To read the full column, click here.

The gun lobby paranoia seems to have infected all branches of our government, but even I am surprised how far politicians are willing to go to please their NRA sponsors. In an April 30 Miami Herald an article titled 
"Medical liability bill gets snagged by gun concerns" highlights such an example.  

According to the article, a Senate priority bill to limit the liability of Florida doctors ran into trouble in the House on Monday (4-29) when opponents suggested that it could be used by insurance companies who represent the doctors to create a private registry of gun owners. The bill, HB 827, would deal with what are known as "ex parte communications" in malpractice cases and would allow lawyers for doctors hit with a malpractice claim to interview any other doctor about a patient's health record in private. Rep. James Grant, R-Tampa, believes that the provision could open the door to lawyers asking doctors about the gun-toting habits of their patients and, over time, use that information to build a database of gun owners who could be charged higher insurance rates. 

Grant filed an amendment to the bill Monday (April 29) that would prohibit doctors from revealing any information about a patient's gun ownership, as well as any history of child abuse, sexual abuse, substance abuse, mental health and reproductive history unless the patient's lawyer is present.

Read More>>  
 
Dr. Wollschlaeger is a frequent contributor to FHIweekly and Specialty Focus. You can read more of his articles by visiting  

http://floridadocs.blogspot.com.   

Track HB 827 HERE and HERE.

Women are far more likely than men to be diagnosed with depression. 

You probably know that. 

But what you may not know is that in 2010 Medicare spent 16 percent more, on average, on a newly-enrolled man with depression than it did on a woman.

Why do we spend more treating depression in men than we do treating it in women? 

To read the full column, click here.

We spend one thousand times more on home health care today than we did fifty years ago.  But the amount - less than 3 per cent of our nation's health care bill - isn't the problem.  It's the trend that matters.  

To read the full column, click here.

The Boston marathon bombing is a horrifying, ongoing tragedy.

Three people died when the bombs exploded, and scores of others were maimed or otherwise injured.

But there was one bright spot for the wounded and their families. According to the American Trauma Society, "it now appears that every one of the wounded alive when rescuers reached them will survive."

The reason for this is that they were all fortunate to have almost immediate access to some of the finest, most extensive trauma services in the nation.

According to an interview with the chief of medicine of one of the area hospitals, there were four Level I trauma centers within a mile or so of the marathon finish line - Boston Medical Center, Brigham and Women's, Mass General, and Tufts Medical Center. They were already treating victims within thirty minutes of the blast.

There are five levels of trauma centers in the United States and there are slight differences in how these are designated in different states. But there is general agreement about one thing - if you receive a life-threatening injury, either accidental or intentional, your best hope for survival is to be as close as possible to a Level I or Level II trauma center.

Read More>>

The good news:

Spending on public health (as a percentage of all health spending) has doubled in the last fifty years. 

The bad news: 

This is still less than 3 percent of our national health budget.

To read the full column, click here.