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.

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.

Despite Recalls, Legal Settlements, Guilty Plea, Johonson & Johnson Board Paid CEO $29 Million, Says He "Met Expectations"

For our latest story about the tremendous disconnect between the pay and performance of leaders of health care organizations, we turn to Reuters. 

Astronomical Pay

Despite having a very bad 2010, Johnson and Johnson continued to reward its CEO royally:

After a year in which Johnson & Johnson's product quality control was deemed such a shambles that the U.S. government will oversee some plants, the board had praise for Chief Executive William Weldon and awarded him almost $29 million in overall compensation.

The once golden reputation of the diversified healthcare giant was severely tarnished by seemingly endless recalls of widely used consumer products as well as recalls of medical devices and products from other units in 2010.

U.S. consumer product sales fell by more than 19 percent in 2010 and the company's 2011 forecast for earnings growth of only 1 percent to 3 percent fell shy of Wall Street projections.

Weldon's compensation was trimmed 7 percent, but in what appears to be a disconnect with the reality of its situation, J&J's (JNJ.N) board, in a year-end regulatory filing, said his performance 'generally met expectations' despite a year in which 'operational sales declined and fell below the goals for the year.'

'The board believes that Mr Weldon provided strong leadership during a very demanding year and has worked to resolve multiple challenging issues and position the company for future growth,' it said in the filing.

The rash of consumer medicine recalls in 2009 and 2010 were largely responsible for the first back-to-back years of company sales declines since World War Two.

Last week, U.S. health regulators filed a consent decree against J&J's McNeil consumer unit that will put some of its manufacturing plants under government supervision for at least five years.
The McNeil unit has recalled more than 300 million bottles and packages of Tylenol, Motrin, Rolaids, Benadryl and other products in the past year over faulty manufacturing and quality control problems.
The recalls cost the company $900 million in sales last year and hurt earnings, and Weldon was called to testify before Congress about problems that left pharmacy and supermarket shelves without Children's Tylenol.

But Weldon's 2010 compensation fell just 7 percent to $28.7 million from the $30.8 million he received in 2009. His performance bonus for 2010 was down 45 percent to $1.98 million.

The Wall Street Journal article on Weldon's pay also mentioned that Weldon also received " perquisites and other benefits in 2010 [which] included personal use of company aircraft, valued at $89,796; a car and driver for commuting and other personal transportation valued at $29,635; and a nominal amount of home security system monitoring fees."

The 2011 Johnson and Johnson proxy statement also noted that the other four of the five most highly paid Johnson and Johnson executives received compensation valued from $5,632,285 to $8,851,965 in 2010. In particular, Ms Colleen A Goggins, who retired under fire as head of the embattled Johnson and Johnson consumer group, walked away with $7,738,614 in 2010.

Other Aspects of Bad Company Performance

The WSJ Health Blog has been keeping an eye on the running total of Johnson and Johnson recalls. On 9 March, 2011, the list included 18 separate recalls of various different drugs and devices since July, 2009, from over-the-counter cold medications to sutures and hip replacements.

While suffering such a massive breakdown of the ability to perform the company's most basic function, to supply pure, unadulterated medicines and well-made devices, the company has also suffered from ethical lapses which were not listed in the Reuters article. In 2010, these included a jury verdict that the company had committed marketing fraud in its promotion of the atypical anti-psychotic drug Respirdal (see post here), and a guilty plea to a misdemeanor for and civil settlement of charges of "misbranding" Topamax by Johnson and Johnson subsidiary Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals (see post here).

Of course, we once speculated that the Johnson and Johnson CEO commanded such astronomical pay in part based on his ability to influence US government health policy in favor of his and his company's interests (see this post).

Who Made Up the Board Who Was Responsible?

Responsible for the astronomical amounts paid to Mr Weldon despite his company's ongoing inability to make pure, unadulterated medicines, and to other executives who presided over the company's recalls, guilty plea, and legal settlements was the company's board of directors.  Its members are listed below.  For explanation of the color coding, see the explanation below:

• Mary Sue Coleman - President, University of Michigan.
• James G Cullen - Retired Chairman and CEO, Bell Atlantic Corp
• Ian E L Davis - Senior Advisor, Apax Partners; Former Chairman and Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, non-executive director, BP plc
• Michael M E Johns - Chancellor, Emory University, Past Chair of the Council of Teaching Hospitals, member of the editorial board, JAMA, chair of the publication committee, Academic Medicine
• Susan L Lindquist - Member and Former Director, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Co-Founder of FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.
• Anne M Mulcahy - Former Chairman and CEO, Xerox Corp, director of the Washington Post Company, previously director of Citigroup Inc, and Federal National Association (Fannie Mae)
• Leo F Mullin - Retired Chairman and CEO, Delta Airlines, director of Education Management Corporation
• William D Perez -Senior Advisor, Geenhill & Co, Inc, Trustee of Cornell University and Northwestern Hospital
• Charles Prince - Senior Counselor, Albright Capital Management LLC, Retired Chairman and CEO, Citigroup
• David Satcher - Director, Center of Excellent on Health Disparities, Director, Satcher Health Leadership Institute and Poussaint-Satcher-Crosby Chair in Mental Health, Morehouse School of Medicine, and trustee of the Kaiser Family Foundation

Of Johnson and Johnson's 10 directors (excluding its CEO), four have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities.  Of these, two also had leadership positions at other influential non-profit health care organizations, including medical journals, a teaching hospital association, and a charitable foundation.

One had a management position at a competing pharmaceutical company.

Four had leadership positions in  financial services corporations, including some that were implicated in the global financial collapse, and/or required massive federal bail-outs to avoid collapse.

Three had had leadership positions in other organizations now under fire , that is, McKinsey, for the role of one of its former executives in an alleged insider trading scandal (e.g., latest coverage in the NY Times); several for-profit higher education companies caught up in allegations of luring students destined to fail in order to collect tuition funded by government loans;  and BP, under investigation for its role in a massive oil spill.

Summary

So here we have the latest striking case that indicates the confluence of forces that can lead to health care dysfunction.  Not only has the compensation given to health care leaders got so large that it is per se a cause of increased health spending, but also, and more importantly, such compensation often provides perverse incentives that perpetuate mismanagement, raising costs and lowering quality.  This situation appears to be enabled by governance by individuals who are often fellow members of the CEOs' club, and hence who may feel more sympathy with the executives they are supposed to supervise than the stockholders whose financial interests they are supposed to protect, or the public whom the companies' products and services are supposed to benefit.  Moreover, these individuals often have conflicts of interest which may mitigate against objective scrutiny of the executives they are supposed to oversee.  Finally, these individuals often may come from corporate cultures which do not espouse the values that we in health care are supposed to uphold.  (See this post and its links for other examples of the sorts of people who are supposed to provide stewardship to health care organizations.)

So to repeat once more-

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

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

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

ADDENDUM (17 March, 2011) - Also see comments on by Jim Edwards on the Placebo Effect blog: "heads he wins, tails shareholders lose," as do patients and doctors. 

Despite Recalls, Legal Settlements, Guilty Plea, Johonson & Johnson Board Paid CEO $29 Million, Says He "Met Expectations"

For our latest story about the tremendous disconnect between the pay and performance of leaders of health care organizations, we turn to Reuters. 

