The charge against Ms. Mitchell was "misuse of official information," because she had used confidential patient records in her report to the medical board. The sheriff who investigated the case and spurred the indictment was a friend and business partner of the doctor.

Ms. Mitchell told allies at the Texas Nurses Association after the verdict:

"I was just doing my job, but no one should have to go through this. I would say to every nurse, if you witness bad care, you have a duty to your patient to report it, no matter the personal ramifications. This whole ordeal was really about patient care."

The president of the American Nurses Association, Rebecca M. Patton, issued a statement underscoring the outrage of nurses over the fact that the case was ever prosecuted criminally. Ms. Patton said:

"ANA is relieved and satisfied that Anne Mitchell (RN) was vindicated and found not guilty on these outrageous criminal charges – today's verdict is a resounding win on behalf of patient safety in the U.S. Nurses play a critical, duty-bound role in acting as patient safety watch guards in our nation's health care system. The message the jury sent is clear: the freedom for nurses to report a physician's unsafe medical practices is non-negotiable.

"However, ANA remains shocked and deeply disappointed that this sort of blatant retaliation was allowed to take place and reach the trial stage – a different outcome could have endangered patient safety across the U.S., having a potential 'chilling effect' that would make nurses think twice before reporting shoddy medical practice. Nurse whistle blowers should never be fired and criminally charged for reporting questionable medical care."

Read more from the nurses association here.

Other safety leaders in the U.S. medical industry, like the Joint Commission, which accredits hospitals like the one that fired Ms. Mitchell, were conspicuously silent about the case before the acquittal. Now maybe they will speak up on the essential role nurses play and the need to make sure intimidation and retaliation cannot follow safety reports.

The founders of the publicly traded company, a father and son team, have made about $200 million since they started Select in late 1996, according to the Times. They also own stock worth many millions more.

From barely a handful in the entire country in the 1980s, the number of long-term care hospitals now exceeds 400, with growth fueled by Medicare payment rules that penalize hospitals when patients languish too long with a particular condition but reward those same hospitals if they can transfer the patient to a long-term care facility. Many of the long-term care hospitals -- and nearly all in the Select chain -- actually consist of a wing or floor within another hospital, so patients can be transferred just a floor or two and for reimbursement purposes be tagged as located in a wholly different facility.

According to the Times report, many of the long-term care hospitals have no doctors in the building overnight as routine practice. They have heart monitors watched by untrained clerks, or not watched at all. Patients have died from lack of appropriate attention.

Here are government inspection reports obtained by the Times from a Freedom of Information request. Statistics show that bed for bed, Select hospitals have four times as many official findings of poor quality than the average hospital.

Medicare rules pay long-term care hospitals more if the patient is hospitalized at least 25 days, but then reimbursement declines drastically for patients who need longer treatment. It's no surprise that the average length of stay at Select hovers at 25 days.

What is the appropriate role of profit making in American health care? Money can certainly drive improvements in technology and medications, but we have to question the role of profits in routine medical care.

Here is a link to the FDA's White Paper on its steps to make sure patients get only the dosage of radiation needed, at the right time and in the right way.

One part of the project is to make it easy for patients to keep track of how much radiation they've had, because accumulated dosing is what causes long-term injuries. The FDA says it is working

to develop and disseminate a patient medical imaging record card.26 FDA will make this card available on our website. While ultimately the best way of tracking a patient’s history of radiation exposure will be to incorporate it into that patient’s paper or electronic medical record, a personal record card will give patients and their caregivers a means, in the short term, of tracking their own medical imaging histories and sharing this information with their physicians. This will help facilitate critical discussions between patients and providers about the best available clinical options.

The surgeon is Dr. Alfred Bonati, who operates his own "Bonati Institute," a glass-walled building near a highway in Pasco, Florida. The institute's specialty is minimally invasive back surgery.

According to the St. Petersburg Times, Dr. Bonati has no hospital privileges and has been tagged by a series of lawsuits since the early 1990s.

