
She was just head of her states Trial lawyers lobby. Did you just blow over the fact that she had to get immunity for the firms to make the H1N1 vaccine because the vaccine compensation act did not help?
throckmorton,
We have fewer vaccine producers for the same reason we have fewer pharmaceutical companies in general: consolidation.
Lawsuits got nothin’ to do with it.
Matt,
Your ignorance abounds. Look, we are not talking about a shot, we are talking about anti-viral medications. And I am not advocating withholding it from anyone who meets the CDC guidelines for it’s use (regardless of their occupation or employer). What I am railing against is the INDISCRIMINATE use of the drug by Ropes and Gray. To quote the article “In an Oct. 13 e-mail to all personnel in Washington, Boston, Chicago, New York, San Francisco, and the Silicon Valley, the firm’s head of human resources, Deborah Lemmerman, said Ropes & Gray arranged for physicians to prescribe Tamiflu for employees who want it and for their family members to ‘allow you to have it on hand should you need it.’’ An accompanying fact sheet tells employees that ‘more severe outbreaks can potentially result in a shortage of available medication.’” So, they acknowledge they are dispensing the drug “to have on hand” – not giving it to those who ACTUALLY need it, in the face of shortages. How can you, the champion of everyone’s rights, agree with this? Now, I do believe that if a “secretary with 3 kids at this firm” has risk factors, she should have the medication. But I do not believe she should have it in her medicine cabinet “just in case” while other people die from lack of the drug. Ropes and Gray is subverting the intent of the program. The government allows these companies to purchase to the drug to keep critical infrastructure going. Now we can argue (and should) that Ropes and Gray is not a time sensitive, critical infrastructure organization in the same sense as say the Burlington Northern Railroad, but even the railroad should limit use of the drug to those who are a. ill and b. needed for critical operations. Matt, do you honestly expect us to believe that if a hospital made the drug available to non-essential personnel and their families in this way you wouldn’t be outraged?
And you are truly a son of a bitch to come to a medical blog and suggest that physicians are lying about their personal tragic cases.
Frydoc, I was appalled that there was a suggestion you made up that story. Sorry that happened. My heart goes out to that young man.
“And you are truly a son of a bitch to come to a medical blog and suggest that physicians are lying about their personal tragic cases.”
You wouldn’t even help the victim of malpractice by testifying for them if you KNEW the doctor had been negligent, regardless of how horrible the injury. You call people with the great misfortune to have a malpractice case worth millions “lottery winners”, as if they are lucky to need money to cover vast amounts of past and future care. You routinely vilify hundreds of thousands of people you’ve never met based solely on a degree they hold. All in the pursuit of hoping your insurance company cuts your premiums so you can take a few more dollars home. Spare me your morality lectures, you hypocrite.
I’m not suggesting PHYSICIANS are lying – I’m suggesting that YOU may be. You’re also a hypocrite given how you criticize any lawyer who dares to suggest their is an emotional factor in a malpractice case involving an injured person. Simply having the medical degree does not make you immune from all moral lapses.
And actually, the firm isn’t dispensing the drug – PHYSICIANS are. Maybe they lack your keen, and selective, sense of moral obligation.
As to the rest of your post, again, take it up with the government. This company, and 300 others, did something in the best interests of their employees, something completely and totally legal.
If you want to argue societal benefit for everything, let’s do that. Let’s argue that it’s a societal benefit for every podunk town in Mississippi to have a neurologist, and limit how many can live in New York, LA, etc. That sound fair? Where do you live? I’m sure your skills could be better utilized on a reservation in North Dakota – are you a horrible person for not moving? Under your standards, absolutely! But what’s good for the goose isn’t always good for the gander when it comes to yourself, is it?
Matt-
Just go away, you prick. Lawyers lie all the time and get away with it. But as long as you win, it’s all good, hmmm?
And were it not for HIPPA, I’d bet you that Frydoc could supply you with the records of that kid who died but since YOU have to be right, you accuse Frydoc of lying? What a douchebag.
My apologies to the other readers for such language. Occasionally, my military bearing gets the best of me and no other vocabulary will suffice, as in this case.
Defend, piss on you. You don’t know either of us. Get Orr yourself.
First of all, you just “villified” frydoc without a shred of evidence as to what he would do or not do in a medical malpractice case or his ability to truthfully share a story. Watch out for that goose/gander thing.
Second, many of the docs I work with do go to podunk towns in my state…my county has 1 physician for every 3,120 people. Many docs drive great distances to make their services available here and probably don’t get much reimbursement because it is primarily medicaid and the under-insured….rural people are just poor and not from lack of hard work. How much pro bono work do you do?
The federal government made a bad call. As for the physicians participating, don’t think much of them either.
House GOP submits alternative healthcare bill. It’s only 230 pages.
Bright and early this morning, Roche Group (OTC: RHHB) announced first-half earnings and upped its annual earnings goal, thanks to impressive sales of Tamiflu. Roche’s first-half profit (it only reports earnings twice) dropped 29% to $3.8 billion as the company was hit by costs related to its purchase of Genentech. That said, Roche upped its earnings guidance and forecast double-digit core earnings growth in both 2009 and 2010 — the earlier forecast called for earnings to stay at 2008 levels.
Roche said that sales at both its pharma and diagnostics departments should grow “well ahead” of the market in the coming year. This move surprised many analysts, who were looking for Roche to raise its 2009 guidance, but not to the extent that the company announced. The company announced that total production capacity for flu treatment Tamiflu will be expanded to 400 million packs annually by the start of 2010. Tamiflu sales rose more than 200% in the past year, thanks to the Swine Flu scare.
Roche has benefited from both the swine flu and the fact that consumers will normally continue to spend on health care during a recession. The sector is in decent shape, as many of its major players have topped the consensus estimates. The sector is not immune to competition, as new drugs and generic medicine could provide the biggest stumbling block. Should consumers turn to the cheaper offerings during tough economic times, Roche could see its profits slip a bit.
Yeah, looks like they needed that private sector money.
WC,
I’m not against the stockpiling of critical medications for key infrastructure organizations. In an outbreak, we need planes, trains and automobiles to carry medications, vaccines, food, fuel, etc. Powerplants need to stay lit and communications need to be preserved. This is the whole idea behind the National Defense Executive Reserve and other civil defense programs. BUT, Ropes and Gray first of all should not be included in that group – there is nothing to suggest that they, as a firm, provide time sensitive crucial infrastructure services. Second, their program included ALL staff, not the key players (if we do accept that some portion of their business is key to national infrastructure) AND THEIR FAMILIES. Third, they allowed for individuals to stockpile the meds, not allocating according to guidelines to maintain the infrastructure. All of which entirely subverted the goals of the program under which they were allowed to purchase the drug in the first place.
Hold on, I’m sure Mutt (since he insists on mis-spelling my name) will be along in a minute to call me a hypocrite because the piece of mind of a pool secretary at Ropes and Gray is far more important than my opinion (or CDC guidelines).