Wow. Los Alamos National Labs (run by the University of California) had yet another apparent breach of national security. A drug raid on a Los Alamos scientist's home in New Mexico turned up what appeared to be classified documents taken from the nuclear weapons lab. This is, of course, after Wen Ho Lee, and after an episode of missing classified disks that the lab later said "never existed."
As always, draw your own conclusions.
Update:
It took a while, but it eventually became clear how this episode fits into the "cut any corner to bill more or pay less" pattern that seems to have emerged from the events documented below. In most of the other posts below this one, the University of California cut corners, and people died (32 in the UC Irvine and UC San Deigo liver transplant non-program) or were left to die in agony but didn't actually die (an unknown number, but approx. 200 in that same program) or ... well, read the posts below. In this post, the University of California cut corners, and national security was compromised (again).
The person who took classified documents home was, it turns out, a Lab archivist. The archivists were supposed to work in pairs, so that each could keep an eye on each other, and so that each would be less likely to take classified documents. The University actually did hire two archivists, and presumably billed the DOE (on whose behalf the University runs the labs) for the two archivists.
The labs then assigned the two archivists to different parts of the labs. This completely negated the point of having archivists work in pairs in the first place. Well, it negated the national-security reason for having archivists work in pairs, anyway. The justification for billing for two archivists probably remained.
Occasional observations on the world from the perspective of a realist (i.e. pessimist) libertarian.
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Last week, I worked with a nurse by the name of Natalie Dizon. Ms. Dizon has allowed me to tell her story.
Ms. Dizon had a pelvic procedure done by Dr. Schlomo Raz at UCLA. After that first procedure, she claims that she was in agonizing pain, and believed that something had been left in her during the surgery.
After a while, Dr. Raz took Nurse Dizon back to the OR. After recovery from the second visit to the OR, Ms. Dizon says that the previous great pain was gone. Ms. Dizon stated that, during recovery, another nurse, who had been present during the second procedure, told Ms. Dizon that Dr. Raz had taken a surgical sponge (apparently left there after the first procedure) out of her. That would have explained the pain, as well as the sudden disappearance of the pain after another visit to the operating room.
Nurse Dizon then tried to get her medical records to find out what had happened in the OR. Despite the fact that all the information in the medical records is hers, she was not given all the medical records, but only face sheets and billing information. In the meantime, she states that she was told that the presence of the surgical sponge on the second procedure had not been documented, and there was no point in looking for a record to indicate it's existence.
Just another UCLA data point.
Ms. Dizon had a pelvic procedure done by Dr. Schlomo Raz at UCLA. After that first procedure, she claims that she was in agonizing pain, and believed that something had been left in her during the surgery.
After a while, Dr. Raz took Nurse Dizon back to the OR. After recovery from the second visit to the OR, Ms. Dizon says that the previous great pain was gone. Ms. Dizon stated that, during recovery, another nurse, who had been present during the second procedure, told Ms. Dizon that Dr. Raz had taken a surgical sponge (apparently left there after the first procedure) out of her. That would have explained the pain, as well as the sudden disappearance of the pain after another visit to the operating room.
Nurse Dizon then tried to get her medical records to find out what had happened in the OR. Despite the fact that all the information in the medical records is hers, she was not given all the medical records, but only face sheets and billing information. In the meantime, she states that she was told that the presence of the surgical sponge on the second procedure had not been documented, and there was no point in looking for a record to indicate it's existence.
Just another UCLA data point.
Tuesday, April 25, 2006
Well, now it's more clear why the U. of California needed that money:
From today’s LA Times:
“For the last decade, University of California leaders systematically failed to disclose to UC's governing board the details of pay packages and perquisites granted to senior executives, despite policies requiring such disclosure, according to an audit released Monday.”
In other words, UC administrators spent University money on themselves without notifying thier nominal bosses (the regents), the legislature, or the public. Think about this in the context of a private company for a second; say you owned a business, and the hired help spent the business money on themselves without notifying anyone. In such a case, it could be embezzelment, plain and simple.
