New treatment for Emphysema
A new study referred to as the EASE (Exhale Airway Stents for Emphysema) study will examine a new treatment that creates pathways in the lung for trapped air to escape.
It is hoped that this will relieve shortness of breath and other symptoms associated with emphysema. The study is being done at the Univ. of Pennsylvania and as of now, there are very limited treatment options those who struggle with this disease.
This technique is a new, cutting-edge, non-surgical procedure that creates new pathways for airflow. These new small pathways in the lungs are created by using a special kind of needle and then stents are inserted to keep the new air passages open. The stent is shown above in the photo. About 30 patients have been involved in the first phases of the study.
Emphysema is most often caused by smoking and affects more than three million people in the United States and about 60 million people worldwide. It is a chronic, progressive and irreversible lung disease that is characterized by the destruction of lung tissue. Most patients will eventually need home oxygen to survive if they live long enough with the disease.
posted by Anonymous at 5:54 AM
26 Comments:
Now you say, "The current Chairman is doing an excellent job" and "given enough truthful information, he and the majority will make the best decisions."
So just what is it that is to be accomplished by urging your readers to contact their county commissioners? What kind of rabble-rousing, pointless, exercise is that all about?
Answer please.
Very interesting that they are using stents for emphysema treatment.
Anonymous 6:20 makes a pretty good point HB. You kind of rolled that "contact your commissioner" grenade out there and just walked away. It really does seem to undermine your otherwise positive comments about the board chairman.
Get off your high horses. Maybe HB just wants to keep pressure on from all sides so that this Chairman doesn't get misled, manipulated, and lied to like the others have.
It sounds like he is doing a good job so far, but if you sit back and let off the pressure, the CEO will find a way to manipulate like he always has.
Read yesterdays response. The Commissioners are responsible and should be informed whether you like it or not
Why can't HB speak for himself?
Ok, we get it
We shouldn't contact the county commissioners.
Should too
Should not
Should too
Should not
Don't NOT contact your county commissioner,NOT.
12:40, I don't know what to do with a triple negative.
Working in healthcare has rendered me void of critical thinking skills. If I'm going to follow the followers, I need someone to tell me which way we're going. Nothing beyond single or double negatives, please. I have a hard time keeping up.
I've answered the question before. The Chairman is doing a good job. He is meeting with physicians, community leaders, private citizens and listening and learning. This is far different than any other recent Chairman.
The County Commissioners need input from everyone because they appoint and reappoint Board members. In order to make the changes needed, the majority of the Board needs to have the information.
For some Board members, they may only be willing to hear it from the Commissioners. Some Board members are so biased and blinded that they are unwilling to hear the truth and certainly unwilling to make the decisions that obviously need to be made.
The commissioners need to know this when it comes time for reappointment.
So just who are these "board members (who) are so biased and blinded that they are unwilling to hear the truth and certainly unwilling to make the decisions that obviously need to be made." Name names. Call these people out so we will know who to complain about to our commissioners.
Speaking of biased and blinded, did you get any pictures of 6,500 year old dinosaur fossils while you were out there in Montana? I hear the place is lousy with fossils so you must have stumbled over a few.
Here we go again!! In "HB WORLD" no one is allowed to have an honest opinion that differs from HB's delivered truth. Anyone who disagrees must be "so biased and blinded that they are unwilling to hear the truth and certainly unwilling to make the decisions that obviously need to be made."
What a joy it must be to have to work with such an "always right" personality.
Based on information from staff, physicians, board members, public and commissioners, here is a grade summary based on what I have heard.
Jerrol Miles (Chairman) will probably earn an "A" for his leadership and proactive approach.
Von Marshall (retired principal" "B"
Kay Garry (city Controller) "B"
Ms. Garner (mother of Mayor and a surgeon on staff) "F".
David Atkins (drinking buddy and political appointment of Charles Freiberger) "F"
Keith Megraw (personal friends of the CEO) D-
Stuart Eldridge MD (new to board this year) "B+"
Don Gibbons (new to the board this year) "B+"
Guy Wall PhD. (IUS faculty) (new to board, seems knowledgeable about nonmedical issues but unsure where he stands on issues) "grade pending"
Nice pointless exercise, but I want to hear directly from HB which of the board members he views as biased and blinded...so I can make the right recommendation to my county commissioner.