Astronomical Pay

Despite having a very bad 2010, Johnson and Johnson continued to reward its CEO royally:

After a year in which Johnson & Johnson's product quality control was deemed such a shambles that the U.S. government will oversee some plants, the board had praise for Chief Executive William Weldon and awarded him almost $29 million in overall compensation.

The once golden reputation of the diversified healthcare giant was severely tarnished by seemingly endless recalls of widely used consumer products as well as recalls of medical devices and products from other units in 2010.

U.S. consumer product sales fell by more than 19 percent in 2010 and the company's 2011 forecast for earnings growth of only 1 percent to 3 percent fell shy of Wall Street projections.

Weldon's compensation was trimmed 7 percent, but in what appears to be a disconnect with the reality of its situation, J&J's (JNJ.N) board, in a year-end regulatory filing, said his performance 'generally met expectations' despite a year in which 'operational sales declined and fell below the goals for the year.'

'The board believes that Mr Weldon provided strong leadership during a very demanding year and has worked to resolve multiple challenging issues and position the company for future growth,' it said in the filing.

The rash of consumer medicine recalls in 2009 and 2010 were largely responsible for the first back-to-back years of company sales declines since World War Two.

Last week, U.S. health regulators filed a consent decree against J&J's McNeil consumer unit that will put some of its manufacturing plants under government supervision for at least five years.
The McNeil unit has recalled more than 300 million bottles and packages of Tylenol, Motrin, Rolaids, Benadryl and other products in the past year over faulty manufacturing and quality control problems.
The recalls cost the company $900 million in sales last year and hurt earnings, and Weldon was called to testify before Congress about problems that left pharmacy and supermarket shelves without Children's Tylenol.

But Weldon's 2010 compensation fell just 7 percent to $28.7 million from the $30.8 million he received in 2009. His performance bonus for 2010 was down 45 percent to $1.98 million.

The Wall Street Journal article on Weldon's pay also mentioned that Weldon also received " perquisites and other benefits in 2010 [which] included personal use of company aircraft, valued at $89,796; a car and driver for commuting and other personal transportation valued at $29,635; and a nominal amount of home security system monitoring fees."

The 2011 Johnson and Johnson proxy statement also noted that the other four of the five most highly paid Johnson and Johnson executives received compensation valued from $5,632,285 to $8,851,965 in 2010. In particular, Ms Colleen A Goggins, who retired under fire as head of the embattled Johnson and Johnson consumer group, walked away with $7,738,614 in 2010.

Other Aspects of Bad Company Performance

The WSJ Health Blog has been keeping an eye on the running total of Johnson and Johnson recalls. On 9 March, 2011, the list included 18 separate recalls of various different drugs and devices since July, 2009, from over-the-counter cold medications to sutures and hip replacements.

While suffering such a massive breakdown of the ability to perform the company's most basic function, to supply pure, unadulterated medicines and well-made devices, the company has also suffered from ethical lapses which were not listed in the Reuters article. In 2010, these included a jury verdict that the company had committed marketing fraud in its promotion of the atypical anti-psychotic drug Respirdal (see post here), and a guilty plea to a misdemeanor for and civil settlement of charges of "misbranding" Topamax by Johnson and Johnson subsidiary Ortho-McNeil-Janssen Pharmaceuticals (see post here).

Of course, we once speculated that the Johnson and Johnson CEO commanded such astronomical pay in part based on his ability to influence US government health policy in favor of his and his company's interests (see this post).

Who Made Up the Board Who Was Responsible?

Responsible for the astronomical amounts paid to Mr Weldon despite his company's ongoing inability to make pure, unadulterated medicines, and to other executives who presided over the company's recalls, guilty plea, and legal settlements was the company's board of directors.  Its members are listed below.  For explanation of the color coding, see the explanation below:

• Mary Sue Coleman - President, University of Michigan.
• James G Cullen - Retired Chairman and CEO, Bell Atlantic Corp
• Ian E L Davis - Senior Advisor, Apax Partners; Former Chairman and Worldwide Managing Director, McKinsey & Company, non-executive director, BP plc
• Michael M E Johns - Chancellor, Emory University, Past Chair of the Council of Teaching Hospitals, member of the editorial board, JAMA, chair of the publication committee, Academic Medicine
• Susan L Lindquist - Member and Former Director, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Co-Founder of FoldRx Pharmaceuticals, Inc, a subsidiary of Pfizer Inc.
• Anne M Mulcahy - Former Chairman and CEO, Xerox Corp, director of the Washington Post Company, previously director of Citigroup Inc, and Federal National Association (Fannie Mae)
• Leo F Mullin - Retired Chairman and CEO, Delta Airlines, director of Education Management Corporation
• William D Perez -Senior Advisor, Geenhill & Co, Inc, Trustee of Cornell University and Northwestern Hospital
• Charles Prince - Senior Counselor, Albright Capital Management LLC, Retired Chairman and CEO, Citigroup
• David Satcher - Director, Center of Excellent on Health Disparities, Director, Satcher Health Leadership Institute and Poussaint-Satcher-Crosby Chair in Mental Health, Morehouse School of Medicine, and trustee of the Kaiser Family Foundation

Of Johnson and Johnson's 10 directors (excluding its CEO), four have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities.  Of these, two also had leadership positions at other influential non-profit health care organizations, including medical journals, a teaching hospital association, and a charitable foundation.

One had a management position at a competing pharmaceutical company.

Four had leadership positions in  financial services corporations, including some that were implicated in the global financial collapse, and/or required massive federal bail-outs to avoid collapse.

Three had had leadership positions in other organizations now under fire , that is, McKinsey, for the role of one of its former executives in an alleged insider trading scandal (e.g., latest coverage in the NY Times); several for-profit higher education companies caught up in allegations of luring students destined to fail in order to collect tuition funded by government loans;  and BP, under investigation for its role in a massive oil spill.

Summary

So here we have the latest striking case that indicates the confluence of forces that can lead to health care dysfunction.  Not only has the compensation given to health care leaders got so large that it is per se a cause of increased health spending, but also, and more importantly, such compensation often provides perverse incentives that perpetuate mismanagement, raising costs and lowering quality.  This situation appears to be enabled by governance by individuals who are often fellow members of the CEOs' club, and hence who may feel more sympathy with the executives they are supposed to supervise than the stockholders whose financial interests they are supposed to protect, or the public whom the companies' products and services are supposed to benefit.  Moreover, these individuals often have conflicts of interest which may mitigate against objective scrutiny of the executives they are supposed to oversee.  Finally, these individuals often may come from corporate cultures which do not espouse the values that we in health care are supposed to uphold.  (See this post and its links for other examples of the sorts of people who are supposed to provide stewardship to health care organizations.)

So to repeat once more-

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

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

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

ADDENDUM (17 March, 2011) - Also see comments on by Jim Edwards on the Placebo Effect blog: "heads he wins, tails shareholders lose," as do patients and doctors. 

Some Dare Call It "Corruption" - the Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield Golden Parachute Scandal Continues

We have discussed many cases of health care organizations' leaders reaping rewards disproportionate to any concept of their performance, and especially to any concept of the effect of their conduct on patients' or the public's health.  Most of these cases have been pretty anechoic, but for some reason, the case of the huge golden parachute given to the outgoing CEO of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield despite a tenure  marked by financial losses and no particularly brilliant advances in patients' care or outcomes, (see this post) continues to generate responses. 

