In our side-bar to the right we have a section for "Upcoming Meetings and Events." Sadly, it is often empty. Perhaps as a result of the anechoic effect, there seem to be few talks, workshops, much less symposia, conferences, and courses on the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal.
However, I am happy to now note two upcoming events of interest.
First, and most directly related, is the 2011 PharmedOut.org conference, entitled, "Pharma Knows Best? -Managing Medical Knowledge," on 16-17 June, 2011 at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, USA. PharmedOut.org is dedicated to addressing how pharmaceutical companies seek to influence medical decision making.
My editorial comment is that pharmaceutical companies, and also biotechnology, device, health care information technology, and health insurance companies spend billions on marketing to try to influence health care professionals and patients to use their products just here in the US, and probably hundreds of millions on public relations to try to influence policy-makers in favor of their interests. The amounts spent to educate health care professionals and the public about these efforts, and particularly about deceptive marketing and PR, stealth marketing and stealth advocacy campaigns, etc, is minuscule by comparison. PharmedOut.org is one of the few organizations trying to address the hype and spin.
Second is the Transparency International Summer School on Integrity, to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 11-15 July, to provide "intensive anti-corruption training for future leaders." Unfortunately for the rest of us, enrollment appears to be restricted to "students, graduates, and young professionals" from the post-communist countries.
My editorial comment is that despite the prevalence and importance of health care corruption, as documented by the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption report which focused on health care, and of the importance of conflicts of interest as risk factors for corruption, there are very few opportunities to teach and learn about these issues anywhere in the world. (As I once noted, I could only find a single course on health care corruption and related issues in any US university.) Transparency International has a record of efforts made to directly fight corruption, and to teach about related issues. Would that such courses be available all over the world.
Showing posts with label health care corruption. Show all posts
Showing posts with label health care corruption. Show all posts
Friday, March 11, 2011
Finally, Some Upcoming Events to Announce: PharmedOut Conference, Transparency International Summer Course
In our side-bar to the right we have a section for "Upcoming Meetings and Events." Sadly, it is often empty. Perhaps as a result of the anechoic effect, there seem to be few talks, workshops, much less symposia, conferences, and courses on the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal.
However, I am happy to now note two upcoming events of interest.
First, and most directly related, is the 2011 PharmedOut.org conference, entitled, "Pharma Knows Best? -Managing Medical Knowledge," on 16-17 June, 2011 at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, USA. PharmedOut.org is dedicated to addressing how pharmaceutical companies seek to influence medical decision making.
My editorial comment is that pharmaceutical companies, and also biotechnology, device, health care information technology, and health insurance companies spend billions on marketing to try to influence health care professionals and patients to use their products just here in the US, and probably hundreds of millions on public relations to try to influence policy-makers in favor of their interests. The amounts spent to educate health care professionals and the public about these efforts, and particularly about deceptive marketing and PR, stealth marketing and stealth advocacy campaigns, etc, is minuscule by comparison. PharmedOut.org is one of the few organizations trying to address the hype and spin.
Second is the Transparency International Summer School on Integrity, to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 11-15 July, to provide "intensive anti-corruption training for future leaders." Unfortunately for the rest of us, enrollment appears to be restricted to "students, graduates, and young professionals" from the post-communist countries.
My editorial comment is that despite the prevalence and importance of health care corruption, as documented by the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption report which focused on health care, and of the importance of conflicts of interest as risk factors for corruption, there are very few opportunities to teach and learn about these issues anywhere in the world. (As I once noted, I could only find a single course on health care corruption and related issues in any US university.) Transparency International has a record of efforts made to directly fight corruption, and to teach about related issues. Would that such courses be available all over the world.
However, I am happy to now note two upcoming events of interest.
First, and most directly related, is the 2011 PharmedOut.org conference, entitled, "Pharma Knows Best? -Managing Medical Knowledge," on 16-17 June, 2011 at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, USA. PharmedOut.org is dedicated to addressing how pharmaceutical companies seek to influence medical decision making.
My editorial comment is that pharmaceutical companies, and also biotechnology, device, health care information technology, and health insurance companies spend billions on marketing to try to influence health care professionals and patients to use their products just here in the US, and probably hundreds of millions on public relations to try to influence policy-makers in favor of their interests. The amounts spent to educate health care professionals and the public about these efforts, and particularly about deceptive marketing and PR, stealth marketing and stealth advocacy campaigns, etc, is minuscule by comparison. PharmedOut.org is one of the few organizations trying to address the hype and spin.
Second is the Transparency International Summer School on Integrity, to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 11-15 July, to provide "intensive anti-corruption training for future leaders." Unfortunately for the rest of us, enrollment appears to be restricted to "students, graduates, and young professionals" from the post-communist countries.
My editorial comment is that despite the prevalence and importance of health care corruption, as documented by the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption report which focused on health care, and of the importance of conflicts of interest as risk factors for corruption, there are very few opportunities to teach and learn about these issues anywhere in the world. (As I once noted, I could only find a single course on health care corruption and related issues in any US university.) Transparency International has a record of efforts made to directly fight corruption, and to teach about related issues. Would that such courses be available all over the world.
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
After Publicity About Losses from Corruption, Now Will Any Health Charities Start Anti-Corruption Initiatives?
Over the last few weeks a series of stories appeared about how corruption siphons off money from worthy global health initiatives.
Corruption Depletes Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
The story that first got attention was from AP:
At about the same time, the Seattle Times reported fraud losses at another global health project:
There was actually considerable dispute about the significance of the fraud discovered at the Global Fund. On one hand, the losses were a very large proportion of the grants investigated. On the other hand, the total amounts were a very tiny proportion of the total of the fund's outlays. As summarized by William Savedoff in the Center for Global Development's Global Health Policy blog:
At any case, the Global Fund has promised "new anti-corruption measures," per the AP again.
That is nice, but I submit these stories are a reminder of how anechoic health care corruption is, and how few and ad hoc are the few efforts made to fight it. Much of the coverage of the corruption affecting the Global Fund had a breathless quality as if the authors were shocked, shocked that there could be corruption in health care.
In fact, many people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, in 2006, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report, asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries." It also noted how diverse is health care corruption:
It further stated how serious the consequences of corruption may be:
On this blog, our limited resources make us focus mainly on the US, and sometimes other English-speaking countries. Yet we now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of corruption, including numerous allegations of corporate misbehavior ending in legal settlements, outright fraud, and other crime. Also, as we have noted before, the US Institute of Medicine has defined conflicts of interest
Given that Transparency International's definition of corruption is
One can easily argue that in health care, conflicts of interest defined as above create risks of abuse of power by health care professionals influenced by the private gains provided by their secondary interests. On Health Care Renewal, we have provided a massive set of examples of individual and institutional conflicts of interest. There is evidence that about two-thirds of medical academics(1) and academic leaders(2) have significant conflicts of interest. The huge prevalence of conflicts suggests the risk of major corruption.
Corruption and Conflicts of Interest as Anechoic
So what we all should be shocked, shocked about is how little has been done to fight health care corruption, whether in Mozambique or the US.
Note that the Gates Foundation is a major donor to the Global Fund. It has a number of disease or condition specific initiatives, and a global health policy and advocacy initiative. But it has no initiative to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or, to put it in positive terms, to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics.
The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation funds Health Alliance International. It funds medical research, and has a specific focus on African health care research. However, it also has no initiatives to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or improve accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care.
In fact, one could look in vain for any initiatives about or funding for anti-corruption, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by any major US charity with health care interests.
One can find very few significant efforts to discuss, teach about, or research ways to fight corruption, or to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by academic health care institutions. (See this post for how difficult it was to find academic institutions' initiatives to resist conflicts of interest.) One can count the conferences, meetings, symposia, and courses on such topics on one's fingers. When I last looked, I could count only a single course on fighting corruption at any US medical or public health school ( at Boston University, by Prof Taryn Vian).
Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.
So will the Global Fund's losses to corruption inspire the Gates Foundation or any of its major donors to start an anti-corruption initiative? Or even have an anti-corruption symposium? So will the Health Alliance International's losses so inspire the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation? Will these cases inspire any foundation, or academic health care organization to do anything to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, and to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care?
I am not holding my breath, but I live in hope.
Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.
PS - If anyone in our vast audience does know about any additional anti-corruption or conflict of interest, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics initiatives, courses, meetings relevant to health care, please let me know and I will do my best to disseminate the information.
References
1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)
2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)
Corruption Depletes Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
The story that first got attention was from AP:
A $21.7 billion development fund backed by celebrities and hailed as an alternative to the bureaucracy of the United Nations sees as much as two-thirds of some grants eaten up by corruption, The Associated Press has learned.Corruption Depletes Health Alliance International
Much of the money is accounted for with forged documents or improper bookkeeping, indicating it was pocketed, investigators for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria say. Donated prescription drugs wind up being sold on the black market.
