Global Fund Will Not Suppress Discussion of Health Care Corruption

Some good news to discuss, for a change....

We previously discussed losses from corruption reported by the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and by the Health Alliance International here.  At the time, we noted that some experts in health care corruption praised the Global Fund for being transparent about the effects of corruption.

However, last week there was concern that some elements within the Global Fund thought that the best response to losses due to corruption would be hiding them.  As reported by the AP (via CBS): 

A global health fund championed by celebrities and world leaders is considering scaling back its groundbreaking philosophy of full transparency about how it spends billions of dollars in health care in poor countries. Its decision could have broad consequences for the ways international aid groups operate.

Revelations this year by The Associated Press about misspent funds and corruption among recipients of the money � and the donor backlash that has followed � have prompted leaders of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria to propose scaling back on the investigations that uncovered the problems, and revealing less about them to donors and the public.

But hardly everyone within Fund leadership wanted to abandon transparency:

The Global Fund's internal watchdog fiercely opposes the proposed changes. In its latest progress report, obtained by the AP, Inspector General John Parsons warns the board that a move toward less transparency 'could be interpreted negatively and as a purposeful effort to suppress material information.'

Also,

The president of the board, Ethiopian Health Minister Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, opposes any changes.


'Even the mere appearance of suppression of information is unacceptable. Scaling back, or the perception that we are retreating from, this commitment is something we simply cannot allow,' Tedros said. If anything, he added, 'we should increase our level of transparency.'

Now, it looks like the transparency advocates won, at least in part. As again reported by the AP (via CBS):

A multibillion-dollar fund that fights three killer diseases said Friday that it will make public more detailed information about money it has lost to corruption and mismanagement, but won't release other information critics have sought.

The board of the $22 billion Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria met this week to address a backlash among major donors over revelations by The Associated Press that the fund's internal watchdog was turning up losses of tens of millions of dollars of grant money.

Board members decided to publish detailed accounting of losses and money recovered, the fund said, in an effort to distinguish between fraud and other problems such as poor accounting.

However,

The fund will not, however, provide other details from internal investigations and audits that might have made it possible to calculate how much of the money investigated is lost to corruption, or what percentage of the fund's overall disbursements are misspent.

Also,

The fund also is not making public an internal chart obtained by AP showing that in 12 nations where internal audits and investigations reviewed almost $576 million in spending, an average of 8 percent was lost to fraud, undocumented or unauthorized spending.

Still, it is very good news that transparency won out in this case. Maybe the Global Fund leaders' decision will encourage more discussion of the severity of global health care corruption and its negative effects.

On the other hand, it is bad news that even discussion of health care corruption remains controversial. In 2006, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries."  As we summarized here, the report discussed the scale and diversity of health care corruption, and the severity of its adverse effects.  Yet the very subject of global health care corruption remains as anechoic as many of the specific topics we discuss on Health Care Renewal.

Also, as we have noted before, recently here, there are very few if any meetings about global health care corruption, very few courses on it in medical or public health schools, no institutions specifically designed to address it, and no programs at the foundations and NGOs which are losing money to global health corruption to combat it.  Similarly, there are few efforts to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty, and ethics in health care (aside from this blog and a few other similarly informal initiatives.) 

What is wrong with that picture?

We hope that the willingness of the Global Fund to discuss and admit it has a problem with health care corruption will make health care corruption a little less anechoic, and lead us closer to concrete steps to address it.

PS - If anyone in our vast audience does know about any additional anti-corruption or conflict of interest, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics initiatives, courses, meetings relevant to health care, please let me know and I will do my best to disseminate the information.

[Posted on Health Care Renewal by Roy M. Poses MD]

The Institute of Medicine Releases Reports on Practice Guidelines and Systematic Reviews Which Generate Few Echoes

Two days ago, the prestigious US Institute of Medicine released two reports on important health care issues, clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews.  Systematic reviews of the relevant clinical research have been advocated by evidence-based medicine proponents as the appropriate basis for clinical and policy decisions.  Clinical practice guidelines have been advocated by many health researchers, policy makers, and clinicians as the best way to encapsulate the evidence to inform clinical and policy decision making.  Both reports suggested series of standards for how systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines should be developed. 

These topics are of general importance to clinicians, health services researchers, and health policy makers.  The Institute of Medicine, part of the US National Academy of Sciences, is one of the most authoritative sources of opinion on medicine and health care.  Therefore, one would think that these reports would have gotten wide notice, and would hardly required Health Care Renewal to create some echoes.

However, a Google News search today produced only six "hits" relevant to these reports, including the original press release.  All are in specialized medical/ health care news outlets.  None are in the national media, and none are from major medical/ professional journals or societies. 

Let me suggest a theory about why these two major reports have generated so few echoes so far.  Let me quote from the summary of the report on clinical practice guidelines:

Most guidelines used today suffer from shortcomings in development. Dubious trust in guidelines is the result of many factors, including failure to represent a variety of disciplines in guideline development groups, lack of transparency in how recommendations are derived and rated, and omission of a thorough external review process. To be trustworthy, clinical practice guidelines should:
� Be based on a systematic review of the existing evidence;
� Be developed by a knowledgeable, multidisciplinary panel of experts and representatives from key affected groups;
� Consider important patient subgroups and patient preferences, as appropriate;
� Be based on an explicit and transparent process that minimizes distortions, biases, and conflicts of interest;
� Provide a clear explanation of the logical relationships between alternative care options and health outcomes, and provide ratings of both the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations; and
� Be reconsidered and revised as appropriate when important new evidence warrants modifications of recommendations.
Additionally, as reflected in the committee�s standards for developing trustworthy clinical practice guidelines, guideline development groups optimally comprise members without conflict of interest. The committee recognizes that in some circumstances, a guideline development group may not be able to perform its work without members who have conflicts of interest�for example, relevant clinical specialists who receive a substantial portion of their incomes from services pertinent to the guideline. Therefore, the committee specifies that members of the guideline development group who have a conflict of interest should not represent more than a minority of the group.