One editorial suggested that should the non-profit health insurance company continue to pay so lavishly, it should lose its tax exemption.  Another noted that the company should start putting its stakeholders, defined as its policy-holders "first and its funding of overly generous compensation packages to board members and outgoing CEOs somewhere far below."  Finally, an editorial in the local Providence Journal used the "c" word, "corruption," to define the company's and its CEO's behavior.

So it should not be surprising that defenders of the company have appeared.  The Boston Globe published an article which featured attempts to minimize the importance of the CEO's golden parachute. Further analysis of the points are in order.

Executive Salaries are a Minimal Component of Cost

The article quoted an expert who asserted executive salaries are not themselves a big component of cost:

The outcry grew big enough to force Blue Cross board members to vote to suspend their own payments and to lead the insurer to make promises to curb excessive payouts to executives. There’s just one problem: Those steps will do little to fix soaring health care costs.

'I have the same outrage,' Stuart H. Altman, a national health policy professor at Brandeis University, said about Blue Cross’s payments. But, 'We need to put executive pay and board salaries in perspective. It is not the major force, or even close to the major force, in driving up health care costs.'

My comment is that just because administrative costs are not the largest component of health care costs does not mean they do not drive health care costs.

As I have argued before, the biggest problem created by excess compensation for health care organizations' leaders is not the amount of money they get, per se.  The problem is the effect of the perverse incentives created by the money.  One concern is that people paid that much may make decisions that support their pay in the short-term, but damage the organizations' mission in the long-term.  Another is that the sorts of people attracted by the possibility of big pay packages are those least likely to uphold the mission in the first place.  Another is that the huge disparity between the pay of the top leaders and of everybody else is demoralizing for the relatively poorly paid staff who actually must do the work.

Finally, it may be worth quoting the former President of Princeton University, just interviewed about what academic leadership was like in the days before giant pay packages:

I’m not a fan of huge salaries for presidents of academic institutions. These are hard jobs. But people don’t really do them for the money. What kind of message do you really want to convey concerning the nature of the institution and its leadership? I always thought that it was important to convey a message of we’re all in this together. If you as president earn so much more than everyone else, it’s hard to argue that we’re all in this together.

Focusing on Executive Compensation Distracts from the Real Issues

The final argument in the Boston Globe piece was that huge executive compensation just is a distraction from the real issues:

Yet [current Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Andrew] Dreyfus said he is concerned that the focus on executive and director pay will distract insurers, providers, and policy makers from addressing factors driving health care costs higher. Those factors range from an aging population to increases in obesity to expensive tests, drugs, and treatments that cure diseases and prolong lives.

'If you had a dozen health economists sitting in this room and you asked them what’s driving health care [costs], you know executive and board compensation wouldn’t be at the top of the list,' he said. 'It would be chronic illness and prices of hospitals and doctors and medical advances and discoveries and technology.'

That list of the "real" drivers of health care costs sounds very familiar.

Wendell Potter's Deadly Spin, is an expose of how how insurance and managed care corporations' public relations departments used deception, propaganda, and outright disinformation campaigns to make sure health policy supported the companies' interests.

Potter wrote (p.110) about how PR campaigns were designed to distract the public and policy makers from the industry's responsibility for health care dysfunction:

Rather than admit responsibility for the failures, insurance executives pointed the finger of blame at their customers, the 'consumers' of health care, and, of course, the providers of care. In introducing the concept of their new silver bullet - consumer driven health care - insurance executives claimed that the 'real drivers of health care costs' (one of my CEO's favorite expressions) were the people who sought care when they really didn't need it and the doctors and hospitals who were all too willing to provide this unnecessary care. Sure, the aging population and expensive new technology were also factors, but the main culprits were people who just didn't realize how expensive health care had become.

I color coded the factors listed by the current Blue Cross CEO as the real "drivers" of health care using the same colors with which I coded Mr Potter's list the specific distractors created by insurance company executives to deflect attention from the companies' inability (and probable) disinclination to control costs.
So it appears that Andrew Dreyfus is working from the same playbook that Wendell Potter described, down to the "drivers of health care costs" terminology. 

Summary

The Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield kerfuffle seems to be enlarging into a good case to teach about what health care dysfunction is really all about.  It shows how the leaders of large health care organizations seem to be putting their self-interest ahead of the missions they are supposed to uphold.  Without governance structures that hold them accountable for upholding these missions, they have set up perverse incentives to pay themselves very well regardless of the effects of their actions on patients' or the public's health. 

So it appears, as the Providence Journal editorial asserted, that the leadership of health care organizations is increasingly corrupt, at least using the Transparency International definition of corruption, abuse of entrusted power for private gain. 

True health care reform would make leaders of health care organizations accountable for upholding their missions, and for patients' and the public's health.  Leaders of health care organizations ought to get reasonable incentives for improving health, but not incentives so large as to demoralize the people who actually do the work and take care of the patients. 

Post Script: More Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

It is obvious why Andrew Dreyfus, the new CEO of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield might quote the health insurance industry public relations party line about drivers of health care costs that conveniently do not include insurance company practices and executive compensation. 

It was not obvious when reading the Boston Globe article why Professor Altman might be susceptible to that party line.  Perhaps his conclusions were only based on his scholarship.

However, the Boston Globe article failed to disclose Prof Altman's part-time jobs.  As per this 2010 proxy statement, he is a member of the board of directors of Lincare, a company that provides respiratory care services, including disease management, and of Aveta Inc, a privately held health insurance company.  Prof Altman's total compensation from Lincare in 2009 (per the latest proxy statement available, i.e., that issued in 2010), was over $1.7 million.   Note that corporate directors, as we have discussed previously, have a fiduciary duty to exhibit "unyielding loyalty" to the stockholders of the company and their interests  [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.].  Given Prof Altman's membership in the board of directors of a health insurance company, and his towering compensation as a director of a health care company that may need to maintain good relationships with health care insurers, it would seem that he has multiple financial relationships that could lead to sympathy with the health insurance industry's public relations party line.

So it seems that regardless of the intent of the reporter who wrote it, the latest Boston Globe article about the Massachustts Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO golden parachute scandal ended up being an apologia for excess compensation of health care insurance executives that followed the script written years ago by health care insurance corporate public relations.

So I need to add another conclusion.  The discussion of health care policy needs to be informed by disclosure of the financial interests of those participating, particularly those participating as experts in the media.   True health care reform would lead to such disclosure.  However, in our currently dysfunctional health care environment, be very skeptical about the interests of "health policy experts" who seem eager to support the powers that be.

Some Dare Call It "Corruption" - the Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield Golden Parachute Scandal Continues

We have discussed many cases of health care organizations' leaders reaping rewards disproportionate to any concept of their performance, and especially to any concept of the effect of their conduct on patients' or the public's health.  Most of these cases have been pretty anechoic, but for some reason, the case of the huge golden parachute given to the outgoing CEO of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield despite a tenure  marked by financial losses and no particularly brilliant advances in patients' care or outcomes, (see this post) continues to generate responses. 

One editorial suggested that should the non-profit health insurance company continue to pay so lavishly, it should lose its tax exemption.  Another noted that the company should start putting its stakeholders, defined as its policy-holders "first and its funding of overly generous compensation packages to board members and outgoing CEOs somewhere far below."  Finally, an editorial in the local Providence Journal used the "c" word, "corruption," to define the company's and its CEO's behavior.

