4 ms·

You start out by saying that the article is "misleading", and that MRSA is tracked. The article is pretty convincing that it's not accurately reported. Then yo

You start out by saying that the article is "misleading", and that MRSA is tracked. The article is pretty convincing that it's not accurately reported. Then you agree with the article that "the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections is clear". Uhh... That's kind of a huge problem.

mirimir 10y ago
Yes, as the article points out: > There’s also a powerful incentive not to mention a hospital-acquired infection: Counting deaths is tantamount to documenting your own failures. By acknowledging such infections, hospitals and medical professionals risk potentially costly legal liability, loss of insurance reimbursements and public-relations damage.
daveloyall 10y ago
Well yeah. But hey, I'm no journalist. I stand by my assertion that nobody is trying to "hide" the "superbug" problem. The human tendency to not self-report failures is a thing. But it's not some kind of biohazard conspiracy. And one more thing about the death certificates... > In a statement emailed to Reuters, Frieden said: > "While death certificates provide helpful > information, the unfortunate reality is that they > don't provide in-depth clinical information." I'm guessing that Frieden, the boss of the whole CDC, went on to say something like: "But it makes sense, because death certificates are primarily legal records. The clinical information lives in medical records." OR, OR, something more accurate. That's why he gets the big bucks. :)
- InternetPerson 10y ago
  Well, you know more about this space than I do. So maybe it's not so bad... But the article sure makes it sound like hospitals are hiding MRSA-related deaths, since MRSA infections are often "hospital acquired". And we all agree that hospitals would have an incentive to hide these numbers. And the apparent under-reporting seems to indicate that this is in fact what's going on. This sounds like a problem! Thanks a lot, dishonest hospitals!

mirimir 10y ago

Yes, as the article points out: > There’s also a powerful incentive not to mention a hospital-acquired infection: Counting deaths is tantamount to documenting your own failures. By acknowledging such infections, hospitals and medical professionals risk potentially costly legal liability, loss of insurance reimbursements and public-relations damage.

daveloyall 10y ago

Well yeah. But hey, I'm no journalist. I stand by my assertion that nobody is trying to "hide" the "superbug" problem. The human tendency to not self-report failures is a thing. But it's not some kind of biohazard conspiracy. And one more thing about the death certificates... > In a statement emailed to Reuters, Frieden said: > "While death certificates provide helpful > information, the unfortunate reality is that they > don't provide in-depth clinical information." I'm guessing that Frieden, the boss of the whole CDC, went on to say something like: "But it makes sense, because death certificates are primarily legal records. The clinical information lives in medical records." OR, OR, something more accurate. That's why he gets the big bucks. :)

InternetPerson 10y ago
Well, you know more about this space than I do. So maybe it's not so bad... But the article sure makes it sound like hospitals are hiding MRSA-related deaths, since MRSA infections are often "hospital acquired". And we all agree that hospitals would have an incentive to hide these numbers. And the apparent under-reporting seems to indicate that this is in fact what's going on. This sounds like a problem! Thanks a lot, dishonest hospitals!