So it seems that the report on clinical practice guidelines emphasized two issues highly relevant to Health Care Renewal, the need for transparency in guideline development, and the need to avoid conflicts of interest affecting the development process. The two first standards for guidelines are about transparency and minimization of conflicts of interest.  Similarly, the report on systematic reviews also included fairly tough standards to minimize conflicts of interest.

We on Health Care Renewal go on and on about the need to maximize transparency in health care, and particularly in health care leadership and governance, and about the need to disassemble the now pervasive web of conflicts of interest that has entangled health care.  However, as we know, these are not popular topics among the leadership of health care, which includes many individuals who have greatly benefited from lack of transparency and pervasive conflicts of interest.  We know these topics make these leaders, and many of those who report to, or work or associate with them very uncomfortable.

So unfortunately, I am not surprised that the two new and likely authoritative reports from the Institute of Medicine, despite that organization's prestige, have started off relatively anechoic.  It also unfortunately likely that they will remain relatively anechoic. 

In 2009, the IOM issued an authoritative report on conflicts of interest in medicine and health care which suggested fairly tough standards to decrease such conflicts and their influence (also see post here).  Since 2009, I just found 53 citations to that report in the medical literature using the ISI Web of Science, for a rate of 27/year.  In 1999, the IOM issued a report on medical errors, "To Err is Human."  Since then, it has received 1374 citations, a rate of 115/year. 

As we noted above, the topic of conflicts of interest seems to make the powers that be in health care very uncomfortable.  In contrast, "To Err is Human" was widely interpreted to mean that physicians make a lot of dangerous errors, and the best way to decrease them is to impose more controls by bureaucrats, managers, and executives (even if that was not its intent).  Thus, that report could be twisted to fit the talking points of the powers that be, and hence has been anything but anechoic.

So while Health Care Renewal is hardly a powerful tool for creating publicity, I thought we should try to get the word out about the new IOM reports on clinical practice guidelines and systematic reviews.  Every little bit helps.

Meanwhile, the deathly quiet reception these reports have gotten so far emphasizes the need to combat the anechoic effect.  As long as the powers that be can command billions of dollars to influence the health care conversation through their marketing, public relations, and lobbying departments, expect the discussion not to question what they do, and how they benefit from the status quo to the financial and health detriment of patients and the population.

We will not be able to truly reform health care until we can speak openly about what threatens health care values and what needs to be done about these threats.

A New Venue From a Surprising Source to Discuss "External Threats to Good Decision-Making"

A new blog, entitled the Medical Professionalism Blog, signed on last week with a post emphasizing some themes that should be familiar to Health Care Renewal readers:

There is an increasing focus on the sustainability of the U.S. health care system based on current cost trends. Predictions are for the health care system to consume 19% of the GDP by 2019. How did we get here?

Some point to the overuse and misuse of health care services, inefficiencies and lack of care coordination. Others blame the lack of clinical evidence, primary care workforce and the external threats to good decision-making, such as a toxic payment system and the influence of pharmaceutical and device companies.

While there are many different ideas about what got us here and what should be done, there is wide consensus that physicians and other stakeholders must begin to develop new more effective and efficient systems of care and make wise choices that preserve our health care system�s sustainability.

We have been underlining concerns that health care professionals' values, the mission of academic medicine, and truly evidence-based practice are under a series of threats.  (For a recent, but already out of date list of threats to the academic medical mission, see this post.)  It is nice to see that that others are now alarmed by these threats and looking for ways to counter them.

So, our new colleague in the blog-sphere raised the following questions:

* What is the appropriate role of physicians and other stakeholders in preserving these resources?

* What behaviors foster and which threaten wise choices in medical decision-making?

* How can waste be removed from the system without sacrificing quality or safety?

* What system changes are needed to achieve better health care outcomes, reduce costs and improve the patient experience?

* What effect do the nature and performance of partnerships � clinician-patient, clinician-organization and clinician-society � have on professional behaviors and resource use?

Again, the importance of threats was emphasized, and concerns about conflicts of interest affecting physicians' professionals were implied. This blog will apparently have a unique focus which I hope will complement our approach on Health Care Renewal.

What we�re hearing from folks is the need to 'show me how' to answer these questions. Through analysis of promising practices, we hope to provide examples of what works � and what doesn�t.

So we welcome The Medical Professionalism Blog to our blog-roll and look forward to some interesting content.

For a final twist, I need to note that this blog's authorship appears to be unique. The Health Care Renewal bloggers, and most of our blogging friends mostly seem to include, in no particular order: academic physicians, often tenured or retired (and thus able to speak more freely), other generally senior or retired academics, independent or retired practicing physicians, journalists, independent consultants, some whistle-blowers and others who once worked in the health care establishment, and some very anonymous bloggers in the belly of the beast.  Thus, we are generally an very independent and iconoclastic, if a somewhat rag-tag lot.

However, the chief blogger on The Medical Professionalism Blog is Daniel Wolfson, who is Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer of the ABIM (American Board of Internal Medicine) Foundation,  and the blog itself is a project of the foundation.  Thus, this is a blog from the heart of the medical establishment, the powers that be, etc, etc.  No other blog on our blog-roll comes from a current leader of such an organization.  (One is written by someone who was a CEO of a major academic medical center/ hospital system, but who lost his job under controversial circumstances.)

It is truly refreshing to have a voice coming from the inside, so to speak, proclaim:

The Medical Professionalism Blog was created by the ABIM Foundation to stimulate conversation and highlight best practices related to professionalism....

Furthermore,

Open for considerable debate is my belief that physicians� engagement in quality, safety and the management of health care resources ultimately improves the care they give their patients and adds to their joy of work. I look forward to hearing your point of view, even if it�s a dissenting one.

Lately, we have not heard a lot of calls for vigorous debate and dissent from the medical establishment, the powers that be, etc, etc. In fact, the anechoic effect is how we describe how such debate and dissent has been suppressed.

So it appears the The Medical Professionalism Blog may be a real breath of fresh air. We hope it can truly inspire some discussion, especially open discussion of issues which used to be not what one was supposed to talk about in polite health care company.  This could help advance the transparency which we have long been advocating.

