just learned that the School of Medicine has closed my former
department, Biomedical Communications. After spending 36 years
as director, and building an excellent department of photographers,
illustrators and computer graphic artists, with a reputation of
excellence, I am truly dismayed at the Medical Schools decision
to close an integral service to not only the Medical Center, but
to the University as well.
Communications was a self supporting department and never received
proper support for growth from the Medical School administration.
It was always a challenge to create more space within the confines
of the original limited space in the Med Library. There were many
promises to expand, to allow us to increase services and equipment,
but promises were cheap and nothing was ever done. I guess that
I retired at the proper time in July 1999. It is truly a shame.
Siegel, former Director of Biomedical Communications
on Auction Block
mighty irked to read the Executive Director's, Human Resources,
glib pontifications. Leny
Bader maintains, the protection of personal privacy is an
important priority at Penn. This message has been clearly
conveyed to all our vendors
Human Resources didn't allow anyone with a buck and a hustle to
shop the employment records looking for fresh meat, vendors selling
names to more vendors selling names to still more vendors wouldn't
have those names in the first place, hence no letters to Speaking
Out howling with outrage.
pitched a royal fit when Friends of the Library--recipient of
10% of my take-home--shared my particulars. Oh,' soothed
the spin-doctors, we don't sell names, we exchange donor-lists'.
What a nifty little game of fish that must be: "We'll swap
four hundred of our suckers for four hundred of yours."
let's keep in mind your name and my Social Security number were
melded, creating ghosts'. Then HUP billed Medicare for hospitalization
given these non-existing patients. We are employed by an ethical
Brigadoon. The University we serve with loyalty and love has placed
our privacy on the auction-block.
if ya think that accusation a mite too harsh, how about the latest
vendor mailing using University personnel: a shameless pitch ending
with this escape clause--P.S. The University of Pennsylvania
does not endorse Answer Financial, any particular product offered,
or any available product provider. Nor do we supplement any purchases
you may make through them--all under the aegis of the University
crest, Human Resources' bold as brass nails as if we've
just been handed an official message from an employer expected
to be above-board.
Division of Human Resources has been entrusted with confidential
information. That information has now blown across the continental
landmass, all the way to Encino, California.
our Faculty/Staff Telephone Directory printed outside the United
States, home address floating around loose and who-knows-where
before arriving on-campus by mid-October, who can say for sure
what increasingly sensitive pieces of personal data' really
Briggs, Van Pelt Library
Prescriptions at Pharmacies
agree with Professor McDevitt's point about the use of social
security numbers on our Caremark prescription cards (Almanac
Vol. 49, No. 1). It is an "unacceptable misuse of our
identity information". We were both very disturbed when we
received our prescription cards in the mail with our social security
numbers available to anyone other than us who opened our mail
or working the counter at the pharmacy. We wonder how such an
oversight on the part of Caremark is excusable. In our opinion,
no apology is enough for the misuse of sensitive information such
as one's social security number.
addition, our recent visit to the pharmacy was a surprise in itself!
In the month of June, a prescription refill cost $0.93. One month
later, the month of July, that same refill now costs $5 for a
generic drug no less. This astronomical increase is incomprehensible
and quite frankly infuriating. How is it that an institution such
as the University of Pennsylvania continues to do business with
a company whose prescription drug plan increased by 400% in one
month? In addition, these price increases are made on prescriptions
needed for life-preserving reasons. How can a prescription plan
justify charging a young person more than $70 for a few vials
of insulin? Imagine the surprise when, the other day, a purchase
of a drug that is needed literally to save someone's life, quadrupled
in price! Not only are we paying more for our prescriptions but
we are also paying more for our health care coverage. How can
this outrageous price inflation be justified?
D'Hurieux, Law Development