Health Science

Not to toot our own horn too loudly, but in the last week, Health Care Renewal bloggers have appeared in print three times.

Prevalence of Board Level Conflicts of Interest

We recently posted on a British Medical Journal article on the prevalence of what we originally termed "a new species of conflicts of interest," that is, conflicts of interest involving membership in boards of directors of for-profit health care corporations.  A shortened version of this just appeared as a (not very) "rapid response" in the BMJ here.  (Note though that the official date of the response was October 3.)

The New England Journal Series Calling for Rethinking the Problem of Conflicts of Interest

After the New England Journal of Medicine published an editorial and three commentaries earlier this year suggesting that concerns about conflicts of interest in health care may have been overblown, we pointed out that many of their arguments were supported by logical fallacies.  The Canadian Medical Association Journal has been publishing a series of news articles about the issue.  The latest one, published on November 17, 2015, ended by quoting HCR blogger Roy M Poses MD.

Health Care Corruption

On November 16, 2015, the Corporate Crime Reporter published a front page interview, "Roy Poses on Corruption in American Healthcare,"  The interview is listed here,  and summarized here but the full transcript apparently is not available online, but only in print and via subscription.  (Link to interview updated on 19 November, 2015).  

The editors of the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine just stated they they were shocked, shocked to find out that physicians occasionally express disrespect for patients when the patients cannot hear or see them.  The occasion was an editorial signed by three editors whose title included the phrase, "shining a light on the dark side of health care."(1)  The editorial referred to an anonymous narrative that recounted two incidents from the past.(2)

Two Alleged Incidents of Physicians' Expression of Disrespect for Patients

The first incident, discussed second hand, was of a obstetrician who made a sexist comment about a patient, who was under anesthesia, presumably unconscious, and being prepared for surgery.  The second incident, presumably less recent, was of an obstetric/gynceology resident who, after performing an emergency procedure that saved a woman from potentially fatal acute hemmorhage, performed an impromptu dance routine that appeared to disrespect the patient's ethnicity, until stopped by the anesthesiologist who issued a profance rebuke.

The names of the people involved, the hospitals in which these incidents occurred, and even the years when they happened are unknown.  The Annals did not publish anything suggested their veracity was corroborated.

There was no apparent harm to or direct effect on any patient as a result of either incident.  Of course, both alleged incidents suggested very disrespectful expression by the two physicians.  Their actions appeared unprofessional.

The Editorial Reaction

As noted above, the editorial called the incidents examples of medicine's "dark side."  It further said they may make "readers' stomachs churn," referred to "medicine's dark underbelly," and "repugnant behavior," and characterized the narrative as "disgusting and scandalous," and having the potential to "damage the profession's reputation."  The editorial characterized the the behavior of the obstetrician in the first incident as "highly disrespectful," and said it "reeked of misogyny and disrespect," while the second "reeked of all that plus heavy overtones of sexual assault and racism." 

That is certainly extreme language.  The editors appeared shocked, shocked that any physician could ever express disrespect for a patient, even when the patient could not possible be aware of that.  Nonetheless, of course, the behavior alleged to have occurred was certainly inappropriate and unprofesional, and cannot be condoned.

The Media Reaction

The two articles got considerable publicity, and media coverage also made the incidents out to be extremely sordid, using words like,"disturbing," "astonishing," "unsavory," (albeit also "boorish,") (LA Times); "criminal," "vulgarity," (MedPage Today); "appalling," "troubling," (NY Times); and  "misogynistic," "abhorrent," (US News and World Report).  I must note that some of the news coverage did reflect doubts that the two Annals of Internal Medicine articles represented some horrendous catastrophe, raising issues such as the humanness of doctors, so that some may be "prone to sociopathy and criminality;" the stress of some medical emergencies leading to letting off steam, or poor attempts at humor; and doubts about the representativeness and validity of the two alleged anecdotes.

Nonetheless, it seemed to me that the Annals articles and the media coverage did suggest an impending crisis due to the sordid behavior of perhaps numerous doctors, and at least the tone of the media coverage they provoked suggested the need for immediate action.

Was the Outrage Justified?

However, first keep in mind that these two incidents involved two individual doctors, one a trainee.  There are approximately 800,000 physicians in the US.  They are human.  Is it any surprise that some are "bad apples," and that others occasionally behave badly?  There is nothing in the two articles to suggest that these incidents reflected more organized, systemic actions.

Furthermore, the articles seemed to ignore the fact that mechanisms, perhaps not flawless, are already in place to address unprofessional behavior by physicians, even if no one involved in the published narrative may have used them.  In the US, physicians are subject to discipline from state licensing boards.  They may be reported to those boards for unprofessional behavior.  The boards can sanction physicians in a variety of ways, up to and including permanent loss of license.  Both alleged incidents apparently occurred in teaching hospitals.  Attendings and residents at teaching hospital must answer to department chairs, medical school deans and hospital staffs.  So mechanisms for policing such behavior exist, even if they may have not been used in this case.  A look at state medical board websites reveals that that physicians are often sanctioned for bad behavior that disrespects or even endangers patients. 

Finally, the Annals of Internal Medicine used very strong language, involving churning stomachs, reeks of misogyny, sexual assault, and racism, dark underbellies, etc.  Was this a proportionate response to two anonymous cases that did not involve allegations of direct patient harm?

The Real Dark Side

Readers of Health Care Renewal know that we often discuss systemic problems in health care, often involving the leadership of large health care organizations, that may produce real harms to patients' and the public's health, but for which no good policing mechanisms seem to exist.  Worse, these problems seem to be a taboo topic in health care policy discussions, and in medical journals, like the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In my humble opinion, the Annals' editorial outrage would ring less hollowly if it was accompanied by even greater outrage at such more extreme problems. 

Let me start with a recent example.

Example: the Anechoic AllTrials US Launch

Very recently we discussed how the launch of new US AllTrials initiative got almost no notice.  Specifically, even though a sponsor of the initiative is the American College of Physicians, that organization's publication, the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not comment on it.  (A search of the journal using the term AllTrials produced no results.)

However, the AllTrials initiative means to tackle the problem of suppressed clinical research.  We have long discussed how research may be systematically suppressed when its results do not please its commercial sponsors.  Particularly, trials of drugs or devices that do not produce favorable results may be suppressed by their sponsors, usually the companies that make the drugs or devices.  Such suppression breaks trust with and therefore hugely disrespects the patients who volunteered to participate in the trials, who believed they were contributing to science and public health.  Suppressing data that drugs and devices may be ineffective and harmful may endanger patients by letting them be treated by such drugs and devices in the illusory belief that they are safe.  Yet where is the outrage about such dishonest behavior by large and powerful health care organizations that disrespects, and more importantly, endangers patients?

Health Care Corruption

When a pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or device company withholds results of a clinical trial to makes its product look better and enhance its revenue, that is an example of health care corruption.

Transparency International defines corruption as

Abuse of entrusted power for private gain

When health care corporations run clinical trials, we entrust them to do honest research and be worthy of the trust of their research subjects.  Withholding the results to enhance revenue is therefore abuse of that entrusted power for private gain.

Health Care Corruption as a Taboo Topic

This blog focuses on the US, and we  now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of health care corruption in the US, including numerous allegations of misbehavior by large health care organizations ending in legal settlements, and examples of outright fraud, bribery, kickbacks and other crimes.  Some large and profitable health care corporations have made numerous such settlements over recent years.  (For example, see the track record to date of Pfizer Inc here and that of Johnson and Johnson here.)

Much of this bad behavior was meant to sell drugs, devices, or clinical services, often in situations in which their benefits did not outweigh their harms.  For example, we just discussed the latest settlement by Amgen of allegations that it promoted an epoetin (Aranesp) "off-label" for cancer patients not on chemotherapy.  Such "misbranding" was not merely a technical violation, since it has been shown that use of the drug in this situation increases mortality.   Such bad behavior thus likely harmed numerous patients.

Furthermore, efforts to police these kinds of corruption have been weak and scattered.  Most cases have ended with legal settlements that at most involve fines to corporations, yet the fines are rarely big enough to significantly affect their overall revenues.  While the corporations themselves may be thus punished, the people who actually authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior are usually unscathed.  So as we have discussed frequently, such attempts at justice are unlikely to deter future bad behavior.

