Covert's Anechoic Misadventures

We have frequently discussed how health care leaders' compensation seems to reflect the opposite of the pay for performance they often tout.  One example we discussed recently turns out to be even more vivid than we first discovered.

Last week we discussed the case of Mr Michael Cover, the CEO of the small, public Palomar Pomerado Health system in southern California, whose total compensation increased to over $1 mllion a year, while his hospital system was cited for severe, life-threatening medical errors.  The current and previous system board chairmen called his work "excellent, and " phenomenal," and asserted Mr Covert was "one of the nation's leading health administrators."

It turns out that a local weekly newspaper, the Community Paper, investigated Mr Covert's background in 2008, and what they found was not exactly the story of one of the nation's leading health administrators.  Let us summarize his record over 25 or so years.

1980s - Failure to Investigate the Michael Swango Case

As reported by the Community Paper:

Michael J Swango had received a surgical internship at Ohio State University in 1983. Nurses began noticing that apparently healthy patients on floors where Swango worked began dying mysteriously with an alarming frequency. One nurse caught him injecting some 'medicine' into a patient who later became strangely ill. The nurses reported their concerns to the administrators, headed by Michael Covert, but were met with accusations of paranoia. Only a perfunctory investigation was conducted.

In response to the board's inquiries, Surgery Director Dr. Larry Carey expressed misgivings about Swango, citing run-ins with hospital personnel and, specifically, the episode with several patients who became ill after treatment by Swango, one of whom died (and for whom Swango would later plead guilty to having killed).

At no time did Mike Covert, as executive director of the Ohio State University Hospital system, call in either University Police or Columbus, Ohio Police to investigate the matter, even though patients of Dr. Swango had died, even though documented observations and evidence had been submitted to the proper internal authorities.

Later, after Swango had been arrested in Illinois, the Ohio authorities got involved, however:

'It was only then,' says Dick Harp, Lead Investigator for the Ohio State University police department on the Michael Swango case, 'when the Quincy, Illinois, police department called us and told us they had this guy who had been a doctor at Ohio State and he had poisoned some people, that we got involved.' Harp said he contacted the Ohio State Hospital University staff and there appeared to be a collective effort to resist the investigation. They were not terribly cooperative, he said.

Eventually,

The Columbus Dispatch, Columbus, Ohio’s, daily newspaper, reported in a June 1985 article that as a result of the controversial fallout caused by this failure to notify police authorities, a new hospital policy was implemented. This, following an internal report concerning the allegations against Swango as well as a highly critical internal report against Dr. Swango.

Swango was convicted of aggravated battery for attempting to poison co-workers in Illinois, and in 2000 pleaded guilty to killing three patients, and is in jail for life.

In retrospect, Covert's resistance to investigating complaints about Swango does not seem to have exemplified excellent leadership.

The 1990s - Jury Findings of Illegal Revocation of Privileges

Mr Covert then moved to Kansas, and then to Sarasota, Florida to become CEO of Sarasota Memorial Hospital.

The Community Paper noted that Mr Covert and the Hospital lost a multi-million dollar lawsuit that alleged the they had illegally revoked a physicians' hospital privileges:

Dr. Flynn and his attorneys alleged, and proved, that Michael Henri Covert, president and CEO of Sarasota’s Memorial Hospital, and the Sarasota County Public Hospital Board, doing business as Sarasota Memorial Hospital, unlawfully and without just cause, revoked or terminated the medical privileges of a doctor at the hospital who specialized in pain management, and that they did so because the doctor had earlier (in 1994) filed and pursued a federal lawsuit. Secondly, the jury also found that the Hospital Board had additionally executed the revocation and termination of medical privileges for other than the filing of the federal lawsuit. Under Section II of the jury verdict they also found that the Sarasota County Public Hospital had terminated or revoked the doctor’s privileges as as a result of the doctor having exercised his freedom of speech rights.

Called to the witness stand, Michael Covert was clearly and thoroughly impeached by Plaintiff’s attorney, Tony Leon.

Impeachment is a lawyer’s fancy word that simply means the witness and his veracity is questioned. The witness is accused of not being honest in his actions and statements. Based on his testimony while being impeached, the jury then made their judgment, ruling against Michael R. Covert and the Sarasota Memorial Hospital, finding the Defendant had violated 28 U.S.C., Section 1983 (depriving the plaintiff of his constitutional rights of free speech) and the Plaintiff was entitled to damages.

The Community Paper story also alleged that Sarasota Memorial lost millions of dollars through an ill-advised subsidiary set up by Mr Covert to buy physicians practices.

Losing the trial and losing the money again hardly seem to be the mark of an outstanding leader.

21st Century - Alleged Misrepresentations to Secure Government Funding

Mr Covert became CEO of Palomar Pomerado in 2003. In 2007, the Community Paper reported:

Mike Covert, the president and CEO of the Palomar Pomerado Health District, was quite active in promoting Proposition BB which would deliver $496 million dollars to the district to aid in building a new hospital. It suggested further that Mr. Covert was so active that he and his minions may have, in fact, made substantial misrepresentations in order to persuade the electorate to pass the bond issue. We also documented how the cost overruns had run up to $1.2 billion dollars (from an original projected cost of $753 million). This figure was later trimmed back to $990 million. Further, the downtown business community was concerned that a major promise that was made about importing the administrative staff to the existing downtown Palomar Hospital campus might not be kept. If that promise was broken then downtown Escondido might well become a ghost town.