"You Can't Say That" - Non-Disparagement Clauses and the Anechoic Effect

Here is another example of why health care organizations' leaders are different from you and me, and why that may not be a good thing for health care.  A few days ago, the San Jose (California) Mercury News reported on the upcoming departure of a local hospital CEO:

El Camino Hospital's handsomely-paid president and CEO Kenneth Graham is out of a job, the hospital announced Thursday afternoon.

Graham's contract will end June 30 'without cause, at the request of the hospital's Board of Directors,' according to a statement released to the media.

Until then, Graham will continue to fulfill his duties as the hospital's top administrator, according to the statement. Graham has been president and CEO of the hospital for 4� years.

The brief statement did not explain why Graham has been ousted, focusing instead on his accomplishments. Graham earns an annual base salary of $632,640.

Not only was the CEO "handsomely paid," he will be handsomely paid to depart, as reported two days later by the same newspaper:

Former El Camino Hospital president and CEO Ken Graham may be out of a job, but he won't be hurting for a paycheck anytime soon.

Fired 'without cause' by the hospital's board of directors on Wednesday, Graham is now entitled to nearly $1 million in severance pay, according to his contract, which the hospital provided to The Daily News on Friday.

Specifically, the hospital will pay Graham a lump sum of 18 months' salary when he officially steps down June 30. Based on his annual salary of $632,640, he would receive $948,960.

The reporter could not get any clearer fix on the reason for his departure:

Hospital officials Friday were tight-lipped about their decision to drop Graham. Reached by phone, board Chairman Wesley Alles would only say it was 'without cause.'

'I guess as a generic (explanation) the only thing I can say is it's without cause, that (the board wants to take) some different directions, perhaps, as a generic (explanation),' Alles said.

El Camino Hospital spokeswoman Chris Ernst said she couldn't say more than what was written in a statement released to the media Thursday, which simply stated Graham's contract was ended 'without cause, at the request of the hospital's Board of Directors.'

'I know everyone wants to know if there's something really there, but it was clearly without cause,' Ernst said. 'It's not like you can point to one particular thing and say this is why this action was taken.'

Now wasn't that informative? It appears the CEO was let go "without cause." But reporter Diana Samuels did uncover why nobody was saying anything meaningful about this lucrative departure:

The contract also includes a 'non-disparagement' clause, which says the hospital and Graham cannot make any statements about each other that could cause 'any embarrassment or humiliation or otherwise reflect negatively on the other party(ies).'

I discussed the subject of executive contracts with one of our Health Care Renewal scouts who knows about such things. For high level executives in business, seemingly tidy severance packages are the rule.  We have discussed the problem with excess executive compensation in health care here.

Furthermore, various confidentiality, non-compete, and non-disparagement clauses are often common.

However, whether or not these are common practices in the larger business world, these contract provisions, especially non-disparagement clauses, pose problems in health care.  As we have discussed, there are lots of good reasons that the governance and leadership of health care ought to be maximally transparent.

Just to provide one example, consider the problem of medical errors, a subject which has received unending discussion since the report by Institute of Medicine entitled "To Err is Human."  One widely espoused doctrine about medical error prevention is that such errors ought to be disclosed and discussed openly so that their root causes can be found, and methods to prevent them developed.  Now suppose, for example, that the CEO of a hospital had discovered some medical errors, but made himself unpopular by pursuing them.  Were he to have a bilateral non-disparagement clause in his contract, and were this unpopularity to cause him to lose his job, he could say nothing about these errors, possibly allowing them to recur, but more seriously.  Of course, the example could be turned on its head.  Suppose the CEO had introduced a new process that was thought to be the cause of such errors.  Were he to lose his job because of this, hospital officials could say nothing about the problem, etc, etc.  Similarly, other problems at the hospital either discovered by the CEO or possibly caused by the CEO could remain anechoic due to non-disparagement clauses in hospital executives' contracts.

Of course, in the current case, the CEO might have left due to simple personality differences, and his departure might have nothing to do with medical errors, etc, etc.

However, this case suggests that the sort of non-disparagement clauses that may appear in contracts for executives in various type of businesses have metastasized to contracts for hospital executives.  These clauses, and their cousins, confidentiality clauses and non-compete clauses, may be major reasons for the anechoic effect, and the general lack of transparency of hospital leadership and governance. 

However, up to now, such clauses seem to be, you guessed it, anechoic in discussions of health care policy and health care reform. 

Thus, one step to true health care reform would be for there to be some open discussion of the reasons we cannot openly discuss many important issues in health care, particularly the likely increasing use of contractual clauses such as non-disparagement clauses.  Likely an even more important step would be discrediting such contractual provisions that reduce transparency.

A Source of the Anechoic Effect Discovered: the Public Relations Person in the Room

A series of posts in journalism blogs last month revealed a mechanism used by health care organizational leaders to shape discussion of the issues that affect their interests, but one that is probably unfamiliar to most health care professionals and the public at large.  Let me provide the key quotes in chronological order.

First, from the Covering Health blog of the Association for Health Care Journalism (10 June, 2010):

Have you recently tried to get information from the federal government or arrange an interview with a federal official?

AHCJ�s Right-to-Know Committee is calling on journalists to report their experiences, as part of a continuing effort to pry open the doors of the federal government. We�re looking for recent anecdotes about journalists� experiences with public information officers, especially at the Department of Health and Human Services and any of the agencies that are part of it (e.g., CDC, FDA, CMS etc.).

Please write to Felice J. Freyer, Right-to-Know Committee chair, at felice.freyer@cox.net, about problems you have encountered, including mandates to clear interviews with the press office, slow responses, refused interviews, burdensome requirements (such as written questions and answers only), extreme time limitations on interviews, PIOs listening in on your conversations, or anything else that made it hard for you to get the information and quotes that you needed in time.

The implication here, of course, is that the committee was concerned that journalists attempting to interview employees and officials of US government health agencies may encounter a variety of problems, including public information officers "listening in on your conversation."

Of course, just because the committee was concerned about a possible problem does not mean the problem exists, or is if it exists, is important.

However, a week later this post appeared in the Covering Health blog (17 June, 2010):

MedPage Today, an online breaking-news service for physicians, today instituted a rule requiring reporters to inform readers whenever a press officer has listened in on an interview.