In fact, people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, in 2006, the Transparency International Global Corruption Report focused on health care corruption, and asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries."  It also noted how diverse is health care corruption:

In the health sphere corruption encompasses bribery of regulators and medical professionals, manipulation of information on drug trials, the diversion of medicines and supplies, corruption in procurement, and overbilling of insurance companies. It is not limited to abuse by public officials, because society frequently entrusts private actors in health care with important public roles. When hospital administrators, insurers, physicians or pharmaceutical company executives dishonestly enrich themselves, they are not formally abusing a public office, but they are abusing entrusted power and stealing precious resources needed to improve health.

It further stated how serious the consequences of corruption may be for patients and public health:

Corruption deprives people of access to health care and can lead to the wrong treatments being administered. Corruption in the pharmaceutical chain can prove deadly....

The poor are disproportionately affected by corruption in the health sector, as they are less able to afford small bribes for health services that are supposed to be free, or to pay for private alternatives where corruption has depleted public health services.

Corruption affects health policy and spending priorities.

Occasionally, something is published about health care corruption in the US in the medical literature.

- In 2009, qualitative interviews by Pololi et al in the Journal of General Internal Medicine produced many striking anecdotes suggesting corruption in US academic medicine. Four of the interviews were with faculty whose leaders allegedly used deception for personal and professional gain (i.e., “a situation of major unethical use of funding,” “fraudulently creating data for a research project,” “we’re lying to the people who are doing our school evaluations, we’re putting things on paper that we do that we don’t do,” “that’s what I think he felt he had to do—hide money, lie about money, or at least cook the books a little bit.”)(4)  These results produced few echoes, particularly not any strident editorials about the need to address corruption.
- In 2011, an article in the Lancet suggested that "there is more corruption in the G8 countries than in the whole of Africa," but for any health care professional to acknowledge that would be "professional suicide" (see this post).(3)
- Finally, in 2013, a Transparency International survey showed that 43% of Americans believe their health care system is corrupt.  Yet this received no media attention, and to my knowledge has never been mentioned in a major US medical journal.  (Look here.)

So health care corruption remains a largely taboo topic.  (On Health Care Renewal, we call corruption "anechoic," since evidence of health care corruption produces few echoes.) 

The Annals of Internal Medicine, like most major medical journals, has long avoided discussion of health care corruption, and how systemic corruption harms patients' and the public's health.

Of course, the unwillingness to discuss global health care corruption, health care corruption in the US, and the relationship of health care corruption in the US to corruption in other sectors may arise from the fear, as stated by one person interviewed in Charles Ferguson's documentary Inside Job, that discussion could lead to investigation, and investigation could "find the culprits".

Summary

It is perfectly fitting and proper for the Annals of Internal Medicine to call attention to various kinds of unprofessional behavior by physicians and health care professionals, such as sexist, disrespectful expression, even if such behavior is already subject to sanctions by medical boards, accrediting organizations, etc. In my humble opinion, however, if such disrespectful comments by physicians should generate outrage, corrupt behavior by large health care organizations that may harm patients and the public health, and which often goes largely unchallenged by civil authorities, should deserve more outrage.

Of course, it is one thing to criticize individual physicians, and ask physicians to "call out our colleagues" who behave unacceptably.

It is another to call out large, powerful, wealthy organizations and the executives who have become rich running them.  Such executives command well funded marketing and public relations departments, and corps of attorneys ready to take on perceived critics.

But if we really want better health care and public health, we all have to step up.  In particular, I urge the editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine, and other major health and medical journals to take on health care corruption as vigorously as they would take on physicians' expressions of "misogyny and disrespect."

ADDENDUM (26 August, 2015) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog. 

References
1.  Laine C, Taichman DB, LaCombe MA. On being a doctor: shining a light on the dark side.  Ann Intern Med 2015; 163: 320.  Link here.
2.  Anonymous.  Our family secrets.  Ann Intern Med 2015; 163: 321.  Link here.
3. Horton R. Offline: ten commandments, G8 corruption, and OBL. Lancet 2011; 377: 1638. Link here.
4. Pololi L, Kern DE, Carr P, Conrad P, Knight S. The culture of academic medicine: faculty perceptions of the lack of alignment between individual and institutional values. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:1289–95. Link here.

I had the pleasure of attending the Ending iCorruption Conference, the capstone conference for the Edmond J Safra Research Lab on Institutional Corruption, held at the Harvard Law School on May 1-2, 2015.  The conference included much material relevant to health care corruption and related topics, and provided some innovative approaches that could be used to address these issues.  I list these below, with citations or links when available.  At some point in the future, all conference proceedings should be available on video from the Safra Center.

Uncovering Data on Conflicts of Interest

Unearth: Using PubMed to Uncover Conflicts of Interest Affecting Clinical Research

Unearth is a browser extension now available for Google Chrome, and soon to become available for other browsers, e.g., Firefox.  It works on PubMed searches, scraping funding and conflict of interest data from the body of articles and adding them to abstracts.  We have often discussed such conflicts of interest, and their relationship to manipulation of clinical research.  Unearth could make such conflicts more salient, making it easier to discriminate unconflicted from conflicted research.  (See this post on the Bill of Health blog.)  This application was developed during the Safra Center Hacking iCorruption Event.

Open Think Tanks: Uncovering Think Tank Funding

Think tanks often publish findings on and make recommendations about health care.  However, think tanks are often opaque, and any institutional conflicts of interest they have may not be easily apparent.  Open Think Tanks currently shows donations from government entities outside the US to US based think tanks.  Enhancements to include various kinds of private donations are likely in the future. This application was also developed during the Hacking iCorruption Event.

Finding Unconflicted Academics

As we have discussed, the majority of medical academics have conflicts of interest, which may affect their research, teaching and patient care.  Yet these conflicts are not always disclosed.  Furthermore, finding experts without conflicts is not easy.  ProfessorCert is a website that allows academics who have no conflicts of interest to register as such.  The website was developed by the Academic Independence Project. 

Improving Integrity

Putting Consumers in the FDA and Other Regulatory Agencies

We have frequently discussed regulatory capture, how government health care regulatory agencies, like the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA),  often seem to end up more concerned about the financial health of those they are supposed to regulate than patients' and the public's health.   Harvard Prof Daniel Carpenter, collaborator in Safra Center research,  talked about the problem of  "cultural capture" of regulatory agencies, in which the regulators' thinking is influenced by outside vested interests.  He proposed that regulatory agencies need to put consumers, or presumably other stakeholders like unconflicted health care professionals, "into the room."  

Putting Ethicists in the C- Suite

We have frequently criticized the leadership of hospitals and hospital systems.  In particular, we have discussed instances in which these leaders seem to have gone directly against the mission of their own organizations, which we termed mission hostile management. Safra Lab Network Fellow James Corbett, now Senior Vice President for Centura Health, proposed that ethicists who also understand the language of finance and management be present among the top leadership of hospital systems.  

Licensing Executives

As noted above, a major theme of the Health Care Renewal blog is the shortcomings of the leadership of large health care organizations.  Top leaders often have business training, but may be ill-informed about health care, and ignorant or unsupportive of  or even hostile to its values.  Wellesley College Professor Emerita Ann Congleton's 2014 article in the Journal of Business Ethics, entitled Beyond business ethics: an agenda for the trustworthy teachers and practitioners of business, proposed requiring that corporate executives, including executives of health care corporations, be licensed in order to lead their organizations.  I proposed licensing of leaders of large health care organizations as early as 2008 (here).    

Pharmaceutical Research Uninfluenced by the Pharmaceutical Industry

Because clinical research meant to evaluate drugs or devices sponsored by  manufacturers of the relevant products has shown to be frequently manipulated, or even suppressed, many people have suggested banning such sponsorship and direct influence of such manufacturers.  (For example, see the book and blog, both entitled "Hooked," written by Dr Howard Brody, and see Health Care Renewal blog posts, e.g., here.)
Safra Center Network Fellow and Rowan University Professor Donald Light's book in press, Good Pharma, basically offers proof of the concept that high quality clinical research on pharmaceuticals can be accomplished without industry money or influence, albeit in Italy, at the Mario Negri Institute. 