That story lead the paper to inquire further.  Further, misrepresentations are not the mark of an excellent leader.

2008 - Alleged Dictatorial Management Style

Reporters found:

Talking with medical staff, newspaper reporters from Columbus, Ohio, and Sarasota, Florida, and with medical staff here in North San Diego County, a picture of an energetic, eager, impatient, egotistical, demanding, and often angry chief executive emerges. It was interesting that a parallel term was used by medical staff in Sarasota and in Escondido to describe Mr. Covert’s management style. 'He’s a Little Hitler,' was the common expression used by both medical communities.

According to several medical staffers at Sarasota Memorial Hospital, Covert was not well liked, was described as manipulative and that he would do anything to get his way. Former board member Catherine Bowles, who had been at odds with the board and Covert testified at Dr. Flynn’s trial that 'people who complained about patient care were not warmly received by a majority of the board.' Nor, it is said, by Mr. Covert.

A number of others who know him, both within the medical community as well as within the Escondido community at large, agree that he is a highly egotistical man. He has to have things done his way. He is very good at playing politics and is also very good at playing hardball with contracted medical service suppliers.

Yet another doctor gave a somewhat contrasting view: 'He’s affable on one hand . . . a very good salesman; in front of a group he’s almost evangelical in his passion . . he almost bowls you over. Makes me kinda question someone who has so much zeal like . . 'I’m right.''

'Like all CEO’s, he’s very egotistical. He wants to have total control over everything, including the doctors.'

It is said he wields departmental administrative assignments as a tool and dangles the financial remuneration of them, ranging from as little as $10,000 to as much as $150,000 a year, as an incentive to fall in step with his wishes.

A number of doctors who practice at the Escondido campus of Palomar Medical Center confided to us, off the record, that they feared Covert.

One doctor complained, 'Covert is trying to take over as dictator of the hospital. There is supposed to be a separation between the hospital, the medical staff and the administrator. If you have the administrator making all the decisions then all decisions are made on money issues rather than what is best for the patient or the patient population. This poses a threat to the medical population and harms the quality of medical care. Covert is simply Hitler reborn.'

Another doctor agreed, saying, 'At most hospital districts, administrators don't normally show up at Medical Executive Meetings unless invited . . . but here, administrators are present at closed meetings. They should not be privy to private medical meetings/discussions and they tend to dominate the meetings.'

Again, a "brilliant" leader who is manipulative, rebukes criticism, and dictatorial?

2008 - Contrasting Praise from the Board

While the physicians questioned his management style, just as we noted this year, the then board chairman was effusive:

You and your readers need to know that Covert is one of the most highly regarded executives in the industry. He has received a number of very prestigious awards. Some of them puts him in the company of surgeon generals, such as C. Everett Koop. He has held high executive and board membership in national organizations.

At that time, the board chairman claimed that when Mr Covert was hired, after having been recommended by a national search firm, none of the issues noted above had come to light. 

2008 - The Temporary End of the Story

The Community Paper story ended on a disquieting note, suggesting that even the extensive results of their investigation recounted above were not complete, and that there might be grounds for a criminal investigation:

There are many other comments from physicians, other leads to follow in pursuit of the rest of this story. However, we, as a weekly newspaper, have neither the time nor resources to explore the labyrinthine depths of hospital administration committees, subcommittes, advisory councils, etc. Side financial agreements, whether or not their are 'kickback' arrangements within the hospital structure. That additional research and reporting would be better left to someone who has the resources, such as a Grand Jury.

I could find nothing to suggest any further investigation ensued. There appears to have been no local reaction to the Community Paper story. As we noted above, instead Mr Covert got a raise, and is currently getting over $1 million a year in total compensation.

Summary

A more complete look at the record of one CEO of one small, public hospital system suggests even more discrepancies between his ever increasing remuneration, justified by ongoing effusive support by his board, and a record that at best suggests multiple questionable management decisions and multiple bad results.

Note that even though considerable information was available on the public record that should have lead to questions about his leadership, this information remained relatively anechoic, and the questions were not repeated.  We have found that very few have been willing to question or investigate the powers that be in health care, and that direct or implied concerns about how health care is lead tend to be anechoic.

This case demonstrates the sorts of problems in health care governance and leadership that we started Health Care Renewal to discuss. Perverse incentives and poor oversight seem to encourage leadership by the wrong people, hired for the wrong reasons, to do the wrong thing.

There is again an ongoing discussion in the US about the costs of health care. Bad leadership of health care organizations is not only directly costly, but leads to huge indirect costs as the results of bad, if not sometimes corrupt decisions. As Matthew Holt pointed out in a comment on our earlier post on Palomar Pomerado, it is not that the case above is an outlier. It is likely just a better documented version of what is going on throughout health care.

Yet outside of a few lonely bloggers, not many people talk about bad leadership and bad governance as fundamental, major causes of our ongoing health care crisis.

