On the Interconnectedness of the Leadership of Health Care Organizations: the Abbott Laboratories Case

We just posted about some misbehavior by Abbott Laboratories: a physician Abbott paid as a "key opinion leader" to help market its cardiac stents was accused of inserting stents in many patients who had no need for them; Abbott settled for over $400 million a lawsuit alleging the company defrauded Medicare and Medicaid; and it settled an unrelated suit for over $40 million alleging the company paid kickbacks to physicians for prescribing its drugs.  I thus thought it would be interesting to see how well paid are the corporate leaders who presided over these activities, and who are the board members who were supposed to be providing stewardship of this company.

According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, the five highest-paid executives were:

Miles D White, Chairman of the Board and CEO - $26,213,966 total compensation
Thomans C Freyman, Executive Vice President, Finance, and CFO - $9,561,227
Olivier Bohuon, Executive Vice President, Abbott Pharmaceutica Group - $5,232,589
Laura J Schumacher, Executive Vice President, General Counsel, and Secretary - $5,724,060
James V Mazzo, Senior Vice President, Abbott Medical Optics - $10,394,085

Now, let us turn to the company's board of directors.  Note that I looked for board members who also held leadership positions in other health care organizations whose interests may not be aligned with the corporation.  I also looked for those who held leadership positions in the discredited financial services corporation who helped usher in the global financial collapse.  (I  used similar methodolgy here.)

Abbott currently has 12 board members, including

• Robert J Alpert MD - Ensign Professor of Medicine, Professor of Internal Medicine, and Dean of the Yale School of Medicine.  He also "serves as a Director on the Board of Yale-New Haven Hospital."
• Roxanne S Austin - President and Chief Executive Officer, Move Networks Inc, and President, Austin Investment Advisors
• William M Daley -"Vice Chairman and Head of the Office of Corporate Responsibility and Chairman of the Midwest, JP Morgan Chase & Co."  He is the board of directors of  "Loyola University of Chicago and Northwestern University."
• W James Farrell - Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Illinois Tool Works Inc
• H Laurence Fuller - Retired Co-Chairman of BP Amoco, former chief executive officer of Amoco
• William A Osborne - Retired Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of Northern Trust Corporation and the Northern Trust Company.  He is "Chairman of the Board of Trustees of Northwestern University."
• Rt Honorable Lord Owen - Chairman of Europe Steel Ltd
• Roy S Roberts - Managing Director, Reliant Equity Investors.
• Samuel C Scott III - Retired Chairman,  President and Chief Executive Officer of Corn Products International.  He "currently serves on the board of directors of Bank of New York Mellon Corporation."  He also is on the board of "Northwestern Healthcare."
• William D Smithburg - Retired Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of Quaker Oats Company.  He is on the "board of trustees of Northwestern University."
• Glenn F Tilton - Chairman, President and Chief Executive Officer of UAL Corporation and United Airlines Inc.  He is on the "board of directors of Northwestern Memorial Hospital."
• Miles D White - Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Abbott Laboratories, "is on the board of trustees of "Northwestern University." 

Of Abbott's 12 directors, seven have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities (Northwestern University, its medical school and teaching hospitals, in particular, are stewarded by six Abbott directors). 

Two have leadership positions in  financial services corporations that were implicated in the global financial collapse.  (Note that JP Morgan Chase staffers helped to invent some of the kinds of financial derivatives widely viewed as causative of the collapse, but the firm itself did not fail. [See Tett G. Fool's Gold.]  Through TARP, the US government took preferred equity stakes in both JP Morgan Chase and Bank of New York Mellon.  [See Ritholtz B.  Bailout Nation. p. 222]) 

Two more are leaders of financial services firms.  All but one are current or former high-level hired executives (seven are or were CEOs), or chairpersons or co-chair persons of corporations (the one exception is a dean of a medical school.) 

Note how similar our findings were here to those found after our perusal of the boards of Genzyme and Medtronic (see post here).   So we find again that executives of health care organizations who preside over various questionable activities not only rarely pay any penalty, but usually become extremely wealthy in the process.

We also find how interconnected is the leadership of health care.  The boards and leadership of drug and device companies overlap with the boards and leadership of medical schools, teaching hospitals, and their parent universities. 

Yet, as we have noted before, there are obvious conflicts.  In particular, teaching hospitals and medical schools are supposed to provide unbiased teaching, including about issues relevant to drug and device corporations, such as choice of diagnostic strategies and treatments, and relevant health policy.  They are supposed to perform unbiased research, including research that evaluates drugs and devices.  They are supposed to provide the best possible patient care at a reasonable cost, which relates to choices of and prices paid for drugs and devices. 

On the other hand, drug and device companies are supposed to put making a profit for their share-holders first.  The directors of such companies, like the directors of all for-profit corporations, are supposed to show an unyielding loyalty to their companies' financial health and profits, although contemporary corporate directors have been accused of acting more like cronies of the hired management.  (See this post.)

Also, we note that the vast majority of people chosen as stewards of a given health care organization are current or former top hired executives of other corporations.  The board members, that is, stewards of health care organizations, to whom the top hired executives reports, are usually not people with large ownership interests in the organizations (in the case of public, for-profit corporations.)  For the most part, they also do not seem to be people with clearly demonstrated devotion to the values of health care, in particular, putting the care of individual patients first, and advancing health care teaching and research.  Instead, they seem to be people with the perspective of hired executives, who may be prone to putting the interests of hired executives, rather than patients, doctors, teachers, scientists or the public at large, first.

So here is another admittedly limited case study of the board of directors, that is, the ostensible stewards of a health care corporation, selected this time because of its history of ethical missteps, which showed  - that the leadership of health care organizations is incredibly interrelated, interlocked, incestuous.  Again, it appears that top leaders of various health care organizations may be more familiar with and identify more with each other, and with other hired executives and managers, than with their organizations, their organizations' missions, and their organizations' professionals, staff, students, clients, and patients.

So to repeat-

I strongly believe that there needs to be much more investigation, academic, journalistic, and perhaps legal, of the identity, nature, and culture of the leaders of health care, and their relationships. A few bloggers cannot do it all. Obviously, the anechoic effect mitigates against medical and health care academics looking into their own leaders. However, failing to understand who is leading our march to the brink of health care failure ought not to be something such academics would want on their conscience.

Finally, and obviously, health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

Don't Worry, the Feds Say Your Medical Information Will Be Kept Absolutely Private

With the planned burgeoning of health IT nationally and the formation of information "exchanges", ensuring information privacy, confidentiality and security become paramount. Systematic threats to medical privacy, confidentiality and security could do significant damage to our Republic.

Yet, according to Modernhealthcare.com in "Looking to loosen privacy rules in Calif." (Dec. 7, 2010):

The head of a federal privacy and security advisory committee and a lawyer for a prominent consumer affairs organization are scheduled to press California officials this week to revise that state's health information exchange (HIE) guidelines [which have strong opt-in consent requirements -ed.] to conform to less-stringent federal privacy recommendations.

Joseph Conn, author of the article relates:

Deven McGraw, director of the Health Privacy Project at the Center for Democracy & Technology, a Washington think tank, and Mark Savage, a San Francisco-based lawyer for Consumers Union [McGraw is also an appointee to a prominent role in the federally charted HHS Health IT Policy Committee; see below - ed.], are to participate via telephone Thursday in a meeting of the California Privacy and Security Advisory Board [CalPSAB].

Here's the problem:

The CalPSAB advises the state's health secretary on healthcare privacy and security policy. Given the traditional leadership role that California plays in the healthcare industry, the board's recommendations could influence how patient consent is handled in electronic health information exchanges nationwide.