Summary

The project on institutional corruption at the Safra Center produced a burst of innovation meant to address this pervasive project, and thus provided much of value to those who want to challenge health care corruption.  I hope this innovation will turn out to be truly disruptive.  It is regretful that this project has come to an end.  We can only hope others pick up the banner.  

Who is watching the watchers?  A story this week involving "speed" like drugs added to "dietary supplements" suggests how far the once respected US Food and Drug Administration has fallen.

An Amphetamine-Like Drug Spiking "Nutritional Supplements"

The story began with a paper by Cohen and colleagues published a relatively obscure medical journal, and then picked up by the news media.(1)  The main points of the article were:

BMPEA (beta-methylphenylethylamine) is a compound first synthesized in the 1930s as a "potential replacement" for amphetamines.  Animal tests revealed amphetamine-like properties.  The compound was never tested on humans, and never marketed.

But,

BMPEA remained known only as a research chemical until early 2013 when the FDA identified BMPEA in multiple supplements labelled as containing ‘Acacia rigidula’, even though the stimulant has never been identified or extracted from Acacia rigidula, a shrub native to Texas.

However,

More than two years after the FDA's discovery, the FDA has yet to warn consumers about the presence of the amphetamine isomer in supplements.

So Cohen et al undertook to identify "nutritional supplements" said to contain acacia rigidula and test them for BMPEA.  They found 21 such supplements, all of which tested positive. The authors then recommended,

that supplement manufacturers immediately recall all supplements containing BMPEA, and that the FDA use all its enforcement powers to eliminate BMPEA as an ingredient in dietary supplements. Consumers should be advised to avoid all supplements labelled as containing Acacia rigidula. Physicians should remain alert to the possibility that patients may be inadvertently exposed to synthetic stimulants when consuming weight loss and sports supplements.

Note that while the power of the FDA to regulate "nutritional supplements" is limited by a 1994 law, Cohen and colleagues wrote that it

is tasked with identifying and removing mislabelled, adulterated, and dangerous dietary supplements from the marketplace.

Since BMPEA is apparently not found in nature, and was not sold prior to 1994, putting BMPEA in a "dietary supplement" appears to be adulteration. 


The Risks of BMPEA in Nutritional Supplements

The study was then picked up by the media.  In the Los Angeles Times, Pieter Cohen, the lead author of the journal article,

said that while the effects of BMPEA are unknown, the compound is potentially dangerous. He said the FDA's failure to act is 'completely inexcusable.'

Furthermore, in a CBS report,

BMPEA has not been tested in humans, but led to increased blood pressure in cats and dogs.

'These are things that are signals that in humans will later turn into heart attacks, strokes and maybe even sudden death,' Cohen said.

The point is that while it has never been tested fully on humans, there is every reason to suspect that BMPEA acts very similarly to amphetamine, colloquially called "speed."  Amphetamines, as we discussed here, have dangerous side effects, including severe blood pressure elevations, and increased risks of stroke, myocardial infarction (heart attack), and other cardiac events.  The drugs also have a high potential for abuse. 


Why Did the FDA Do Nothing? 

Despite the likely riskiness of BMPEA, the FDA did nothing when it found it in numerous dietary supplements in 2013, and has not indicated that it will do anything now.  According to the LA Times,

FDA spokeswoman Juli Putnam acknowledged that the agency published research on the occurrence of BMPEA in Acacia rigidula supplements in 2013.

'While our review of the available information on products containing BMPEA does not identify a specific safety concern at this time, the FDA will consider taking regulatory action, as appropriate, to protect consumers,' she said.

In a Consumers Report item, Dr Cohen responded to that,

'It’s mind boggling,' said Pieter Cohen, M.D., the Harvard physician who is the lead author of the new study, published online in the journal Drug Testing and Analysis. 'The companies think they have complete impunity. They assume the FDA will do nothing about it. And they’re right.'

A post in the NY Times Well blog reiterated, 

Under federal law, dietary supplements — with some exceptions — can contain only ingredients that are part of the food supply or that were already on the market before 1994. Dr. Cohen said that BMPEA has never been sold as a food or supplement, and as a result any product that contains it is considered adulterated, which would give the F.D.A. the authority to send warning letters to companies that add it to their supplements.

Yet while the FDA had authority to do something, it did nothing.

Was the Revolving Door the Reason?

Back in 2014, we posted about two transitions through the revolving door by the FDA official in charge of the regulation of nutritional supplements.  We reproduce the relevant section of the post below:

This round trip through the door was noted rather obliquely in a New York Times article in late April, 2014, focused on how slowly the FDA has reacted to apparently dangerous "dietary supplements,"

Before joining the F.D.A. in 2011, Dr. [Daniel] Fabricant was a top executive at an industry trade group, the Natural Products Association.

The article had previously identified Dr Fabricant as

the director of the division of dietary supplement programs in the agency’s Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition.

But,

The F.D.A. recently announced that Dr. Fabricant is leaving the agency this month to return to the trade group as its chief executive.

While the NY Times article thus mentioned as an aside that a government official with major responsibility for regulating dietary supplements had these relationships with the dietary supplement industry, it did not then question whether that relationship had anything to do with slow responses by the FDA to reports of toxic dietary supplements. 

In 2014, the Times drew no conclusions about Mr Fabricant's career trajectory.  However, this time

But public health experts contend that the F.D.A.’s reluctance to act in this case is symptomatic of a broader problem. The agency is not effectively policing the $33 billion-a-year supplements industry in part because top agency regulators themselves come from the industry and have conflicts of interest, they say. In recent years, two of the agency’s top officials overseeing supplements — including one currently on the job — were former leaders of the largest supplement industry trade and lobbying group.

Daniel Fabricant, who ran the agency’s division of dietary supplement programs from 2011 to 2014, had been a senior executive at that trade group, the Natural Products Association, which has spent millions of dollars lobbying to block new laws that would hold supplement makers to stricter standards. He left the F.D.A. last year and returned to the association as its chief executive. His current replacement at the F.D.A.’s supplement division also comes from the trade group.

'To have former officials in the supplement industry become the chief regulators of that industry at the F.D.A. is like the fox guarding the hen house,' said Michael F. Jacobson, the executive director of the Center for Science in the Public Interest, a consumer advocacy group.

Shortly before Dr. Fabricant left the F.D.A. in 2014 to return to the association, the F.D.A. hired another official from the group, Cara Welch. She is now the acting director of the agency’s supplement division. Dr. Cohen, who is also an internist at the Cambridge Health Alliance, said he repeatedly wrote to Dr. Welch asking what the agency was going to do about BMPEA, and that she did not respond.

Dr. Welch declined repeated requests for interviews. In a statement, Juli Putnam, an F.D.A. spokeswoman, said that the agency 'has found that hiring experienced leaders with diverse backgrounds in public health, industry, academia, and science enriches the professional environment and leads to the best health policy outcomes for the American public.'

Before joining the F.D.A., Dr. Welch was the vice president of scientific and regulatory affairs at the Natural Products Association, where she was a staunch defender of the supplement industry. When JAMA, a leading medical journal, raised concerns in a 2011 editorial that the federal law allowed the supplements industry to police itself, Dr. Welch responded that the industry had 'an excellent safety record.'

'The industry itself supports and has implemented strong self-regulatory mechanisms,' she said in an industry news release at the time.

Summary

To summarize, from 2011 to now, the leadership of the part of the FDA that is supposed to regulate dietary supplements was dominated by former top executives of the Natural Products Association, the trade organization for dietary supplement manufacturers.  In 2013, FDA scientists found that multiple dietary supplements contained BMPEA, a compound closely related to amphetamines, and hence potentially dangerous and addictive, although it had never been tested on or previously used by humans.  Although the FDA had authority to do something about this apparent adulteration of these products, it so far had done nothing.  Thus it appears that the currently legal revolving door that allows government regulation to be run by people who come directly from the industries that government is supposed to regulate could be responsible for exposing people to dangerous, addictive drugs.