The fund's newly reinforced inspector general's office, which uncovered the corruption, can't give an overall accounting because it has examined only a tiny fraction of the $10 billion that the fund has spent since its creation in 2002. But the levels of corruption in the grants they have audited so far are astonishing.
A full 67 percent of money spent on an anti-AIDS program in Mauritania was misspent, the investigators told the fund's board of directors. So did 36 percent of the money spent on a program in Mali to fight tuberculosis and malaria, and 30 percent of grants to Djibouti.
In Zambia, where $3.5 million in spending was undocumented and one accountant pilfered $104,130, the fund decided the nation's health ministry simply couldn't manage the grants and put the United Nations in charge of them. The fund is trying to recover $7 million in 'unsupported and ineligible costs' from the ministry.
The fund is pulling or suspending grants from nations where corruption is found, and demanding recipients return millions of dollars of misspent money.
'The messenger is being shot to some extent,' fund spokesman Jon Liden said. 'We would contend that we do not have any corruption problems that are significantly different in scale or nature to any other international financing institution.'
To date, the United States, the European Union and other major donors have pledged $21.7 to the fund, the dominant financier of efforts to fight the three diseases. The fund has been a darling of the power set that will hold the World Economic Forum in the Swiss mountain village of Davos this week.
It was on the sidelines of Davos that rock star Bono launched a new global brand, (Product) Red, which donates a large share of profits to the Global Fund. Other prominent backers include former U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan, French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives $150 million a year.
At about the same time, the Seattle Times reported fraud losses at another global health project:
Health Alliance International (HAI), which was begun in 1987 by North American doctors and nurses to support the fledgling government in Mozambique, has played a leading role in HIV treatment.
Focused on strengthening health systems of impoverished and fragile nations, it was awarded the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Africa Health Initiative grant, a seven-year $10 million program to help government-run health facilities use data to improve services. The UW departments of Global Health and Industrial Engineering are partners in that project.How Big Is Corruption?
All but 7 percent of its funding came from the U.S. government, and more than 90 percent of its work was in Mozambique, according to HAI's 2009 annual report. Gloyd said the alliance increased the number of people receiving antiretroviral drugs from about a couple dozen in 2003 to more than 50,000 this year.
In late 2009, the alliance applied for what would have been its biggest grant ever — $100 million in funding from USAID over the next five years.
Early last year, its application was selected as the best technical proposal. But in the midst of the administrative review in June, a tipster reported problems in an organization employed by HAI.
One such program hired local community organizations in Mozambique for home-based nursing care and delivery of basic medical kits. The alliance did an internal audit and discovered irregularities.
'Their own accounting for those kits was quite inadequate, and that came back to bite us,' Gloyd said.
HAI shared the findings with USAID and put forth a plan to resolve the issues. But at the end of August, USAID rejected the group's grant application.
There was actually considerable dispute about the significance of the fraud discovered at the Global Fund. On one hand, the losses were a very large proportion of the grants investigated. On the other hand, the total amounts were a very tiny proportion of the total of the fund's outlays. As summarized by William Savedoff in the Center for Global Development's Global Health Policy blog:
While readers might finish the AP article mistakenly thinking that $14 billion has been stolen (that is, two-thirds of $21.7 billion), it would also be a mistake to read the Global Fund press release and believe that only $34 million is gone.
What we’re missing is a way to assess how representative these cases may be. If the Global Fund’s detection system is 100% effective, then these cases are isolated and it is a tiny problem. If the detection system only picks up 50% of cases, then instead of a tiny problem, we’ve got a small one. But if the detection system only finds 5% of cases then—despite the mistaken deduction from the AP article—we really would have a massive billion-dollar corruption problem.
The Global Fund should be praised, not slammed, for its investigations and for its openness. But, it also needs to be challenged to find a way to estimate how representative these cases may be.
At any case, the Global Fund has promised "new anti-corruption measures," per the AP again.
A $21.7 billion global health fund and the U.N.'s main development arm launched new anti-corruption measures Friday in the wake of intense scrutiny from donors and stories by The Associated Press detailing fraud in their grants.
Chief among The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria's new measures are plans to create a high-profile panel of experts to examine the fund's ability to prevent and detect fraud in its grants.
'Programs supported by the fund have saved seven million lives and are turning back the three disease pandemics around the world,' said the fund's executive director, Dr. Michel Kazatchkine. He said the fund has 'zero tolerance' for fraud and corruption and was 'responding aggressively when instances of fraud or misappropriation are detected.'
That is nice, but I submit these stories are a reminder of how anechoic health care corruption is, and how few and ad hoc are the few efforts made to fight it. Much of the coverage of the corruption affecting the Global Fund had a breathless quality as if the authors were shocked, shocked that there could be corruption in health care.
In fact, many people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, in 2006, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report, asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries." It also noted how diverse is health care corruption:
In the health sphere corruption encompasses bribery of regulators and medical professionals, manipulation of information on drug trials, the diversion of medicines and supplies, corruption in procurement, and overbilling of insurance companies. It is not limited to abuse by public officials, because society frequently entrusts private actors in health care with important public roles. When hospital administrators, insurers, physicians or pharmaceutical company executives dishonestly enrich themselves, they are not formally abusing a public office, but they are abusing entrusted power and stealing precious resources needed to improve health.
It further stated how serious the consequences of corruption may be:
Corruption deprives people of access to health care and can lead to the wrong treatments being administered. Corruption in the pharmaceutical chain can prove deadly....
The poor are disproportionately affected by corruption in the health sector, as they are less able to afford small bribes for health services that are supposed to be free, or to pay for private alternatives where corruption has depleted public health services.
Corruption affects health policy and spending priorities.
On this blog, our limited resources make us focus mainly on the US, and sometimes other English-speaking countries. Yet we now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of corruption, including numerous allegations of corporate misbehavior ending in legal settlements, outright fraud, and other crime. Also, as we have noted before, the US Institute of Medicine has defined conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.
Given that Transparency International's definition of corruption is
abuse of entrusted power for private gain
One can easily argue that in health care, conflicts of interest defined as above create risks of abuse of power by health care professionals influenced by the private gains provided by their secondary interests. On Health Care Renewal, we have provided a massive set of examples of individual and institutional conflicts of interest. There is evidence that about two-thirds of medical academics(1) and academic leaders(2) have significant conflicts of interest. The huge prevalence of conflicts suggests the risk of major corruption.
Corruption and Conflicts of Interest as Anechoic
So what we all should be shocked, shocked about is how little has been done to fight health care corruption, whether in Mozambique or the US.
Note that the Gates Foundation is a major donor to the Global Fund. It has a number of disease or condition specific initiatives, and a global health policy and advocacy initiative. But it has no initiative to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or, to put it in positive terms, to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics.
The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation funds Health Alliance International. It funds medical research, and has a specific focus on African health care research. However, it also has no initiatives to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or improve accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care.
In fact, one could look in vain for any initiatives about or funding for anti-corruption, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by any major US charity with health care interests.
One can find very few significant efforts to discuss, teach about, or research ways to fight corruption, or to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by academic health care institutions. (See this post for how difficult it was to find academic institutions' initiatives to resist conflicts of interest.) One can count the conferences, meetings, symposia, and courses on such topics on one's fingers. When I last looked, I could count only a single course on fighting corruption at any US medical or public health school ( at Boston University, by Prof Taryn Vian).
Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.
So will the Global Fund's losses to corruption inspire the Gates Foundation or any of its major donors to start an anti-corruption initiative? Or even have an anti-corruption symposium? So will the Health Alliance International's losses so inspire the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation? Will these cases inspire any foundation, or academic health care organization to do anything to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, and to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care?
I am not holding my breath, but I live in hope.
Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.
PS - If anyone in our vast audience does know about any additional anti-corruption or conflict of interest, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics initiatives, courses, meetings relevant to health care, please let me know and I will do my best to disseminate the information.
References
1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)
2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)
After Publicity About Losses from Corruption, Now Will Any Health Charities Start Anti-Corruption Initiatives?
Over the last few weeks a series of stories appeared about how corruption siphons off money from worthy global health initiatives.
Corruption Depletes Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
The story that first got attention was from AP:
At about the same time, the Seattle Times reported fraud losses at another global health project:
There was actually considerable dispute about the significance of the fraud discovered at the Global Fund. On one hand, the losses were a very large proportion of the grants investigated. On the other hand, the total amounts were a very tiny proportion of the total of the fund's outlays. As summarized by William Savedoff in the Center for Global Development's Global Health Policy blog:
At any case, the Global Fund has promised "new anti-corruption measures," per the AP again.
That is nice, but I submit these stories are a reminder of how anechoic health care corruption is, and how few and ad hoc are the few efforts made to fight it. Much of the coverage of the corruption affecting the Global Fund had a breathless quality as if the authors were shocked, shocked that there could be corruption in health care.