Futher:
“The report also noted that some compensation for a number of employees, including the extra income for Dynes, [the current University president] was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Officials said amended W-2 forms would be submitted.”
Again, in the context of a private company, that could be tax evasion.
Just sayin’
Addendum: The amount of money involved in the story above was not disclosed by the LA times. According to the NY Times story, "University of California Backs President," published May 18, 2006 (no active link at this time):"A state audit found the extra compensation accounted for $334 million."
334 MILLION DOLLARS. Wow.
From today’s LA Times:
“For the last decade, University of California leaders systematically failed to disclose to UC's governing board the details of pay packages and perquisites granted to senior executives, despite policies requiring such disclosure, according to an audit released Monday.”
In other words, UC administrators spent University money on themselves without notifying thier nominal bosses (the regents), the legislature, or the public. Think about this in the context of a private company for a second; say you owned a business, and the hired help spent the business money on themselves without notifying anyone. In such a case, it could be embezzelment, plain and simple.
Futher:
“The report also noted that some compensation for a number of employees, including the extra income for Dynes, [the current University president] was not reported to the Internal Revenue Service. Officials said amended W-2 forms would be submitted.”
Again, in the context of a private company, that could be tax evasion.
Just sayin’
Addendum: The amount of money involved in the story above was not disclosed by the LA times. According to the NY Times story, "University of California Backs President," published May 18, 2006 (no active link at this time):"A state audit found the extra compensation accounted for $334 million."
334 MILLION DOLLARS. Wow.
Here's a little list (compiled mainly from stories out of the LA Times and the OC Register) of UC Irvine scandals over the last few years, just to help me keep track of all this:
In 2005 came news of the death of 32 patients waiting for liver transplants that were never going to come. The livers were available, but, for two years, UCI did not have a full time surgeon to implant them, in contravention of federal regulations. UCI's surgeon was actually on staff at UC San Diego, almost 100 miles away. UC Irvine never notified the dying patients that they didn't have a full time surgeon on staff. Just before leaving the program with no full-time surgeon, the last UCI transplant surgeon, who had been performing an unusually small number of transplants, with a survival rate below federal standards, is alleged to have threatened staff members with "liability" should "patients find out something and decide to sue."
The woman whose lawsuit eventually led to exposure of this scandal was Elodie Irvine. Ms. Irvine, who had liver and kidney disease, had 95 organs offered to her by UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, while she waited for a transplant at UCI. All those organs were rejected by UCI, while she was told they were just waiting for organs. Only one UCI physician advised her to look elsewhere for a transplant. The rest of UCI allegedly left her, and most everyone else on the “transplant” list, to die.
In the 90s, UCI allegedly stole eggs from women who had come for fertility treatments. The responsible physicians fled the country to escape federal prosecution. At least one UCI trustee claims to have resigned his post largely because (he claimed) that the trustees were planning to support the errant physicians.
In 2006 it was alleged that, for approximately 15 years, the University had been covering up the existence of children from those stolen eggs. In at least one case, it appears that the process of removing eggs from an unwitting young woman, who had come for a fallopian tube procedure, rendered her infertile. That young woman's eggs developed into at least two children, who are now in their late teens, but the woman was never able to conceive. She did not know that she had children until 2005. Another approximately 20 such children, from 20 unwitting "donors," are now in their late teens, and the families are suing for damages and to learn the identity of their children. The University is arguing that the statute of limitations for this case has expired.
In December 2005, UCI settled a lawsuit brought over the (still-missing) body of Anneliese Yuenger. UC employees allegedly tried to pass off a bag of miscellaneous cremated body parts, instead of Yuenger’s body, to the family. This was only a small part of a willed-body scandal that affected many families, UCI, and UCLA.