We say again, true health care reform will require having health care leadership and governance that displays accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty.  But first, we have to be willing to openly discuss bad, that is unaccountable, opaque, dishonest, and corrupt leadership. 

Hat tip to our own Health Care Renewal blogger Dr Scot Silverstein for finding the 2008 Community Paper story (see his comment here).

"Running Away from the Problem" of Health Care Corruption

Despite its likely importance, the very concept of health care corruption remains highly anechoic. 

Last week's Lancet, however, actually mentioned it, albeit indirectly and ironically.(1)  The context was Richard Horton's discussion of a press conference on the final report of the UN Secretary-General's Commission on Information and Accountability for Women's and Children's Health. It appears that accountability, which we consistently advocate, was central to the report:

The big conclusion is that a huge accountability gap exists - we have incredibly weak mechanisms to make sure that the billions spent on women's and children's health are delivering the results we expect.

The report listed "ten commandments of women's and children's health, [which] aim to fill that accountability gap."

While the press conference went on, something unusual happened, as Richard Horton discussed somewhat ironically:

In truth, meetings such as these may not always produce the most exciting moments in the history of health (but this one did). Yet they can produce episodes of raw undiplomatic honesty which make the long waits and dull protocol worthwhile. [Secretary General of the International Telecommunication Union Hamadoun] Toure has a reputation for being blunt and outspoken. He surpassed himself last week. At the end of the first day, he suddenly began a riff of denunciation that left us all speechless. 'There is more corruption in the G8 countries than in the whole of Africa,' he declared with conviction. 'We are just running away from the problem.'

There you have it, one of the few mentions of health care corruption in the medical and health care literature, and one of the very few mentions of health care corruption afflicting developed, not just developing countries.

Interestingly, Horton then documented an immediate attempt by some very important people in global health care to paper over the unpleasantness raised by Toure's honest assessment:

President [Jakaya] Kidwete [of Tanzania] and Margaret Chan, WHO's Director-General, did well to pull their colleague back from the brink of professional suicide. 'This is a partnership effort,' affirmed Kikwete. He wanted no one think the generosity of international donors did not count. 'They are critical for development,' he said. Dr Chan stepped in to assert that 'development money works.'

So there you have it again. Stating that health care corruption is an important problem in developed countries is "professional suicide," even for the Secretary General of the International Telecommunications Union.

Yet Dr Horton, was willing to go a little further, maybe risking his own "professional suicide,"

The President and DG are right. But Toure had a point too. And most of us in the room knew it.

We have noted before that health care corruption is the great unmentionable.  The corruption that is mentioned is that afflicting developing countries.  Hardly anyone seems willing to say that health care corruption is just as big a problem in developed countries, including those that provide most of the funding for health care development in the developing countries.  As we see above, we now have an acknowledgement in one of the most influential medical journals that mentioning health care corruption in the developed world is "professional suicide." 

That is the anechoic effect writ large.  Left unsaid is why this is so.  Presumably, the reason is that corruption is wide-spread.  The corrupt have made a lot of money and become very powerful.  So it is very unwise to offend them.  That, of course, just lets corruption flourish, and so health care gets increasingly expensive, inaccessible, and bad for patients and the public.

If we really want to improve health care in our own countries, and to improve global health, we will all have to be as brave as Mr Toure.

See below for a repeat of our previous summary of the issue of health care corruption.

+++

Many people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, 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." 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:

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.

On this blog, our limited resources make us focus mainly on the US, and sometimes other English-speaking countries. Yet we now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of corruption, including numerous allegations of corporate misbehavior ending in legal settlements, and examples of outright fraud, bribery, kickbacks and other crimes. Also, as we have noted before, the US Institute of Medicine has defined conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.

Given that Transparency International's definition of corruption is

abuse of entrusted power for private gain

One can easily argue that in health care, conflicts of interest defined as above create risks of abuse of power by health care professionals influenced by the private gains provided by their secondary interests. On Health Care Renewal, we have provided a massive set of examples of individual and institutional conflicts of interest. There is evidence that about two-thirds of medical academics(2) and academic leaders(3) have significant conflicts of interest. The huge prevalence of conflicts suggests the enormous risk of major corruption.


So what we all should be shocked, shocked about is how little has been done to fight health care corruption, whether in Mozambique or the US.


However, one can find very few significant efforts to discuss, teach about, or research ways to fight corruption, or to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by academic health care institutions. (See this post for how difficult it was to find academic institutions' initiatives to resist conflicts of interest.) One can count the conferences, meetings, symposia, and courses on such topics on one's fingers. When I last looked, I could count only a single course on fighting corruption at any US medical or public health school (at Boston University, by Prof Taryn Vian).


Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.


Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.


Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.


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.


References


1.  Horton R. Offline: ten commandments, G8 corruption, and OBL. Lancet 2011; 377: 1638.  Link here.
2. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. Link here.
3. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. Link here.

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]

Who Is Really "Bullying?" - Academic Leaders and the Stifling of Critics of Conflicts of Interests

Universities, which are supposed to discover and disseminate knowledge, ought to be the foremost defenders of free speech and a free press.  However, in the past decades, university executives have become notorious for trying to control speech that offends their political sensibilities (for numerous examples, see the FIRE - Foundation for Individual Rights in Education web-site.) 