Remember, BMPEA is a first cousin of amphetamine, amphetamine is "speed," and as the drug epidemics of the 1960s and 1970s showed us, "speed kills."  So a plausible argument is that the revolving door, as relevant to FDA, has enabled manufacturers of nutritional supplements to become the "pusher man," a la the Steppenwolf sound track of Easy Rider,


As we noted here, some experts consider the revolving door per se to be corruption, not merely conflict of interest.  The current case plausibly suggests not only that the revolving door is corrupt, but that when applied to health care can pose dangers to patients, not merely danger to government finances, government ethics, and the integrity of representative democracy.  Nonetheless, up to now, a few people have decried the revolving door (and very occasionally in health care), but nothing has been done about it.   

So it is surprising that today (13 April, 2015), the New York Times published an editorial inspired by the BMPEA case, which concluded

consumer advocates are surely right that putting the industry in charge of supplement regulation is like appointing the fox to guard the henhouse. Clearly, the F.D.A. should not allow industry insiders to fill key positions. A permanent solution is for Congress to enact conflict-of-interest laws forcing employees above a certain grade level at any agency to recuse themselves from official actions that affect a former employer or client, including trade associations and their members.

As a minimum, that would be a good start.  Unfortunately, even a NY Times editorial hardly guarantees action.  At least, however, the problem of the revolving door as a danger to patients has gotten a little less anechoic.

As we last wrote, the continuing egregiousness of the revolving door in health care shows how health care leadership can play mutually beneficial games, regardless of the their effects on patients' and the public's health.  Once again, true health care reform would cut the ties between government and corporate leaders that have lead to government of, for and by corporate executives rather than the people at large.

ADDENDUM (20 April, 2015) - This post was republished on Naked Capitalism. 


Reference

1.  Cohen PA, Bloszies C, Yee C, Gerona R. An amphetamins isomer whose efficacy and safety in humans has never been studied, beta-methylphenylethylamine (BMPEA), is found in multiple dietary supplements.  Drug Testing Analysis 2015; DOI: 10.1002/dta.1793  Link here.

A recent Wall Street Journal article that focused on a quirk in US Medicare payment rules that may be gamed by long-term hospitals also revealed the plight of physicians employed by such hospitals, and worse, the danger posed by such gaming to patients.

Discharging Patients at Particular Times Maximizes Hospital Revenue

Here is how the rule works:

Under Medicare rules, long-term acute-care hospitals like Kindred’s typically receive smaller payments for what is considered a short stay, until a patient hits a threshold. After that threshold, payment jumps to a lump sum meant to cover the full course of long-term treatment.

That leaves a narrow window of maximum profitability in caring for patients at the nation’s about 435 long-term hospitals, which specialize in treating people with serious conditions who require prolonged care.

Systemic Evidence that Discharges are More Likely to Occur at Times that Maximize Revenue

Thus the Medicare rules provides financial incentives for discharging patients at particular times during their admissions. The reporters found some systemic evidence that patients were more likely to be discharged at those times:

The Journal analysis of claims Medicare paid from 2008 through 2013 found long-term hospitals discharged 25% of patients during the three days after crossing thresholds for higher, lump-sum payments. That is five times as many patients as were released the three days before the thresholds.

The issue here is that the decision to discharge a patient from any kind of hospital should be made by health care professionals and their patients, sometimes with the input of the patients' families. The decision should depend on the patients' medical status, the availability of follow-up care, and the patients' wishes and values. Hospital managers should have no direct influence on these decisions. So why would patient discharges occur more often at the times when they are most financially advantageous for the hospitals?

An Illustrative Case

The Wall Street Journal article opened with an illustrative anecdote.

A Kindred Healthcare Inc. hospital in Houston discharged 79-year-old Ronald Beard to a nursing home after 23 days of treatment for complications of knee surgery.

The timing of his release didn’t appear to correspond with any improvement in his condition, according to family members. But it did boost how much money the hospital got.

Kindred collected $35,887.79 from the federal Medicare agency for his stay, according to a billing document, the maximum amount it could earn for treating most patients with Mr. Beard’s condition.

If he had left just one day earlier, Kindred would have received only about $20,000 under Medicare rules. If he had stayed longer than the 23 days, the hospital likely wouldn’t have received any additional Medicare money.

Furthermore,

Between mid-2011 and the end of 2013, the Kindred hospital that treated Mr. Beard discharged eight times as many Medicare patients on the day they reached their threshold as on the day before. In the days immediately after the lucrative three-day window, discharges plummeted. Kindred acquired the hospital, which has two campuses, in the summer of 2011.

Mr. Beard, a retired drilling-equipment salesman, was discharged from Kindred’s facility on Nov. 12, 2011. His family says his condition had deteriorated at the hospital and they wish he had been released sooner.

Mr. Beard was admitted to Kindred Hospital Town and Country in Houston in late October 2011 after surgeons found the site of an earlier knee surgery had become infected with drug-resistant bacteria called MRSA. He was sent to the Kindred facility that Oct. 20 for a course of antibiotics, according to the records and Ms. Beard.

On his fourth day at the Kindred hospital, nurses administered the drug Remeron to treat sleeplessness. Mr. Beard’s wife says he had an allergy to that drug—documented at the time on a wristband provided by another hospital—and he went into a coma for a time.

'I wished then that I could take him somewhere else,' says Ms. Beard, now 77 years old.

Over the next two weeks, Mr. Beard’s condition deteriorated as he received treatments from a dozen doctors. A Medicare document provided by his wife shows he received an hour and a half of 'critical care' services on Nov. 9, three days before Kindred discharged him.

When he left the facility in a transport van on Nov. 12, bound for a nursing home, he complained of nausea, his wife says. The van driver called for an ambulance from a gas station. The ambulance took him to the emergency room at a general hospital in Katy, Texas.

Ms. Beard says doctors determined that, aside from low blood pressure, he was stable. She drove him to the nursing facility herself, but because Kindred’s discharge papers had been left behind in the van, the nursing facility declined to accept him. He wound up back at the Katy hospital to begin an additional three-day hospitalization, where doctors performed tests to monitor an existing heart condition, the billing documents show.

Ms. Beard says she doesn’t regret that her husband left Kindred’s hospital when he did, despite the chaos of those days. 'I think if he had stayed at Kindred, he would have laid there and died,' she says.

Note that Mr Beard was apparently discharged during the window of maximum revenue for the hospital, but there was no obvious medical reason for his discharge on that particular day.

Evidence that Hospital Managers Pressure Health Care Professionals to Discharge Patients at Times that Maximize Revenue

The WSJ statistical analysis suggested that Kindred and other for-profit long-term hospital corporations are particularly prone to discharge patients at times that maximize revenue.

For-profit companies such as Kindred and Select were more likely to discharge patients during the most-lucrative window than nonprofit competitors, the Journal’s analysis shows. Nonprofits discharged 16% of people during the window, compared with 27% at for-profits.

The WSJ also found evidence that managers at two for-profit long-term hospital systems pushed health care professionals to discharge patients at the most profitable times.

Former long-term-hospital executives say they sometimes called the threshold the 'normal low' or 'five-sixth date,' referring to the Medicare formula. The Journal interviewed 16 people who have worked at facilities operated by Kindred or rival for-profit system Select Medical Corp. in 10 states, including former hospital administrators, doctors and case managers who oversaw discharges. Those two publicly traded companies billed Medicare for 42% of all long-term-hospital claims it processed during the period the Journal studied.

The former administrators say their corporate bosses exerted pressure to discharge as often as possible during the most lucrative days, rewarding managers who succeeded and questioning those who didn't.

'You’d hear from the powers that be if your hospital was not…hitting a pretty high percentage of your patients for Medicare' soon after the payment threshold, says Karen Shammas, who was chief executive of a Kindred hospital in Peoria, Ariz., until late 2013, when she retired.

Ms. Shammas, like some other long-term-hospital administrators who were interviewed, described meetings in which hospital staffers would discuss plans for each patient at the facility—armed with printouts from a computer tracking system that included, for each patient, the date at which reimbursement would shift to a higher, lump-sum payout.

Ms. Shammas says she never kept patients hospitalized for financial reasons if they were medically ready to leave.

Kindred declined to comment in detail on discharge patterns or corporate policies.

Former executives at both Kindred and Select say doctors, pressured by hospital administrators, sometimes ordered extra care or services intended in part to retain patients until they reached their thresholds, or discharged those who were costing the hospitals money regardless of whether their medical conditions had improved.