So it should not be surprising that defenders of the company have appeared.  The Boston Globe published an article which featured attempts to minimize the importance of the CEO's golden parachute. Further analysis of the points are in order.

Executive Salaries are a Minimal Component of Cost

The article quoted an expert who asserted executive salaries are not themselves a big component of cost:

The outcry grew big enough to force Blue Cross board members to vote to suspend their own payments and to lead the insurer to make promises to curb excessive payouts to executives. There’s just one problem: Those steps will do little to fix soaring health care costs.

'I have the same outrage,' Stuart H. Altman, a national health policy professor at Brandeis University, said about Blue Cross’s payments. But, 'We need to put executive pay and board salaries in perspective. It is not the major force, or even close to the major force, in driving up health care costs.'

My comment is that just because administrative costs are not the largest component of health care costs does not mean they do not drive health care costs.

As I have argued before, the biggest problem created by excess compensation for health care organizations' leaders is not the amount of money they get, per se.  The problem is the effect of the perverse incentives created by the money.  One concern is that people paid that much may make decisions that support their pay in the short-term, but damage the organizations' mission in the long-term.  Another is that the sorts of people attracted by the possibility of big pay packages are those least likely to uphold the mission in the first place.  Another is that the huge disparity between the pay of the top leaders and of everybody else is demoralizing for the relatively poorly paid staff who actually must do the work.

Finally, it may be worth quoting the former President of Princeton University, just interviewed about what academic leadership was like in the days before giant pay packages:

I’m not a fan of huge salaries for presidents of academic institutions. These are hard jobs. But people don’t really do them for the money. What kind of message do you really want to convey concerning the nature of the institution and its leadership? I always thought that it was important to convey a message of we’re all in this together. If you as president earn so much more than everyone else, it’s hard to argue that we’re all in this together.

Focusing on Executive Compensation Distracts from the Real Issues

The final argument in the Boston Globe piece was that huge executive compensation just is a distraction from the real issues:

Yet [current Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO Andrew] Dreyfus said he is concerned that the focus on executive and director pay will distract insurers, providers, and policy makers from addressing factors driving health care costs higher. Those factors range from an aging population to increases in obesity to expensive tests, drugs, and treatments that cure diseases and prolong lives.

'If you had a dozen health economists sitting in this room and you asked them what’s driving health care [costs], you know executive and board compensation wouldn’t be at the top of the list,' he said. 'It would be chronic illness and prices of hospitals and doctors and medical advances and discoveries and technology.'

That list of the "real" drivers of health care costs sounds very familiar.

Wendell Potter's Deadly Spin, is an expose of how how insurance and managed care corporations' public relations departments used deception, propaganda, and outright disinformation campaigns to make sure health policy supported the companies' interests.

Potter wrote (p.110) about how PR campaigns were designed to distract the public and policy makers from the industry's responsibility for health care dysfunction:

Rather than admit responsibility for the failures, insurance executives pointed the finger of blame at their customers, the 'consumers' of health care, and, of course, the providers of care. In introducing the concept of their new silver bullet - consumer driven health care - insurance executives claimed that the 'real drivers of health care costs' (one of my CEO's favorite expressions) were the people who sought care when they really didn't need it and the doctors and hospitals who were all too willing to provide this unnecessary care. Sure, the aging population and expensive new technology were also factors, but the main culprits were people who just didn't realize how expensive health care had become.

I color coded the factors listed by the current Blue Cross CEO as the real "drivers" of health care using the same colors with which I coded Mr Potter's list the specific distractors created by insurance company executives to deflect attention from the companies' inability (and probable) disinclination to control costs.
So it appears that Andrew Dreyfus is working from the same playbook that Wendell Potter described, down to the "drivers of health care costs" terminology. 

Summary

The Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield kerfuffle seems to be enlarging into a good case to teach about what health care dysfunction is really all about.  It shows how the leaders of large health care organizations seem to be putting their self-interest ahead of the missions they are supposed to uphold.  Without governance structures that hold them accountable for upholding these missions, they have set up perverse incentives to pay themselves very well regardless of the effects of their actions on patients' or the public's health. 

So it appears, as the Providence Journal editorial asserted, that the leadership of health care organizations is increasingly corrupt, at least using the Transparency International definition of corruption, abuse of entrusted power for private gain. 

True health care reform would make leaders of health care organizations accountable for upholding their missions, and for patients' and the public's health.  Leaders of health care organizations ought to get reasonable incentives for improving health, but not incentives so large as to demoralize the people who actually do the work and take care of the patients. 

Post Script: More Undisclosed Conflicts of Interest

It is obvious why Andrew Dreyfus, the new CEO of Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield might quote the health insurance industry public relations party line about drivers of health care costs that conveniently do not include insurance company practices and executive compensation. 

It was not obvious when reading the Boston Globe article why Professor Altman might be susceptible to that party line.  Perhaps his conclusions were only based on his scholarship.

However, the Boston Globe article failed to disclose Prof Altman's part-time jobs.  As per this 2010 proxy statement, he is a member of the board of directors of Lincare, a company that provides respiratory care services, including disease management, and of Aveta Inc, a privately held health insurance company.  Prof Altman's total compensation from Lincare in 2009 (per the latest proxy statement available, i.e., that issued in 2010), was over $1.7 million.   Note that corporate directors, as we have discussed previously, have a fiduciary duty to exhibit "unyielding loyalty" to the stockholders of the company and their interests  [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.].  Given Prof Altman's membership in the board of directors of a health insurance company, and his towering compensation as a director of a health care company that may need to maintain good relationships with health care insurers, it would seem that he has multiple financial relationships that could lead to sympathy with the health insurance industry's public relations party line.

So it seems that regardless of the intent of the reporter who wrote it, the latest Boston Globe article about the Massachustts Blue Cross Blue Shield CEO golden parachute scandal ended up being an apologia for excess compensation of health care insurance executives that followed the script written years ago by health care insurance corporate public relations.

So I need to add another conclusion.  The discussion of health care policy needs to be informed by disclosure of the financial interests of those participating, particularly those participating as experts in the media.   True health care reform would lead to such disclosure.  However, in our currently dysfunctional health care environment, be very skeptical about the interests of "health policy experts" who seem eager to support the powers that be.

Once More with Feeling: Another Defense of Conflicts of Interest Based on Logical Fallacies

Despite increasing recognition of the adverse effects of health care professionals' and health care institutions' conflicts of interest on health care, such financial relationships continue to have their prominent defenders.  The latest example was an article in Medscape General Surgery by Frank J Veith MD, entitled "Physicians and Industry: Fix the Relationships, but Keep Them Going."  Dr Veith is a prominent vascular surgeon who "received numerous awards and honors as a leader, outstanding teacher, and innovator in vascular surgery," according to New York University

We have noted before how defenders of conflicted professionals and professional societies often employ logical fallacies to support their arguments.  Some recent examples were discussed here, by a prominent ostensibly libertarian attorney and law professor; here, published in a well-known medical journal by the former director of "medical communications" for a large pharmaceutical firm; and here, by the president of a large medical society, published again in a well-known medical journal.

Dr Veith seems to be continuing that tradition. His approach emphasized frequent repetition of the same fallacious argument.