It seems that academic leaders get even more upset when their or their faculties' conflicts of interest are criticized, as demonstrated by updates about two important cases we have discussed.

Columbia University

We recently posted about reactions at the university to revelations in the movie "Inside Job" that the Dean of the Business School and one of its prominent professors failed to disclose pay they received that might have motivated their enthusiastic promotion of economic policies that helped contribute to the Great Recession. 

These reactions occurred six months after the movie came out.  A Columbia Spectator student columnist asked why it took so long:

Why have students waited until April to address the consequences of “Inside Job” when the film was released in October? Why has our reaction been delayed by seven months?

Her postulated answer:

Why should Columbia need an outside documentary to point out its ethical failures?

Embedded in the Spectator news article about the film—published April 15— is a quote from University Senator Liya Yu that offers a frightening answer to our question about the delayed student reaction. 'I think people in the Business School haven’t responded because they are afraid,' Yu was quoted saying. 'If you are the dean of a school, obviously all the students are going to be dependent on you for their careers and futures. It’s hard for them to do anything.' I think this explanation extends to students beyond those currently enrolled in the Business School. In fact, its implications pose a threat to student journalism as a whole. For the first time in history, everything that a student journalist writes during his or her time in college is published on the Internet. This is a good thing for many reasons: It increases readership, allows writers to cross-reference easily, etc. But it also creates a permanent, compromising memory that is available forever to anyone who seeks it.

From the moment the college application process began, we were told that the content of our Facebook profiles could be used against us in admissions. We have learned to censor our traceable online behavior so as not to compromise our professional or educational prospects. Unfortunately, this has led to journalistic over-caution. We fear that anything we say now will be used against us later. And maybe it’s true. After all, not enough time has passed for us to take a careful account of the degree to which students’ first publications can affect their futures. Even editors have advised me to mitigate the strongest claims in my columns for fear of consequences to come. Perhaps they are right. But the most insidious kind of censorship—the hardest to recognize, the hardest to combat—is self-censorship, the persistent imaginative failure that prevents us from even recognizing what we should be writing about.

In the Internet age, bravery in student journalism is not trailing a military unit on the Iraqi front lines. Rather, it is the willingness to address controversial issues as they surface, not once these points of view have become popular. Our brand of fear—which is frankly selfish—censors our thoughts almost unnoticed. Next time, let’s skip the delayed reaction. I for one hope to do better.

So students may fear challenging conflicted faculty or administrators for fear of immediate academic punishment and future harm to career prospects in a society in which criticism of acquisitive leaders is decreasingly tolerated.

University of Minnesota

Earlier this year we posted about the troubling case of the death of an ostensibly voluntary participant in a clinical trial at the University of Minnesota years ago.  A particular concern was whether the money they received from the trial's sponsor influenced faculty and university leaders to overlook problems that might have put patients at risk in a trial whose main goal was marketing, not science.

The case got recent attention in an article by Dr Carl Elliott, a university professor of bioethics, and a letter he signed with other faculty requesting a new university inquiry into the case.  Not only did the university administration rebuff this request, but it now seems to be looking for ways to deter any future criticism of the institution's human research.  As reported in the Chronicle of Higher Education,

At the prompting of the University of Minnesota's general counsel, a committee of the University Senate has taken up the question of how faculty should collectively respond to "factually incorrect attacks" on particular faculty research.

Some faculty members say that direct appeal from the general counsel, Mark B. Rotenberg, is an attempt to quiet some faculty members' criticism of drug trials conducted at the university, including one seven years ago in which a participant, Dan Markingson, committed suicide. Before they took up the general counsel's question at a meeting this month, members of the university's Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee were provided with copies of material related to that case, including a letter sent by eight bioethicists to the Board of Regents last fall, asking it to appoint a panel of outside experts to examine the ethical issues raised by the death.

Committee members discussed with two administrators who attended that meeting, on April 8, whether faculty members have a responsibility to respond to attacks on fellow faculty members, according to minutes from the meeting; failure to do so, one professor said, could be seen as parallel to 'bullying.'

Professor Carl Elliott, who wrote the Mother Jones article that brought the recent unpleasantness of the Markingson case back into the public view, was concerned:

In an interview, Mr. Elliott said the general counsel's actions are troubling. Instead of fostering an open discussion about research practices, Mr. Rotenberg, and by extension the university administration, is attempting to use the faculty senate as a 'stalking horse' for intimidation and punitive action, Mr. Elliott said.

It defies common sense that Dr Elliott, representing only his own intellect and knowledge of ethics, was the "bully" in this case, while Mr Rotenberg, representing the university hierarchy, and the faculty members who ran the trial in which Mr Markingson died were the victims. As University of Minnesota faculty member Karen-Sue Taussig, a medical anthropologist, said per the Bioethics Forum:

I was worried the committee might be being used to intimidate a member of the faculty who was critical of the University. It seemed to me that there was a logical inconsistency in the University counsel's position: he did not provide any evidence that any individual faculty member felt chilled by Carl's work, yet his bringing up the issue clearly posed the threat of chilling Carl's speech. . . . In short, I was concerned about the possibility of an Orwellian attempt to invoke academic freedom in order to chill academic freedom.