Why these recommendations? To satisfy the needs of the reckless rush to national health IT:

McGraw, a lawyer, is a member of the federally charted Health IT Policy Committee, created pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 to advise the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology at HHS. McGraw also serves on five work groups or subcommittees of the Health IT Policy Committee. She is chairwoman of its privacy and security workgroup and co-chairwoman of its privacy and security tiger team. [The name "tiger team" makes me wonder who's going to get mauled - ed.]

McGraw and Savage sent a letter Oct. 6 to California Health and Human Services Sec. S. Kimberly Belshe along with a copy of the tiger team's recommendations on privacy and security for health information exchange originally sent to ONC head David Blumenthal on Aug. 19. They also sent Belshe a 10-page "briefing paper" summarizing those recommendations and a follow-up letter Dec. 5.

The briefing paper urged California to "adopt a comprehensive framework of privacy protections such as that recommended by the tiger team." [I.e., that are less stringent than California's - ed.]

They threw a little fear into their recommendations:

The brief also warned that with the first stage of a federal IT incentive program beginning soon, without a consent policy in place, "California's privacy and security framework for patient health information cannot be completed." Furthermore, if that framework isn't completed, the brief asserted, "eligible providers cannot achieve the meaningful-use criteria and benefit from the substantial federal reimbursements."

In other words, "The feds have rushed you to such a point that you cannot possibly have enough time to seriously consider and put into place rigorous privacy regulation, so adopt our 'tiger team' recommendations (or you ain't gonna get money from the feds)."

This is not reassuring.

Among other issues, it seems another example, as in HITECH itself, of the Federal Government setting timelines and policies and using the "fear, uncertainty and doubt" (FUD) principle to manipulate and strong-arm the States into ceding their rights to regulate healthcare. Such Federal overreach seems to be common these days.

Only now, due to the nature of the data involved, this gets personal.

Listen to us, we're the Tiger Team!

Of course, there's always plausible deniability:

Officially, the ONC is not a party to the push by McGraw and Savage to leverage the federal tiger team's work in California, according to the ONC. Asked whether the ONC was aware of and supports the efforts of McGraw in California, spokeswoman Nancy Szemraj said, "We have no knowledge of this letter."

Again, not very reassuring or credible, considering:

1) as above, that McGraw and Savage sent a letter Oct. 6 to California Health and Human Services Sec. S. Kimberly Belshe along with a copy of the tiger team's recommendations on privacy and security for health information exchange originally sent to ONC head David Blumenthal on Aug. 19.

and:

2) McGraw's role on five work groups or subcommittees of the Health IT Policy Committee:

Health IT Policy Committee (A Federal Advisory Committee)

The Health IT Policy Committee will make recommendations to the National Coordinator for Health IT on a policy framework for the development and adoption of a nationwide health information infrastructure, including standards for the exchange of patient medical information. The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) provides that the Health IT Policy Committee shall at least make recommendations on standards, implementation specifications, and certifications criteria in eight specific areas.

-- SS

Addendum Dec. 10, 2010:

This post generated a comment containing a significant logical fallacy, apparently from Harley Geiger, staff counsel of the CDT (Center for Democracy and Technology) which is one of the key actors mentioned in the Modern Healthcare story. The comment and my comment back can be seen in the comments section at this post.

If the comment was truly from Mr. Geiger, I would be even less confident than before that an organization whose staff counsel will not or cannot proffer a logically coherent argument will protect our precious freedoms.

-- SS

ECRI: Healthcare IT In Top Ten Health Technology Threats to Patient Safety

Number 5, that is.

The ECRI Institute is an independent, unbiased, evidence-based healthcare research, information, and advice provider. They have been in operation for more than 40 years and are one of only a handful of organizations designated as both a Collaborating Center of the World Health Organization and an Evidence-Based Practice Center by the U.S. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

I've cited their code of ethics at HC Renewal as a model of commendable healthcare conduct before:

Conflict of Interest - The Integrity of Independence

Remaining unbiased is difficult, if not impossible, when conflicts of interest are present. That is why we strictly enforce our conflict-of-interest rules and have carefully developed an environment that maximizes objectivity, productivity, and integrity of process.

We accept no grants, gifts, finder’s fees, or consulting projects from, and our employees are not permitted to own stock shares in, medical device or pharmaceutical firms. To make sure that is the case, we examine each employee’s federal income tax return after it is filed.

And, we accept no advertising revenues from any source.

(Full disclosure: I was a contributor on health IT issues to their 2008 book "Physician Office Fundamentals in Risk Management and Patient Safety.")

ECRI's most recent report is "The Top Ten Health Technology Threats to Patient Safety" for 2011 available at this link. Their Dec. 7 press announcement is here.

I'd mentioned an earlier edition of the report at my Sept 2010 post "Health IT: Danger" as was spoken about by Dr. Ross Koppel at Univ. of PA, but will present more detail here now that the 2011 report is available to the public.

I am citing the WSJ health blog on this report, as ECRI requests linking to their registration and downloading page for the full report, rather than direct dissemination, posting, or republishing of this work, without prior written permission:

December 8, 2010, 6:15 PM ET
The Top Ten Health Technology Threats to Patient Safety
WSJ Health Blog

By Katherine Hobson

For the fourth year running, the nonprofit ECRI Institute has put together a list of what it judges to be the top ten health technology hazards on which health-care facilities should focus their efforts.

The list in descending order of importance, doesn’t necessarily reflect the devices or problems with the most reported errors. That’s a factor, but so is “the severity of the problem, whether or not there’s a way to fix or mitigate the problem, and the high-profile” nature of the problem, Jim Keller, vice president for health technology evaluation and safety at ECRI, tells the Health Blog.

Among risks such as radiation therapy overdose and other dosing errors (#1), alarm hazards (#2), cross-contamination from flexible endoscopes (#3), high radiation dose of CT scans (#4), and luer misconnections (#6, misconnections of various infusion tubes), there's this:

#5 Data loss, system incompatibilities and other health IT complications: Problems with electronic-health records and other health IT systems can lead to problems including lost data, the need for repeat testing and even patient injury or death.

Then another obvious concern is raised:

While Keller says both he and ECRI support the push for digitized systems, the rush for federal incentives raises “concern that some of the kind of problems we are describing will be overlooked.”

It's not a "concern" to me, it's a fact.

So, here we have it:

An independent, nonprofit organization that for more than 40 years has been dedicated to bringing the discipline of applied scientific research to discover which medical procedures, devices, drugs, and processes are best, with unique ability to marry practical experience and uncompromising independence with the thoroughness and objectivity of evidence-based research, reports:

"Problems with electronic-health records and other health IT systems can lead to problems including lost data, the need for repeat testing and even patient injury or death."

The degree of risk is unknown (cf.: Joint Commission 2009 Sentinel Event Alert on Health IT Safety, PDF):

"There is a dearth of data on the incidence of adverse events directly caused by HIT overall."

This does not seem the best environment for the ethical, rapid diffusion of this technology nationwide, under penalty of loss of income and loss of Board Certification and even licensure for non-adopters.

For those of different ethics than ECRI, health IT is a literal cornucopia.

Addendum:

I note this comment from a nurse at the WSJ health blog story's comment section:

8:50 am December 9, 2010

The list was predictable, emanating from my observations as a registered nurse. It has become impossible to give patients care that they need. Corners are cut. It is easier for doctors to order scans than it is to examine patients. I would rather examine patients but the hospital requires that I click everything in to the electronic record, and [t]hat takes a long time. The reference to the CPOE is true. It is a nightmare because of the mistakes it promotes and it intereferes with communication disrupting my team’s care of the patient.