Straw Man: "Totally Interrupt All Doctor-Industry Relationships"

Dr Veith's main argument seemed to be with attempts to prevent physicians from having any relationships with industry, presumably including not just financial relationships, but professional collaborations or even personal friendships.  For example, he wrote about

a recent initiative to completely sever the relationship between industry and doctors has gained traction. This initiative has been supported by several states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, and universities, such as Harvard, Stanford, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Michigan, which have enacted draconian laws or policies designed to separate doctors and industry and to interrupt any relationship between them.

Furthermore,

Even many individual physicians have sanctimoniously jumped on the bandwagon and written articles or opinion pieces attacking the evils of any relationship between industry and doctors, suggesting the severance of any such relationships.

Then later, Dr Veith wrote,

We should establish rules to prevent or minimize the abuses, but we should not totally interrupt all doctor-industry relationships. To do so is wrong-headed and would eliminate the many beneficial effects that accrue to medical care and society from these relationships. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Finally, he concluded thus,

These will be far better solutions than completely eliminating all industry-doctor relationships.... Such safeguards will be better than the present trend for institutions and governments to enact strict measures to separate physicians from industry.

Despite making this argument at least four times, the problem is that Dr Veith provided no citations, much less evidence that such "draconian" policies have been enacted or even advocated.

There have been new policies on conflicts of interest suggested or adopted by some organizations. None, to my knowledge have been exactly "draconian."

For example, Harvard University does have a new policy on conflicts of interest. Maybe Dr Veith was referring to it above when he mentioned Harvard. However, in an interview about the new policy involving university leaders published in the Harvard Gazette, the Vice Provost of the University said,

The University is not designed to be an ivory tower isolated from the world. So the trick is to be able to have a robust system for affording faculty opportunities to engage with the commercial world and at the same time not threaten in any way their own fundamental integrity or that of Harvard.

That hardly sounds like a policy that completely severs all relationships between faculty and industry.
So Dr Veith's main premise seems to be based on a multiply repeated straw-man argument. He argued again and again against a policy that no one seems to be advocating. (And even I, as a hard-liner about conflicts of interest, have never advocated a complete interruption of all relationships of any kind between all physicians and all of industry.)

Appeal to Fear: You Will be "Blighted"

Perhaps just to spice things up, Dr Veith warned of the dire consequences of the "draconian" policies that no one was advocating:

Those institutions that choose such inquisitional approaches will be blighted and suffer competitive disadvantages.

Dr Veith had asserted multiple benefits of continuing relationships among physicians, health care institutions, and commercial firm. He presented no evidence to support his assertions, most of which can be questioned (see below). His warning that institutions will be "blighted" was based on his assertion that the stringent policy no one advocated would eliminate these unproven benefits, hence his warning of  something so severe as "blight" seemed to be an appeal to fear.

Ad Hominem: "Sanctimonious" Physicians Leading a "Witch Hunt"

As noted above, Dr Veith referred to anonymous physicians who "sanctimoniously jumped on the bandwagon," thus leading to

The initiative to separate industry from physicians and surgeons [which] has taken on the trappings of a witch hunt.

And again,

Their leaders should recognize this and resist the temptation to join the separation witch hunt....

My interpretation is that this was an implied set of ad hominems. Those who supposedly advocated the "draconian" policy were made out to be "sanctimonious" witch hunters. After just having seen "The Crucible," I could also argue that the use of the term "witch hunt," with its current extreme emotional references (apparently to a case in which presumably innocent people were hanged), amounted to an appeal to emotion and an appeal to fear.

Summary

I must admit Dr Veith's entire set of arguments was not completely based on logical fallacies.  However, the rest of his arguments hardly appeared even-handed.  He presented a series of assertions about the benefits of such relationships, including that they "foster innovation and development," that "industry-sponsored medical education helps to keep physicians informed about new developments," that industry sponsored education about devices prevents "difficult and dangerous" practices, and helps physicians use devices "better and more safely."  He provided no evidence in favor of these claims, and seemed to ignore arguments about the hazards of payments to physicians biasing their clinical practice, teaching and research.

I should also note that these arguments were made by a physician who appears to have his own personal financial relationships with industry.  In the Medscape article, Dr Veith "disclosed no relevant financial relationships."   However, as a member of the editorial board of Medscape General Surgery, Dr Veith "disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Owns stock, stock options, or bonds from: Vascular Innovations, Inc."  Furthermore, the disclosure summary for the iCON2011 conference includes the following for Dr Veith, "Honorarium/Expenses: Cook Medical, Cordis, WL Gore, Medtronic." Finally, Dr Veith apparently runs the Veith Symposium, which in 2010 acknowledged the following commercial sponsors: Aastrom, Abbott Vascular, Aptus Endosystems Inc, Atrium, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Cordis Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Delcath Systems Inc, Gore, Hansen Medical, Lombard Medical Technologies, Maquet, Medtronic, Organogenesis Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, St. Jude Medical, Tenaxis Medical, Triavascular, Vascutek Terumo.

So Dr Veith's article continues the tradition of defenses of physicians' and health care institutions' conflicts of interest based on logical fallacies and unbalanced and unsupported assertions.  Also, note that all the examples of such defenses we have discussed were made by people with their own financial relationships with drug, device, and/or biotechnology companies, although some of them disclosed these relationships.  I have yet to see a defense of such conflicts based on logic and evidence, or a defense of such conflicts made by someone who has absolutely no conflicts of his or her own. 

The currently prevalent relationships with health care corporations among academic physicians, researchers, and other decision makers and influencers in health care have been lucrative for them.  I have yet to see a coherent, logical argument that these relationships are good for patients, medical education, biomedical or clinical science, or public health made by anyone, much less someone who does not have such relationships.

I will note that the defenses of conflicts of interest begin to seem drearily similar.  Not only do they often use the same logical fallacies, but they repeat the same stale and unsupported arguments about the benefits of financial relationships with industry: that they foster "innovation," and that they provide better educational opportunities than unconflicted programs and educators.  We now know that the managed care industry has engineered stealth health policy advocacy campaigns that furnish talking points to "third parties" which may get caught up in the larger policy discourse (see posts here and here).  I wonder whether some such stealth health policy advocacy campaign by pharmaceutical, device and/or biotechnology companies seeded the discourse about conflicts of interest with some of the logical fallacies and unproven assertions that have become so familiar. 

We need to elevate our discourse about health care policy.  People involved in health policy discussions should at least disclose their conflicts of interest when making their points.  We should be very skeptical of  arguments and look carefully for the evidence and logic that supports them.  When we find that evidence and logic is lacking, be even more skeptical about who benefits from them. 

Once More with Feeling: Another Defense of Conflicts of Interest Based on Logical Fallacies

Despite increasing recognition of the adverse effects of health care professionals' and health care institutions' conflicts of interest on health care, such financial relationships continue to have their prominent defenders.  The latest example was an article in Medscape General Surgery by Frank J Veith MD, entitled "Physicians and Industry: Fix the Relationships, but Keep Them Going."  Dr Veith is a prominent vascular surgeon who "received numerous awards and honors as a leader, outstanding teacher, and innovator in vascular surgery," according to New York University

We have noted before how defenders of conflicted professionals and professional societies often employ logical fallacies to support their arguments.  Some recent examples were discussed here, by a prominent ostensibly libertarian attorney and law professor; here, published in a well-known medical journal by the former director of "medical communications" for a large pharmaceutical firm; and here, by the president of a large medical society, published again in a well-known medical journal.