By the way, there is also nothing to suggest that Dr Elliott's work was "factually incorrect."  Per the Bioethics Forum:

Philosopher and historian of science Ken Waters, who also attended the second meeting, was just as concerned. 'The University's general council planted a false question, the implicature of which [the committee] seemed to be uncritically accepting (that Carl was advancing factually incorrect claims),' he wrote to me in an e-mail. 'And in planting the question, the counsel was trying to turn the tables and squelch my colleagues' academic freedom by somehow suggesting that they were impinging upon the academic freedom of others.'

In the 1980s and 1990s, university administrators tended to attack speech they felt was hurtful to minorities and women, using speech codes (again as has been amply demonstrated by FIRE). Now they seem most sensitive to speech critical of their own exercise of power, and of the cozy financial relationships that generate conflicts of interest and threaten the academic mission.  Furthermore, now that it has become fashionable to decry "bullying," "anti-bullying" initiatives may become the chief way to quell criticism that make academic leaders uncomfortable.

Summary

At one time, university administrators and favored faculty justified attacks on free enquiry, a crucial part of the academic, by claiming a higher political or social purpose.  Now they seem to be willing to trash the core values of academia to stifle critics of their own actions, especially those involving lucrative conflicts of interest.   Such actions may be a major cause of the anechoic effect.
Increasingly, academic institutuions seem to be run more for the personal benefit of their leaders and their cronies than to discover and disseminate knowledge.  True health care reform would return academic medicine to its fundamental purpose, and return its leadership to those who would uphold the mission rather than fill their pockets.  

Hat tip to Ed Silverman in the PharmaLot blog re the University of Minnesota case.  See also comments by Prof William Gleason in the Periodic Table blog, e.g., here and here, and by Gary Schwitzer in the HealthNewsReview blog.

"The 'Third Rail' that No One Wishes to Analyze" - Conflicts of Interest Affecting Health Care Foundations

On Health Care Renewal we discuss what we think are important issues affecting health care that seem to be rarely mentioned in the medical and health care literature and the "main-stream media."  In particular, we focus on problems in health care leadership and governance, how they threatened the core values of health care professionals, and how these threats contribute to rising costs, and declining access and quality. 

One of our preoccupations has been why these problems remain so anechoic.  A new article in PLoS Medicine [Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Med 8(4): e1001020. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020.  Link here. ] seems to have uncovered another missing link to the anechoic effect. 

Private Foundations and Their Influence on Global Health

The article noted the importance of the influence of private foundations on global health:

While corporate involvement in and government aid for health has been extensively analyzed and critiqued in the public health literature, less attention has been paid to the impact of private donors on public health. Over the past decade, the bulk of new health aid designed to reach the Millennium Development Goals has come from individuals and corporations. The influence of this private philanthropy on global health is profound and transformative.

So,

Private foundations operate outside the typical boundaries of democracy; unlike government ministries, private foundations cannot be influenced in the same way by the communities affected by the foundations' actions. In the interests of public health, and particularly because poor communities affected by foundations do not automatically have a feedback mechanism to influence the decisions of private funders, we argue that it is appropriate to subject private foundations to the same scrutiny received by public institutions.

In this paper, we examine the scope of potential conflicts of interests that exist among the private foundations that are major funders of global health.

I would add that private foundations may have an outsize influence not only on global public health policy, but also on health care policy within particular countries, including the US.   This may arise because of the perception that they are more independent and nearer the cutting edge than are government and industry sources of funding. For example, here in the US, the Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations have been widely perceived by health care, services and policy researchers as especially influential and respectable sources of funding, possibly partially because of the perception that they have less self-serving agendas than do government agencies and for-profit health care corporations.

The Possibility of Conflicts of Interest

The authors noted increasing concern about conflicts of interest affecting the activities of for-profit corporations involved in public health and health care:

because tensions can arise between the profit motives of corporations and the promotion of public health. Whereas corporations make products that can improve health (such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines) and relationships between public health institutions and for-profit corporations can be seen as positive opportunities for corporations to improve public health, corporations also make products that damage health (such as tobacco or unhealthy foods). And because some corporations have a vested interest in the activities of public health bodies, there have been documented attempts to influence the public health agenda by establishing associations with health care institutions

Thus the authors thought it also made sense to address conflicts of interest affecting private foundations operating in the global health space. They performed a case-study of the largest global health foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while also briefly discussing four other large global health foundations, the Ford Foundation, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.

Stock Holdings

The article noted that the Gates Foundation had substantial investments in food and pharmaceutical companies:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's corporate stock endowment is heavily invested in food and pharmaceutical companies, directly and indirectly .... The Foundation holds significant shares in McDonald's (9.4 million shares representing about 5% of the Gates' portfolio), and Coca-Cola (>15 million shares, over 7% of the Foundation's portfolio, not counting Berkshire Hathaway holdings). In 2009 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sold extensive pharmaceutical holdings in Johnson & Johnson (2.5 million shares), Schering-Plough Corporation (14.9 million shares), Eli Lilly and Company (about 1 million shares), Merck & Co. (8.1 million shares), and Wyeth (3.7 million shares).