'If a source�s comments are monitored by a press officer, then the person may not have been speaking freely,' said Peggy Peck, vice president and executive editor. 'That�s information readers should have.'

Peck instructed her staff to use phrases like 'said in a telephone interview that was monitored by a public information officer' whenever using quotes from such an interview.

Peck emphasized that a reporter�s goal should be to avoid having a press officer listening to calls or attending face-to-face interviews. 'But if that is the only way a researcher will talk, we need to let our readers know that,' said Peck�s memo to eight reporters.

Peck is a member of AHCJ�s Right-to-Know Committee, and the rule sprang from the committee�s work to end interference by public information officers in newsgathering, especially in the federal government.

'I applaud MedPage Today for taking this step and encourage reporters and editors everywhere to follow suit,' said Felice J. Freyer, chair of the Right-to-Know Committee and a member of AHCJ�s Board of Directors.

'Reporters have come to accept the presence of public relations people at interviews, but it�s really not acceptable. We all know that such eavesdropping hinders the free flow of information � and we need to let our readers know that this is happening.'

Now this is much more clear. Apparently some, maybe most of the information obtained by journalists from interviews of officials and employees of government health care agencies was monitored by public relations people, presumably to keep the interviewees "on message," and remind them not to say anything that did not fit the party line.  Furthermore, such monitoring was not often disclosed by the reports when they wrote about the interview. 

In addition, Paul Raeburn posted this on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker blog:

I�ve long been troubled by the insistence of some 'public' information officers (they are paid to work for their institutions, not the public, although the interests of the two can sometimes coincide) to listen in or sit in on interviews. Even if they don�t say a word, their presence inevitably changes the interview.

Imagine telling colleagues about the last story you wrote, and what you had to do to get it. Now imagine the same conversation with your colleagues while your editor�on whom your livelihood depends�listens in. I don�t imagine myself dissembling in either set of circumstances, but I can certainly imagine myself telling the story a little differently in each case.

The point is not that information officers are always trying to limit or shape the interview, although that clearly happens. The point is not to challenge the integrity of information officers, although, like reporters, some are better at what they do than are others. The point is that the presence of an institutional representative changes the interview. And we owe it to out readers to conduct interviews without that presence whenever possible.

Mr Raeburn seemed to make an effort to be exquisitely polite, but still managed to affirm that the public relations person in the room is a real and important phenomenon in reporting about health care.
This reinforces the notion that monitoring of interviews with journalists by public relations people is common practice, but one heretofore not discussed publicly.  It seems obvious that the point of this practice was to keep the interviewee on message, and to restrain any discussion that might not fit with the public relations persons' bosses interests.

If we did not know about the practice of keeping a public relations person in the room for interviews with people working for the government, it seems likely that we also did not know about similar practices affecting interviews with people in other kinds of health care organizations, e.g., for-profit corporations, and not-for-profit organizations.

We have frequently discussed the "anechoic effect," how important cases, stories, and data about the negative effects of concentration and abuse of power in health care, and about ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt leadership of health care organizations, and the unaccountable, unrepresentative, opaque, and often unethical governance that enables it are often just not discussed, and when discussed, produce few echoes.  Now we see another mechanism that maintains this effect.  Large health care organizations deploy substantial money and personnel to market their products and massage their messages.  These people apparently use a variety of tactics to control the flow of information to journalists.  While journalists seem to be provide much more information about the problems in health care we discuss on Health Care Renewal than professional and academic publications and meetings, we now see one more mechanism that has impeded them from doing so openly and fully.

In my humble opinion, disclosing that interviews were monitored by public relations personnel is one small, but important step in beginning free enquiry into what has gone wrong with health care.  Bravo to the people who have stood up for it. 

At UPMC: Dealings with Board Members' Firms and Executives' Relatives, a $5 Million Plus CEO, and 8 $1 Million Plus Executives

Last year we noted that the US Internal Revenue Service (IRS) required more detailed reporting starting in 2009 by US not-for-profit organizations.  Many US health insurance companies/ managed care organizations, most hospitals, nearly all medical associations, nearly all disease advocacy organizations, all health care charities, and nearly all medical schools are not-for-profit organizations.  We suggested then that this reporting might lead to more transparency about the leadership and governance of these organizations.  Some of these new 990 forms are now being publicly disclosed, with some interesting findings. 

The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review just reported some interesting findings about financial ties between the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) and its board members and hired executives.

Health giant UPMC paid more than $10 million last year to companies and individuals with ties to its directors and high-ranking executives, newly released tax records show.

The payments include more than $3 million in salaries and contracts to relatives of UPMC CEO Jeffrey Romoff, who earned $5.16 million in fiscal 2009.

It was no surprise that a UPMC spokesman pooh-poohed the significance of these relationships.

'Given that UPMC is the largest employer in Pittsburgh and attracts talent from across the world, it's easy to understand why there are hundreds of employees with family members who also work at UPMC,' said spokesman Paul Wood.

'We seek to hire the best and brightest in every position, regardless of family relationships, and take appropriate steps to manage any conflicts that those relationships might entail.'

The specifics about payments to the relatives of top hired executives were:

Tax records show UPMC paid $264,274 to Rebecca Kaul, the CEO's daughter. Wood said UPMC then billed a contractor for her services. Kaul now works for UPMC as executive director of the Technology Development Center, Wood said.

UPMC paid $259,488 to Scott Gilstrap, who joined the health care giant before marrying Romoff's daughter. Gilstrap, now divorced, no longer works for UPMC, Wood said.

Wood said UPMC's contract for $2.48 million with Paradise Group, an advertising firm owned by the CEO's brother, Douglas Romoff, was not renewed after its March 2009 expiration.

'Jeffrey Romoff was not involved in any of the decisions pertaining to this contract,' Wood said.

In addition to Romoff's family connections, the tax records show UPMC paid Scott Cindrich, son of its chief counsel Robert J. Cindrich, $141,599.

Wood said the younger Cindrich joined UPMC before his father left a federal judgeship in 2004 to become UPMC's top lawyer. Robert Cindrich was paid $1.86 million.

Cindrich did not return telephone calls seeking comment.