In 2003, UCI hired Jagat Narula and Mani Vannan as the chief and division chief of cardiology. Neither was board certified in internal medicine nor cardiology, and neither had a California medical license. Narula then allegedly forced out electrocardiologist Michael Brodsky, and hired David Cesario, the son of med school dean Thomas Cesario, to take his place.
In 2003, Dr. Glenn Prevost presented a 13-signature petition alleging anesthesia safety problems. He says that soon after complaining about a supervisor forcing him "to take patients to the operating room without consent, chart, or preoperative check-in by the operating room nurse ... in an attempt to cut costs," he was fired and allegely blackballed.
In Feb 2001, the University of California agreed to pay $22.5 million to settle allegations that it's teaching hospitals routinely submitted false billings to Medicare, Medicaid and other Federally-funded health programs. The whistleblower, who had been at UCI, left UCI, and was allegedly blackballed. She’s since been embroiled in lawsuits against the University of California.
In 2005 came news of the death of 32 patients waiting for liver transplants that were never going to come. The livers were available, but, for two years, UCI did not have a full time surgeon to implant them, in contravention of federal regulations. UCI's surgeon was actually on staff at UC San Diego, almost 100 miles away. UC Irvine never notified the dying patients that they didn't have a full time surgeon on staff. Just before leaving the program with no full-time surgeon, the last UCI transplant surgeon, who had been performing an unusually small number of transplants, with a survival rate below federal standards, is alleged to have threatened staff members with "liability" should "patients find out something and decide to sue."
The woman whose lawsuit eventually led to exposure of this scandal was Elodie Irvine. Ms. Irvine, who had liver and kidney disease, had 95 organs offered to her by UNOS, the United Network for Organ Sharing, while she waited for a transplant at UCI. All those organs were rejected by UCI, while she was told they were just waiting for organs. Only one UCI physician advised her to look elsewhere for a transplant. The rest of UCI allegedly left her, and most everyone else on the “transplant” list, to die.
In the 90s, UCI allegedly stole eggs from women who had come for fertility treatments. The responsible physicians fled the country to escape federal prosecution. At least one UCI trustee claims to have resigned his post largely because (he claimed) that the trustees were planning to support the errant physicians.
In 2006 it was alleged that, for approximately 15 years, the University had been covering up the existence of children from those stolen eggs. In at least one case, it appears that the process of removing eggs from an unwitting young woman, who had come for a fallopian tube procedure, rendered her infertile. That young woman's eggs developed into at least two children, who are now in their late teens, but the woman was never able to conceive. She did not know that she had children until 2005. Another approximately 20 such children, from 20 unwitting "donors," are now in their late teens, and the families are suing for damages and to learn the identity of their children. The University is arguing that the statute of limitations for this case has expired.
In December 2005, UCI settled a lawsuit brought over the (still-missing) body of Anneliese Yuenger. UC employees allegedly tried to pass off a bag of miscellaneous cremated body parts, instead of Yuenger’s body, to the family. This was only a small part of a willed-body scandal that affected many families, UCI, and UCLA.
In 2003, UCI hired Jagat Narula and Mani Vannan as the chief and division chief of cardiology. Neither was board certified in internal medicine nor cardiology, and neither had a California medical license. Narula then allegedly forced out electrocardiologist Michael Brodsky, and hired David Cesario, the son of med school dean Thomas Cesario, to take his place.
In 2003, Dr. Glenn Prevost presented a 13-signature petition alleging anesthesia safety problems. He says that soon after complaining about a supervisor forcing him "to take patients to the operating room without consent, chart, or preoperative check-in by the operating room nurse ... in an attempt to cut costs," he was fired and allegely blackballed.
In Feb 2001, the University of California agreed to pay $22.5 million to settle allegations that it's teaching hospitals routinely submitted false billings to Medicare, Medicaid and other Federally-funded health programs. The whistleblower, who had been at UCI, left UCI, and was allegedly blackballed. She’s since been embroiled in lawsuits against the University of California.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)