Dr Veith seems to be continuing that tradition. His approach emphasized frequent repetition of the same fallacious argument.

Straw Man: "Totally Interrupt All Doctor-Industry Relationships"

Dr Veith's main argument seemed to be with attempts to prevent physicians from having any relationships with industry, presumably including not just financial relationships, but professional collaborations or even personal friendships.  For example, he wrote about

a recent initiative to completely sever the relationship between industry and doctors has gained traction. This initiative has been supported by several states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, and universities, such as Harvard, Stanford, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Michigan, which have enacted draconian laws or policies designed to separate doctors and industry and to interrupt any relationship between them.

Furthermore,

Even many individual physicians have sanctimoniously jumped on the bandwagon and written articles or opinion pieces attacking the evils of any relationship between industry and doctors, suggesting the severance of any such relationships.

Then later, Dr Veith wrote,

We should establish rules to prevent or minimize the abuses, but we should not totally interrupt all doctor-industry relationships. To do so is wrong-headed and would eliminate the many beneficial effects that accrue to medical care and society from these relationships. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Finally, he concluded thus,

These will be far better solutions than completely eliminating all industry-doctor relationships.... Such safeguards will be better than the present trend for institutions and governments to enact strict measures to separate physicians from industry.

Despite making this argument at least four times, the problem is that Dr Veith provided no citations, much less evidence that such "draconian" policies have been enacted or even advocated.

There have been new policies on conflicts of interest suggested or adopted by some organizations. None, to my knowledge have been exactly "draconian."

For example, Harvard University does have a new policy on conflicts of interest. Maybe Dr Veith was referring to it above when he mentioned Harvard. However, in an interview about the new policy involving university leaders published in the Harvard Gazette, the Vice Provost of the University said,

The University is not designed to be an ivory tower isolated from the world. So the trick is to be able to have a robust system for affording faculty opportunities to engage with the commercial world and at the same time not threaten in any way their own fundamental integrity or that of Harvard.

That hardly sounds like a policy that completely severs all relationships between faculty and industry.
So Dr Veith's main premise seems to be based on a multiply repeated straw-man argument. He argued again and again against a policy that no one seems to be advocating. (And even I, as a hard-liner about conflicts of interest, have never advocated a complete interruption of all relationships of any kind between all physicians and all of industry.)

Appeal to Fear: You Will be "Blighted"

Perhaps just to spice things up, Dr Veith warned of the dire consequences of the "draconian" policies that no one was advocating:

Those institutions that choose such inquisitional approaches will be blighted and suffer competitive disadvantages.

Dr Veith had asserted multiple benefits of continuing relationships among physicians, health care institutions, and commercial firm. He presented no evidence to support his assertions, most of which can be questioned (see below). His warning that institutions will be "blighted" was based on his assertion that the stringent policy no one advocated would eliminate these unproven benefits, hence his warning of  something so severe as "blight" seemed to be an appeal to fear.

Ad Hominem: "Sanctimonious" Physicians Leading a "Witch Hunt"

As noted above, Dr Veith referred to anonymous physicians who "sanctimoniously jumped on the bandwagon," thus leading to

The initiative to separate industry from physicians and surgeons [which] has taken on the trappings of a witch hunt.

And again,

Their leaders should recognize this and resist the temptation to join the separation witch hunt....

My interpretation is that this was an implied set of ad hominems. Those who supposedly advocated the "draconian" policy were made out to be "sanctimonious" witch hunters. After just having seen "The Crucible," I could also argue that the use of the term "witch hunt," with its current extreme emotional references (apparently to a case in which presumably innocent people were hanged), amounted to an appeal to emotion and an appeal to fear.

Summary

I must admit Dr Veith's entire set of arguments was not completely based on logical fallacies.  However, the rest of his arguments hardly appeared even-handed.  He presented a series of assertions about the benefits of such relationships, including that they "foster innovation and development," that "industry-sponsored medical education helps to keep physicians informed about new developments," that industry sponsored education about devices prevents "difficult and dangerous" practices, and helps physicians use devices "better and more safely."  He provided no evidence in favor of these claims, and seemed to ignore arguments about the hazards of payments to physicians biasing their clinical practice, teaching and research.

I should also note that these arguments were made by a physician who appears to have his own personal financial relationships with industry.  In the Medscape article, Dr Veith "disclosed no relevant financial relationships."   However, as a member of the editorial board of Medscape General Surgery, Dr Veith "disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Owns stock, stock options, or bonds from: Vascular Innovations, Inc."  Furthermore, the disclosure summary for the iCON2011 conference includes the following for Dr Veith, "Honorarium/Expenses: Cook Medical, Cordis, WL Gore, Medtronic." Finally, Dr Veith apparently runs the Veith Symposium, which in 2010 acknowledged the following commercial sponsors: Aastrom, Abbott Vascular, Aptus Endosystems Inc, Atrium, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Cordis Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Delcath Systems Inc, Gore, Hansen Medical, Lombard Medical Technologies, Maquet, Medtronic, Organogenesis Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, St. Jude Medical, Tenaxis Medical, Triavascular, Vascutek Terumo.

So Dr Veith's article continues the tradition of defenses of physicians' and health care institutions' conflicts of interest based on logical fallacies and unbalanced and unsupported assertions.  Also, note that all the examples of such defenses we have discussed were made by people with their own financial relationships with drug, device, and/or biotechnology companies, although some of them disclosed these relationships.  I have yet to see a defense of such conflicts based on logic and evidence, or a defense of such conflicts made by someone who has absolutely no conflicts of his or her own. 

The currently prevalent relationships with health care corporations among academic physicians, researchers, and other decision makers and influencers in health care have been lucrative for them.  I have yet to see a coherent, logical argument that these relationships are good for patients, medical education, biomedical or clinical science, or public health made by anyone, much less someone who does not have such relationships.

I will note that the defenses of conflicts of interest begin to seem drearily similar.  Not only do they often use the same logical fallacies, but they repeat the same stale and unsupported arguments about the benefits of financial relationships with industry: that they foster "innovation," and that they provide better educational opportunities than unconflicted programs and educators.  We now know that the managed care industry has engineered stealth health policy advocacy campaigns that furnish talking points to "third parties" which may get caught up in the larger policy discourse (see posts here and here).  I wonder whether some such stealth health policy advocacy campaign by pharmaceutical, device and/or biotechnology companies seeded the discourse about conflicts of interest with some of the logical fallacies and unproven assertions that have become so familiar. 

We need to elevate our discourse about health care policy.  People involved in health policy discussions should at least disclose their conflicts of interest when making their points.  We should be very skeptical of  arguments and look carefully for the evidence and logic that supports them.  When we find that evidence and logic is lacking, be even more skeptical about who benefits from them. 

The University of Minnesota, Where Nothing Can Go Wrong, Go Wrong, Go Wrong...

As noted on the Periodic Table blog, the administration of the University of Minnesota continues to believe all is well with its clinical research activities.  A recent internal review said there was nothing more to investigate about the unfortunate death of a psychiatric patient years before. So should we all be relieved?