This must be one of those "anecdotal" reports that constitute a growing corpus of irrelevant "anecdotes", to be safely ignored because they were not obtained as part of a scientific experiment.

-- SS

Addendum Dec. 10, 2010:

From an earlier post of mine (of which I was reminded via a viewing from IP 150.148.0.#, FDA.gov, on a Google search on "health IT safety" this morning), we don't need to worry about HIT risks. ONC chair David Blumenthal said so:

... [Blumenthal's] department is confident that its mission remains unchanged in trying to push all healthcare establishments to adopt EMRs as a standard practice. "The [ONC] committee [investigating FDA reports of HIT endangement] said that nothing it had found would give them any pause that a policy of introducing EMR's could impede patient safety," he said.

-- SS

Abbott Laboratories and Pig Roasts, the "Philly Mob," and Legal Settlements

Help.... The health care muck is now being raked so fast I can't keep up.

Abbott Laboratories, Prolific Stenters, Pig Barbecues, Etc

In the last week, multiple media outlets picked up the story of the cozy relationship between Abbott Laboratories and a doctor now accused of implanting too many cardiac stents for too much money.  The essentials were, as summarized from New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Baltimore Sun articles -

Dr Mark Midei was a prolific user of cardiac stents for patient with coronary artery disease (blocked cardiac arteries)

In the June deposition, Dr. Midei estimated that in 2005 — before research revealed that many stents were unnecessary — he performed about 800 stent procedures. Instead of dropping in subsequent years, however, the number of stents Dr. Midei inserted rose to as many as 1,200 annually, he estimated. In a 2007 internal document, Abbott Laboratories ranked Dr. Midei’s use of stents behind only five other cardiologists in the Northeast, including those at hospitals four and five times St. Joseph’s size. [NYT]

Therefore, hospitals sought him out

He had been one of the most sought-after clinicians in his region. Trained at Johns Hopkins University, he was a co-founder of MidAtlantic, a practice with dozens of cardiologists that controlled much of the cardiac business in Baltimore’s private hospitals. Dr. Midei was one of the practice’s stars. When MidAtlantic negotiated a $25 million merger with Union Hospital in 2007, the deal was contingent on his continued employment.

St. Joseph was so concerned about losing Dr. Midei’s business that the hospital offered a $1.2 million salary if he would leave MidAtlantic and join the hospital’s staff. [NYT]

However, it appeared he performed the procedures on patients who would not benefit from them.

The hospital engaged a panel of experts who reviewed 1,878 cases from January 2007 to May 2009 and found that 585 patients might have received unnecessary stents.

When asked to review the cases himself, Dr. Midei found far less blockage than he had initially, according to the Maryland Board of Physicians. The hospital suspended his privileges and eventually sent letters to all 585 patients. Hundreds of lawsuits against Dr. Midei and St. Joseph followed, including from patients treated well before January 2007. [NYT]

Nonetheless, Abbott Laboratories had been rewarding him for frequent use of their products

Word quickly reached top executives at Abbott Laboratories that a Baltimore cardiologist, Dr. Mark Midei, had inserted 30 of the company’s cardiac stents in a single day in August 2008, 'which is the biggest day I remember hearing about,' an executive wrote in a celebratory e-mail.

Two days later, an Abbott sales representative spent $2,159 to buy a whole, slow-smoked pig, peach cobbler and other fixings for a barbecue dinner at Dr. Midei’s home, according to a report being released Monday by the Senate. The dinner was just a small part of the millions in salary and perks showered on Dr. Midei for putting more stents in more patients than almost any other cardiologist in Baltimore. [NYT]

When his over-use was alleged, Abbott continued to use him as a key opinion leader.

Abbott responded to the controversy by hiring Dr. Midei as a consultant. 'It’s the right thing to do because he helped us so many times over the years,' an Abbott executive wrote in a January e-mail cited in the Senate report. [NYT]

Also,

After St. Joseph barred Dr. Midei from practicing there in May 2009, Abbott arranged consultant work for him, according to emails released by the Senate committee.

In December 2009, an Abbott senior vice president wrote in an email that he was 'very open' to having Dr. Midei do consulting 'to see how it might go—either getting the word out in China/Japan, medical or safety work.'

The following month, the Sun reported on the allegations against Dr. Midei and St. Joseph. According to the Senate report, an Abbott executive subsequently said in an internal company email, 'We recommend that we not use Dr. Midei in the U.S. at this time (the press is just too hot).'

Charles Simonton, the medical director of Abbott's vascular division, said in another email cited by the report that Dr. Midei should 'clearly avoid' the Baltimore area, but Dr. Simonton encouraged colleagues to 'please find key physicians or cath labs you'd like him to get in front of with our data.' Abbott wanted to hire Dr. Midei 'because he helped us so many times over the years,' yet another Abbott executive said in an email.

Dr. Simonton didn't return phone calls seeking comment.

Abbott sent Dr. Midei to Japan to promote the Xience stent, but bad publicity caused that trip to be cut short in late January, the report says. In total, Abbott paid the doctor $30,623 to help market the Xience, the Senate investigators found. [WSJ]

When the relationship was criticized, Abbott executives responded with threats, or were they jokes?

I called David Pacitti, vice president of global marketing for Abbott Laboratories' cardiac-plumbing division, to ask why he seems to want goons to beat me up in the newspaper parking lot.

'Don't you have connections in Baltimore?????' Pacitti e-mailed a subordinate regarding a January column I wrote on heart-artery stents. 'Someone needs to take this writer outside and kick his ass! Do I need to send in the Philly mob?'

Pacitti and other Abbott execs apparently don't care for suggestions that their expensive vascular devices often do patients little good and that a star Baltimore doctor took their encouragement to be 'truly outstanding' a bit too much to heart. [Sun]

Furthermore,

Pacitti didn't return my phone calls, but an Abbott flack got in touch on Monday.

'We sincerely apologize if this caused you any concern or distress,' the company spokesman said. Pacitti's comment, he said, 'wasn't meant to be taken seriously.'

Yeah, that's what King Henry II said after they whacked Thomas Becket. [Sun]

So here is a particularly vivid case showing how big health care corporations make "key opinion leaders" out of doctors apparently just because they use or prescribe a lot of the company's products, regardless of the doctors' expertise, or ethics.  As we noted before, "key opinion leaders" are seen by corporate marketing executives as fellow travelers or useful idiots (see posts here, and here). It again appears is that all that health care corporate marketers care about is selling product. Whether their pitches are honest or ethical is besides the point. Those who get in their way are treated with contempt, and maybe, just maybe are threatened with violence

The physicians who are flattered at being called "key opinion leaders," or "thought leaders" have got to realize that the marketers think they are chumps. If they think they are providing honest information, or education, they are deluded.

This case has already been widely discussed in the blogsphere.  See, in particular, posts by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, and Larry Husten on the CardioBrief blog.

But if that were not enough, on the heels of this story came several more about Abbott Laboratories

Abbott Laboratories Settles, Twice

As reported by the Los Angeles Times, while Abbott was trying to hide Dr Midei overseas, it was also busily negotiating settlements of completely separate charges:

Abbott Laboratories and two other pharmaceutical firms agreed to pay more than $421 million to settle claims of defrauding Medicare and Medicaid in the latest in a string of nine- and ten-figure health care fraud settlements announced by the Justice Department.