The specifics about dealings between UPMC and its board members were:

Tax records show companies affiliated with board member Anne V. Lewis do the most business with UPMC. Oxford Development Company, where Lewis is board chair, received $4.84 million from UPMC.

Lewis is affiliated with Central Securities Services, which received $201,198 from UPMC, and Central Property Services, which received $457,051. Lewis did not return repeated telephone calls from the Tribune-Review.

According to the returns, the Downtown law firm of Pietragallo Gordon Alfano Bosick and Raspanti earned $348,616 in legal fees. William Pietragallo is a UPMC board member. The law firm paid $792,215 to UPMC for heath insurance.

Pietragallo said he filled out a conflict-of-interest form, as he has in past years.

'It reminds me of how much I pay for health insurance,' he said.

IGate Mastech, the tech company founded by UPMC board member Sunil Wadhwani, received $204,215 for computer services. JJ Gumberg and Co., affiliated with board member Ira Gumberg, was paid $103,521, tax records show. Neither Wadhwani nor Gumberg returned telephone calls.

Board member John R. McGinley Jr.'s law firm, Eckert Seamans Cherin and Mellott, was paid $804,414 for legal services, according to the returns. McGinley and board member Robert A. Paul and members of their families are affiliated with Pittsburgh Steelers Premium Tickets LP, which was paid $129,425, tax returns show.

McGinley said he believed the figures UMPC reported are correct. Paul did not return telephone calls.

Also, in a separate article, the Tribune-Review noted transactions between UPMC's insurance subsidiary and its board members' firms

Recent federal tax filings show companies associated with some UPMC board members also buy their employee health insurance through the health care giant's insurance arm.

The tax returns show that health insurance premiums paid by the companies affiliated with board members totaled about $8 million in the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009. Nine firms affiliated with board members purchased UPMC health insurance.

That figure includes nearly $1.8 million by Bank of New York Mellon. UPMC board member Stephen Elliott is affiliated with the bank.

Oxford Development paid $2.1 million in premiums. The development firm's chairman is Anne Lewis, a UPMC board member.

The law firm headed by UPMC board member William Pietragallo paid $792,215 in premiums, according to the returns. AMPCO-Pittsburgh, which is affiliated with UPMC board member Robert A. Paul, paid a little more than $1 million in premiums.

Of course, Mr Wood pooh-poohed that too:

UPMC spokesman Paul Wood said the premiums paid by the companies were at "market rates."

He also apparently stated that the hospital system follows "strict conflict-of-interest rules. Board members are barred from voting or acting on matters relating to their business interests...." 

The standard approach of most not-for-profit organizations to conflicts of interests involving their board members or executives is to have these people recuse themselves from votes or actions that directly affect their own or their families' business interests.  I submit that whether this prevents the conflict of interest from influencing decision making by the organizations is questionable.  I doubt that the board members are unaware of their fellow members' and executives' direct or familial business interests.  The fact that certain individuals need to step out of meetings when votes come up on particular contracts would be a good reminder that they or their relatives have business interests at issue at these times.  Board members tend to keep their seats for a long time, and tend to get to know their fellow members pretty well.  Even if an individual member cannot vote on a contract or action relating to his or her business interests, would it be any surprise that his or her buddies on the board might look favorably on such a contract?

Furthermore, would it really be that hard to find development companies, property management firms, advertising agencies, law firms, or information technology companies in a large metropolitan area that are not affiliated with board members or top executives and their families?  Instead, UPMC seems to have found quite a few vendors affiliated with board members which do not seem particularly specialized in their organizational attributes.  Can we be sure that they are run by the best and the brightest?

Maybe board members who are too cozy with each other, and too cozy with the hired executives they are supposed to supervise, would be distracted from the attentiveness required to their organization's mission by their buddies' businesses? 

Perhaps coziness among board members and hired executives might have something to do with the munificent compensation given to numerous hired leaders of UPMC.  A separate article in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette stated:

Jeffrey Romoff, president and CEO of the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center, received $3.563 million in salary in 2009, a 24.4 percent decrease from his 2008 salary of $4.711 million.

However,

In addition to Mr. Romoff's $4.711 million in cash compensation in 2008, he received $428,214 in deferred compensation and $21,671 in nontaxable benefits, for a total package valued at $5.161 million.

In addition,

Other top UPMC earners include Elizabeth Concordia, executive vice president and president of the Hospital and Community Services Division, $2.139 million; Amin Kassam, the department of neurological surgery chair who resigned in July, $2.083 million; Robert Cindrich, senior vice president and chief legal officer, $1.869 million; neurosurgeon Ghassan Beijani, $1.798 million; neurosurgeon Adnan Abla, $1.620 million.

Also, Marshall Webster, executive vice president and chief medical officer, $1.514 million; Diane Holder, president and CEO of UPMC Health Plan, $1.485 million; James Luketich, co-director of surgical affairs at the University of Pittsburgh Cancer Institute, $1.442 million; Daniel Drawbaugh, senior vice president and chief information officer, $1.335 million; and David Farner, senior vice president and chief of staff in the office of the president, $1.253 million.

By my count, that was eight executives with yearly total compensation greater than $1 million (in addition to two very well paid neurosurgeons.)  These payments, which most people would say are sufficient to make their recipients rich, were handed out by a not-for-profit organization whose mission statement includes being "committed to providing premier health care services to our region and contributing to this community" at the end of a bog of business-speak.  I suspect most people would think "contributing to this community" means something in addition to contributing to the wealth of a few top executives, and contributing to the business income of board members and executives' relatives.  Again, are board members who have become cozy with each other and the executives they are supposed to supervise more likely to be distracted from their fiduciary duty to the not-for-profit organization by their buddies' friendships?

We often discuss conflicts of interest on this blog.  Many of these involve financial relationships among health care professionals and academics on one hand, and pharmaceutical, biotechnology, device and other health care corporations on the other.  However, I suspect that conflicts involving leadership of hospitals and local businesses and vendors may be more common.  The latter may not always have as much influence on the quality of care, teaching and research as former group of conflicts.  However, they may have more effects on the total costs of health care, and may contribute more to the coziness, sense of entitlement, and inattention to the mission that seem to characterize much of health care leadership.  They may contribute to the perception that health care, like finance, may now be about , as Prof Mintzberg said, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit."