In fact, many people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, in 2006, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report, asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries." It also noted how diverse is health care corruption:
It further stated how serious the consequences of corruption may be:
On this blog, our limited resources make us focus mainly on the US, and sometimes other English-speaking countries. Yet we now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of corruption, including numerous allegations of corporate misbehavior ending in legal settlements, outright fraud, and other crime. Also, as we have noted before, the US Institute of Medicine has defined conflicts of interest
Given that Transparency International's definition of corruption is
One can easily argue that in health care, conflicts of interest defined as above create risks of abuse of power by health care professionals influenced by the private gains provided by their secondary interests. On Health Care Renewal, we have provided a massive set of examples of individual and institutional conflicts of interest. There is evidence that about two-thirds of medical academics(1) and academic leaders(2) have significant conflicts of interest. The huge prevalence of conflicts suggests the risk of major corruption.
Corruption and Conflicts of Interest as Anechoic
So what we all should be shocked, shocked about is how little has been done to fight health care corruption, whether in Mozambique or the US.
Note that the Gates Foundation is a major donor to the Global Fund. It has a number of disease or condition specific initiatives, and a global health policy and advocacy initiative. But it has no initiative to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or, to put it in positive terms, to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics.
The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation funds Health Alliance International. It funds medical research, and has a specific focus on African health care research. However, it also has no initiatives to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or improve accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care.
In fact, one could look in vain for any initiatives about or funding for anti-corruption, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by any major US charity with health care interests.
One can find very few significant efforts to discuss, teach about, or research ways to fight corruption, or to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by academic health care institutions. (See this post for how difficult it was to find academic institutions' initiatives to resist conflicts of interest.) One can count the conferences, meetings, symposia, and courses on such topics on one's fingers. When I last looked, I could count only a single course on fighting corruption at any US medical or public health school ( at Boston University, by Prof Taryn Vian).
Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.
So will the Global Fund's losses to corruption inspire the Gates Foundation or any of its major donors to start an anti-corruption initiative? Or even have an anti-corruption symposium? So will the Health Alliance International's losses so inspire the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation? Will these cases inspire any foundation, or academic health care organization to do anything to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, and to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care?
I am not holding my breath, but I live in hope.
Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.
PS - If anyone in our vast audience does know about any additional anti-corruption or conflict of interest, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics initiatives, courses, meetings relevant to health care, please let me know and I will do my best to disseminate the information.
References
1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)
2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)
Corruption Depletes Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
The story that first got attention was from AP:
A $21.7 billion development fund backed by celebrities and hailed as an alternative to the bureaucracy of the United Nations sees as much as two-thirds of some grants eaten up by corruption, The Associated Press has learned.Corruption Depletes Health Alliance International
Much of the money is accounted for with forged documents or improper bookkeeping, indicating it was pocketed, investigators for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria say. Donated prescription drugs wind up being sold on the black market.
The fund's newly reinforced inspector general's office, which uncovered the corruption, can't give an overall accounting because it has examined only a tiny fraction of the $10 billion that the fund has spent since its creation in 2002. But the levels of corruption in the grants they have audited so far are astonishing.
A full 67 percent of money spent on an anti-AIDS program in Mauritania was misspent, the investigators told the fund's board of directors. So did 36 percent of the money spent on a program in Mali to fight tuberculosis and malaria, and 30 percent of grants to Djibouti.
In Zambia, where $3.5 million in spending was undocumented and one accountant pilfered $104,130, the fund decided the nation's health ministry simply couldn't manage the grants and put the United Nations in charge of them. The fund is trying to recover $7 million in 'unsupported and ineligible costs' from the ministry.
The fund is pulling or suspending grants from nations where corruption is found, and demanding recipients return millions of dollars of misspent money.
'The messenger is being shot to some extent,' fund spokesman Jon Liden said. 'We would contend that we do not have any corruption problems that are significantly different in scale or nature to any other international financing institution.'
To date, the United States, the European Union and other major donors have pledged $21.7 to the fund, the dominant financier of efforts to fight the three diseases. The fund has been a darling of the power set that will hold the World Economic Forum in the Swiss mountain village of Davos this week.
It was on the sidelines of Davos that rock star Bono launched a new global brand, (Product) Red, which donates a large share of profits to the Global Fund. Other prominent backers include former U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan, French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives $150 million a year.
At about the same time, the Seattle Times reported fraud losses at another global health project:
Health Alliance International (HAI), which was begun in 1987 by North American doctors and nurses to support the fledgling government in Mozambique, has played a leading role in HIV treatment.
Focused on strengthening health systems of impoverished and fragile nations, it was awarded the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Africa Health Initiative grant, a seven-year $10 million program to help government-run health facilities use data to improve services. The UW departments of Global Health and Industrial Engineering are partners in that project.How Big Is Corruption?
All but 7 percent of its funding came from the U.S. government, and more than 90 percent of its work was in Mozambique, according to HAI's 2009 annual report. Gloyd said the alliance increased the number of people receiving antiretroviral drugs from about a couple dozen in 2003 to more than 50,000 this year.
In late 2009, the alliance applied for what would have been its biggest grant ever — $100 million in funding from USAID over the next five years.
Early last year, its application was selected as the best technical proposal. But in the midst of the administrative review in June, a tipster reported problems in an organization employed by HAI.
One such program hired local community organizations in Mozambique for home-based nursing care and delivery of basic medical kits. The alliance did an internal audit and discovered irregularities.
'Their own accounting for those kits was quite inadequate, and that came back to bite us,' Gloyd said.
HAI shared the findings with USAID and put forth a plan to resolve the issues. But at the end of August, USAID rejected the group's grant application.
There was actually considerable dispute about the significance of the fraud discovered at the Global Fund. On one hand, the losses were a very large proportion of the grants investigated. On the other hand, the total amounts were a very tiny proportion of the total of the fund's outlays. As summarized by William Savedoff in the Center for Global Development's Global Health Policy blog:
While readers might finish the AP article mistakenly thinking that $14 billion has been stolen (that is, two-thirds of $21.7 billion), it would also be a mistake to read the Global Fund press release and believe that only $34 million is gone.
What we’re missing is a way to assess how representative these cases may be. If the Global Fund’s detection system is 100% effective, then these cases are isolated and it is a tiny problem. If the detection system only picks up 50% of cases, then instead of a tiny problem, we’ve got a small one. But if the detection system only finds 5% of cases then—despite the mistaken deduction from the AP article—we really would have a massive billion-dollar corruption problem.
The Global Fund should be praised, not slammed, for its investigations and for its openness. But, it also needs to be challenged to find a way to estimate how representative these cases may be.
At any case, the Global Fund has promised "new anti-corruption measures," per the AP again.
A $21.7 billion global health fund and the U.N.'s main development arm launched new anti-corruption measures Friday in the wake of intense scrutiny from donors and stories by The Associated Press detailing fraud in their grants.
Chief among The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria's new measures are plans to create a high-profile panel of experts to examine the fund's ability to prevent and detect fraud in its grants.
'Programs supported by the fund have saved seven million lives and are turning back the three disease pandemics around the world,' said the fund's executive director, Dr. Michel Kazatchkine. He said the fund has 'zero tolerance' for fraud and corruption and was 'responding aggressively when instances of fraud or misappropriation are detected.'
That is nice, but I submit these stories are a reminder of how anechoic health care corruption is, and how few and ad hoc are the few efforts made to fight it. Much of the coverage of the corruption affecting the Global Fund had a breathless quality as if the authors were shocked, shocked that there could be corruption in health care.
In fact, many people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, in 2006, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report, asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries." It also noted how diverse is health care corruption:
In the health sphere corruption encompasses bribery of regulators and medical professionals, manipulation of information on drug trials, the diversion of medicines and supplies, corruption in procurement, and overbilling of insurance companies. It is not limited to abuse by public officials, because society frequently entrusts private actors in health care with important public roles. When hospital administrators, insurers, physicians or pharmaceutical company executives dishonestly enrich themselves, they are not formally abusing a public office, but they are abusing entrusted power and stealing precious resources needed to improve health.
It further stated how serious the consequences of corruption may be:
Corruption deprives people of access to health care and can lead to the wrong treatments being administered. Corruption in the pharmaceutical chain can prove deadly....
The poor are disproportionately affected by corruption in the health sector, as they are less able to afford small bribes for health services that are supposed to be free, or to pay for private alternatives where corruption has depleted public health services.
Corruption affects health policy and spending priorities.
On this blog, our limited resources make us focus mainly on the US, and sometimes other English-speaking countries. Yet we now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of corruption, including numerous allegations of corporate misbehavior ending in legal settlements, outright fraud, and other crime. Also, as we have noted before, the US Institute of Medicine has defined conflicts of interest
Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.
Given that Transparency International's definition of corruption is
abuse of entrusted power for private gain
One can easily argue that in health care, conflicts of interest defined as above create risks of abuse of power by health care professionals influenced by the private gains provided by their secondary interests. On Health Care Renewal, we have provided a massive set of examples of individual and institutional conflicts of interest. There is evidence that about two-thirds of medical academics(1) and academic leaders(2) have significant conflicts of interest. The huge prevalence of conflicts suggests the risk of major corruption.