The drug companies charged one set of prices to doctors and pharmacies but reported another set of inflated figures that were used as benchmarks by government insurers reimbursing health care providers. The spread, or difference, amounted to kickbacks to the companies' customers, according to Tony West, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division, who announced the settlements on Tuesday.

In particular,

Abbott, of North Chicago, Ill, agreed to pay $126.5 million to settle accusations that it charged the government inflated prices for products ranging from sterile water and saline solution to vancomycin, an antibiotic.

An Abbott spokesman said the company believes 'that we have complied with all laws and regulations' and settled the case to avoid 'the uncertainty associated with continued litigation.'

At least he did not threaten the Department of Justice officials with an attack by the "Philly mob."

But that is not all. The Wall Street Journal reported that Abbott had to make a second, unrelated settlement:

Separately on Tuesday, the Justice Department announced an unrelated $41 million settlement with Abbott subsidiary Kos Pharmaceuticals Inc. on charges that it paid kickbacks to doctors and other health professionals to encourage them to prescribe or recommend the cholesterol drugs Advicor and Niaspan.

As part of that settlement, Kos entered into an agreement that will allow it to avoid prosecution on criminal charges. 'These actions occurred prior to Abbott's acquisition of Kos in 2006 and Abbott has not been accused of any wrongdoing,' an Abbott spokesman said.

However, Abbott chose to acquire a company that allegedly chose to pay kickbacks of this sort. The apparent resemblance to Abbott's payments to Dr Midei in the case above are striking.

By the way, the Los Angeles Times article also noted previous black marks on Abbott's record:

Abbott also paid $614 million in civil and criminal penalties in 2003 to end a federal investigation of the company's marketing practices and Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements.

In 2001, TAP Pharmaceutical Products Inc., of Lake Forest, Ill., an Abbott joint venture, agreed to pay $875 million and plead guilty to a criminal charge of conspiring with doctors to overbill Medicare.

At the time, the TAP penalty was the largest health care fraud settlement in U.S. history, but it has since been eclipsed by at least two others.

So we once again illustrate how punishing wrong doing by fining large corporations, when the fines are just seen as a cost of doing business, in the absence ofany negative consequences on the real people who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior fails to deter future bad behavior.

This remarkable confluence of cases suggest how rotten are the ethical foundations of even large and previously respected health care organizations. I imagine, though, that as long as these corporations richly reward their executives regardless of the ethics of their actions, and regardless of the long term effects on the organizations' reputations, and as long as their are no externally imposed negative consequences on these leaders, the practices will continue, and will get worse.

Health care costs keep rising, access keeps declining, quality gets worse. We moan and wring our hands, but as long as we allow the rot to worsen, and the muck to grow, expect these trends to continue until the whole smelly mess collapses of its own weight (with all those rich executives escaping to their mansions.)

If we really want high quality accessible, reasonably priced health care, we need true health care reform that reduces concentration of power in large organizations, and makes health care organizations' leadership accountable, ethical, and transparent. That will not be easy.

ADDENDUM (8 December, 2010) - See also comments by Maggie Mahar on the HealthBeat blog, David Williams on the Health Business Blog, and Paul Thacker on the Project on Government Oversight blog.

IMPEACHMENT: IT’S ABOUT THE INSTITUTION, NOT THE PERSON

IMPEACHMENT: IT’S ABOUT THE INSTITUTION, NOT THE PERSON

The impeachment trial of Judge G. Thomas Porteous of Louisiana this week was a lesson in civic ethics. The lessons of the Porteous trial apply to academic medical centers, professional medical societies, medical journals, and granting agencies like NIH.

The Porteous trial is a straightforward case of bribes, kickbacks and corruption involving a Federal judge. The most enlightening arguments came from prosecutor Rep. Adam Schiff, D-California, laying out the case for impeachment in the Senate. He gave a lucid presentation of the logic and the historical origins of the impeachment process. The key points are these: impeachment serves to protect the dignity, honor, and credibility of the office more than to punish the wayward office holder; and impeachment is a constitutionally sanctioned way to clean the Augean stables without necessarily having to prove criminal liability. It is sufficient to demonstrate that the bad actors have brought disgrace on their offices.

What this means for us in medicine is that legalistic charges and defenses are not the right way to go in exposing and ejecting bad actors from our field. In the highly publicized cases of ethical compromise over the past few years, our group disapproval, when there was any at all, generally has run on two parallel tracks. The first is legalistic, and it favors the bad actors, who flaunt their constitutional protections with the taunt, prove it. The second ground of disapproval is esthetic, based on the tackiness of the bad actors’ behaviors – regardless of technical legalities, what they do is an affront and an insult to professional standards and mores. When we look at how recent incidents in medicine actually played out, however, we see a disconnect. The bad actors have narrowed the debate to the first ground of disapproval, while forcing the second off limits. In this strategy, they have received conscious or unconscious assistance from the professional establishment. The focus has been on legal technicalities involving the bad actors rather on preserving the dignity and credibility of high offices in academic medicine.

For instance, when Charles Nemeroff was exposed by Senator Grassley for conflict of interest in his NIH grants, he came up with the contrived legalistic defense that his unreported payments from GlaxoSmithKline were for ‘CME-like’ presentations, and thus somehow exempt from disclosure. Nemeroff’s obfuscations finally collapsed of their own weight and Emory University took decisive action against him, even though they had sufficient evidence dating back at least 4-5 years. In the end, Emory had to go through the wringer to discipline Nemeroff, and the institution suffered grave damage to its reputation for a number of years as the price of delay.

For instance, when Thomas Insel, the Director of NIMH, assured Pascal Goldschmidt, Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Miami, that Nemeroff was absolutely in good standing for applying for new NIH grants if he left Emory for Miami, despite a 2-year ban at Emory, he hewed to the letter of the law while disregarding its spirit in order to help his friend. Moreover, when Insel appointed Nemeroff to two new NIH Research Review Committees, he established beyond any doubt that he was intent on trying to help Nemeroff get back into circulation, and that he failed to grasp the gravity of the dishonor that Nemeroff inflicted on the field. This obtuseness on Insel’s part damaged the credibility and reputation of NIMH. To his credit, NIH director Francis Collins finally ‘got it’ and forced a review of the NIH ethics rules that had been entrusted to Insel.

For instance, when Pascal Goldschmidt, Dean of the School of Medicine at the University of Miami, claimed he had done due diligence in his recruitment of Nemeroff as chair of his psychiatry department in 2009, he focused on the legalistic aspects of Emory’s review of Nemeroff, while failing to understand the degree of negative publicity associated with Nemeroff’s name. He ended up hiring someone who is an object of ridicule, and he in turn is ridiculed by association.

For instance, when Stanford University learned of Alan Schatzberg’s boundary violations vis a vis his NIH-funded projects and his personal corporation, they first pushed back on legalistic technical grounds. Only later did the Stanford administration get the message by removing Schatzberg from his Principal Investigator role with NIH grants, and eventually appointing a new chair of psychiatry. Meanwhile, the public image of Stanford suffered.

For instance, when the American Psychiatric Association was warned that Alan Schatzberg was a problematic candidate for election as President of the association on account of his history of ethical compromise, they went ahead anyway and they have since had opportunity to regret that decision. Here again, the professional society appears to have lost sight of the ethical forest for the legal trees. The credibility and reputation of the APA have suffered because of the taint associated with Schatzberg’s presidency.