It will take an extensive review of the case to ultimately suggest we should not at all be relieved.  The case raised important concerns about the validity of clinical research, and whether it violates the trust of its patient-subjects.  These concerns had not been addressed before the university's most recent review, and thus seem even more pointed after its recent non-investigation.

Background: the Untimely Death of Dan Markingson

In May, 2008, the (Minnesota) Pioneer Press ran a series of articles about the untimely death of Dan Markingson which occurred while he was enrolled in a randomized trial sponsored by AstraZeneca (the CAFE study) at a site at the University of Minnesota.  The first article in the series made the following major points:

Mr Markingson had given his consent to be enrolled despite evidence that he was actively psychotic

He started having visions of killing his mother in the storm. Markingson was taken Nov. 12, 2003, to Regions Hospital in St. Paul, but it had no open psychiatric beds. He was then transferred to the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Fairview.

Weiss said discussions about research started right away at the hospital. Markingson was placed in Fairview's Station 12, a new unit at the time created to treat psychotic patients and screen them for research. Olson and Dr. Charles Schulz, head of the U's psychiatry department, helped launch the unit in part to enhance the hospital's startup schizophrenia program and meet the U's mandate to bring in more research dollars.

Olson first recommended on Nov. 14 that a Dakota County District Court commit Markingson to the state treatment center in Anoka because he was not fit to make decisions about his care. He wrote to the court that Markingson was convinced his delusions were real and that he wasn't mentally ill.

The doctor changed his opinion about the commitment in less than a week, telling the court Markingson had started to acknowledge the need for help.

Reversals by patients are common, Olson explained in an interview with the Pioneer Press last month. Schizophrenics often arrive for treatment with delusions and denial but change their outlook while hospitalized.

A judge agreed Nov. 20 with Olson's new recommendation, requiring Markingson to follow the doctor's treatment plan. The next day, Markingson signed a consent form to be part of a national anti-psychotic drug study, Comparison of Atypicals for First Episode, or CAFE.

His mother's multiple complaints that while in the study, Markingson was not getting better and not getting proper treatment were ignored

Weiss' letters to Olson and Schulz, who was a co-investigator in the study, urged them to consider different treatment options for her son, which would have disqualified him from the study. But the doctors were unconvinced by her pleas.

In particular, she wrote with strange prescience,

'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else,' she asked three weeks before his suicide, 'before anyone does anything.'

There was evidence that Markingson was not getting optimal treatment

In retrospect, it was not even clear that Markingson was taking his study medications prior to his suicide:

An autopsy showed no medication in Markingson's bloodstream, and a coroner's photo showed a sealed bottle of his medication. Had he been taking his drugs?

Study officials could have been fooled. They only counted drugs left in pill bottles instead of testing blood levels in patients.

Suggestions that financial conflicts of interest influenced trial investigators' actions

The initial news article raised questions whether the study investigator had been unduly influenced to keep Markingson in the study by financial concerns:

CAFE was an early opportunity at the U for Olson to add research experience to his academic credentials. The U had recruited him in 2001 for his expertise in schizophrenia.

It was a slow start. Olson recruited one patient in 2002, and CAFE study leaders considered dropping him altogether, according to monthly recruiting summaries. Olson and the university had been dropped from a previous study because of low recruiting numbers, the doctor later said in his court deposition.

Exchanges between local and national study officials made it clear that there was pressure for results and a 'risk' that the study would be shut down if it didn't recruit enough patients.

Note that:

As Subject 13, Markingson was worth $15,000 to the U, with some of that going to Olson's salary and the psychiatry department. Switching or adding medications could have disqualified Markingson and halted payments to Olson and the department from AstraZeneca.

Overall, the study offered $327,000 to the U and an opportunity to raise the profile of its schizophrenia program.

An accompanying Pioneer Press article indicated that both Dr Olson, and the Chair of Psychiatry, Dr S Charles Schulz, were receiving considerable financial support from AstraZeneca and other pharmaceutical companies at the time of the study.

Olson received $220,000 from six companies since 2002, including $149,000 from AstraZeneca, according to the state records. Schulz received $562,000, including $112,000 as a researcher and consultant to AstraZeneca.

Olson said his AstraZeneca money went straight to the U but did support his salary. Markingson's full participation in the yearlong study meant up to $15,000 for the university.

Did the lawsuit's results indicate nothing was wrong?

Mr Markingson's mother sued the University of Minnesota and AstraZeneca, but (per the first Pioneer Press article),

The lawsuit ended this year after a judge ruled that the university had statutory immunity from such lawsuits and that AstraZeneca shouldn't stand trial because there was no convincing proof that its drug caused Markingson's death. Weiss settled with Olson, the only defendant left. She said she was granted $75,000, which went entirely toward legal bills.

Note that the results did not address the university's or its administration's role.

Dr Carl Elliott Takes Another Look

Thus the case appeared to end, with no real reconsideration of how medical schools' dependence on commercial funding of clinical studies, and how individual faculty members' financial relationships with drug, device, and biotechnology firms may affect research done on human beings.

However, in September, 2010, Mother Jones published an article by Dr Carl Elliott, a University of Minnesota bioethicist, which raised further questions about the case.

I talked to several university colleagues and administrators, trying to learn what had happened. Many of them dismissed the story as slanted and incomplete. Yet the more I examined the medical and court records, the more I became convinced that the problem was worse than the Pioneer Press had reported. The danger lies not just in the particular circumstances that led to Dan's death, but in a system of clinical research that has been thoroughly co-opted by market forces, so that many studies have become little more than covert instruments for promoting drugs

Major design defects of the CAFE study:

It barred subjects from being taken off their assigned drug; it didn't allow them to be switched to another drug if their assigned drug was not working; and it restricted the number of additional drugs subjects could be given to manage side effects and symptoms such as depression, anxiety, or agitation. Like many clinical trials, the study was also randomized and double-blinded: Subjects were assigned a drug randomly by a computer, and neither the subjects nor the researchers knew which drug it was. These restrictions meant that subjects in the CAFE study had fewer therapeutic options than they would have had outside the study.

In fact, the CAFE study also contained a serious oversight that, if corrected, would have prevented patients like Dan from being enrolled. Like other patients with schizophrenia, patients experiencing their first psychotic episode are at higher risk of killing themselves or other people. For this reason, most studies of antipsychotic drugs specifically bar researchers from recruiting patients at risk of violence or suicide, for fear that they might kill themselves or someone else during the study. Conveniently, however, the CAFE study only prohibited patients at risk of suicide, not homicide. This meant that Dan—who had threatened to slit his mother's throat, but had not threatened to harm himself—was a legitimate target for recruitment.

As Dr Elliott noted, this appeared to be yet another example of manipulation of clinical research designed to make the sponsors' products look better, a topic we have frequently discussed on Health Care Renewal:

A 2006 study in The American Journal of Psychiatry, which looked at 32 head-to-head trials of atypicals, found that 90 percent of them came out positively for whichever company had designed and financed the trial. This startling result was not a matter of selective publication. The companies had simply designed the studies in a way that virtually ensured their own drugs would come out ahead—for instance, by dosing the competing drugs too low to be effective, or so high that they would produce damaging side effects. Much of this manipulation came from biased statistical analyses and rigged trial designs of such complexity that outside reviewers were unable to spot them. As Dr. Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, has pointed out, 'The companies seem to get the results they want not by fiddling the results, which would be far too crude and possibly detectable by peer review, but rather by asking the 'right' questions.'