Lack of hospital privileges is a red flag for patient safety. Most doctors who have even a small chance of needing to hospitalize a patient will make sure they apply for privileges at a qualified hospital. Hospitals are required by accreditation standards to perform at least a minimal investigation of the doctor's skills and credentials before accepting him or her on staff.

A footnote to this story is that the damages decision of nearly $12 million came from a panel of three professional arbitrators, including a retired chief judge of the Sixth Florida Judicial Circuit. That shows that sober decision-makers, not just emotional juries, can find large damages justified in malpractice cases when the amount of harm warrants the numbers.

The victim, William Clark, was represented by Steve Yerrid of Tampa, a top plaintiff's malpractice attorney.

The defendant, Anne Mitchell, R.N., was indicted for "misuse of official information," a felony, because she reported to the state medical board her concerns about the quality of care delivered by Dr. Rolando G. Arafiles Jr.

Nurse Mitchell worked in quality of care issues for the Winkler County Memorial Hospital where both she and Dr. Arafiles worked.

The case is being followed closely by the Texas Nurses Association, which raised money for the defense of Ms. Mitchell. Click here for case updates.

When the indictment was first reported last summer against Ms. Mitchell and a second nurse (whose charges were recently dropped by the local prosecutor), the American Nurses Association also spoke out strongly.

“ANA wants Winkler County to know the world is watching – we will be monitoring this case closely in the hope that the apparent abuse of prosecutorial discretion will be corrected,” said ANA President Rebecca M. Patton, MSN, RN, CNOR. “It is outrageous to file criminal felony charges against these nurses based on allegations that they raised concerns over a physician’s actions. This undermines one of the basic tenets of the nurse’s Code of Ethics – nurses have a duty to advocate for the health and safety of their patients, and that is what these nurses were doing.”

The New York Times detailed Ms. Mitchell's concerns with Dr. Arafiles' practices in a recent article by Kevin Sack, which also discusses the bigger picture for quality of medical care.

Nurses are traditionally seen as patient safety advocates. That role needs to be nourished, not threatened, for the sake of all patients.

So what does this have to do with judicial elections?

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has poured millions of dollars into a multi-year campaign to convince the public there is an epidemic of frivolous lawsuits out there -- something no independent objective body has ever found. The reality is that the system works: the only cases that result in big damage awards are those where independent-minded judges have found plenty of evidence to support the jury's award of money, and if they don't, the jury decisions are thrown out.

The Chamber also has been busy putting money into electing judges who take a more aggressive, pro-business, anti-consumer stance. And the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in the Citizen United case unleashed all restraints on corporate contributions to political candidates of all kinds, including judges in those states where judges stand for election. So the Chamber can be expected to ratchet up its judicial elections campaign accordingly.

The Illinois Supreme Court this week adhered to its past precedent and ruled that that state's legislative damages cap violated the "separation of powers" between the judicial branch and the legislative branch. The case is called Lebron v. Gottlieb Memorial Hospital. Historically, it has been up to the courts to decide on a case-by-case basis how much money a particular claimant should be paid, and artificial damage caps imposed by the legislature invade that judicial power.

One of the Chamber's fair-haired judges is Illinois Supreme Court Justice Lloyd Karmeier. The Chamber paid $2.3 million to help get him elected to the high court's bench in 2004, according to the Center for Justice and Democracy.

Justice Karmeier dissented in the Lebron decision and would have let the damage cap law stand. He may have done so for reasons quite apart from politics. In fact, his dissenting opinion quoted extensively from President Obama's health care reform speech last fall, in arguing that legislatures, not judges, need to set health care policy. True enough, as far as it goes.

What's unfortunate is the continued politicization of all branches of the American government, and the Citizen United decision by the U.S. Supreme Court will make it worse, because the court gives corporations the power to put a very large thumb on one side of the judicial scales of justice-- one elected judge at a time.

Ms. Doroshow found lots of reports of terrible injuries to patients and little accountability for the wayward practitioners except through the painful but necessary process of lawsuits in court. As she concluded:

Fixing our health care insurance system is no easy job. But this is the wrong time to consider weakening the legal liability and accountability of incompetent or reckless health care providers.