Also, the Foundation indirectly invests in food and pharmaceutical companies through its holdings of Berkshire Hathaway:

Berkshire Hathaway's largest investment is in Coca-Cola. It owns an additional 8.7% of Coca-Cola (Warren Buffett's firm is the largest shareholder in Coca-Cola, having stock worth >$10 billion dollars) and 6.3% of Kraft (Buffett is also the largest shareholder of Kraft). Berkshire Hathaway also has significant ownership in GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, and Procter & Gamble, and is one of the main global investors in the latter two pharmaceutical companies.

The article also noted that the Ford, Rockefeller, Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had significant holdings in Coca-Cola, Kellogg, PepsiCo, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, McDonalds, Nestle, NovoNordisk, YumBrands, Pizza Hut, KFC, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi-Aventis, and that the Ford Foundation held shares in a tobacco company, Lorillard, and the Kellogg and Rockefeller Foundations "were indirectly invested in tobacco corporations through conglomerate equity funds...."

This admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have financial holdings that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food, pharmaceutical, and even tobacco companies.

Conflicts Affecting Foundation Leadership

The article noted that:

Several of the [Gates] Foundation's members of the management committee, leadership teams, affiliates, and major funders are currently or were previously members of the boards or executive branches of several major food and pharmaceutical companies ... including Coca-Cola, Merck, Novartis, General Mills, Kraft, and Unilever....

In addition,

Further overlaps between Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation leadership, other private foundations, and circular flows of personnel with food and pharmaceutical companies were observed .... Such patterns of interlinked board directorships, common among corporations and nonprofit organizations, were similarly found in the other private foundations studied.

Examples provided in an appendix were:

Anne Fudge, the chairman of the Gates Foundation’s US Program Advisory Panel is also on the board of directors of Rockefeller Foundation (in addition to General Electric, Novartis, Unilever, and Harvard University, among others).

Furthermore,

Members of personnel also move between the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. For example, in April 2010, a former Merck senior vice president, Richard Henriques, became the chief financial officer of the Gates Foundation. At least two other members of the Gates Foundation leadership have transferred from the leadership of GlaxoSmithKline to sit on the Foundation’s board of directors, including Kate James, the chief communications officer, and Tachi Yamada, until February 2011, the head of the Foundation’s global health program. Similar patterns were observed with the other foundations studied.

Again, this admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have leaders who have financial relationships that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food and pharmaceutical companies.

Program Initiatives Possibly Related to Conflicts

The article asserted:

The bulk of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's financial transfers in global health have been to programs developing medical technologies....

In particular,

Overall, about 42% of all funding was spent on health care delivery or increasing access to drugs, vaccines, and medical commodities, while an additional one-third was allocated to technology development (mainly for vaccines and microbicides) or basic science research.

Specific programs were related to companies in which the the Gates Foundation or its leaders had financial interests:

The Foundation has established partnerships with the Coca-Cola Company, which, in the words of the Foundation, are intended to 'create new market opportunities for local farmers whose fruit will be used for Coca-Cola's locally-produced and sold fruit juices'.

Also,

many of the Foundation's pharmaceutical development grants may benefit leading pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline....

and

Johnson & Johnson has entered a clinical partnership to develop new HIV-prevention technology, noting 'the work between Johnson & Johnson and the Gates Foundation is a strong, strategic, comprehensive relationship'.

While there are many needs in global health, and many approaches to addressing these needs, this limited case-based data suggested that a strong focus of the Gates Foundation was on approaches that revolve around drugs, devices and biotechnology, again which would tend to favor the vested interests of the pharmaceutical companies which the Foundation holds in its investment portfolio and with which some of its leaders have or had financial relationships.

Discussion

While the data from this case-study were limited, they do suggest that major private foundations that support global health, and by extension, health care, services, and policy research may have institutional conflicts of interest, and their leaders may have personal conflicts of interest. It is possible that these conflicts have steered global health policy to favor vested interests, particularly towards approaches that depend on drugs and devices, perhaps instead of more effective ones using less technology.

Furthermore, it is possible that that these conflicts of interest have helped create the anechoic effect.  Conflicts of interest could have pushed the foundations in directions that favored specific vested interests, and away from others that may threaten such interests.  Many of the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal may threaten such interests.  Private health foundations have been notably uninterested in addressing how problems in leadership and governance of health care organizations can threaten core values, They have been particularly uninterested in addressing specific tactics used when leadership is ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt, e.g., deceptive practices used to promote products and services, and promote policies favorable to vested interests, including, of course, deliberate creation of conflicts of interest (such as the cultivation of key opinion leaders).

In fact, a particular version of the anechoic effect surrounds the private foundations themselves, as described by Stuckler et al:

Although the philanthropic activities of wealthy individuals and corporations have attracted controversy in the past (Text S1), their charitable mission often means that they face less scrutiny than governments; critical analysis of foundations can be seen as 'biting the hand that feeds us.' As a result, within the global health community, private donors are sometimes viewed as the 'third rail' that no one wishes to analyze.

We have often commented on the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest in health care. Now we see them affecting even the most respected private health care foundations which were previously regarded as independent. The web of conflicts of interest may benefit those personally involved, but to the detriment of patients' and the public's health. Unfortunately, as the web has gotten more complex, it stifles awareness of the problem by the unconflicted, much less their ability to respond.