Corruption and Conflicts of Interest as Anechoic
So what we all should be shocked, shocked about is how little has been done to fight health care corruption, whether in Mozambique or the US.
Note that the Gates Foundation is a major donor to the Global Fund. It has a number of disease or condition specific initiatives, and a global health policy and advocacy initiative. But it has no initiative to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or, to put it in positive terms, to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics.
The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation funds Health Alliance International. It funds medical research, and has a specific focus on African health care research. However, it also has no initiatives to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or improve accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care.
In fact, one could look in vain for any initiatives about or funding for anti-corruption, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by any major US charity with health care interests.
One can find very few significant efforts to discuss, teach about, or research ways to fight corruption, or to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by academic health care institutions. (See this post for how difficult it was to find academic institutions' initiatives to resist conflicts of interest.) One can count the conferences, meetings, symposia, and courses on such topics on one's fingers. When I last looked, I could count only a single course on fighting corruption at any US medical or public health school ( at Boston University, by Prof Taryn Vian).
Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.
So will the Global Fund's losses to corruption inspire the Gates Foundation or any of its major donors to start an anti-corruption initiative? Or even have an anti-corruption symposium? So will the Health Alliance International's losses so inspire the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation? Will these cases inspire any foundation, or academic health care organization to do anything to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, and to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care?
I am not holding my breath, but I live in hope.
Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.
PS - If anyone in our vast audience does know about any additional anti-corruption or conflict of interest, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics initiatives, courses, meetings relevant to health care, please let me know and I will do my best to disseminate the information.
References
1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)
2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)
Monday, December 13, 2010
"Health Professionals for a New Century": Calling for "Ethical Conduct," a "New Professionalism," and Improved "Stewardship" and "Social Accountability"
A major article just published in the Lancet urged global reform of health care education [Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010; 376: 1923-1958. Link here.]
The problems it recognized included
- Fostering "ethical conduct" by professionals, developing a "new professionalism," earning trust "steered by ethical commitment and social accountability."
- Improving "stewardship mechanisms, including socially accountable accreditation"
It is nice to be in such good company. While the report was written in the subtle, diplomatic language of international public health, it was the only such authoritative report to appear in a widely circulated, highly respected medical journal that I can recall that was this direct about the seriousness of such problems.
In fact, not only is little spent on actual medical education within academic medical institutions, but faculty members are valued more for the money they bring in than for their teaching. Commercialism in health care has been institutionalized in the last 30 years (for discussion of its history in the US, look here, here, and here.) The Transparency International Global Corruption Report of 2006 asserted "the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries," yet has gotten almost no notice in medical, health care research, and health care policy circles. In 2009, the US Institute of Medicine published a detailed report including fairly strong recommendations on Conflict of Interest in Research, Education and Practice. The anechoic effect, however, has dictated that discussion of striking examples of mission-hostile management, conflicts of interest, and outright crime and corruption is simply not done, especially in medical, health care, or health policy venues and journals. The 2006 TI and 2009 IOM reports have infrequently been cited, and their recommendations have widely been ignored.
I do hope that the appearance of a publication as authoritative as the article by Frenk et al leads to some soul-searching by the leaders of health care around the world. They need to realize that despite the article's measured tones, the problems really are severe, and even more broad than the article implied. We have discussed in detail how health care education (and all of health care) are hurt by concentration and abuse of power, by governance that lacks accountability, integrity, and transparency; by leadership that ignores the context, core values and mission, promotes self-interest and conflicts of interest, and sneers at ethics; and by results such as suppressed and manipulated research, deceptive and dishonest education (look here, here, and here for examples), stifling of academic freedom and whistle-blowers, then dissatisfied, burned out faculty (here), and finally the final common pathway of rising costs, declining access, and poor quality.
It is heartening that the importance of our concerns has been corroborated in such a notable venue. I hope this report gathers less dust than the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption Report and the 2009 Institute of Medicine conflict of interest report.
I suggest that to truly reform health care education (and health care itself), we will have to attend to the sorts of problems we write about on Health Care Renewal. On one hand, we will need to improve the stewardship, governance, and leadership of health care education itself, and reduce the pervasive conflicts of interest that ensnare the faculty. On the other, we will need to make sure education prepares students to deal with these problems in health care at large.
It would be nice if the appearance of the Lancet article signifies that help will soon be at hand to tackle the huge amount of work that needs to be done, in the face of likely withering opposition from those who have enriched themselves from the dysfunctionality of the current system. We at Health Care Renewal will continue to try to draw attention to these issues, accompanied I am sure by our fellow bloggers (as are listed in the right hand column). However, a small group of voluntary "citizen journalists," and health care professional curmudgeons cannot solve this problem on our own. I hope we will soon have some more support.
ADDENDUM (14 December, 2010) - See also comments by Paul Levy on the Running a Hospital blog.
The problems it recognized included
- "Pitifully modest" spending for health professional education, compared to overall health spending
- Health care systems that are "dysfunctional and inequitable," due in part to "commercialism in the professions," leading to "breakdown ... especially noteworthy within primary care, in both poor and rich countries."
- For profit medical education leading to "a so-called de-Flexnerisation process ... in which low-quality professional schools might be proliferating...."
- Health care corruption, e.g., "the Indian press has reported illegal payments by new private schools seeking accreditation...."
- Fostering "ethical conduct" by professionals, developing a "new professionalism," earning trust "steered by ethical commitment and social accountability."
- Improving "stewardship mechanisms, including socially accountable accreditation"
It is nice to be in such good company. While the report was written in the subtle, diplomatic language of international public health, it was the only such authoritative report to appear in a widely circulated, highly respected medical journal that I can recall that was this direct about the seriousness of such problems.
In fact, not only is little spent on actual medical education within academic medical institutions, but faculty members are valued more for the money they bring in than for their teaching. Commercialism in health care has been institutionalized in the last 30 years (for discussion of its history in the US, look here, here, and here.) The Transparency International Global Corruption Report of 2006 asserted "the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries," yet has gotten almost no notice in medical, health care research, and health care policy circles. In 2009, the US Institute of Medicine published a detailed report including fairly strong recommendations on Conflict of Interest in Research, Education and Practice. The anechoic effect, however, has dictated that discussion of striking examples of mission-hostile management, conflicts of interest, and outright crime and corruption is simply not done, especially in medical, health care, or health policy venues and journals. The 2006 TI and 2009 IOM reports have infrequently been cited, and their recommendations have widely been ignored.
I do hope that the appearance of a publication as authoritative as the article by Frenk et al leads to some soul-searching by the leaders of health care around the world. They need to realize that despite the article's measured tones, the problems really are severe, and even more broad than the article implied. We have discussed in detail how health care education (and all of health care) are hurt by concentration and abuse of power, by governance that lacks accountability, integrity, and transparency; by leadership that ignores the context, core values and mission, promotes self-interest and conflicts of interest, and sneers at ethics; and by results such as suppressed and manipulated research, deceptive and dishonest education (look here, here, and here for examples), stifling of academic freedom and whistle-blowers, then dissatisfied, burned out faculty (here), and finally the final common pathway of rising costs, declining access, and poor quality.
It is heartening that the importance of our concerns has been corroborated in such a notable venue. I hope this report gathers less dust than the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption Report and the 2009 Institute of Medicine conflict of interest report.
I suggest that to truly reform health care education (and health care itself), we will have to attend to the sorts of problems we write about on Health Care Renewal. On one hand, we will need to improve the stewardship, governance, and leadership of health care education itself, and reduce the pervasive conflicts of interest that ensnare the faculty. On the other, we will need to make sure education prepares students to deal with these problems in health care at large.
It would be nice if the appearance of the Lancet article signifies that help will soon be at hand to tackle the huge amount of work that needs to be done, in the face of likely withering opposition from those who have enriched themselves from the dysfunctionality of the current system. We at Health Care Renewal will continue to try to draw attention to these issues, accompanied I am sure by our fellow bloggers (as are listed in the right hand column). However, a small group of voluntary "citizen journalists," and health care professional curmudgeons cannot solve this problem on our own. I hope we will soon have some more support.
ADDENDUM (14 December, 2010) - See also comments by Paul Levy on the Running a Hospital blog.
"Health Professionals for a New Century": Calling for "Ethical Conduct," a "New Professionalism," and Improved "Stewardship" and "Social Accountability"
A major article just published in the Lancet urged global reform of health care education [Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world. Lancet 2010; 376: 1923-1958. Link here.]
The problems it recognized included
- Fostering "ethical conduct" by professionals, developing a "new professionalism," earning trust "steered by ethical commitment and social accountability."
