Hacker News Reader

Comment by daveloyall | Hacker News Reader

I'm not saying it is good. I'm just saying that there is more than one thing going on here.

I don't think hospitals have any motivation to hide antibiotic-resistant infections ("superbugs") specifically. HOWEVER, the motive to hide hospital-acquired infections[0] is clear!

Here's some mud in the water: what's the difference between a HAI with some bug that is easily killed by antibiotics vs. an antibiotic resistant bug?

As for "tracking it in secret", that's one way to put it, but it will cloud your thinking. :) Your own medical records--specifically blood test lab results--have your name, address, and phone number on them. Consider replacing the word 'secret' with 'private' and re-working the whole thought.

0: http://www.cdc.gov/hai/

View on HN

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.

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. :)

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!

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.

Yes, I totally get privacy, and I'm glad to read that you're not saying it is good.

It's the hiding it in public records such as Death Certificates, information given to the family, and performance statistics that I find suspicious.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com