Former executives at hospitals run by each chain say their bonuses depended in part on maintaining a high share of patients discharged at or near the threshold dates to meet earnings goals.

In some cases, their bosses gave them specific targets for discharge rates during the most lucrative days, the former hospital executives say. When they missed their targets, some of the executives say, their bosses asked for explanations as to why individual patients weren’t released during the target window.
\
Select said in a written statement that its long-term hospitals discharge patients 'based on their medical condition and not on the Medicare reimbursement system' and 'do not manipulate discharge timing based on financial considerations.' The company said bonuses are based on 'overall financial performance,' among other factors, and not the share of patients discharged near the threshold.

Select’s corporate managers were 'very intense about managing that length of stay really effectively to maximize the profit potential for any particular patient, says Robert Marquardt, former CEO of a Select hospital in Fort Wayne, Ind.

If a patient was two days from the threshold, 'you were incentivized to see if you couldn’t find a reason to keep them for two more days,' says Mr. Marquardt, who left the company in December to work as a consultant.

Mr. Marquardt says he didn’t believe the efforts caused harm. 'You might play the game a bit, but you would never put a patient at risk,' he says.

Select said while it monitors discharge dates and other metrics and seeks to understand deviations from norms, it doesn’t set discharge targets. It said efforts to prolong a patient’s stay or discharge a patient early would be a violation of Select’s policies.'

So the WSJ article presented statistical analysis that patients are more likely to be discharged on the days that are most advantageous from the standpoint of hospital revenue than on other days.  The WSJ  article also presented narratives by several people that suggest that top managers gave incentives to lower level managers to maximize the number of discharge on the most financially advantageous days, and that managers tried to directly influence physicians, presumably those employed by the hospital systems, to discharge patients on the most financially advantageous days.

The Private Gain of Mangers of Long-Term Corporate Hospital Systems

I do not know a way to determine how much money Kindred and Select may have made from the practice of timing long-term hospital discharges for maximum revenue, but there is certainly evidence that the top managers of these corporations do very well.

Based on the most recent available (2014) proxy statement from Kindred, its CEO, Paul J Diaz, received $4,303,072 in 2013, and all listed managers received more than $1 million that year. Based on the most recent available (2014) proxy statement from Select Medical Holdings Inc, its CEO, Robert A. Ortenzio, received $3,557,860 in 2013, and its executive chairman, Rocco A Ortenzio, received $2,701,916 in 2013, and all listed managers more than $1.5 million that year

Revenue Maximization as "Corruption"

The WSJ reporters interpreted their findings as "a sign that financial incentives in the Medicare system may shape patient care."  It thus implied that a reasonable policy response to this problem would be to change the  Medicare rules for paying for long-term care.  However, left unwritten was that only in a health care system in which managers feel that short-term revenue may trump the best interests of patients, and in which managers are empowered to influence, if not override physicians' decision-making would such financial incentives have any major effect.


The WSJ article did include an expert's opinion that it was unethical, or worse, for hospital managers to pressure physicians to discharge patients at times that maximized revenue, rather than times that were optimal for the patients' medical care and well being.

The pattern of discharging patients at the most lucrative juncture is 'troubling and disturbing,' says Tom Finucane, a doctor and professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, after learning of the Journal’s findings. 'The health-care system should serve the patients and try to improve their health, and any step away from that is a corruption.'

Dr. Finucane and other medical experts say longer-than-necessary hospital stays increase risks for medical errors, infection and unnecessary care. Discharges that come too early can mean patients don’t get care they need.

Recall that the Transparency International (ethical, not necessarily legal) definition of corruption is abuse of entrusted power for private gain. Physicians are entrusted to make decisions on behalf of their individual patients, so as best to improve their patients' health and health care outcomes. Hospitals are entrusted to provide the settings in which physicians can act in the best interests of their patients. So it seems clear that pressuring physicians to discharge patients so as to maximize hospital revenue regardless of the effect of such discharges on patients is corruption in this sense, health care corruption.

Note that health care corruption has generally been a taboo topic, especially when the corruption occurs in developed countries.  It is notable that the WSJ article made that topic slightly less anechoic.

Furthermore, framing this problem as health care corruption that endangers patients suggests that the issue goes far beyond a Medicare policy that is easy to game, and that another policy response, such as an investigation to see if such actions were legal, might be more to the point than adjusting the Medicare payment formula.

Beyond that, there are lessons for doctors and more globally for policy makers.  We have previously discussed the plight of the corporate physician, caught between his or her oath to put care of individual patients above all other concerns, and effective subservience to managers who may well put short-term corporate revenue, and growing their own incomes, ahead of all other concerns, including patients' and the public's health.  Health care professionals should not hold any illusions that they can take jobs with corporate health care providers and uphold their own values.

Furthermore, the plight of the physicians, and more importantly, the patients at corporate long-term hospitals raises a bigger policy question.  In my humble opinion, is it now time to end our badly conceived experiment with gilded age health care.  In the US, we have decided that the "free market" can solve all of our health care problems, disregarding the near impossibility of maintaining a real free market in health care.  Instead, we now have health care dominated by poorly regulated large corporations in an era when top managers believe they have a mandate to do anything to improve short-term revenue,  and often conveniently increase their own wealth.  It appears to be time to bring back the old laws against the corporate practice of health care, and consider whether we should allow hospitals and other health care organizations that provide direct patient care to be for-profit enterprises.

Meanwhile, patients and health care professionals, you should realize that you approach corporate hospitals and other corporate health care providers at your own risk. 

... even when allegedly a prominent academic physician's traded referrals of cancer patients to a law firm, resulting in referral fees to a prominent politician who worked for the firm, for government research grants to the physician's foundation and another foundation on whose board he sat, and a job for his son at yet another non-profit organization.
***

Health care corruption, remains a largely taboo topic, especially when it occurs in developed countries like the US.  Searching PubMed or major medical and health care journals at best will reveal a few articles on health care corruption, nearly all about corruption in less developed countries far away from where the authors live.  When the media may publish stories about issues related to health care corruption, they are almost never labelled as such.

For example, last year we discussed two widely reported cases of alleged political corruption.  One included allegations that a company producing a supposedly anti-inflammatory dietary supplement bribed Robert McDonnell, the former Governor of Virginia.  Mr McDonnell was later convicted and sentenced to two years in jail for public corruption (look here).  Another included allegations that Rick Perry, the former Governor of Texas abused his power by cutting funding of the state anti-corruption unit, which was investigating whether the Texas Cancer Research and Prevention Institute was awarding grants based on political influence rather than clinical and methodological merit. The reporting of both cases underplayed the health care aspects, and never mentioned health care corruption, or words to that effect.


Yet Transparency International's report on global health care corruption suggested health care corruption occurs in all countries.  A recent TI survey showed that 43% of US citizens believe the country has a health care corruption problem (look here).  Perhaps some US citizens have been reading between the lines, or have personal experiences with health care corruption. However, as long as we cannot talk about this problem openly, there is no chance it will be solved.

In January, 2015, a case of apparent political corruption made headlines.  It turns out to also be a case of apparent health care corruption.  

New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver Charged with Fraud, Extortion, and Receiving Bribes


In late January, 2015, from early reporting  by the Capital New York,

The federal corruption case against Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver rests in part on his alleged scheme with a doctor who referred asbestos cases to the Weitz & Luxenberg law firm where Silver is of counsel.

A criminal complaint from U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara alleges that Silver obtained referrals of asbestos
cases from a doctor affiliated with a university in Manhattan, referred to as 'Doctor-1,' by using his position as speaker to quietly direct $500,000 in state funds to the doctor's research and give 'additional benefits' to the doctor and the doctor's family.

The Doctor-1 described in the criminal complaint appears to be Dr. Robert Taub of Columbia University, based on details outlined in the criminal complaint, and confirmed by a secretary at his office and separately by a knowledgeable source. Taub specializes in mesothelioma research, for which it is hard to find research funding.

Regarding the advantages gained by Mr Silver,

Silver allegedly received millions of dollars in referral fees from Weitz & Luxenberg, and was credited with referring more than 100 clients, many of whom were referred for asbestos cases, according to the complaint.

The firm paid Silver $3.2 million for referrals related to asbestos cases between 2003 and 2014, according to the complaint. Prosecutors claim that several of those asbestos clients said they had been referred to Doctor-1 for treatment, and said the doctor had also recommended they retain Weitz & Luxenberg as their counsel.