For instance, when the New York Times recently exposed the ghostwriting associated with the 1999 textbook of Charles Nemeroff and Alan Schatzberg, the so-called authors responded with typical legalistic defenses. They and the University of Miami and the American Psychiatric Association Press (the publisher) again lost sight of the ethical forest for the legal trees. This stereotyped, public relations driven response ignores the visceral and esthetic distaste most observers felt on learning about the collusion between the ‘authors,’ the professional writing company and the sponsoring pharmaceutical corporation. Even the defense that it occurred a long time ago fails. In the Porteous trial, the prosecution established that dishonorable events in an officer’s past are grounds for impeachment, whether or not they also occurred during the person’s time in office.

For instance, when Harvard Medical School planned a new CME program on psychopharmacology in mid-2011, they engaged a number of compromised academic speakers, including Nemeroff and Schatzberg. What the hell was Harvard thinking? I told the Course Director, Carl Salzman, that this amounts to pandering. He replied defensively that Nemeroff and Schatzberg are well regarded speakers and that he would ensure that they gave unbiased presentations. That’s not the point. The point is that they have done serious damage to our field, and for Harvard Medical School to give them top billing amounts to denial of the elephant in the living room. It’s collusion in service of their public rehabilitation. I told Dr. Salzman that his logic amounts to compartmentalized thinking. I might have added that Adolf Hitler gave a lot of great speeches that received rave reviews and that compartmentalized thinking was widespread in the nation of Germany between 1928 and 1945. Meanwhile, Harvard Medical School gets a black eye through its association with these compromised individuals. So do the other speakers who will be on the panel. Who needs this kind of taint? Dr. Salzman can defend Nemeroff and Schatzberg all he wants on specious legalistic grounds, but who cares? Harvard Medical School could use some moral clarity.

So, we come back to the impeachment trial of Judge Porteous. Impeachment protects the institution. When sleazebags get into positions of authority and trust they need to be dumped, and our professional and academic institutions need to have enough spine to dump them. At the very least, we don’t need to tolerate institutions like Harvard Medical School pandering to compromised academic bad actors. For shame.

BLOGSCAN - FDA don't need no smart old people 'round

We have posted numerous times about the requirement for seasoned expertise (the kind that only comes with age) in healthcare leadership.

FDA, CDC and other HHS agencies may have different ideas:

http://gooznews.com/?p=2194

Age Purge in FDA Press Office?
December 5, 2010
By GoozNews

FDA Webview (subscription required) reports that the new FDA associate commissioner for external affairs, Beth Martino, 31, a former Kansas aide to HHS secretary Kathleen Sebelius, has conducted a purge of senior specialists, all aged over 50, in her office and in the press office. The abrupt removals were made to make room for younger people closer to Martino’s own age, the trade journal reports. “She’s uncomfortable with people who know more than she does,” a source told FDA Webview.

Three of the displaced staffers, public affairs officers Elaine Gansz Bobo, 52, Dick Thompson, 65, a former Time magazine science editor, and Ira Allen, 62, a seasoned health care journalist, were offered the choice of being terminated as probationary hires for fabricated “incompetence” or resigning. Similar purges are reportedly occurring at other HHS agencies, including Centers for Disease Control.

Neither Martino nor FDA senior deputy commissioner Joshua Sharfstein, whose duties include chairing the FDA’s transparency initiative, responded to FDAWebview’s request for comment.

If this story is true, it is not only illegal age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA), it is deleterious to the appropriate functioning of federal agencies charged with safeguarding public health - via talent mismanagement.

-- SS

The Boards Who Ought to be Accountable for the Misbehavior of Health Care Corporations

I recently posted about the multiple conflicts of interest affecting a university health sciences leader.  While he was supposed to be running a medical school and an academic medical center, he was also responsible for the stewardship, as a board member, of three health major health care corporations, and a food and beverage corporation (whose products have bearing on nutrition and public health.)  .

This one case suggested how pervasive are conflicts of interest affecting the people at the top of health care leadership in the US, and also how such conflicts may be associated with problems for all the organizations involved.  The story originally came to my attention because students were demonstrating against the lavish compensation given the health sciences leader at a time of university cutbacks, suggesting that university leaders were paying more attention to their own enrichment than to the mission of the university.  At the same time, one of the corporations which he was stewarding (Genzyme) had to shut down a factory because the extremely expensive drug it was producing was found to be impure and adulterated, while its CEO continued to be compensated lavishly.  The other corporation (Medtronic) had to settle litigation accusing it of manufacturing defective products for hundreds of millions of dollars, while its CEO again continued to be compensated lavishly. 

So I thought it might be interesting to see who are the other stewards of these troubled corporations.  I consulted the official biographies of their board members from their 2010 proxy statements (Genzyme here, Medtronic here).  I looked for board members who also held leadership positions in other health care organizations whose interests may not be aligned with the two corporations of interest.  I also looked for those who held leadership positions in the discredited financial services corporation who helped usher in the global financial collapse.

The specifics of what I found follow.

Genzyme

Genzyme had 10 directors in 2010.  The following directors had relationships of interest:

-  Douglas A Berthiaume is "Chairman of the Children's Hospital (Boston) Trust Board, a member of the Children's Hospital board of trustees, and a Trustee of the University of Massachusetts Amherst Foundation."  Children's Hospital is a teaching hospital.  The University of Massachusetts includes a medical school. 
-  Robert J Bertolini "retired from Schering-Plough Corp following its merger with Merck & Co in November, 2009."  Schering-Plough was a large pharmaceutical company now combined with Merck to form an even larger company.
-  Gail K Boudreaux "has served since May 2008 as an Executive Vice President of United Health Group Incorporated."  Also, "she serves on the board of directors of America's Health Insurance Plans...."  UnitedHealth is one of the US' largest health insurance/ managed care corporations.  Incidentally,it has frequently misbehaved, as can be seen in this set of posts.  AHIP is the health insurance corporations' trade associations.
-  Robert J Carpenter "is Chairman of Hydra Biosciences Inc... He is also a trustee of the Immune Disease Institute, a non-profit institute affiliated with Children's Hospital in Boston...." 
-  Charles L Cooney "is a director of India-based Biocon Limited, a biotechnology healthcare company."
-  Victor J Dzau MD (discussed in the earlier post) is "Chancellor for Health Affairs and President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke University Health System...."  He "sits on the board of directors of Pepsico Inc, Anylam Inc, Medtronic Inc, and the Duke University Health System."
-  Senator Connie Mack III is "Chairman Emeritus of the parent board of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute...."  He also is director of "EXACT Sciences Corporation and Moody's Corp."  EXACT Sciences is a biotechnology company that develops diagnostic test technology.  Moody's Corp is a financial ratings agency whose lax ratings of financial derivatives, perhaps arising from conflicts of interest produced by payments from the producers of the derivatives, have been implicated as a major cause of the global financial collapse.
-  Richard E Syron was from "January 2004 to September 8, 2008 ... Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly referred to as Freddie Mac...."    Freddie Mac as bailed out and taken over by the US government when he departed, or was forced out.  Freddie Mac, was a "government-sponsored enterprise," (GSE) one of another group of companies whose enthusiastic participation in securitizing dubious mortgages was implicated as a major cause of the global financial collapse.
- Henri A Termeer (CEO of Genzyme) is a "director of Massachusetts General Hospital, a board member of Partners HealthCare, and a member of the board of fellows of Harvard Medical School." 

So the box score for Genzyme's 10 directors: six have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities (some such institutions are lead by more than one Genzyme director).  Seven have leadership positions in other drug, device or biotechnology corporations.  One have leadership positions in health insurance/ managed care corporations.  Two had or have leadership positions in discredited financial services corporations that were implicated in the global financial collapse.