I love it when we base things on what we've heard. Especially in the POLITICAL arena. I'm sure you're onto something very solid here, 8:23.
Are we grading based on conduct, attendance, hand-writing skills or what?
Interesting the way you view disagreement. You say that some board members are "unwilling to make the decisions that obviously need to be made." Obvious from YOUR viewpoint, but maybe not from everyone else's. How do you model Christian charity when you term as "biased and blinded" anyone who sees things differently than you? Is it impossible for someone to disagree with you AND to be honest and intelligent?
This was certainly an interesting grading scale on the Board Members. I have no strong disagreements with the assessment but do agree with the comment about what the standards to determine the grades are.
My opinions based on personal observation would be to give Mr. Megraw a “C” for now. He at least reads his material, comes prepared and discusses the topics openly. I do not believe he would ever vote against the CEO on any issue no matter how much overwhelming information is presented and therefore remains less effective as a Board member.
I would give both Mrs. Garry and Mr. Marshall “A’s”. They come prepared, seek out outside information, are open-minded and also understand that changes need to be made. They have been in the minority for so long they are both extremely frustrated.
Dr. Eldridge would deserve and “A” as he has taken a lot of personal time to call and talk to many individuals to get the necessary information to make informed decisions.
I would have no problems with the other grades based on personal experience and contact.
I believe the Commissioners will validate this assessment when they choose to reappoint or not reappoint the members in January.
I have no problems with disagreement. Read the blogs and comments. I also think anyone who is objective and reads postings from the inception will see that predictions made early on have come true. This administration under this CEO has been failing for years and it’s time to change. The facts and financials cannot be misinterpreted but the actions of certain Board members can continue to hamper progress as they have for the past several years.
What is your explanation for the $11.5 million dollar error, loss of JCAHO accreditation, the need for an outside audit that has yet to be released, and lowering of the Bond rating under this CEO? These are examples of things just in the past couple of years.
Please help me out with this:
"I also think anyone who is objective and reads postings from the inception will see that predictions made early on have come true."
Maybe it is just my failing memory, but I don't ever recall you questioning the estimates for financial reimbursement. Are you suggesting that your general unhappiness with the CEO amounts to a prediction of ANY specific problem that arises now or anytime in the future?
Kay Garry is a flat, no questions asked F. She is not, nor has ever been the minority when it comes to knowledge of finances. She could have dug deeper long before now to investigate what was going on. She just collected her check and kept her mouth shut. Joke
Does anyone know how to get candle wax out of a cable knit sweater?
Look back at the many posts when HB said there would not be any significant changes until the finances became the major problem.
Look back at the postings about revenue numbers, collection problems and what was referred to as the dashboard reports.
Those who know also realize that when they were made public, the CEO stopped giving them to the Board.
How do you spell incompetence and coverup. We spell it CEO.
I don't see your answer to HB's questions. Wonder why.
Since when does the CEO maintain the financial reports. That is the job of the CFO...and he was replaced when problems became evident.
Quit using the CFO as the scapegoat. The CEO had to sign off on those financials each month and to think he did not know what was going on is foolish. Word is, he was the one forcing the CFO to report such data. Also note that the current Director of Finance who was in charge of actually preparing those number is still employed in same role. Plenty of blame to go around here.
"Word is, he was the one forcing the CFO to report such data."
Apart from the fact that this is pure gossip, what sense would it make for the CEO to get rid of the CFO if the CEO were involved in the problem. That makes no sense.
The key term is in the first sentence. Scapegoat.
When there is a problem with financials, the CFO is hardly a scapegoat. Keeping track of financials is why you have a CFO.
"Apart from the fact that this is pure gossip, what sense would it make for the CEO to get rid of the CFO if the CEO were involved in the problem. That makes no sense."
If the CEO is part of a problem that is being made public, he still has to make it look like he's doing something about it. We don't very well expect him to fire himself, do we?
Maybe a more apt term wold be pseudo-scapegoat?
Post a Comment
<< Home