Regarding the benefits to Dr Taub,

The complaints say the scheme began when the doctor allegedly asked Silver if his firm would help fund mesothelioma research and Silver declined. But prosecutors claim the doctor became aware that Silver wanted him to refer asbestos patients to Silver and the law firm for counsel, in exchange for funding for his medical research.

Doctor-1 started referring patients to Silver, and Silver began directing state funding to the doctor's research, the complaint alleges.

In December 2003, Doctor-1 requested a $250,000 grant from Silver to establish a Mesothelioma center at a university, according to the complaint. The complaint also says that the request was granted, and Silver approved payment from a pool of discretionary funds paid for by health care-related assessments that was under Silver's sole control until the year 2007.

Silver later directed another grant from the same pool of funds, also worth $250,000, to the Mesothelioma Center.

In 2008, the speaker directed a further $25,000 discretionary member item grant to a not-for-profit where the doctor was a board member, according to the complaint.

In 2012, the complaint alleges that Doctor-1 asked Silver for help in finding a family member a job with a nonprofit organization that 'received millions of dollars in member items and capital funding from Silver.'

A New York Times article verified that "Doctor-1" was Dr Robert N Taub, a previously highly reputed academic.  

In the criminal complaint against Sheldon Silver, he is identified simply as “Doctor-1.”

But Dr. Robert N. Taub, who headed a Columbia University center dedicated to curing a rare form of cancer caused by asbestos, is no ordinary doctor.

In 2002, Dr. Taub created one of the nation’s few mesothelioma research hubs, the Columbia University Mesothelioma Center. He was also active in an organization that raised money for research, sitting on the scientific advisory board of one of the few nonprofits created to help victims, the Mesothelioma Applied Research Foundation. The foundation, which awards research grants, relies heavily on gifts from law firms.

Finally, the NY Times story identified Dr Taub's family member who got a job through Mr Silver's intervention,

 According to the complaint and people briefed on the investigation, Dr. Taub also asked Mr. Silver in 2012 to help his son, Jonathan, find a job. The speaker arranged for an interview at OHEL Children’s Home and Family Services, a social services organization based in Brooklyn that had received millions of dollars in state funds from Mr. Silver.

After the allegations were made public, the NY Times also reported that Dr Taub "is leaving his position as head of a Columbia University cancer center, and the center is being disbanded," and the New York Post reported that Mr Silver is stepping down from his position as Speaker of the NY Assembly.

Political Corruption Highlighted, Health Care Corruption Ignored 


Corruption as defined by Transparency International is abuse of entrusted power for private gain.  Thus TI does not limit the term to cases involving politicians or government. Clearly, the allegations above were for corruption in this sense, and that corruption involved health care.

Furthermore, the alleged facts in the case implied,
-  Dr Taub abused his patients' trust in him by directing them to Mr Silver's firm, whether or not that was the best choice for these patients
-  Dr Taub abused the trust he inspired as a medical researcher by trading referral of his patients for government research grants
-  Dr Taub personally profited from these arrangements by obtaining a job for his family member, and a grant for another (non medical research) foundation on whose board he sat.
-  By directing grants to Dr Taub's research foundation, and the foundation on whose board Dr Taub sat, Mr Silver allocated scarce research funding for private gain, rather than for clinical, public health, or scientific reasons.


However, the coverage of the charges against Mr Silver, and particularly those relating to Dr Taub, was solely in terms of political corruption.  While the media reported the facts related to health care, there was no mention of health care corruption.

Even the pithy op-ed on the case by Prof Zephyr Teachout, now widely known for her expertise in corruption, and for increasing awareness of the importance of corruption in modern US society, did not mention health care corruption.  Her op-ed did note the earlier case of former Virginia Governor McDonnell,

As with the recent conviction of the former Virginia governor Bob McDonnell for receiving improper gifts and loans, a fixation on plain graft misses the more pernicious poison that has entered our system.

However, Professor Teachout did not note that these gifts and loans resulted from Governor McDonnell using his influence to market a supposed anti-inflammatory nutritional supplement.

Summary

Professor Teachout has decried how the definition of corruption has narrowed.

A fixation on plain graft misses the more pernicious poison that has entered our system.

However, our system is poisoned not only by political, but by health care corruption.  

However, when health care corruption is clearly the issue, the news media will not use that term.  Only when the corruption is occurring far away, usually in a supposedly benighted less developed country, will the news media or the scholarly medical, health care, and health policy literature discuss it as such.  So the anechoic nature of health care corruption has not changed since my post of August, 2014.

If we are not willing to even talk about health care corruption, how will we ever challenge it? 

So to repeat an ending to one of my previous posts on health care corruption....  if we really want to reform health care, in the little time we may have before our health care bubble bursts, we will need to take strong action against health care corruption.  Such action will really disturb the insiders within large health care organizations who have gotten rich from their organizations' misbehavior, and thus taking such action will require some courage.  Yet such action cannot begin until we acknowledge and freely discuss the problem.  The first step against health care corruption is to be able to say or write the words, health care corruption.

ADDENDUM (29 January, 2015) - This post was reposted on Naked Capitalism.  

Drug companies are entrusted to provide pure, unadulterated medicines.  Increasingly drug companies are now entrusted with doing research, including experimental studies, on human beings, and providing education to doctors and patients.  Ordinarily, trust requires confidence in transparency. However, a new report suggests that large multinational drug and biotechnology companies are not very transparent.

Transparency International just released a report on the transparency, or lack thereof, of the 124 biggest multinational corporations.  The report detailed how well these companies disclosed their internal anti-corruption programs, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint ventures, and their financial data broken down by the countries in which they operate.  In summary, the overall results for disclosing anti-corruption programs were mediocre, and for disclosing organizational structure and country-by-country financial data, they were dismal.

The report is highly relevant to health care.  It included the biggest multinational health care corporations, all drug and/or biotechnology companies: Abbott Laboratories, (based in the US), Amgen (US), AstraZeneca (UK), Gilead Sciences (US), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Johnson and Johnson (US), Merck and Co (US), Novartis (Switzerland), Novo Nordisk (Denmark), Pfizer (US), Roche Holding (Switzerland), Sanofi (France), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Israel).

The report has so far received little media coverage.  In the US, several news services provided brief  summaries.  Somewhat more substantial articles came from Reuters, the Wall Street Journal's Risk and Compliance Journal, and CNBC.  None gave specifics about health care.  Coverage from other countries, e.g., Germany by Deutsche Welle, and the UK by the Guardian, was more detailed but also did not specifically mention health care.

Therefore, I will summarize the rationale and assessment methods used by Transparency International for its three dimensions of transparency, and then show results from the 13 health care corporations.

Disclosure of Anti-Corruption Programs

The rationale for addressing this area was:

Global companies have legal and ethical obligations to conduct their business honestly. This requires
commitment, resources and the ongoing management of a range of risks – legal, political and reputational – including those associated with corruption. The implementation of a comprehensive range of anticorruption policies and management systems is fundamental to efforts to prevent and remediate corruption within organisations.

Transparency International believes that public reporting by companies on their anti-corruption programmes allows for increased monitoring by stakeholders and the public at large, thereby making companies more accountable

Evaluation of disclosure of anti-corruption programs was

based on 13 questions, which are derived from the UN Global Compact and Transparency International Reporting Guidance on the 10th Principle against Corruption. This tool, based on the Business Principles for Countering Bribery, which were developed by Transparency International in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder group, includes recommendations for companies on how to publicly report on their anticorruption programmes.

Note that the project addressed only reporting of anti-corruption programs, not their implementation or effectiveness.

For this and the other two dimensions of transparency, responses were converted into a 0% to 100% scale, with 100% being the best possible result.

Organizational Transparency

The rationale was:

As many of the recent corporate scandals have shown, acts of corruption are very often aided by the use of opaque company structures and secrecy jurisdictions.  But the use of offshore companies and their lack of transparency are posing increasing risks for global companies as well as for their shareholders, employees and local communities.