Medtronic

Medtronic had 11 directors in 2010.  The following directors had relationships of interest:

- Richard H Anderson "was Executive Vice President of UnitedHealth Group Incorporated."  As above, UnitedHealth is a health insurance/ managed care corporation.
- Victor J Dzau (see above) is "Chancellor for Health Affairs at Duke University and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Duke University Health System."  He is "a director of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, ... PepsiCo Inc, and Genzyme Corporation." (See discussion above.)
- James T Lenahan "served as President of Johnson & Johnson from 2002 until June 2004...."  He is "director of Telecris Biotherapeutics Inc, Alton Pharma Inc and Imacor Inc."  Johnson & Johnson is a large drug, device, and biotechnology company.  Telecris, and Alton Pharma are biotechnology pharmaceutical companies.  Imacor is a medical device company.
- Denise M O'Leary "is a director of Lucille Packard Children's Hospital and Stanford Hospitals and Clinics."  Also, "she was a member of the Stanford University Board of Trustees from 1996 through 2006, where she chaired the Committee of the Medical Center...."
-  Robert C Pozen is "an advisor to Gelesis Inc."  Gelesis is a biotechnology company.
-  Jack W Schuler "has been a director of Stericycle Inc since March 1990...."  He is a "director of Quidel Corporation and Elan Corporation plc...."    Stericycle company disposes of medical waste, including that produced by medical devices.  Quidel is a biotechnology and (medical diagnostic) device company.  Elan is an multinational biotechnology and pharmaceutical company.

So the box score for Genzyme's 11 directors is: Two have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities (some such institutions are lead by more than one Genzyme director). Ten have leadership positions in other drug, device or biotechnology corporations. One has a leadership position in health insurance/ managed care corporations. None had or have leadership positions in discredited financial services corporations that were implicated in the global financial collapse.

Summary

Just to summarize the sorts of conflicting interests these relationships suggest. 

Teaching hospitals and medical schools are supposed to provide unbiased teaching, including about issues relevant to drug and device corporations, such as choice of diagnostic strategies and treatments, and relevant health policy.  They are supposed to perform unbiased research, including research that evaluates drugs and devices.  They are supposed to provide the best possible patient care at a reasonable cost, which relates to choices of and prices paid for drugs and devices. 

Other drug, device, and biotechnology corporations may be producing, or developing products that compete with those of the index corporations.

Health insurance companies ostensibly try to control costs and improve quality in part by reducing excess utilization and bargaining down prices of drugs and devices. 

So this limited case study of the boards of directors, that is, the ostensible stewards of two health care corporations, selected because they have a common member who is the leader of a large medical school and academic medical center, and which both have histories of poor management or ethical missteps showed  - that the leadership of health care organizations is incredibly interrelated, interlocked, incestuous. 

This gave an example of how pervasive are the conflicts of interest that affect all kinds of health care organizations.  Companies that ought to be competing have interlocked directors.  Companies that ought to be negotiating at arms length have interlocked directors.  Not-for-profit academic medical institutions have leaders who are also directors of companies whose drugs their patients may take, whose devices their patients may receive, whose insurance their patients may buy, and whose products and services they may teach about and evaluate through clinical research and policy research. 

This also gives an example of how the failed culture of finance may be linked to the culture of medicine and health care.  Some of the stewards of health care organizations were also the stewards of financial services corporations whose reckless, if not arrogant, greedy and amoral leadership is widely believed to have caused the global financial collapse and our ongoing economic problems. 

Finally, this suggests how top leaders of various health care organizations may be more familiar with and identify more with each other than with their organizations, their organizations' missions, and their organizations' professionals, staff, students, clients, and patients. 

What is to be done?

I strongly believe that there needs to be much more investigation, academic, journalistic, and perhaps legal, of the identity, nature, and culture of the leaders of health care, and their relationships.  A few bloggers cannot do it all.  Obviously, the anechoic effect mitigates against medical and health care academics looking into their own leaders.  However, failing to understand who is leading our march to the brink of health care failure ought not to be something such academics would want on their conscience.

Finally, and obviously, health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment.  Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. 

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.   

Duke Divinity Students Protest Pay of Chancellor for Health Affairs

This may be a first.  A small group of Duke University divinity students publicly protested the compensation given to some top university leaders, specifically including the Chancellor for Health Affairs.  According to the Raleigh-Durham News-Observer:

Theo Luebke strolled the plaza outside Duke's Bryan Center on Thursday afternoon with a bucketful of apples and a tale of woe.

'Come on! Everyone's in this together! Get your apples!' he exhorted students passing by during the lunchtime rush. 'With all the cuts we have around here and all the bonuses we have to give to the big guys, we need to raise all the money we can.'

Luebke isn't really the Depression-era fruit peddler his costume suggested. Luebke and a couple of other Duke divinity students hawked apples, ostensibly to raise money for the university, while others dressed as paperboys distributed a mock newspaper railing against bonuses paid to top officials within Duke's healthcare system and investment company.

For Duke workers whose pay has been frozen of late, the bonuses appear staggering.

A couple of examples: Neal Triplett, president of the management company, received a $729,749 bonus on top of his $413,603 salary; Victor Dzau, chancellor of the Duke health system, got a $983,654 bonus, bringing his total compensation to more than $2.2 million.

Thursday's skit, which mostly drew befuddled looks, was the third in a series mocking executive pay.

It turns out these munificent compensation amounts were paid at a time when Duke is in some financial difficulty:

In recent years, Duke has frozen pay and eliminated jobs in an attempt to pare its annual operating budget by $100 million.

Nearly 400 workers have accepted buyout offers since early 2009. Their jobs were then eliminated.

'During a time when the administration is saying we all needed to tighten our belts and make sacrifices...as it turns out, some of the folks who lost money for Duke were giving themselves bonuses,' said Amy Laura Hall, a tenured professor of Christian ethics. 'I think that's obscene.'

I cannot recall a previous example of students demonstrating against the compensation of a leader of a medical school and/or university health care system.  Maybe these students have started something.

In fact, we have frequently discussed executive compensation given by health care organizations that seems wildly out of proportion to the value of the health care they provide or the clinical value of their products.  Although compensation is even higher for executives of for-profit health care corporations, even leaders of not-for-profit organizations, including academic institutions, is now often in the millions per year range.

Service on (Mostly Health Care) Corporate Boards

Dr Dzau's compensation may appear even more extreme in the context of the money he brings in from outside work.  As Prof Margaret Soltan pointed out on the University Diaries blog, Dr Dzau also serves on multiple corporate boards.  The multiplicity of his outside work is not fully acknowledged in the most complete official biography posted on the Duke web-site, here, which only notes service on the Genzyme board.  In fact, he also serves on the boards of Anylam Pharmaceuticals, Medtronic, and PepsiCo.

According to the Alnylam Pharmaceuticals 2010 Proxy Statement, Dr Dzau's compensation as a director in 2009 was $234,433.  In 2009, Dr Dzau owned the equivalent of 45,000 shares, worth $424,800 at today's $9.44 price per share. 

According to the Genzyme 2010 Proxy Statement, Dr Dzau's compensation as a director in 2009 was $412,942.  In 2009, Dr Dzau owned the equivalent of 75,137shares, worth $5,312,937 at today's $70.71 price per share.