So how are we doing? Health care's share of the economic pie went up to 17.3 percent of GDP in 2009, according to a new report in the respected journal Health Affairs. It's the biggest single-year increase since 1960.

The Wall Street Journal's Health Blog crunched some numbers and reported:

The U.S. spent $2.472 trillion on health care last year, according to a paper out today in the journal Health Affairs. That’s $282 million an hour.

Health spending as a percent of GDP — a key metric that shows how much of all U.S. spending goes to health care — rose from 16.2% in 2008 to 17.3% in 2009, far higher than any other industrialized country. That’s the largest one-year increase since 1960, when the feds started closely tracking national health expenditures.

The figure went up so much because health spending continued to rise, even as the overall economy shrank. The aging population accounted for a small part of this rise, but two other factors were more important: rising prices and increasing use. Health-care prices rose by 3.2% in 2009, according to the Health Affairs paper, significantly faster than prices rose for the overall economy. Utilization, which includes both volume and intensity of health-care services, rose by 1.5%.

The share of health-care spending paid for by the government (through programs such as Medicare and Medicaid) is also rising, and is projected to cross the 50% threshold soon.

The share of the economy for health care will be close to 20 percent within the next 10 years, according to government forecasters.

These sobering numbers show the urgency of "bending the cost curve down," as the pundits like to say. Unfortunately the urgency of reforming the safety and quality of health care has taken a far back seat to the money discussion. They actually are compatible goals. One thing we've learned in the health care reform debate is the huge overspending in health care caused by widespread use of new technologies before their benefit is proven, driven in part by conflicts of interest by those pushing the new technologies.

NSQUIP stands for the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program, developed by the American College of Surgeons. It was adapted from an error-reduction system started by the Veterans Administration system (a pioneer in patient safety and quality in several respects).

A recent report found across-the-board safety improvements in those hospitals participating in the NSQUIP since it was started in 2005.

The problem is that only about 250 hospitals in the United States participate. The College of Surgeons is now looking for ways to lower the $35,000 annual price tag for participation, which apparently has been a barrier to smaller hospitals to adopt the program.

Here is a list of the hospitals that currently participate in the NSQUIP.

The Wall Street Journal Health Blog reports on a new program growing out of NSQUIP which will help surgeons and patients calculate the exact risks of a proposed procedure and individualize it for their own hospital, based on data collected by the NSQUIP.

The NSQUIP program marks another step forward in giving patients the information they need to make intelligent choices about their health care. Unfortunately prospective patients don't have direct access to the NSQUIP data, but some of it is available indirectly through websites that gather hospital metrics, such as the Joint Commission "Quality Check" site and the Medicare Hospital Compare site.

I discuss the pros and cons of various hospital quality ratings in my book, "The Life You Save," where I conclude that one of the best measures now available is patient satisfaction, which is a survey that appears on the Medicare site.

The ethics rules were put in place by Partners HealthCare, the physicians' group that employs most Harvard-connected doctors.

One Globe reader put this in a good perspective:

It's a good thing that he resigned. Now, when he speaks, the information he presents will be judged by the standards of a paid speaker employed by an entity with interests, rather than a disinterested academic. Meanwhile, he remains an expert allergist, and will likely find a place to practice.

The contacts between drug companies and academic medicine are extensive. They should be. You want the best, smartest, most creative docs involved in drug (and device) production. But the money involved is huge, and some will get seduced by the Green Side of the Force. Full disclosure of interests is a step, but only a step.

For patients, it helps to know if the prescription the doctor is writing for you has even a hint of a special interest from the drug maker. The many blandishments that drug makers lavish on doctors -- even small things like pens and scratch pads, plus free meals and "fees" for speaking at seminars -- are known to do their job of creating subtle influence on the prescription writer.

That's why I recommend that patients look for doctors who have the "no free lunch" philosophy: they accept nothing whatsoever, including samples, from the drug makers. That leaves their judgment completely independent.