So,

Companies can mitigate the risks posed by lack of transparency and ownership arrangements by shedding more light on their corporate structures and by making basic financial information public on a country-by-country basis. This allows stakeholders to have a clearer understanding of the extent of a company’s operations and makes the company more accountable for its activities in a given country, including assessing whether it contributes financially in a manner appropriate to its level of activity.

The measurement strategy was,

Transparency International researchers consulted publicly available documents such as annual reports and stock exchange filings for information about company subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures and other holdings. The information sought included corporate names, percentages of ownership by the parent company, countries of incorporation and the countries in which the companies operate.

Country-by-Country Reporting

The rationale included:

The importance of country-by-country reporting was first recognised in the extractive sector as a way to ensure that revenues from natural resources are used to foster economic and social development rather than line the pockets of kleptocratic elites.

So,

country-by-country reporting ... [is] a recognised building block for corporate transparency and as a tool for countering tax avoidance.

In addition, country-by-country reporting provides investors with more comprehensive financial information about companies and helps them address investment risk more effectively.

The items measured were disclosure of revenue/sales, capital expenditures, pre-tax income, income tax, and community contribution in each country in which the company operated.

Results for Health Care Corporations

Company                      Total  Anti-Corruption P  Org Structure  by-Country

Abbott Laboratories    40             81                           38                3
Amgen                          37             85                           25                0
AstraZeneca                37             88                           19                3
Gilead Sciences           26             54                           25                0
GlaxoSmithKline          52            96                           50               11
Johnson and Johnson  26           65                           13                0
Merck and Co               42           77                            50                0
Novartis                        38            77                           38                1
Novo Nordisk               39            81                           38                0
Pfizer                             35            92                           13                0
Roche Holding              33            62                           38                1
Sanofi                            38            77                           38                0
Teva Pharmaceutical  35            85                            19                0

Again, only one company, GlaxoSmithKline, achieved an overall score of barely better than 50%.  All the others had lower scores.  Only two companies achieved a 50% score on disclosure of organizational structure, and only one achieved a score of better than 10% for disclosing country-by-country results.  The Transparency International report noted that the health care companies got particularly bad scores for disclosing organizational structure, averaging 31%, the third worst performance by economic sector.


Summary

 The drug and biotechnology companies generally did a fairly good job disclosing what their anti-corruption programs were supposed to do.  However, note that the Transparency International report did not assess how well these programs were implemented or enforced.  That this concern is not academic is underscored by some of these companies disreputable track records.  Some have long histories of legal actions, including billion dollar plus legal settlements, some of which were of allegations of fraud or kickbacks, and some have been convicted of crimes.  See the records of, for example: Abbott Laboratories (look here and here), Amgen (here), AstraZeneca (here), GlaxoSmithKline (here), Johnson and Johnson (here), Merck (here), Novartis (here), Novo Nordisk (here), Pfizer (here), Roche (here), Sanofi (here), and Teva (here).

Moreover, the companies did not do a good job disclosing their organizational structures, and hardly any bothered to report any financial results broken down by country.

We have frequently discussed health care corporations' deceptive marketing, induction of conflicts of interest, including those of supposed "key opinion leaders" who often are marketers in academic or professional clothing, and manipulation and suppression of clinical research.  There has been an ongoing procession of legal settlements involving health care corporations, often involving allegations of, and sometimes convictions for fraud, kickbacks, bribery, or other crimes.  There have even been some cases in which drug companies have failed to assure that their products are pure and unadulterated, their most basic mission.  Thus many are distrustful of drug and biotechnology companies, and large health care organizations in general.

So, as Transparency International's report noted, to rebuild trust,

integrity must be central to these efforts. Those efforts, in turn, can only become fully credible if they are undertaken with a sustained commitment to ethical behaviour and transparency across companies’ operations.

In my humble opinion, a basic premise of true health care reform would be that health care organizations become sufficiently transparent to restore basic trust in them. 

A striking story of a large recent legal settlement, with reminders of previous related settlements, quietly slipped out in the midst of the ruckus about the Ebola virus.

A $400 Million Settlement

The basics were in a news release by the US Department of Justice.

DaVita Healthcare Partners, Inc., one of the leading providers of dialysis services in the United States, has agreed to pay $350 million to resolve claims that it violated the False Claims Act by paying kickbacks to induce the referral of patients to its dialysis clinics,...

This amount was augmented by 

a Civil Forfeiture in the amount of $39 million based upon conduct related to two specific joint venture transactions entered into in Denver, Colorado.

Also, according to Ed Silverman writing on PharmaLot, it was further augmented thus

DaVita, by the way, has agreed in principle to pay another $11 million to several states that filed false claims charges, according to a document that DaVita filed with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. The DaVita spokesman says the deal involves five states.

So the total cost to the company seems to be about $400 million.   The settlement also  included a corporate integrity agreement,

  DaVita has entered into a Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Counsel to the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services which requires it to unwind some of its business arrangements and restructure others, and includes the appointment of an Independent Monitor to prospectively review DaVita’s arrangements with nephrologists and other health care providers for compliance with the Anti-Kickback Statute.

Kickbacks to Doctors who Refer Dialysis Patients


Here is how the kickbacks worked.

First, using information gathered from numerous sources, DaVita identified physicians or physician groups that had significant patient populations suffering renal disease within a specific geographic area. DaVita would then gather specific information about the physicians or physician group to determine if they would be a 'winning practice.' In one transaction, a physician’s group was considered a “winning practice” because the physicians were 'young and in debt.'  Based on this careful vetting process, DaVita knew and expected that many, if not most, of the physicians’ patients would be referred to the joint venture dialysis clinics.

Next, DaVita would offer the targeted physician or physician group a lucrative opportunity to enter into a joint venture involving DaVita’s acquisition of an interest in dialysis clinics owned by the physicians, and/or DaVita’s sale of an interest in its dialysis clinics to the physicians. To make the transaction financially attractive to potential physician partners, DaVita would manipulate the financial models used to value the transaction.

 So these alleged kickbacks were not envelopes full of unmarked bills, but sophisticated, complex transactions that would be hard for outsiders to understand.

To ensure that those bought stayed bought,

Last, DaVita ensured future patient referrals through a series of secondary agreements with their physician partners. These included paying the physicians to serve as medical directors of the joint venture clinics, and entering into agreements in which the physicians agreed not to compete with the clinic. The non-compete agreements were structured so that they bound all physicians in a practice group, even if some of the physicians were not part of the joint venture arrangements. These agreements also included provisions prohibiting the physician partners from inducing or advising a patient to seek treatment at a competing dialysis clinic. These agreements were of such importance to DaVita that it would not conclude a joint venture transaction without them.

Note that these alleged arrangements ensured the private gains of the physicians involved, and presumably by increasing referrals, ensured the private gains of DaVita, and likely specific managers whose remuneration depended on the fees produced by referrals.  However, the arrangements steered patients to dialysis services not based on what would be best for patients but what would be best for those involved in the arrangements.  Thus these arrangements appeared to fit the Transparency International definition of corruption: "abuse of entrusted power for private gain."  The physicians were entrusted to provide the best possible care of individual patients, yet they put their and the company (and likely the company's managers) financial gain ahead of the patients' care.

No One Admitted Anything or Suffered Any Negative Consequences



Although the company paid a fine and entered into the corporate integrity agreement, apparently no individuals, be they physicians or company managers, paid any sort of penalty.


Like many other settlements we discussed, the company paid out a lot of money but denied it did so because it did anything wrong. Ed Silverman wrote on the PharmaLot blog

In a statement, DaVita says it is 'pleased to announce a civil resolution' and that 'patient care was never an issue, nor were billing or payment practices… We are proud of our commitment to compliance over our 15-year history.'

'We have worked incredibly hard to get things right and it is our belief there was no intentional wrongdoing. We believe this settlement is the right thing to do for our teammates, partners and shareholders. It allows us to move forward with heightened clarity and transparency, both with regulators and our physician partners.'

Why it was good for shareholders and "teammates and partners," presumably meaning employees to pay so much money in the absence of "intentional wrongdoing," when the money would likely come out of stock value and employees' salaries,  was not explained.  Why patient care was "not an issue" when the allegations were that patients were steered to dialysis providers because of financial inducements given to doctors, not due to any consideration of patients' needs and welfare also was not explained.