This was likely what was going on with the CAFE study:

Although the documents unsealed in the Seroquel litigation do not specifically mention the CAFE study in which Dan was enrolled, they do suggest that AstraZeneca planned to establish Seroquel as the "atypical of choice in first-episode schizophrenia,' according to a 2000 'Seroquel Strate'y Summary.' A later document titled 'Seroquel PR Plan 2001' discusses the agenda for an advisory panel meeting in Hawaii. Among the potential topics were the marketing of Seroquel to first-episode patients, adolescents, and the elderly. The document refers to these populations as "vulnerable patient groups."

Even more alarming are internal documents suggesting that AstraZeneca was designing clinical trials as a covert method of marketing Seroquel. In 1997, when Dr. Andrew Goudie, a psychopharmacologist at the University of Liverpool, asked AstraZeneca to fund a research study he was planning, a company official replied that 'R&D is no longer responsible for Seroquel research—it is now the responsibility of Sales and Marketing.' The official also noted that funding decisions would depend on whether the study was likely to show a 'competitive advantage for Seroquel.'

Were study subjects protected?
So, as Dr Elliott wrote,

Many clinical studies place human subjects at risk—at a minimum, the risk of mild discomfort, and at worst, the risk of serious pain and death. Bioethicists and regulators spend a lot of time and energy debating the degree of risk that ought to be permitted in a study, how those risks should be presented to subjects, and the way those risks should be balanced against the potential benefits a subject might receive. What is simply assumed, without much consideration at all, is that the research is being conducted to produce scientific knowledge. This assumption is codified in a number of foundational ethics documents, such as the Nuremberg Code, which was instituted following Nazi experiments on concentration camp victims. The Nuremberg Code stipulates that an 'experiment should be such as to yield fruitful results for the good of society,' and 'the degree of risk to be taken should never exceed that determined by the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved by the experiment.'

But what if a research study is not really aimed at producing genuine scientific knowledge at all? The documents emerging in litigation suggest that pharmaceutical companies are designing, analyzing, and publishing trials primarily as a way of positioning their drugs in the marketplace. This raises a question unconsidered in any current code of research ethics. How much risk to human subjects is justified in a study whose principal aim is to 'generate commercially attractive messages'?

Conflicts of interest
Of course, university faculty pushed to bring in more external funds to support their careers (see this post) by university leaders with their eyes on the bottom line may not be too critical of the intricate designs of the studies they need to do to continue their academic careers, and whether such studies are really meant to promote science and improve patient care, or position products in the marketplace, especially when the same companies are paying them as consultants, speakers, etc.

In fact, Dr Elliott found reasons to make such concerns specific to the case of Mr Markingson's untimely death:

Olson had another financial reason to maintain good relations with AstraZeneca. According to a disclosure statement for a 2006 conference, he was a member of the AstraZeneca 'speaker's bureau,' giving paid talks for the company. He had similar arrangements with Eli Lilly and Janssen, the makers of the other atypicals being tested in the CAFE study, as well as Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer. In addition, Olson was working as a paid consultant for Lilly, Janssen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer.

Bioethicists Demand an Investigation

So eight University of Minnesota bioethicists, including Dr Elliott, wrote a letter to the University administration demanding an investigation, as reported in December, 2010, by the Minneapolis- St Paul Star-Tribune,

In a letter to the board Monday, the professors questioned whether U psychiatrists lacked ethical judgment in enrolling the victim, Dan Markingson, a schizophrenic who may have lacked the wherewithal to consent to research. They also questioned whether financial incentives from AstraZeneca, the drugmaker funding the study, presented conflicts for the researchers, Dr. Stephen Olson and Dr. S. Charles Schulz.

At the time, the administration promised a serious response:

U leaders will take the letter seriously and take the protection of human research subjects seriously, said the U's general counsel, Mark Rotenberg.

But then almost immediately indicated its bias:

'The fact that this is tragic doesn't mean the treating physicians did anything wrong,' he said.

What, Us Worry?

It did not take long for Mark Rotenberg to decide that there was nothing more to worry about. As reported in February, 2011, by the Pioneer Press:

in a Monday letter to Elliott and colleagues, the chairman of the U's board of regents wrote 'we do not believe further university resources should be expended re-reviewing a matter such as this, which has already received such exhaustive analysis by independent authoritative bodies.'

'Our general counsel has provided us with the extensive reviews of this case that were performed over the years by a number of independent experts and governmental units,' chairman Clyde Allen Jr. said in the letter. 'Each and every one of these reviews resulted in the same conclusion: there was no improper or inappropriate care provided to Mr. Markingson, nor is there evidence of misconduct or violation of applicable laws or regulations.'

Of course, since Mr Rotenberg is responsible for, among other things, reducing the university's legal liability, one could see how he might not want to delve further into this case.  As we noted earlier, it is not clear that previous "exhaustive" investigations asked the questions that needed to be asked, or had access to all the relevant data.  The issues are not whether their was criminal conduct, or even civil liability, but whether the university is presiding over good science and protection of research subjects?

So we should be worried, of course, that commercial firms sponsor research on human beings mainly to serve marketing objectives, and that university faculty and administrators go along, allowing their formerly prestigious universities' names to be added to the research in exchange for the money they so much want to keep themselves living in the style to which they are accustomed. We ought to be particularly worried when these universities seem to forget about their mission to find and disseminate new knowledge in favor of defending the work that continues to bring in the money.

Thus, physicians, researchers, patients, and the public ought to be very skeptical about clinical research sponsored by commercial firms with vested interests in the research turning out a particular way, and even about research not sponsored by such firms, but done by researchers who have personal financial ties to such firms. Worse, patients ought to be extremely skeptical about the motives of researchers who want to enroll them in trials when the researchers have financial ties to commercial firms whose products could be promoted through such trials, and especially when such firms are sponsoring the trials.

As a long-time advocate for evidence-based medicine, whose advancement depends on the continuing creation of valid research evidence from clinical research, it is heart-breaking to have to make these recommendations, but they will be necessary until there is better assurance that clinical research is being done to advance science and patient care, not the commercial interests of the sponsors and the researchers.

Until academic medicine becomes more open about how and why it is doing clinical research, such skepticism is warranted.

However, I will end with a ray of hope. If the administrators and faculty do not get it, the student journalists do. Read these words in an editorial in the Minnesota Daily:

Of course, the University has maintained neither it nor anyone involved in the case did anything wrong, an odd claim to make after the Minnesota Legislature unanimously passed a law that prohibits exactly what happened and named the law after Markingson.

The University seems to think that because it was not held liable in court for Markingson’s death, it did nothing wrong. This is false; it is a cynical excuse to keep corporate drug money flowing into the University.

The regents’ decision fundamentally undermines our mission: Supposedly, the University is 'dedicated to … the search for truth.' But the letter makes it clear that corporate research cash is more important to the University than patient safety and transparency.

Refusing to set up an independent investigation is a willfully ignorant attempt to sweep the Markingson case under the rug and damages the integrity of the entire University.

Perhaps it is time for the state legislature to take another look at this issue.

True health care reform would separate clinical research, that is, research done on human beings, from the commercial interests of health care corporations and the people who work for them.

ADDENDUM (18 March, 2011) - See this post by Naomi Freundlich on the Health Beat blog.