- Improving "stewardship mechanisms, including socially accountable accreditation"
It is nice to be in such good company. While the report was written in the subtle, diplomatic language of international public health, it was the only such authoritative report to appear in a widely circulated, highly respected medical journal that I can recall that was this direct about the seriousness of such problems.
In fact, not only is little spent on actual medical education within academic medical institutions, but faculty members are valued more for the money they bring in than for their teaching. Commercialism in health care has been institutionalized in the last 30 years (for discussion of its history in the US, look here, here, and here.) The Transparency International Global Corruption Report of 2006 asserted "the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries," yet has gotten almost no notice in medical, health care research, and health care policy circles. In 2009, the US Institute of Medicine published a detailed report including fairly strong recommendations on Conflict of Interest in Research, Education and Practice. The anechoic effect, however, has dictated that discussion of striking examples of mission-hostile management, conflicts of interest, and outright crime and corruption is simply not done, especially in medical, health care, or health policy venues and journals. The 2006 TI and 2009 IOM reports have infrequently been cited, and their recommendations have widely been ignored.
I do hope that the appearance of a publication as authoritative as the article by Frenk et al leads to some soul-searching by the leaders of health care around the world. They need to realize that despite the article's measured tones, the problems really are severe, and even more broad than the article implied. We have discussed in detail how health care education (and all of health care) are hurt by concentration and abuse of power, by governance that lacks accountability, integrity, and transparency; by leadership that ignores the context, core values and mission, promotes self-interest and conflicts of interest, and sneers at ethics; and by results such as suppressed and manipulated research, deceptive and dishonest education (look here, here, and here for examples), stifling of academic freedom and whistle-blowers, then dissatisfied, burned out faculty (here), and finally the final common pathway of rising costs, declining access, and poor quality.
It is heartening that the importance of our concerns has been corroborated in such a notable venue. I hope this report gathers less dust than the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption Report and the 2009 Institute of Medicine conflict of interest report.
I suggest that to truly reform health care education (and health care itself), we will have to attend to the sorts of problems we write about on Health Care Renewal. On one hand, we will need to improve the stewardship, governance, and leadership of health care education itself, and reduce the pervasive conflicts of interest that ensnare the faculty. On the other, we will need to make sure education prepares students to deal with these problems in health care at large.
It would be nice if the appearance of the Lancet article signifies that help will soon be at hand to tackle the huge amount of work that needs to be done, in the face of likely withering opposition from those who have enriched themselves from the dysfunctionality of the current system. We at Health Care Renewal will continue to try to draw attention to these issues, accompanied I am sure by our fellow bloggers (as are listed in the right hand column). However, a small group of voluntary "citizen journalists," and health care professional curmudgeons cannot solve this problem on our own. I hope we will soon have some more support.
ADDENDUM (14 December, 2010) - See also comments by Paul Levy on the Running a Hospital blog.
The problems it recognized included
- "Pitifully modest" spending for health professional education, compared to overall health spending
- Health care systems that are "dysfunctional and inequitable," due in part to "commercialism in the professions," leading to "breakdown ... especially noteworthy within primary care, in both poor and rich countries."
- For profit medical education leading to "a so-called de-Flexnerisation process ... in which low-quality professional schools might be proliferating...."
- Health care corruption, e.g., "the Indian press has reported illegal payments by new private schools seeking accreditation...."
- Fostering "ethical conduct" by professionals, developing a "new professionalism," earning trust "steered by ethical commitment and social accountability."
- Improving "stewardship mechanisms, including socially accountable accreditation"
It is nice to be in such good company. While the report was written in the subtle, diplomatic language of international public health, it was the only such authoritative report to appear in a widely circulated, highly respected medical journal that I can recall that was this direct about the seriousness of such problems.
In fact, not only is little spent on actual medical education within academic medical institutions, but faculty members are valued more for the money they bring in than for their teaching. Commercialism in health care has been institutionalized in the last 30 years (for discussion of its history in the US, look here, here, and here.) The Transparency International Global Corruption Report of 2006 asserted "the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries," yet has gotten almost no notice in medical, health care research, and health care policy circles. In 2009, the US Institute of Medicine published a detailed report including fairly strong recommendations on Conflict of Interest in Research, Education and Practice. The anechoic effect, however, has dictated that discussion of striking examples of mission-hostile management, conflicts of interest, and outright crime and corruption is simply not done, especially in medical, health care, or health policy venues and journals. The 2006 TI and 2009 IOM reports have infrequently been cited, and their recommendations have widely been ignored.
I do hope that the appearance of a publication as authoritative as the article by Frenk et al leads to some soul-searching by the leaders of health care around the world. They need to realize that despite the article's measured tones, the problems really are severe, and even more broad than the article implied. We have discussed in detail how health care education (and all of health care) are hurt by concentration and abuse of power, by governance that lacks accountability, integrity, and transparency; by leadership that ignores the context, core values and mission, promotes self-interest and conflicts of interest, and sneers at ethics; and by results such as suppressed and manipulated research, deceptive and dishonest education (look here, here, and here for examples), stifling of academic freedom and whistle-blowers, then dissatisfied, burned out faculty (here), and finally the final common pathway of rising costs, declining access, and poor quality.
It is heartening that the importance of our concerns has been corroborated in such a notable venue. I hope this report gathers less dust than the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption Report and the 2009 Institute of Medicine conflict of interest report.
I suggest that to truly reform health care education (and health care itself), we will have to attend to the sorts of problems we write about on Health Care Renewal. On one hand, we will need to improve the stewardship, governance, and leadership of health care education itself, and reduce the pervasive conflicts of interest that ensnare the faculty. On the other, we will need to make sure education prepares students to deal with these problems in health care at large.
It would be nice if the appearance of the Lancet article signifies that help will soon be at hand to tackle the huge amount of work that needs to be done, in the face of likely withering opposition from those who have enriched themselves from the dysfunctionality of the current system. We at Health Care Renewal will continue to try to draw attention to these issues, accompanied I am sure by our fellow bloggers (as are listed in the right hand column). However, a small group of voluntary "citizen journalists," and health care professional curmudgeons cannot solve this problem on our own. I hope we will soon have some more support.
ADDENDUM (14 December, 2010) - See also comments by Paul Levy on the Running a Hospital blog.
Friday, June 25, 2010
Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!
Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to Frank King, D.C., many more should be doing just that:
But that’s not all:
This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “subluxation” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “practice building.”
Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to make an extra buck. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘diagnostic’ sugar that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out this offering from “bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”:
What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was this offering, just a few days ago, from Medscape Business of Medicine:
Homeopathy is an energetic form of natural medicine that corrects nerve interferences, absent nerve reflexes, and pathological nerve response patterns that the chiropractic adjustment alone does not correct. The appropriate homeopathic remedies will eliminate aberrant nerve reflexes and pathological nerve responses which cause recurrent subluxation complexes.
Not only does homeopathy correct nerve interferences, it empowers the doctor of chiropractic to reach the entire nervous system. What this means is that we can now better affect the whole person, and all of the maladies that affect us. Homeopathy’s energetic approach reaches deep within the nervous system, correcting nerve interferences where the hands of chiropractic alone cannot reach. Homeopathy is the missing link that enables the chiropractor to truly affect the whole nervous system!
But that’s not all:
Financial Rewards
Homeopathy means a multiple increase in business. Personally, I have been able to see and effectively help more patients in less time. The additional cash flow from broadening your scope of practice, increasing your patient volume and selling the homeopathic remedies is a wonderful adjunct. Better yet are the secondary financial benefits:You can be the doctor people will seek out, travel long distances to see, and pay cash for your valuable services. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand, it’s a great position to be in.
- Homeopathy is like an extension of you that the patient can take with them to apply throughout each day in between visits. The actual therapeutic benefits of homeopathy along with the inner comforts of the patient as they connect you with each dose they take.
- The dynamic broadening of your effective scope of practice multiplies the number of patients you can help and the multiple problems that each patient usually has. As you correct one set of problems, there are commonly other problems most patients don’t even tell their chiropractors. This doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Homeopathy empowers the chiropractor to correct conditions ranging from allergies to warts with incredible effectiveness!
- Obviously, the rule of multiples will exponentially increase when a homeopathic procedure is properly implemented into your practice. Many of the conditions people are suffering with have no viable solution without the dynamic duo of chiropractic and homeopathy.
This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “subluxation” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “practice building.”
Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to make an extra buck. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘diagnostic’ sugar that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out this offering from “bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”:
Bio-pro was founded in 1978 by the late Charles H. Farr, MD, PhD, the self-styled “father of oxidative medicine,” who was also a founder of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the Mother of All Pseudomedical Pseudoprofessional Organizations (PPO). But none of this is surprising, right? After all, quacks quack.HOWW TOOOO ….
The “must do” seminars for those who own or are managing a Complimentary [sic]Medicine Practice.