Furthermore, the whistleblower who triggered the lawsuit suggested there was wrongdoing.  Again, per Ed SIlverman on PharmaLot,

In a July 2009 e-mail cited in the whistleblower lawsuit, which was also filed in federal court in Colorado, one DaVita executive asks for suggestions on how to ensure the financial models used to value transactions pass internal standards. Another executive replies 'You mean gaming the model, right?' To which the first exec writes, 'I do.'

'I think there was a pretty wide understanding that what was going on was questionable at best,' David Barbetta, the former DaVita senior financial analyst, tells us. He says he worked at DaVita from March 2007 until August 2009, when he resigned after being disturbed by several joint venture transactions.

Barbetta, who is now an independent technology consultant, says he mentioned concerns to DaVita managers, but was ignored. 'I did raise this with someone who was a vice president, but he just said not give him any of that ethics nonsense,' he tells us. 'He was a vp and I was an analyst, so I pretty much looked at him and didn’t really push the issue any further.'

Another Denver Post article put it even more vividly,

 One vice president warned Barbetta not to 'give me any of that ethics crap,' court documents state.

And, in internal company e-mails Barbetta provided to the government, top DaVita officials boasted of 'gaming' valuation models. Barbetta also told prosecutors that another DaVita manager once explained to him the deals were used to funnel 'a bag of money' to physicians. Those doctors, in exchange, steered dialysis patients to DaVita.

Why there was no further investigation of these executives, and those to whom they reported, was also not explained.  

Just the Latest Settlement

The few media reports of this settlement suggested that this was not DaVita's first settlement.

The 2000 and 2004 Gambro Inc Settlements

The current DOJ release noted that DaVita

had previously been in a joint venture arrangement involving dialysis clinics with Gambro, Inc., a dialysis company acquired by DaVita in 2005. Prior to the acquisition, Gambro had entered into a settlement with the United States to resolve alleged kickback allegations that, among other things, required Gambro to unwind its joint venture agreements.

Actually, Gambro Inc, which became part of DaVita in 2005, had made two similar settlements.  According to a 2004 Department of Justice news release,

In 2000, Gambro Healthcare and its subsidiary, Gambro Healthcare Laboratory Services, agreed to pay $40 million to settle allegations of healthcare fraud. Gambro and another subsidiary, Dialysis Holdings Laboratory Services, Inc. (DHLSI), have agreed to pay more than $13.1 million to settle similar allegations. 

However, in 2004, a much bigger Gambro settlement was announced,

Gambro Healthcare will pay more than $350 million in criminal fines and civil penalties to settle allegations of healthcare fraud in the Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs,...

Aspects of this settlement were eerily similar to those of the latest DaVita settlement,

As part of this comprehensive global resolution, Gambro Supply Corporation, a sham durable medical equipment company and a wholly owned subsidiary of Gambro Healthcare, admitted to the execution of a healthcare fraud scheme and agreed to plead guilty to criminal felony charges, pay a $25 million fine and be permanently excluded from the Medicare program.

Gambro Healthcare will also pay in excess of $310 million to resolve civil liabilities stemming from alleged kickbacks paid to physicians, false statements made to procure payment for unnecessary tests and services, and payments made to Gambro Supply. The settlement also requires Gambro to allocate an additional $15 million to resolve potential liability for the conduct resolved under the federal agreement pursuant to a preliminary understanding reached with representatives of various state Medicaid programs. Gambro Healthcare has also entered into a comprehensive Corporate Integrity Agreement.

Note that this older settlement actually involved admissions of wrongdoing, fraud, and a guilty plea by a subsidiary to federal felonies.  . 

The 2005 Settlement of Allegations of Illegal Anti Competitive Aspects of DaVita's Gambro Acquisition

DaVita's proposed acquisition of the criminal Gambro also provoked allegations by the US Federal Trade Commission of illegal anti competitive activities. In a 2005 FTC news release,

According to the Commission’s complaint, DaVita’s proposed acquisition of Gambro would be anticompetitive and in violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act and Section 7 of the Clayton Act, as amended. DaVita and Gambro account for a significant proportion of the dialysis clinics and treatment stations in many local areas in the United States, and the acquisition, if consummated, would lessen competition for outpatient dialysis services in 35 markets nationwide.

The 2012 DaVita Epogen Settlement

The 2014 Denver Post article included this offhand reference,

The company settled another whistle-blower lawsuit in 2012 and agreed to pay $55 million for other fraud claims. In that case, a former employee of Epogen-maker Amgen alleged the company overused the anemia drug.

The 2012 Denver Post article to which it referred stated,

Kidney dialysis giant DaVita Inc. has settled a whistleblower lawsuit for the first time, agreeing to pay $55 million over allegations of drug overuse while denying any wrongdoing.

Denver-based DaVita settled fraud claims in a Texas lawsuit challenging the dialysis chain's past use of Epogen, an anemia drug whose high cost and dangers helped change how the government pays for kidney care.

Note that this case suggested actions that could have hurt patients,

 The Texas whistleblower lawsuit accused DaVita of using more Epogen than was medically necessary,...

Epogen is not without serious adverse effects, as noted above, and overdosing multiple patients with it made it likely that some were harmed.

Further, while

DaVita said it was the first time it was settling a claim over federal anti-fraud laws, but noted the government had declined to join the whistleblower' s lawsuit.

Only two years later DaVita had to settle more federal claims, this time due to a suit that the federal government had certainly joined.  And as noted above, a company which DaVita was about to acquire as a subsidiary had admitted to fraud and pleaded guilty to federal charges apparently involving fraud just before the acquisition. 

Finally, just as in 2014, in 2012 DaVita denied responsibility,

'DaVita and its affiliated physicians did nothing wrong and stand by their anemia management practices, which were always consistent with their mission of providing the best possible care for each patient,' a company statement said.

Summary

The latest settlement by DaVita was of allegations that the company gave kickbacks to physicians to get them to refer patients to DaVita facilities, regardless of the patients' best interests.  The company paid about $400 million and signed a corporate integrity agreement, but no individual who authorized, directed, or implemented the provision of kickbacks was identified, or paid any penalties.  This settlement turns out to have been only the latest settlement by DaVita or companies it acquired.  Previous settlements involved penalties of $53 million, $350 million, and $55 million (totaling more than three-quarters of a billion dollars from 2004 to 2014.  Previous settlements were for kickbacks and fraud.  One included a guilty plea to a felony.  Previous settlements involved alleged and sometimes admitted behavior that likely put patients at risk.   One earlier settlement also included a corporate integrity agreement.  However, no settlement imposed any negative consequences on any individual who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad, and sometimes criminal behavior.

The DaVita Statement of Mission and Core Values includes

Integrity
We say what we believe, and we do what we say. We are trusted because we are trustworthy. In our personal, team, and organizational values, we strive for alignment in what we say and do.

and

Accountability
We don’t say, 'It’s not my fault,' or 'It’s not my job.' We take responsibility for meeting our commitments — our personal ones as well as those of the entire organization. We take ownership of the results.

Despite the fact that the above settlements made a mockery of these lofty values, the company managers who presided over the behavior that lead to them prospered mightily during this time period.  The company' 2014 proxy statement showed the current CEO and board chairman Kent J Thiry received $17,099,257 in total compensation in 2013.  The five next best paid executives received collectively about $22 million.  Note that Mr Thiry as been CEO since 1999, and thus all the above settlements and most of the behavior that led to them occurred on his watch.

So the march of legal settlements continues in step with the same old song.  Big health care organizations preach their lofty missions and values, pay their top managers millions, and in some cases turn them into billionaires, while the organizations are accruing amazing records of bad and sometimes criminal corporate behavior.  The legal settlements only provide hints as to this behavior, but nearly every time, the management need not admit nor deny wrongdoing while merrily going on to collect their next huge paycheck which was justified by the corporate financial performance in part generated by the bad behavior.

Leadership that cares not for honesty, transparency, or accountability, and that puts short term revenue, and usually personal enrichment ahead of patients' and the public's health may be the single most important reason that US health care is so dysfunctional.  Yet hardly anyone even dares discuss the damning facts about health care leadership, much less propose solutions.  If we do not reform our health care leadership so that it is transparent, honest, accountable, unconflicted, and it puts patients' and the public's health over personal enrichment, our health care system will continue to founder.