According to the Medtronic 2010 Proxy Statement, Dr Dzau's compensation as a director in 2009 was $173,698.  In 2009, Dr Dzau owned the equivalent of 14,552 shares, worth $493,895 at today's $33.94 price.

According to the PepsiCo 2010 Proxy Statement, Dr Dzau's compensation as a director in 2009 was $260,000.  In 2009, Dr Dzau owned the equivalent of 25,065 shares, worth $1,622,458 at today's $64.73 price per share.

So, in summary, in 2009, Dr Dzau received  $1,081,073 in compensation to be a director of these four companies.  In 2009, Dr Dzau owned stock or equivalent in these four companies valued at $7,854,090.  He has become what most people would consider rich just from his work on these boards, in addition to the millions he has received from Duke.

Conflicts of Interest and Other Questions

So this raises even more questions.  The most obvious is how the good doctor has time to simultaneously fulfill his responsibilities at Duke and for the four corporations? 

The next most obvious is why the university does not make a full disclosure of what appear to be severe conflicts of interest?  Anylam and Genzyme are biotechnology pharmaceutical companies.  Medtronics is a medical device company.  PepsiCo is a food and beverage company whose products affect nutrition and public health.  Dr Dzau's service on the board of each of these companies means he has fiduciary duties to each company, and is supposed to show unyielding loyalty to the companies' stockholders.  Of course, many business commentators have charged that most corporate directors are mainly chosen to be compliant with the top hired management's wishes, if not to be frank cronies of the management.  Even in the best case, showing unyielding loyalties to the stockholders of companies that make drugs, medical devices, and sugary drinks seems to be likely to influence a leader of an academic medical institution in ways that risk degrading the leader's responsibilities to uphold the institution's mission, i.e., to create severe conflicts of interest. 

Dr Dzau has a fairly severe case of what we labeled as a "new species of conflict of interest" in 2006.  Concerns about such conflicts affecting university presidents, but not specifically chancellors or vice presidents for health affairs, appeared in the New York Times last summer (see post here).  Maybe some day student protesters will see such conflicts as a problem.

However, should Dr Dzau make the usual defense of such conflicts, that they promote collaboration with industry needed for innovation, maybe Duke students or alumni might ask questions about the other side of the coin.

The Other Side of the Conflict of Interest Coin

Dr Dzau is supposed to be responsible for the stewardship of Genzyme.  We have recently posted about the company's seeming recent inability to make pure, unadulterated pharmaceuticals, and while exhibiting such inability to perform such basic functions, its payment of extremely lucrative compensation to its hired CEO.  Maybe someone could ask Dr Dzau what he thought about such actions, and whether he would take any responsibility for them?

Dr Dzau is supposed to be responsible for the stewardship of Medtronic.  Medtronic recently settled thousands of patients' lawsuits that alleged injuries due to a faulty lead on one model of a Medtronic implantable cardiac defibrillator for over $200 million. Medtronic has been the source of several alleged conflicts of interest involving influential physicians (see posts about Medtronic here).   Maybe someone could ask Dr Dzau what he thought about such actions, and whether he would take any responsibility for them.

Finally, a larger question is: is it good to have a leader of a medical school and academic medical center who has presided over such ethical lapses by health care corporations?  Let's see if anyone does get to ask Dr Dzau such questions. 

VCU President Rao's Previous Code of Silence

We recently posted about the code of silence imposed by Virginia Commonwealth University President Stephen Rao on his staff.  It turns out now that this was not his first exercise in imposing a code of silence. Before he was at Virginia Commonwealth University, Rao was President of Central Michigan University.  Central Michigan Life just reported:

While serving as CMU president, Rao required all office employees to sign a similar confidentiality agreement stating all names, places, dates or incidents that happened in his office were not to be shared with anyone or discussed outside the office.

'I understand that the information and all files, letters, projects, telephone calls and anything relating to the work performed in the President’s Office and in my capacity as an employee is highly confidential,' stated the agreement, which was obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request. 'I understand that it may not be discussed with anyone outside this office who does not have a need to know, which includes any other CMU employee, as well as my family members, friends, etc.'

The CMU confidentiality agreement extended past any employee’s tenure at CMU, stating that the contract must not be broken past the term of employment. If an employee were to break the confidentiality agreement past employment, possible consequences included personal liability and potential lawsuits.

Note that just as was the case in Virginia, this agreement placed employees at risk not only of losing their jobs, but of being sued were they to violate the agreement.

By the way, while Central Michigan University does not include a medical school and academic medical center, as does VCU, it does have, and therefore the previous agreement affected the operations of multiple health related programs (see here) including allied health, health administration, physical therapy, and psychology.

As we wrote previously, such a code of silence subverts the university's central mission, and directly opposes the transparency I believe is necessary for good governance in health care.  The discovery of this previous confidentiality agreement at CMU suggests that such agreements may not be rare in health care. 

We have long discussed the anechoic effect in health care, how certain topics and issues are just not to be discussed, especially those that might embarrass or oppose the personal interests of health care leaders.  We have postulated that the effect operates through fear of offending supervisors, colleagues, or those who provide one's pay.  It may be, however, that the anechoic effect has been codified through confidentiality clauses.  As noted above, such codification can mean whistle-blowers may risk lawsuits as well as job loss and ostracism.

If there are other codes of silence operative in health care, I hope that sunlight soon shines upon them. 

That sunlight may cause such codes to shrivel is suggested by President Rao's rescinding of the code at VCU soon after it was made public, as reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

With the board of visitors meeting yesterday to evaluate his performance, Virginia Commonwealth University President Michael Rao rescinded the confidentiality agreements he required employees working in his office to sign.

Rao sent employees a letter Wednesday that said the confidentiality agreements were intended "to protect the privacy of my family, particularly my children, in my home."

'The confidentiality agreements have been the subject of recent scrutiny and criticism and, unfortunately, have been misinterpreted in terms of what I sought to be accomplished by these agreements,' he wrote. 'I sincerely regret any undue burden or ill will that these agreements may have caused. Therefore, I have decided to withdraw all such confidentiality agreements.'

Such codes ought to be perceived as unethical, and perhaps should be made illegal.  Meanwhile, though, the anechoic effect continues.

Annals of Electronic Information Security

At The Hill, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich raises a good point about the leak of hundreds of thousands of diplomatic cables and other private information:

"You have a private first class who downloads a quarter million documents, and the system doesn't say, 'Oh, you may be over extended?' I mean, this is a system so stupid that it ought to be a scandal of the first order," Gingrich said.

Regardless of which administration(s) are responsible (these systems probably took many years to reach their current form), one wonders if commercial EMR's suffer from the same oversights.

-- SS

Professors at Harvard and Nottingham Medical School (UK): Are we repeating the UK's clinical IT failures in the US?

In the opinion piece "Don't Repeat the UK's Electronic Health Records Failure" (Huffington Post, Dec. 5, 2010), Dr. Stephen B. Soumerai, Professor of Population Medicine at Harvard Medical School and Dr. Anthony Avery, Professor of Primary Care at the University of Nottingham Medical School, UK share familiar themes on health IT.

These themes will be especially familiar to HC Renewal readers and to my students and other readers of my Medical Informatics teaching website.

The professors wrote:

Fueled by the economic stimulus passed by Congress in 2008 [The ARRA a.k.a. "American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" and the HITECH legislation it contained - ed.], the federal government has embarked on a controversial $30 billion program to induce doctors throughout the country to adopt electronic health records (EHRs) by 2014. The purpose is to create an interconnected system of electronic health records to improve safety and reduce medical costs.