Three day course teaches you:How to relate to the patient, evaluate, test and diagnose
How to use solutions, mixtures, methods, supplies and equipment
How to protocol administration for Chelation, Oxidation, Chelox, TriOx, Ascorbates, UVBI
How to design and organize your office
How to hire and fire staff and to computerize
How to use public relations and marketing
How to manage compliance with Medicare, State Medical Boards and governmental regulatory agencies
Manuals included…
Each attendee receives one set of training materials, including:
Protocol Manual
Physicians Manual
Office Procedure Manual
Forms Book
Marketing Manual
Patient Results Manual
Employee Manual
Audio tapes
and other related material.
What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was this offering, just a few days ago, from Medscape Business of Medicine:
Six Ways to Earn Extra Income From Medical
Activities
You’re chasing after claims but watching reimbursement sink.
It’s a common story, and primary care doctors and even specialists are keeping their ears to the ground for other ways to boost their bottom line. Luckily, doctors have some fairly lucrative options that can help them maintain their income — and perhaps even increase it.
We looked at 6 avenues that physicians have taken to earn extra revenue. None of these activities require a tremendous amount of time. Participating in just 1 or 2 activities can put enough money in your pocket to allow you to breathe a little easier when the bills come in.
So what are those ‘6 avenues’? Let’s see:
- Work with Attorneys
- See Nursing Home Patients
- Serve as a Medical Director
So far, so not necessarily bad…
- Team Up with Pharmaceutical Companies
What??! Team up with pharmaceutical companies? Couldn’t that mean, like, just doing legitimate research and trying like hell to do it right? Uh, nope:
Drug and device companies spend billions of dollars each year to discover and promote new medicines and treatments, and they rely heavily on doctors to participate in these endeavors whether through clinical trials or serving as a speaker or consultant. It’s not uncommon for physicians to earn a minimum of 5 figures a year either speaking or doing clinical studies within their medical practice. Some doctors make in excess of $100,000 annually — on top of their income from seeing patients.
O’course, you gotta watch out for those pesky ethics killjoys, warns Medscape:
Although some extra money is nice, too much can turn heads — and not in a good way. In late January, The Boston Globe reported on an allergy and asthma specialist who was issued an ultimatum by his hospital, the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts): Stop moonlighting on behalf of pharmaceutical companies or resign from your staff position.
What it all comes down to is this:
Pros: With typical payments running about $1500-$2500 for a single talk, there’s substantial opportunity to supplement your regular income…
Cons: These arrangements are coming under increasing scrutiny from hospitals, legislators, regulators, and the media. In fact, some of the doctors whom we contacted for this article declined to talk about their involvement with drug companies.
Uh, no kiddin’. Funny that the “increasing scrutiny” doesn’t seem to come from organized medicine, medical schools, mainstream medical journals, state medical boards, or doctors in general. A couple of years ago I lamented the publication of a couple of book reviews, in the lofty New England Journal of Medicine, that celebrated trendy pseudomedicine. Shortly thereafter I received this from an emeritus editor:
I think the incursion into the bastions of medicine has to do with the fact that everything nowadays—absolutely everything—has become a market. If quackery appeals to the readers of the NEJM, it will be there. ”Is it true?” is no longer the question anyone asks, but “Will it sell?” And I think that applies to the editors of most major journals, as well.
True, dat. As for Medscape, this isn’t its first ethical gaff, and I agree with Bernard Carroll that it seems to have “a right hand – left hand problem.”
Oh yeah: what were the other 2 “avenues”? Those would be:
- Become a Media Personality
- Consult for Wall Street
Professional Integrity for Sale? “Sure,” Says Medscape!
Some chiropractors also practice homeopathy. According to Frank King, D.C., many more should be doing just that:
But that’s not all:
This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “subluxation” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “practice building.”
Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to make an extra buck. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘diagnostic’ sugar that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out this offering from “bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”:
What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was this offering, just a few days ago, from Medscape Business of Medicine:
Homeopathy is an energetic form of natural medicine that corrects nerve interferences, absent nerve reflexes, and pathological nerve response patterns that the chiropractic adjustment alone does not correct. The appropriate homeopathic remedies will eliminate aberrant nerve reflexes and pathological nerve responses which cause recurrent subluxation complexes.
Not only does homeopathy correct nerve interferences, it empowers the doctor of chiropractic to reach the entire nervous system. What this means is that we can now better affect the whole person, and all of the maladies that affect us. Homeopathy’s energetic approach reaches deep within the nervous system, correcting nerve interferences where the hands of chiropractic alone cannot reach. Homeopathy is the missing link that enables the chiropractor to truly affect the whole nervous system!
But that’s not all:
Financial Rewards
Homeopathy means a multiple increase in business. Personally, I have been able to see and effectively help more patients in less time. The additional cash flow from broadening your scope of practice, increasing your patient volume and selling the homeopathic remedies is a wonderful adjunct. Better yet are the secondary financial benefits:You can be the doctor people will seek out, travel long distances to see, and pay cash for your valuable services. Take it from someone who has experienced it first hand, it’s a great position to be in.
- Homeopathy is like an extension of you that the patient can take with them to apply throughout each day in between visits. The actual therapeutic benefits of homeopathy along with the inner comforts of the patient as they connect you with each dose they take.
- The dynamic broadening of your effective scope of practice multiplies the number of patients you can help and the multiple problems that each patient usually has. As you correct one set of problems, there are commonly other problems most patients don’t even tell their chiropractors. This doesn’t have to be the case anymore. Homeopathy empowers the chiropractor to correct conditions ranging from allergies to warts with incredible effectiveness!
- Obviously, the rule of multiples will exponentially increase when a homeopathic procedure is properly implemented into your practice. Many of the conditions people are suffering with have no viable solution without the dynamic duo of chiropractic and homeopathy.
This is no surprise. Most chiropractors relinquished whatever ethical integrity they might have had when they bought into the “subluxation” myth, and the field as a whole has a fine tradition of “practice building.”
Naturopaths, likewise, don’t mind winking at practice ethics in order to make an extra buck. Nor do MD quacks, of course. Hey, it’s getting harder and harder to make a living just by slogging through the morass of needy patients, onerous third-party billing requirements, diminishing payments, increasingly cumbersome practice guidelines, next-to-impossible-to-keep-up-with (nothing to say of tedious and technical!) medical literature, and all the rest. Why not sprinkle your practice with a little ‘diagnostic’ sugar that will appease those clingy patients—for a while, anyway—and that you won’t have to find billing codes for (because there aren’t any)? Heck, why not check out this offering from “bio-pro, inc. Amazing Anti-Aging Solutions (Healthier Patients, More Patients)”:
Bio-pro was founded in 1978 by the late Charles H. Farr, MD, PhD, the self-styled “father of oxidative medicine,” who was also a founder of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the Mother of All Pseudomedical Pseudoprofessional Organizations (PPO). But none of this is surprising, right? After all, quacks quack.HOWW TOOOO ….
The “must do” seminars for those who own or are managing a Complimentary [sic]Medicine Practice.
Three day course teaches you:How to relate to the patient, evaluate, test and diagnose
How to use solutions, mixtures, methods, supplies and equipment
How to protocol administration for Chelation, Oxidation, Chelox, TriOx, Ascorbates, UVBI
How to design and organize your office
How to hire and fire staff and to computerize
How to use public relations and marketing
How to manage compliance with Medicare, State Medical Boards and governmental regulatory agencies
Manuals included…
Each attendee receives one set of training materials, including:
Protocol Manual
Physicians Manual
Office Procedure Manual
Forms Book
Marketing Manual
Patient Results Manual
Employee Manual
Audio tapes
and other related material.
What may have come as a surprise to beleaguered physicians who still play by the rules was this offering, just a few days ago, from Medscape Business of Medicine:
Six Ways to Earn Extra Income From Medical
Activities
You’re chasing after claims but watching reimbursement sink.
It’s a common story, and primary care doctors and even specialists are keeping their ears to the ground for other ways to boost their bottom line. Luckily, doctors have some fairly lucrative options that can help them maintain their income — and perhaps even increase it.
We looked at 6 avenues that physicians have taken to earn extra revenue. None of these activities require a tremendous amount of time. Participating in just 1 or 2 activities can put enough money in your pocket to allow you to breathe a little easier when the bills come in.
So what are those ‘6 avenues’? Let’s see:
- Work with Attorneys
- See Nursing Home Patients
- Serve as a Medical Director
So far, so not necessarily bad…
- Team Up with Pharmaceutical Companies
What??! Team up with pharmaceutical companies? Couldn’t that mean, like, just doing legitimate research and trying like hell to do it right? Uh, nope:
Drug and device companies spend billions of dollars each year to discover and promote new medicines and treatments, and they rely heavily on doctors to participate in these endeavors whether through clinical trials or serving as a speaker or consultant. It’s not uncommon for physicians to earn a minimum of 5 figures a year either speaking or doing clinical studies within their medical practice. Some doctors make in excess of $100,000 annually — on top of their income from seeing patients.