You can read more about the "no free lunch" movement in medicine at this website.

I have a whole chapter in my book, "The Life You Save," on how to become a smart consumer of medicines.

If insurance discrimination against the sick was outlawed without any requirement that everyone buy health insurance, then many people would take a chance and "go bare" of insurance while they're in good health. After all, they couldn't be punished financially once they got sick and really needed the coverage. More and more, the only people buying insurance would be the ones with big medical bills. And without the premium money from the healthy to subsidize the bills for the sick, the insurance companies would have to raise rates, and this would discourage more people from buying insurance, and soon we would have what economists call "the death spiral" of ever higher premiums and ever fewer insureds.

So no health reform has ever succeeded without a wide base of financing where the healthy and the sick alike contribute to the money pool, whether through insurance premiums or taxes.

Uwe Reinhardt, the Princeton health economist, explains this in a recent "economix" blog post in the New York Times.

The latest example is the deployment of new radiation therapy machines on cancer patients with operators who are not properly trained or credentialed and equipment that has not been tested or calibrated. The New York Times' recent investigative series on the subject prompted one knowledgeable reader, Dr. Joseph Imperato, medical director of the Center for Advanced Radiation Medicine at Lake Forest (Ill.) Hospital. to write this:

To the Editor:

As a radiation oncologist practicing for 25 years, I believe that there is a crucial part of the story of radiation mishaps that has not been mentioned: the “nuclear arms race,” in which people want the newest technologies, without stopping to think about who is operating them.

In the past, academic medical centers were typically the first to obtain and use new technologies. The equipment would be thoroughly vetted and reported on in peer review articles before being accepted and used by the smaller community hospitals.

Now the reverse is true. Small community hospitals often far outpace academic medical centers. One example is the proliferation of proton centers run by for-profit companies. Often the staff has limited knowledge and experience with this extraordinarily complex equipment. And new technologies are often assumed by the public to be better, even though there is often little firm clinical data to support that.

As we struggle as a country to come to grips with health care costs, this is one area where there is great opportunity for savings. Clinical reviews can prevent the proliferation of needlessly expensive technology. What the public must come to grips with is that “new” is not automatically “better.”

See the Times' letters section for more.

In my book, "The Life You Save," I have several chapters that speak to this issue, particularly with new drugs. What patients need to understand is that whatever the technology, the early years of use are in essence a continuation of the testing phase. If you are comfortable with being a guinea pig, that's fine, but very often you can get better, safer care with the tried and true. And if the new technology looks enticing, go with an operator who has the most experience using it, because practice does make perfect.

But when U.S. hospitals measure themselves with a different yardstick -- the "process" measures of how often certain important things get done for commonly treated diseases -- the results are astoundingly good. An annual report from the Joint Commission, the agency that inspects and accredits hospitals, finds steady improvement in the "process" quality measures that it looks at -- with most hospitals now performing in the 99% range on things like how often heart attack patients get standard treatments in the ER like aspirin and beta-blocker drugs.

The Joint Commission now measures 31 quality indicators. They cover the most common hospitalizable conditions: heart attack, heart failure (when the pump isn't pumping effectively), pneumonia, surgical care, and children's asthma. You can go to this website to look up information about a particular hospital.

The problems with the report are:

* Data is reported voluntarily by the hospitals, with no independent audit from anyone other than the Joint Commission. The Joint Commission says it's independent from the hospital industry but is often seen by critics as a cheerleader.

* Outcome measures -- deaths and injuries -- are not included in the report. Even infection rates, which could have required reports if Congress ever passes health care reform, are not yet reported.

Consumers Union has a Safe Patients Project. CU says it's high time for the U.S. health care industry to be required to report its results. Patient advocates like me agree wholeheartedly.

A key part of the problem is that technological sophistication has outrun the ability of the humans running the radiation machines to monitor the safety of the radiation beams they train on patients' bodies.