But the United Kingdom has spent the last 6 years working on the same idea, and it's proven to be a colossal failure -- so much so that the government is drastically cutting its program. What happened to their plan? Should we be paying attention before rushing ahead with our own?

My response to that question is clear, such as at my Nov. 2008 post "Should The U.S. Call A Moratorium On Ambitious National Electronic Health Records Plans?" and the followup Jan. 2009 post "I Ask Again: Should The U.S. Call A Moratorium On Ambitious National Electronic Health Records Plans?" where I wrote:

$50 billion a year is big money that might be better spent elsewhere - such as providing care for the poor and for disadvantaged children - until we know how to get HIT right.

I suggest it may be best not to go all-out for HIT under the current paradigm. It is my belief, in fact, based on the above issues [UK and US issues - ed.] plus a chronic influx of HIT difficulty and mismanagement stories I hear from colleagues, ex-colleagues, recruiters, etc., that healthcare organizations not contractually obligated should consider a postponement of plans to purchase clinical IT (i.e., systems for direct use by clinicians such as EHR's).

This postponement should last at least until the issues that lead to ineffective and counterproductive HIT can be better understood and corrections initiated in the industry.

The professors further write:

In 2005 the United Kingdom embarked on the largest investment ($18 billion) in health information technology in the world. Yet despite expectations that the system would increase efficiency and reduce medical errors, their efforts neither improved health nor saved money -- in fact in some cases, they may have led to patient harm.

Britain's government-run medical system is obviously different from our complex public-private insurance system. [I had written that a smaller, socialized healthcare system should be far easier to automate than our own in the US - ed.] However, its electronic health record project bears an uncanny resemblance to the program President Obama is starting.

They then delineated a number of problems:

Too large and ambitious: The UK project tried to accomplish too much, too fast, attempting to digitize health records for the whole population in a period of four years. This massive undertaking is years behind schedule and has delivered only a fraction of what it promised. Despite all the money poured into the system, the vast majority of hospitals in the UK still don't have integrated electronic health records.

Why? The reasons sound familiar:

... Because non-clinicians developed the system, the electronic forms they designed have little to do with how doctors treat patients -- making it unworkable for many physicians. As the Chair of the British House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently stated, "This is the biggest IT [Information Technology] project in the world and it is turning into the biggest disaster."

The "biggest IT disaster in the world" is not an honor I wish to see repeated in the U.S.

On another familiar problem:

Too dependent on commercial, proprietary companies: Rather than create one system and beta-test it, the UK government depended on four companies to build the system, two of which quit or were fired for missing deadlines. So the health records were never developed in the south of England. The computer software was secret and proprietary. There was no accountability to the public, and the vendors did not provide enough technical support to clinicians having trouble using the records.

The resulting software errors and crashes caused missing or incorrect clinical information and sometimes threatened patient safety, for example by causing surgical delays and the cancellation of hundreds of operations.

The inquiring mind would want to know about actual patient injuries and deaths that likely resulted from such problems...

The professors observe:

If a country like Britain -- which already has a national health system and is a fraction of the size of the US -- had so many problems with electronic health records, imagine the problems America would face.

This sounds like my comments in a public comment letter of March 9, 2010 to HHS/ONC (Re: RIN 0991-AB59, "Proposed Establishment of Certification Programs for Health Information Technology") where I wrote, among many other things:

... We ignore the UK experience at our peril, an experience in a medical environment smaller and far more government-controlled than our own.

... I believe that a rushed National Program for HIT in the United States will suffer the same fate as the aforementioned National Programme for IT in the UK, and perhaps even a worse fate as the UK’s socialized medicine system is certainly a smaller, more homogeneous and more controllable testbed environment for experimenting with HIT.

The professors relate:

Even our partial adaption of electronic health records is causing problems. Over the last couple of years, doctors and hospitals have reported to the FDA dozens of medical injuries -- including six deaths and preventable heart attacks -- caused by problems related to computerized health records such as software errors and unreadable computer screens. Some errors resulted in drug doses that were 10 times higher than intended. FDA officials called this the "tip of the iceberg."

I wrote about the FDA's findings here, and conducted a "thought experiment" regarding what those numbers might extrapolate out to in my April 2010 post "If The Benefits Of Healthcare IT Can Be Guesstimated, So Can And Should The Dangers."

They continue:

... More than 50 medical organizations, including the AMA, have called on the Secretary of Health and Human Services to delay the program. In response, the administration delayed some of the required health IT functions, but kept the same 2014 deadline.

Indeed. They are courting disaster in my opinion, both clinically and financially, as I wrote in a Feb. 2009 Wall Street Journal letter to the editor entitled “Digitizing Medical Records May Help, but It's Complex”:

Dear WSJ,

You observe that the true political goal is socialized medicine facilitated by health care information technology. You note that the public is being deceived, as the rules behind this takeover were stealthily inserted in the stimulus bill.

I have a different view on who is deceiving whom. In fact, it is the government that has been deceived by the HIT industry and its pundits. Stated directly, the administration is deluded about the true difficulty of making large-scale health IT work. The beneficiaries will largely be the IT industry and IT management consultants.

For £12.7 billion the U.K., which already has socialized medicine, still does not have a working national HIT system, but instead has a major IT quagmire, some of it caused by U.S. HIT vendors.

HIT (with a few exceptions) is largely a disaster. I'm far more concerned about a mega-expensive IT misadventure than an IT-empowered takeover of medicine.

The stimulus bill, to its credit, recognizes the need for research on improving HIT. However this is a tool to facilitate clinical care, not a cybernetic miracle to revolutionize medicine. The government has bought the IT magic bullet exuberance hook, line and sinker.

I can only hope patients get something worthwhile for the $20 billion.

The professors then note:

How do we avoid the UK's failure? The administration or Congress should slow down the program and delete those parts of the legislation that fine doctors for not using this technology. There's no need to have this system in place by 2014. Instead, we should conduct rigorous studies of the cost-effectiveness of electronic health records systems before mandating their use. Rather than force doctors to choose from dozens of commercial software products developed in secret, we should take a hint from the non-commercial sector, such as the Veterans Administration, which uses "open-source" coding so people can work collaboratively to continuously improve the system.

Slowing down the program and performing rigorous studies of HIT before wide scale rollout are themes I raised, among other places, in my Dec. 2009 post "Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: Critical Thinking on Health IT" where I wrote:

In conclusion, I believe this literature review supports the notion expressed in other studies and opinion pieces here and elsewhere that we really need to SLOW DOWN the current HIT stampede, largely promoted by the HIT industry lobby. We need to take the appropriate time to better understand how to "do HIT well" before plunging in as if we actually know what we're doing

as well as at my Oct. 2009 post "Washington Post Article: Electronic medical records not seen as a cure-all" where I wrote:

... The literature is indeed conflicting, and the need for rigorous scientific study has never been more essential considering the commitment of tens of billions of dollars towards health IT. The time for story telling, marketing based on opinion, name calling, leap-of-faith extrapolations of light year dimensions, and other forms of pseudoscience and non-science are over. The time for objective study is now.

The professors conclude:

The Obama administration wants government programs to be based on evidence of effectiveness. Simply following the lead of "IT believers" and salesmen without the requisite evidence will repeat the UK's failures. Now is the time to proceed carefully, consider existing research and the British experience, and chart a more rational course into the digital age of medicine.

I do not know if these two professors were familiar with my writings, but I am happy to see these themes (once treated as verboten and as grounds for marginalization by the HIT industry) increasingly going mainstream.

Patient well being - which includes you, dear readers - depends on that.

-- SS