O’course, you gotta watch out for those pesky ethics killjoys, warns Medscape:
Although some extra money is nice, too much can turn heads — and not in a good way. In late January, The Boston Globe reported on an allergy and asthma specialist who was issued an ultimatum by his hospital, the prestigious Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, Massachusetts): Stop moonlighting on behalf of pharmaceutical companies or resign from your staff position.
What it all comes down to is this:
Pros: With typical payments running about $1500-$2500 for a single talk, there’s substantial opportunity to supplement your regular income…
Cons: These arrangements are coming under increasing scrutiny from hospitals, legislators, regulators, and the media. In fact, some of the doctors whom we contacted for this article declined to talk about their involvement with drug companies.
Uh, no kiddin’. Funny that the “increasing scrutiny” doesn’t seem to come from organized medicine, medical schools, mainstream medical journals, state medical boards, or doctors in general. A couple of years ago I lamented the publication of a couple of book reviews, in the lofty New England Journal of Medicine, that celebrated trendy pseudomedicine. Shortly thereafter I received this from an emeritus editor:
I think the incursion into the bastions of medicine has to do with the fact that everything nowadays—absolutely everything—has become a market. If quackery appeals to the readers of the NEJM, it will be there. ”Is it true?” is no longer the question anyone asks, but “Will it sell?” And I think that applies to the editors of most major journals, as well.
True, dat. As for Medscape, this isn’t its first ethical gaff, and I agree with Bernard Carroll that it seems to have “a right hand – left hand problem.”
Oh yeah: what were the other 2 “avenues”? Those would be:
- Become a Media Personality
- Consult for Wall Street
Thursday, March 4, 2010
FDA Criminal Division to Increase Prosecutions
In many posts on this blog, Roy Poses has lamented the fact that there are no personal repercussions for healthcare executives embroiled in malfeasance and scandals.
He recently wrote:
The companies of the bad actors are fined; the fine is considered a "cost of doing business"; but personal actions against the responsible executives engaged in malfeasance do not usually occur. Dr. Poses feels healthcare reform cannot occur under these conditions, and I agree.
Apparently, so do others at high levels:
Misdemeanor prosecutions are a start; however, some of the behaviors seem to my uninformed legal mind to perhaps be more felonious in nature...
As has been noted repeatedly on this blog.
This clearly must be corrected.
I know where they can look to find cases ... here, for example.
I think the many posts on healthcare corruption here and elsewhere suggest that the workload of the Office of Criminal Investigations needs to pick up quite substantially, if the behaviors are to be discouraged and the actors shown that the penalties are not just a "cost of doing business" (unless one is willing to acquire a criminal record or go to jail for one's company as a "cost of doing business", that is).
It is my hope that one day this increased vigilance will be extended to the healthcare IT industry.
-- SS
He recently wrote:
So, here we go again ... To repeat, seemingly ad infinitum, these are just the latest in a now long parade of settlements and guilty pleas and criminal convictions, sometimes involving charges like bribery, fraud, or kickbacks, that serve as reminders of poor behavior by myriad health care organizations. As we have previously noted, these settlements seem to have little deterrent effect on future bad behavior. (Note that many large health care organizations have settled or plead guilty in several major cases since we started commenting on such settlements.) Usually, the companies involved only need to pay fines, and no individual who performed, directed or approved unethical or illegal acts will suffer any negative consequences. I submit once again that such fines are viewed merely as costs of doing business by the affected companies, and do not deter future bad behavior. Until the people who approve, direct, and perform unethical or illegal acts pay some penalties, expect such acts to continue. I again suggest that to truly reform health care, we need rigorous regulation of health care organizations that has the power to deter unethical behavior that may risk patients' health.
The companies of the bad actors are fined; the fine is considered a "cost of doing business"; but personal actions against the responsible executives engaged in malfeasance do not usually occur. Dr. Poses feels healthcare reform cannot occur under these conditions, and I agree.
Apparently, so do others at high levels:
FDA Criminal Division to Increase Prosecutions
Wall Street Journal
March 4, 2010
By ALICIA MUNDY
WASHINGTON—The Food and Drug Administration plans to increase prosecutions of pharmaceutical and food industry executives as part of an effort to refocus its criminal division, which has been under attack in Congress and is criticized in a new government report.
In a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the FDA says an internal committee has recommended that the FDA and its Office of Criminal Investigations "increase the appropriate use of misdemeanor prosecutions, which allows responsible corporate officials to be held accountable and is a valuable enforcement tool."
Misdemeanor prosecutions are a start; however, some of the behaviors seem to my uninformed legal mind to perhaps be more felonious in nature...
An FDA official said the agency has the authority to prosecute corporate executives for criminal actions within their companies under a provision called "strict liability." He said the government doesn't have to show intent to defraud in order to get a conviction. He added that the provision is an important tool that hasn't been used much in recent years.
As has been noted repeatedly on this blog.
A report set to be released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog arm, says the Office of Criminal Investigations has operated autonomously for years with little or no accountability to top FDA officials
... The report said the FDA "has relied largely on the OCI director to determine which aspects of OCI's operations and investigations are made known to FDA's top management."
The GAO also said the FDA's criminal unit has fallen short compared with other agencies in developing performance standards.
This clearly must be corrected.
The FDA officials largely agreed with the assessment and in the letter said the agency is "developing meaningful performance measures" for the criminal office as part of an initiative begun in August. The FDA said it wants the criminal office to share information with FDA leaders regularly, and to do a better job picking cases.
I know where they can look to find cases ... here, for example.
... In 2008, Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) criticized the Office of Criminal Investigations, saying its budget had increased while its workload stagnated.
I think the many posts on healthcare corruption here and elsewhere suggest that the workload of the Office of Criminal Investigations needs to pick up quite substantially, if the behaviors are to be discouraged and the actors shown that the penalties are not just a "cost of doing business" (unless one is willing to acquire a criminal record or go to jail for one's company as a "cost of doing business", that is).
It is my hope that one day this increased vigilance will be extended to the healthcare IT industry.
-- SS
FDA Criminal Division to Increase Prosecutions
In many posts on this blog, Roy Poses has lamented the fact that there are no personal repercussions for healthcare executives embroiled in malfeasance and scandals.
He recently wrote:
The companies of the bad actors are fined; the fine is considered a "cost of doing business"; but personal actions against the responsible executives engaged in malfeasance do not usually occur. Dr. Poses feels healthcare reform cannot occur under these conditions, and I agree.
Apparently, so do others at high levels:
Misdemeanor prosecutions are a start; however, some of the behaviors seem to my uninformed legal mind to perhaps be more felonious in nature...
As has been noted repeatedly on this blog.
This clearly must be corrected.
I know where they can look to find cases ... here, for example.
I think the many posts on healthcare corruption here and elsewhere suggest that the workload of the Office of Criminal Investigations needs to pick up quite substantially, if the behaviors are to be discouraged and the actors shown that the penalties are not just a "cost of doing business" (unless one is willing to acquire a criminal record or go to jail for one's company as a "cost of doing business", that is).
It is my hope that one day this increased vigilance will be extended to the healthcare IT industry.
-- SS
He recently wrote:
So, here we go again ... To repeat, seemingly ad infinitum, these are just the latest in a now long parade of settlements and guilty pleas and criminal convictions, sometimes involving charges like bribery, fraud, or kickbacks, that serve as reminders of poor behavior by myriad health care organizations. As we have previously noted, these settlements seem to have little deterrent effect on future bad behavior. (Note that many large health care organizations have settled or plead guilty in several major cases since we started commenting on such settlements.) Usually, the companies involved only need to pay fines, and no individual who performed, directed or approved unethical or illegal acts will suffer any negative consequences. I submit once again that such fines are viewed merely as costs of doing business by the affected companies, and do not deter future bad behavior. Until the people who approve, direct, and perform unethical or illegal acts pay some penalties, expect such acts to continue. I again suggest that to truly reform health care, we need rigorous regulation of health care organizations that has the power to deter unethical behavior that may risk patients' health.
The companies of the bad actors are fined; the fine is considered a "cost of doing business"; but personal actions against the responsible executives engaged in malfeasance do not usually occur. Dr. Poses feels healthcare reform cannot occur under these conditions, and I agree.
Apparently, so do others at high levels:
FDA Criminal Division to Increase Prosecutions
Wall Street Journal
March 4, 2010
By ALICIA MUNDY
WASHINGTON—The Food and Drug Administration plans to increase prosecutions of pharmaceutical and food industry executives as part of an effort to refocus its criminal division, which has been under attack in Congress and is criticized in a new government report.
In a letter to Sen. Chuck Grassley (R., Iowa), the FDA says an internal committee has recommended that the FDA and its Office of Criminal Investigations "increase the appropriate use of misdemeanor prosecutions, which allows responsible corporate officials to be held accountable and is a valuable enforcement tool."
Misdemeanor prosecutions are a start; however, some of the behaviors seem to my uninformed legal mind to perhaps be more felonious in nature...