At a minimum, I urge that private health care foundations fully disclose their institutional conflicts of interest, and the conflicts of interest of their leaders. If they wish to maintain their previously sterling reputations, they ought to consider divesting themselves of financial holdings that generate institutional conflicts, and of leaders who have financial relationships that generate personal conflicts.

Hat tip: to Ed Silverman on the PharmaLot blog.

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.

Getting Out of Our RUC - "An Open Letter To Primary Care Physicians"

Since 2007, we have been writing about the secretive RUC (RBRVS Update Committee), the private AMA committee that somehow has managed to get effective control over how Medicare pays physicians.  The RUC has been accused of setting up incentives that strongly favor invasive, high technology procedures while disfavoring primary care and other "cognitive medicine."  Despite the central role of (perverse) incentives in raising health care costs while limiting access and degrading quality, there has been surprisingly little discussion about the pivotal role played by the RUC. 

Now there is a movement afoot to replace the RUC.  In a new post on the Care and Cost blog, and the Replace the RUC site, Paul M. Fischer and Brian Klepper urged four approaches:

1. Make the public aware of the RUC’s role and urge the primary care societies to stop “enabling” the RUC through their participation.
2. Recruit experts who can credibly calculate the economic impacts of the RUC’s actions, and who can devise alternative payment methodologies.
3. Demonstrate the unlawfulness of CMS’ (and HCFA’s) two-decades long reliance on the RUC.
4. Develop a collaboration between primary care and non-health care business.

They are also urging three specific actions:

1. Contact your primary care society to demand that they withdraw from the RUC.
2. Broaden awareness of what we’re doing and why by rebroadcasting to your primary care colleagues.
3. Get in touch to help us with resources, relationships or approaches that can strengthen this project.

They have set up an electronic petition that people can use to urge the three major medical societies that represent primary care physicians to quit the RUC.

On Health Care Renewal, we have been trying to make the systemic problems with with the leadership of health care organizations less anechoic in the hopes that greater realization that these problems exist would lead to actions to solve them. The regulatory capture by the RUC of Medicare's payment setting mechanism is one problem that really cries out for a solution. In 2007, I called for "an unbiased re-evaluation of the components of the RBRVS by people who are dedicated to doing it fairly, not benefiting one group of physicians, or the organizations that benefit from the increased use of procedures"; and "an unbiased investigation of what went awry with the process used by Medicare to determine physician payments."  Your heard it here first on Health Care Renewal.  It is nice to now have such distinguished company. 

I urge our readers to consider the actions urged above. 

True health care reform will require a transparent, honest, fair process for governments to decide on how they will pay for physicians' care and other health care services and goods. 

"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 4½ 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.

After Publicity About Losses from Corruption, Now Will Any Health Charities Start Anti-Corruption Initiatives?

Over the last few weeks a series of stories appeared about how corruption siphons off money from worthy global health initiatives. 

Corruption Depletes Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

The story that first got attention was from AP:

A $21.7 billion development fund backed by celebrities and hailed as an alternative to the bureaucracy of the United Nations sees as much as two-thirds of some grants eaten up by corruption, The Associated Press has learned.

Much of the money is accounted for with forged documents or improper bookkeeping, indicating it was pocketed, investigators for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria say. Donated prescription drugs wind up being sold on the black market.

The fund's newly reinforced inspector general's office, which uncovered the corruption, can't give an overall accounting because it has examined only a tiny fraction of the $10 billion that the fund has spent since its creation in 2002. But the levels of corruption in the grants they have audited so far are astonishing.

A full 67 percent of money spent on an anti-AIDS program in Mauritania was misspent, the investigators told the fund's board of directors. So did 36 percent of the money spent on a program in Mali to fight tuberculosis and malaria, and 30 percent of grants to Djibouti.

In Zambia, where $3.5 million in spending was undocumented and one accountant pilfered $104,130, the fund decided the nation's health ministry simply couldn't manage the grants and put the United Nations in charge of them. The fund is trying to recover $7 million in 'unsupported and ineligible costs' from the ministry.

The fund is pulling or suspending grants from nations where corruption is found, and demanding recipients return millions of dollars of misspent money.

'The messenger is being shot to some extent,' fund spokesman Jon Liden said. 'We would contend that we do not have any corruption problems that are significantly different in scale or nature to any other international financing institution.'

To date, the United States, the European Union and other major donors have pledged $21.7 to the fund, the dominant financier of efforts to fight the three diseases. The fund has been a darling of the power set that will hold the World Economic Forum in the Swiss mountain village of Davos this week.

It was on the sidelines of Davos that rock star Bono launched a new global brand, (Product) Red, which donates a large share of profits to the Global Fund. Other prominent backers include former U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan, French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives $150 million a year.

Corruption Depletes Health Alliance International

At about the same time, the Seattle Times reported fraud losses at another global health project:

Health Alliance International (HAI), which was begun in 1987 by North American doctors and nurses to support the fledgling government in Mozambique, has played a leading role in HIV treatment.