The new version of the IRS forms are just beginning to become public, so we expect to see many more juicy stories about the financial and family ties of leaders of health care not-for-profit organizations.  Watch your local newspapers for details about conflicts of interest at your local health care not-for-profit organizations.

Maybe as more is revealed, the need for more transparent, accountable, and ethical governance of health care organizations will become apparent.

Who Guards the Guardians? - the Case of Boston Scientific

The fallout from the case of the faulty implantable cardiac defibrillators continues.  To summarize the story thus far,

We started posting about Boston Scientific's travails in 2005, starting with allegations that Guidant, which is now a Boston Scientific subsidiary, hid information about defects in the implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) the company manufactured. As we noted in early 2005 here, Guidant executives allegedly knew that ICDs made from 2000-2002 were at risk for short-circuiting and failing, thus making them unable to deliver potentially life saving electrical shocks meant to prevent cardiac arrests, but the company only revealed the problem in 2005. By failing to notify physicians and the public, Guidant executives let expensive and profitable, but potentially useless devices to continue to be implanted, potentially increasing the risk of sudden death for the patients who received them. Then here we noted reports that Guidant continued to ship failure-prone devices even after it had designed and started to manufacture new ICDs that were supposed to be less likely to fail. By June, 2005 we posted that Guidant had recalled thousands of ICDs, including models that were previously not identified as likely to fail. Later that year, the case rated an article by Robert Steinbrook in the New England Journal of Medicine. Towards the end of 2005, we noted that Eliot Spitzer had sued Guidant for fraud.  At the end of the year, more information appeared, suggesting that Guidant knew the ICDs were flawed, but continued to sell them. Still more appeared early in 2006. Then the business media became interested in the bidding war between Johnson and Johnson and Boston Scientific for Guidant, provoking a bit more interest in the tale of the suppression of data about the flawed ICDs.

Then all was quiet until 2009, when Guidant, now a Boston Scientific subsidiary, pleaded guilty to two criminal misdemeanor charges that it failed to properly notify the FDA about problems with its ICDs (see post here). Later, the Guidant subsidiary of Boston Scientific settled charges that it gave doctors kickbacks as part of a "seeding study" to use its devices. At that time, it came to light that Boston Scientific had made another settlement, in 2007, of civil lawsuits alleging that the company hid problems with its products (see post here).

More details about this guilty plea have just been reported.  As noted by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

A federal judge on Monday delayed a decision on whether to accept a $296 million plea agreement between the U.S. Justice Department and Boston Scientific Corp.'s Guidant subsidiary, which was charged with concealing critical safety information involving some of its top-selling heart devices.

If approved, the criminal penalty would rank as the largest ever in medical technology for a company that violated the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. But lawyers representing victims implanted with the potentially faulty devices threw a wrench into what was expected to be a routine hearing by demanding a piece of the settlement.

It appears that this settlement would not do any specific good for patients who claim to have been harmed by being implanted with a device that the manufacturer knew at the time to be faulty.

Also, the Star-Tribune noted:

Boston Scientific bought Guidant Corp., whose cardiac rhythm division is based in Arden Hills, for $27 billion in 2006. Though troubled, the division that makes pacemakers and defibrillators reported $2.6 billion in sales last year and still employs 2,000 people locally.

Thus, the financial penalty to be paid by Boston Scientific only would amount to little over ten percent of the yearly sales generated by the division which failed to disclose the faulty devices.

Adding to the sense that Boston Scientific and its leadership will feel little pain from the "largest criminal penalty ever assessed against a medical device company" (see this AP report) was this op-ed in the Boston Globe. It summarized just how richly the former CEO of Boston Scientific, Jim Tobin, who presided over the acquisition of Guidant and thus became responsible for its ethical lapses, and the current CEO, Ray Elliott have been compensated, in contrast to this supposedly large penalty. Re Tobin:

Tobin came to Boston Scientific in 1999 with similar instructions to clean up somebody else�s mess. He had to close facilities, ward off competitors, and, yes, settle patent lawsuits even back then. His carrot: A million stock options, a big deal in those days.

Tobin did fix some problems, and he brought the company�s new drug-eluting stent to market. Boston Scientific shares climbed, and he made about $39 million on options over the years. But Tobin also collected problems, the ones now in Elliott�s lap, and Boston Scientific shares fell again.

So here�s what the board did in February last year: It awarded Tobin 2 million more stock options, just a few months before announcing his retirement.

Adjusting for a stock split, the second option grant is the same size as what he got upon arrival.

And re Elliott:

Elliott, the man named as CEO of Boston Scientific Corp. last summer, became one of the best-paid chief executives in America in 2009. Separate national surveys published in the past week by The Wall Street Journal and The New York Times, although incomplete, come up with just one or two large-company CEOs with compensation packages that could outdo Elliott�s $33.5 million payday.

And see also this Health Care Renewal post. 

TheBoston Globe editorialist asked "so what exactly was the point of the second award [to Tobin]?"  Perhaps this question should be directed to the Boston Scientific board who approved it, and also approved Elliott's outsize pay package. 

The current board includes two co-founders of the company and the current CEO, two retired politicians, a few others with whom I am not familiar, but also two academics who may be quite familiar to Health Care Renewal readers. 

Recalling that Boston Scientific tried to plead guilty to charges of "making false statements ... to the FDA," and "failing to promptly notify regulators," it is striking that both these academics have had issues with transparency and free speech.  We just posted about the repeated failure of Prof Uwe Reinhardt to acknowledge the conflict of interests generated by his numerous memberships in the boards of health care companies, including Boston Scientific, when writing about health policy issues.  We have previously posted about the the conflicts of Marye Anne Fox, the Chancellor of the University of California - San Diego and hence leader of its medical school and academic medical center.  Chancellor Fox has just been criticized by FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) for allowing the silencing of a student publication and television station which had published or broadcast opinions that apparently offended university leaders.

So who in this sorry tale will stand up for quality care of patients?  The US Department of Justice is to be commended for pursuing deception by a large medical device company, but apparently could not bring itself to request a punishment for unethical practices likely to even inconvenience those responsible for the bad behavior.  The previous and current company CEOs have become quite rich without having to stand up for honesty, or patient safety.  The board of directors who are supposed to take responsibility for the overall direction of the company seem to have been happy just to go along.