Another issue is that no central agency is responsible for inspecting the machines and credentialing the people who run them. Depending on the type of radiation involved, the Food and Drug Administration, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and various state health agencies could have jurisdiction. Or worse, each could claim that someone else has the jurisdiction, and the patient can slip through the cracks.

There is one simple way that patients can take some measure of self-protection. That is to make sure that the radiation therapy center treating you has significant experience, in years not months, with the specific machine being used on you. Too often, hospital administrators buy a fancy new machine, advertise it heavily in glossy brochures, but don't take the time to make sure the machine is properly calibrated and that the medical physicists who operate the machine are fully trained.

You should also ask if the machine treating you has been inspected recently by an independent agency. One federally funded inspection and testing service is the Radiological Physics Center, operated out of MD Anderson Hospital in Houston. It does inspections for any radiation center that wants to receive federal funding for clinical trials. The Center found in 2008 that nearly three in ten hospitals it inspected failed to accurately irradiate a test dummy using IMRT technology.

The Times also found rampant problems with fake credentials among medical physicists, who are in charge of making sure patients get the right dose of radiation. The American Board of Radiology certifies medical physicists in one of three sub-specialties. You can check if a physicist is certified at the umbrella website for all medical board certifications, the American Board of Medical Specialties. Click here to go to the login page to search for a medical physicist's certification. The same page will let you search for whether a doctor is board-certified in any of the ABMS specialties or sub-specialties.

Also, the American Board of Medical Physics runs some certification programs. Its website has lists of diplomates but lacks any searchable database of qualified physicists. So the ABMS website is a better choice.

I recommend that patients ask questions to find out the qualifications of the persons running your radiation treatment program. If they lack certification, why take a chance?

I discuss the certification issue in detail in my book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst." Many of the most egregious cases of malpractice that I have prosecuted for victims' families have involved doctors who lacked basic board certifications. Click here for more information on the kinds of malpractice cases we work on.

Scott Jerome-Parks suffered terrible radiation burns to his neck, and lingered for two years in agony before dying, because he received a seven-fold overdose in the radiation that was supposed to treat his tongue cancer, on three separate occasions. Why did it happen? The hospital, St. Vincent's in New York, blamed a confluence of tragic coincidences. But I reached a different conclusion, as I wrote in a blog post to the Times' "Well" blog:

Deep in this tragic article is the following paragraph that exposes the reforms that are needed before medical care can become safe for all patients:

"It was customary — though not mandatory — that the physicist would run a test before the first treatment to make sure that the computer had been programmed correctly. Yet that was not done until after the third overdose."

So there you have it. If the physicist had been required to run the test -- better yet, if the equipment had been set so that it wouldn't work until the final test had been run -- Scott Jerome-Parks would not have suffered the hideous injuries so eloquently described in the article.

Medicine needs to adopt standard and mandatory - not merely "customary" -- checklist routines to ensure the safety of patients. This is the thesis of Atul Gawande's new book, "The Checklist Manifesto," and I have a chapter on how patients can enforce checklist protocols before surgery in my own book, "The Life You Save: Nine Steps to Finding the Best Medical Care -- and Avoiding the Worst."

Many medical commenters on the New York Times "Well" blog defensively say, "We're only human," to excuse these kinds of errors. Yes! That's exactly the point of the checklist. It recognizes that we're all only human and that when we are deploying potentially deadly treatments, a final check and double-check is needed, every time, before pressing the button.

The Times also found that the manufacturer of the software that ran the linear accelerator, which delivered the radiation, did not have in place until after the injury a simple "fail-safe" mechanism to prevent the kind of error that occurred.

The entire article by the brilliant reporter, Walt Bogdanich, is worth reading. Here is the Times' own summary of the article:

The Times found that while this new technology allows doctors to more accurately attack tumors and reduce certain mistakes, its complexity has created new avenues for error — through software flaws, faulty programming, poor safety procedures or inadequate staffing and training. When those errors occur, they can be crippling.

I also recommend that readers interested in patient safety issues go through some of the NYT "Well" blog posts on this article.