Focused on strengthening health systems of impoverished and fragile nations, it was awarded the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Africa Health Initiative grant, a seven-year $10 million program to help government-run health facilities use data to improve services. The UW departments of Global Health and Industrial Engineering are partners in that project.

All but 7 percent of its funding came from the U.S. government, and more than 90 percent of its work was in Mozambique, according to HAI's 2009 annual report. Gloyd said the alliance increased the number of people receiving antiretroviral drugs from about a couple dozen in 2003 to more than 50,000 this year.

In late 2009, the alliance applied for what would have been its biggest grant ever — $100 million in funding from USAID over the next five years.

Early last year, its application was selected as the best technical proposal. But in the midst of the administrative review in June, a tipster reported problems in an organization employed by HAI.

One such program hired local community organizations in Mozambique for home-based nursing care and delivery of basic medical kits. The alliance did an internal audit and discovered irregularities.

'Their own accounting for those kits was quite inadequate, and that came back to bite us,' Gloyd said.

HAI shared the findings with USAID and put forth a plan to resolve the issues. But at the end of August, USAID rejected the group's grant application.

How Big Is Corruption?
There was actually considerable dispute about the significance of the fraud discovered at the Global Fund. On one hand, the losses were a very large proportion of the grants investigated. On the other hand, the total amounts were a very tiny proportion of the total of the fund's outlays. As summarized by William Savedoff in the Center for Global Development's Global Health Policy blog:

While readers might finish the AP article mistakenly thinking that $14 billion has been stolen (that is, two-thirds of $21.7 billion), it would also be a mistake to read the Global Fund press release and believe that only $34 million is gone.

What we’re missing is a way to assess how representative these cases may be. If the Global Fund’s detection system is 100% effective, then these cases are isolated and it is a tiny problem. If the detection system only picks up 50% of cases, then instead of a tiny problem, we’ve got a small one. But if the detection system only finds 5% of cases then—despite the mistaken deduction from the AP article—we really would have a massive billion-dollar corruption problem.

The Global Fund should be praised, not slammed, for its investigations and for its openness. But, it also needs to be challenged to find a way to estimate how representative these cases may be.

At any case, the Global Fund has promised "new anti-corruption measures," per the AP again.

A $21.7 billion global health fund and the U.N.'s main development arm launched new anti-corruption measures Friday in the wake of intense scrutiny from donors and stories by The Associated Press detailing fraud in their grants.

Chief among The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria's new measures are plans to create a high-profile panel of experts to examine the fund's ability to prevent and detect fraud in its grants.

'Programs supported by the fund have saved seven million lives and are turning back the three disease pandemics around the world,' said the fund's executive director, Dr. Michel Kazatchkine. He said the fund has 'zero tolerance' for fraud and corruption and was 'responding aggressively when instances of fraud or misappropriation are detected.'

That is nice, but I submit these stories are a reminder of how anechoic health care corruption is, and how few and ad hoc are the few efforts made to fight it. Much of the coverage of the corruption affecting the Global Fund had a breathless quality as if the authors were shocked, shocked that there could be corruption in health care.

In fact, many people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, 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."  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:

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.

On this blog, our limited resources make us focus mainly on the US, and sometimes other English-speaking countries. Yet we now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of corruption, including numerous allegations of corporate misbehavior ending in legal settlements, outright fraud, and other crime. Also, as we have noted before, the US Institute of Medicine has defined conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.

Given that Transparency International's definition of corruption is

abuse of entrusted power for private gain

One can easily argue that in health care, conflicts of interest defined as above create risks of abuse of power by health care professionals influenced by the private gains provided by their secondary interests. On Health Care Renewal, we have provided a massive set of examples of individual and institutional conflicts of interest. There is evidence that about two-thirds of medical academics(1) and academic leaders(2) have significant conflicts of interest. The huge prevalence of conflicts suggests the risk of major corruption.

Corruption and Conflicts of Interest as Anechoic

So what we all should be shocked, shocked about is how little has been done to fight health care corruption, whether in Mozambique or the US.

Note that the Gates Foundation is a major donor to the Global Fund. It has a number of disease or condition specific initiatives, and a global health policy and advocacy initiative. But it has no initiative to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or, to put it in positive terms, to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics.

The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation funds Health Alliance International.  It funds medical research, and has a specific focus on African health care research.  However, it also has no initiatives to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or improve accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care.

In fact, one could look in vain for any initiatives about or funding for anti-corruption, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by any major US charity with health care interests.

One can  find very few significant efforts to discuss, teach about, or research ways to fight corruption, or to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by academic health care institutions.  (See this post for how difficult it was to find academic institutions' initiatives to resist conflicts of interest.)  One can count the conferences, meetings, symposia, and courses on such topics on one's fingers. When I last looked, I could count only a single course on fighting corruption at any US medical or public health school ( at Boston University, by Prof Taryn Vian).

Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.

So will the Global Fund's losses to corruption inspire the Gates Foundation or any of its major donors to start an anti-corruption initiative? Or even have an anti-corruption symposium? So will the Health Alliance International's losses so inspire the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation?  Will these cases inspire any foundation, or academic health care organization to do anything to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, and to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care?

I am not holding my breath, but I live in hope.

Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.

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.

References

1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)

2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)