As I have said before, endlessly, we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences.  Relatively small fines imposed on large corporations pain workers on the line and stockholders while sparing the richly paid top hired management and the boards that will not reign them in. 

Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich. 

More Doubts About Private Equity Taking Over Not-for-Profit Hospital Systems

Last week, we posted about how buy-outs of not-for-profit hospital systems by private equity firms seemed to be a new fashion in health care.  Since then, new doubts have been raised about whether this is a good idea.

Detroit Medical Center, Vanguard Health, and the Blackstone Group

Letters to the Detroit Free Press raised concerns,

As a nonprofit corporation, DMC's mission is to provide quality health care to the community. Management is accountable to Detroit area citizens and health care consumers, not to profit-motivated investors.

As a private, for-profit corporation, its mission will be to provide profit for its shareholders. Management will be accountable to shareholders and will be rewarded in relation to the rate of return on their investments.

Also, the Free Press reported that a coalition of local not-for-profit organizations challenged the legality of the proposed sale,

The sale of the Detroit Medical Center to a for-profit Nashville company violates state law and raises issues about whether poor patients who depend on the DMC will be assured of care for years to come, three nonprofit Michigan organizations said today.

Marjorie Mitchell, executive director of Michigan Universal Health Care Network, said the organizations e-mailed today a three-page list of concerns about the sale to Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox.

Mitchell testified briefly today at the Detroit City Council about the issue and distributed the letter. The two other nonprofit organizations signing the letter were Metropolitan Organizing Strategy Enabling Strength, or Moses, an organization of community and religious leaders active on health issues, and Michigan Legal Services, a Detroit legal aid organization. The three groups called themselves the Coalition to Protect Detroit Health Care.

Citing a provision in state law, the letter said Michigan law is clear that nonprofit companies should not 'permit assets � to be used, conveyed or distributed for non-charitable purposes.'

'The mission of a for-profit is to serve the stockholders,' the letter to Cox said. The letter said it is the opinion of the three groups that the purchase by Vanguard of the DMC 'violates Michigan�s nonprofit corporation statute.'

The three organizations asked Cox to hold public meetings to answer questions about the impact of the proposed sale on the health of Detroiters, particularly uninsured people.

The groups also have questions about how the DMC�s $140-million charitable assets will be used as well as concerns that use of state Renaissance Zone money would benefit a for-profit company.

Caritas Christi Health Care and Cerberus Capital Management

Boston Globe news articles noted that Cerberus failed recently not only in its management of Chrysler, but of GMAC (now also bailed out by the US government), its management is secretive even for the opaque world of private equity, and it has no experience running "large medical systems." 
 
A letter by Dr Arnold Relman, distinguished former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, warned,

Cerberus promises to keep the present hospital management, add much money beyond the purchase price toward the operation and improvement of the hospitals, maintain charity support, and not sell the system � for three years. After that, who knows? Cerberus follows its own interests, and it will take money out of the community, not contribute to it.

As a close observer of the for-profit hospital industry ever since its beginnings, I predict that Cerberus will sell to another business sooner or later, and the initial promises will be forgotten. That�s what happened at Framingham�s MetroWest Hospital.

Control over the kinds of medical services provided by the hospital would be lost. Unprofitable services such as pediatrics, obstetrics, and outpatient psychiatry would disappear. Business-owned hospitals will resist major reforms to control medical costs or reorganize a community�s medical services in the public interest.

Caritas Christi ran an advertisement in local papers that referred to Cerberus as its new "financial sponsor," suggesting that the company was going to give a still not-for-profit health care system a grant, quite different from what was really proposed, which was that Cerberus would become the owner of a formerly not for-profit health care system, thus rendering it into a privately held, for-profit system.  One wonders why the public relations people thought they needed to spin the deal thus.

Finally, the Boston Globe profiled current Caritas Christi CEO Dr Ralph de la Torre, who apparently negotiated a deal that would leave him "as chief executive of Caritas, while also putting him in charge of acquiring other hospitals for Cerberus." But the article raised questions about what sort of leader he would be. It characterized him as transformed "from doctor to dealmaker," who now "stands to win a much bigger payout." Worse, it suggested that winning, as evidenced by making more money than anyone else, rather than access to quality patient care, is his prime motivation.

He used to say, �It�s not about the money, but that�s one way people keep score.�

In addition, Dr De la Torre has now so transformed into a CEO that "he let his medical license lapse."

Summary

Let me note some people think that the notion that how much money one makes should be considered a "score," and that he who dies with the most money wins, was one of the central reasons for the global financial collapse. For example, Nancy Rapoport suggested some New Year's resolutions for corporate boards (in 2008!), including:

I will remind myself and my colleagues that the level of CEO compensation is not an indicator of the company�s performance and that the arms race towards excessively high executive compensation is not a winnable race. At the point when money becomes just a way of keeping score, compensation is probably too high.

Earlier in 2007, Michael Kinsley wrote presciently in Time about,

a development in the larger economy. For most people, the point of money is that you can buy things with it. But at the top, where people already can buy whatever they want, the purpose of money is keeping score: making sure that you don't slip down in the Forbes 400 list.

So, putting someone who believes that he must always make more money in order to keep "winning" in charge of a large health care system does not seem to be a recipe for better patient care or more access, but rather for ever-increasing executive compensation while making money becomes the overwhelming priority for the organization, completely eclipsing such quaint concepts as quality of care, reasonable costs, or adequate access.

Recent history has not shown that for-profit hospitals deliver cheaper, better, or more accessible care than not-for-profit institutions. While their presence has influenced not-for-profit hospitals to behave more like for-profit institutions, costs have risen inexorably while quality and access decline.  

Moreover, for-profit hospitals run by private equity (as opposed to publicly traded corporations) would likely to be even more opaque than they were when they were not-for-profit. Increasing opacity of health care would likely worsen, not improve our current problems.

Deals that turn not-for-profit hospital systems into privately held for-profit systems ought to be scrutinized ith extreme skepticism. The questions raised above about the currently proposed deals ought to be addressed, In addition, I would suggest that all such deals should be conditioned on a requirement that the taken-over hospitals, and their parent private equity companies have to disclose at least as much as both public for-profit health care corporations and not-for-profit health care organizations are required to disclose, e.g., their ownership, the make-up of their boards of directors, the compensation, in detail, of their most highly paid officers, employees, and board members, all conflicts of interest affecting their leaders, etc. By the way, maybe such disclosure should be required of all health care organizations above some reasonable minimum size. If private equity companies are unwilling to make such disclosures, maybe they should not be allowed to run health care organizations.

The Price is What?

Many in the US believe that a free market in health care is a good idea.  Some actually assert that the US health care system amounts to a free market. 

More evidence against that assertion was provided this week by an article in our local paper, the Providence Journal, by Felice Freyer. For the first time ever, the Rhode Island state health insurance commissioner published a report comparing what insurers pay different hospitals for the same services:

If you had surgery at Kent Hospital, your insurer would pay Kent significantly more than if you had the exact same procedure at South County Hospital �� even if the same doctor did the work.

On average, Kent is getting paid nearly twice as much as South County for inpatient care, according to a new report from the health insurance commissioner that is causing a stir across the state�s health-care industry.

It is well-known that hospitals get paid different amounts for the same services. But the report, for the first time, reveals the winners and losers, and quantifies the disparities �� with numbers showing the differences to be greater than many people thought.

The factor determining which hospitals are paid the highest rates, according to the report, is whether the hospital is part of a group. Such hospital systems have the clout to negotiate higher prices than independent hospitals.

'We�ve never had this kind of data [before],' said Christopher F. Koller, state health insurance commissioner. 'The results and analysis show that higher payments to hospitals are associated with system affiliation, and the current contracting method does not appear to encourage the fair treatment of providers.' There is no evidence connecting higher pay to higher quality, he said.

What is striking is the reason why such a comparison has never appeared up to now:

Koller�s report shines a flashlight beam into the murky world of hospital finance. Hospitals negotiate privately with insurers to establish how much they will be paid for each service. These talks are largely unregulated, and always private, so that no hospital knows exactly what its neighbor is being paid. All are forbidden by contract to reveal their rates.

Koller collected data from Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island and UnitedHealthcare of New England concerning payments to 11 acute-care hospitals in 2008. He is the first public official to obtain this confidential information, saying he was entitled to it because a 2004 law requires him to promote the affordability of health care and ensure the fair treatment of providers.

Thus, the prices of commonly used medical services provided by hospitals were largely secret.

On obvious requirement for the function of a free market is price transparency. When making a purchasing decision, one needs to know what prices different sellers charge.

In a recent commentary in the Wall Street Journal, Alan S Blinder, a Princeton economics professor, and former Vice Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board, described the basic requirements of a free market:

When economists first heard [movie character Gordon] Gekko's now-famous dictum, 'Greed is good,' they thought it a crude expression of Adam Smith's 'Invisible Hand' � which is one of history's great ideas. But in Smith's vision, greed is socially beneficial only when properly harnessed and channeled. The necessary conditions include, among other things: appropriate incentives (for risk taking, etc.), effective competition, safeguards against exploitation of what economists call 'asymmetric information' (as when a deceitful seller unloads junk on an unsuspecting buyer), regulators to enforce the rules and keep participants honest, and�when relevant�protection of taxpayers against pilferage or malfeasance by others. When these conditions fail to hold, greed is not good.

Clearly, one cannot have appropriate incentives when prices are secret. Secret prices are also a glaring example of "asymmetric information." (Hospitals know what different insurance companies pay them for specific services, but not what the companies pay other hospitals for those services. Insurance companies know what they pay to different hospitals for the same services, but not what other companies pay. Patients, physicians, policy-makers and the public heretofore had no idea what any hospital was paid by any insurance company.)

The question begged is why neither hospitals nor health insurance companies wanted to make the prices public. One wonders if it were fears of looking incompetent (by paying to much, or charging to little), or worse, of revealing collusion. One also wonders if it were fears of revealing how anti-competitive is the current way of doing business.  At the time of data collection, Rhode Island had only two health insurers.  As noted above, large hospital networks got the highest prices.  Price differences did not obviously relate to quality of care, or costs of teaching programs. 

Note that we previously discussed secret agreements between a dominant health care insurance company and the largest hospital system in our northern neighbor, Massachusetts, and how these agreements resulted in payments to that system far greater than those paid to any other hospital.  I suspect that secret deals resulting in wide pricing discrepancies are the rule, rather than the exception in the US, and that such deals overwhelmingly favor the largest organizations, but not the best care. 

As we have been saying repeatedly since we started Health Care Renewal, the leadership of the large organizations that now dominate health care lacks accountability and transparency, and often fails to exhibit integrity and honesty.  Deliberately concealing price information obviously is an example of failing to be accountable and transparent. 

Now that the events have conspired to slow the US health care reform juggernaut, maybe we can reconsider whether meaningful health care reform can be accomplished without improving accountability, integrity, transparency and honesty of health care oganizations and their leaders.

Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology (ONC): A One Man Show?

Generally, transparency in government means that the public it serves knows who that government is.

Yet the "Office of the National Coordinator: Key Personnel" page at HHS shows only this, the name of the Coordinator himself, Dr. David Blumenthal:

Only one person works at ONC? click to enlarge

What about the others as per the Org Chart?

ONC Org Chart (click to enlarge)

In the case of the Office of the National Coordinator for Healthcare IT, there are a number of possibilities for this apparent informational lapse:

• There is only one person working in this office;

• Only one person is considered "Key Personnel";

• This office, responsible for the national program for health IT and Electronic Medical Records in the U.S. that will "revolutionize" healthcare through better record keeping, has been careless in updating its Electronic Personnel Records;
  

• The names are buried somewhere not easy to find, or the identities of the personnel are being entirely withheld from the public to prevent the public from knowing who they are and what their past and present affiliations might be.

Why might that be an issue? Pro-IT industry conflicts of interest, qualifications, and anti-physician biases come to mind as just a few possibilities.

Where's the transparency?

Just asking.

-- SS