An FDA official said the agency has the authority to prosecute corporate executives for criminal actions within their companies under a provision called "strict liability." He said the government doesn't have to show intent to defraud in order to get a conviction. He added that the provision is an important tool that hasn't been used much in recent years.
As has been noted repeatedly on this blog.
A report set to be released Thursday by the Government Accountability Office, Congress's watchdog arm, says the Office of Criminal Investigations has operated autonomously for years with little or no accountability to top FDA officials
... The report said the FDA "has relied largely on the OCI director to determine which aspects of OCI's operations and investigations are made known to FDA's top management."
The GAO also said the FDA's criminal unit has fallen short compared with other agencies in developing performance standards.
This clearly must be corrected.
The FDA officials largely agreed with the assessment and in the letter said the agency is "developing meaningful performance measures" for the criminal office as part of an initiative begun in August. The FDA said it wants the criminal office to share information with FDA leaders regularly, and to do a better job picking cases.
I know where they can look to find cases ... here, for example.
... In 2008, Rep. Joe Barton (R., Texas) criticized the Office of Criminal Investigations, saying its budget had increased while its workload stagnated.
I think the many posts on healthcare corruption here and elsewhere suggest that the workload of the Office of Criminal Investigations needs to pick up quite substantially, if the behaviors are to be discouraged and the actors shown that the penalties are not just a "cost of doing business" (unless one is willing to acquire a criminal record or go to jail for one's company as a "cost of doing business", that is).
It is my hope that one day this increased vigilance will be extended to the healthcare IT industry.
-- SS
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
How to Give a Course on Corruption in the Health Sector
Just out from the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center is a brief paper on "Approaches to teaching and learning about corruption in the health sector." (Note that U4 has a very useful web-page on corruption health care, also now appearing in the links in our side-bar.)
The paper begins by describing the overall goals of such a course:
Then it lists a set of learning objectives:
The rest of the paper was devoted to specific content that might be included in such courses, and various activities that could facilitate learning.
Although the paper seems to be aimed at people in developing countries, I would submit that its content, and the sort of courses it proposes, would be equally useful in developed countries, including the US. After all, Transparency International has pointed out that health care corruption seems to plague most countries regardless of income, level of economic development, or type of organization of health care systems. The details of how corruption occurs just vary from country to country according to these factors. On Health Care Renewal, we certainly have documented some striking instances of corruption in developed countries, mainly in the US, as well as corruption's little siblings, conflicts of interest and self-interested mismanagement.
However, I suspect that courses about health care corruption are rare, if not completely non-existent, in US medical schools, as are courses about corruption occuring "within country" at US public health schools. In fact, the only "politically correct" way to talk about health care corruption in most developed countries is to talk about how it affects other, usually less developed countries.
At least the author of the paper, Taryn Vian, has the courage to teach her course in the US, at the Boston University School of Public Health. (She also drew on experience giving professional workshops in several countries.) However, while the course does include examples from the US and developed countries, it is aimed at students interested in international public health. I would guess that no one has invited Ms Vian to each the course for US medical students at BU or elsewhere. (And if anyone knows about similar courses taught at US medical schools, US public health schools directed at in-country problems, or at medical or public health schools in other developed countries, please let us know.)
It is a striking example of the anechoic effect that corruption in health care is not considered an important topic for US medical schools. Of course, as long as we do not talk about the problem, we can pretend it does not exist. Is it any wonder that our health care continues to get more expensive and less accessible?
The paper begins by describing the overall goals of such a course:
The overall goals for training in anti‑corruption in health are to help people develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they will need to identify and understand problems of corruption in health, design anti‑corruption strategies, strengthen health systems for good governance,
transparency, and accountability, and advocate for integrity in governance. An additional goal is to prepare people to respond to individual experiences they may have with corruption, such as how to react when they suspect someone has engaged in corruption, when they are asked
to pay or accept a bribe, or other situations.
Then it lists a set of learning objectives:
- Define corruption.
- Identify the types of corrupt activities that occur in the health sector, and their scope and seriousness.
- Explain why corruption occurs, applying principles of economics, governance, and crime prevention to understand the issues involved.
- Assess risks and vulnerabilities which make corruption more likely in certain settings.
- Identify the consequences which can result from corruption.
- Discuss cultural differences in defining morality and corruption, including the blurred line between corruption and trading favours, giving gifts, using contacts, etc.
- Describe the core elements of corruption prevention and control programmes.
- Given a particular country situation or programme, explain how corruption can be reduced in drug supply, financial systems, and delivery of health services.
- Become an effective advocate for anti‑corruption strategies and reforms to promote accountability and transparency in health programmes.
The rest of the paper was devoted to specific content that might be included in such courses, and various activities that could facilitate learning.
Although the paper seems to be aimed at people in developing countries, I would submit that its content, and the sort of courses it proposes, would be equally useful in developed countries, including the US. After all, Transparency International has pointed out that health care corruption seems to plague most countries regardless of income, level of economic development, or type of organization of health care systems. The details of how corruption occurs just vary from country to country according to these factors. On Health Care Renewal, we certainly have documented some striking instances of corruption in developed countries, mainly in the US, as well as corruption's little siblings, conflicts of interest and self-interested mismanagement.
However, I suspect that courses about health care corruption are rare, if not completely non-existent, in US medical schools, as are courses about corruption occuring "within country" at US public health schools. In fact, the only "politically correct" way to talk about health care corruption in most developed countries is to talk about how it affects other, usually less developed countries.
At least the author of the paper, Taryn Vian, has the courage to teach her course in the US, at the Boston University School of Public Health. (She also drew on experience giving professional workshops in several countries.) However, while the course does include examples from the US and developed countries, it is aimed at students interested in international public health. I would guess that no one has invited Ms Vian to each the course for US medical students at BU or elsewhere. (And if anyone knows about similar courses taught at US medical schools, US public health schools directed at in-country problems, or at medical or public health schools in other developed countries, please let us know.)
It is a striking example of the anechoic effect that corruption in health care is not considered an important topic for US medical schools. Of course, as long as we do not talk about the problem, we can pretend it does not exist. Is it any wonder that our health care continues to get more expensive and less accessible?
How to Give a Course on Corruption in the Health Sector
Just out from the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center is a brief paper on "Approaches to teaching and learning about corruption in the health sector." (Note that U4 has a very useful web-page on corruption health care, also now appearing in the links in our side-bar.)
The paper begins by describing the overall goals of such a course:
Then it lists a set of learning objectives:
The rest of the paper was devoted to specific content that might be included in such courses, and various activities that could facilitate learning.
Although the paper seems to be aimed at people in developing countries, I would submit that its content, and the sort of courses it proposes, would be equally useful in developed countries, including the US. After all, Transparency International has pointed out that health care corruption seems to plague most countries regardless of income, level of economic development, or type of organization of health care systems. The details of how corruption occurs just vary from country to country according to these factors. On Health Care Renewal, we certainly have documented some striking instances of corruption in developed countries, mainly in the US, as well as corruption's little siblings, conflicts of interest and self-interested mismanagement.
However, I suspect that courses about health care corruption are rare, if not completely non-existent, in US medical schools, as are courses about corruption occuring "within country" at US public health schools. In fact, the only "politically correct" way to talk about health care corruption in most developed countries is to talk about how it affects other, usually less developed countries.
At least the author of the paper, Taryn Vian, has the courage to teach her course in the US, at the Boston University School of Public Health. (She also drew on experience giving professional workshops in several countries.) However, while the course does include examples from the US and developed countries, it is aimed at students interested in international public health. I would guess that no one has invited Ms Vian to each the course for US medical students at BU or elsewhere. (And if anyone knows about similar courses taught at US medical schools, US public health schools directed at in-country problems, or at medical or public health schools in other developed countries, please let us know.)
It is a striking example of the anechoic effect that corruption in health care is not considered an important topic for US medical schools. Of course, as long as we do not talk about the problem, we can pretend it does not exist. Is it any wonder that our health care continues to get more expensive and less accessible?
The paper begins by describing the overall goals of such a course:
The overall goals for training in anti‑corruption in health are to help people develop the knowledge, skills, and attitudes they will need to identify and understand problems of corruption in health, design anti‑corruption strategies, strengthen health systems for good governance,
transparency, and accountability, and advocate for integrity in governance. An additional goal is to prepare people to respond to individual experiences they may have with corruption, such as how to react when they suspect someone has engaged in corruption, when they are asked
to pay or accept a bribe, or other situations.
Then it lists a set of learning objectives:
- Define corruption.
- Identify the types of corrupt activities that occur in the health sector, and their scope and seriousness.
- Explain why corruption occurs, applying principles of economics, governance, and crime prevention to understand the issues involved.
- Assess risks and vulnerabilities which make corruption more likely in certain settings.
- Identify the consequences which can result from corruption.
- Discuss cultural differences in defining morality and corruption, including the blurred line between corruption and trading favours, giving gifts, using contacts, etc.
- Describe the core elements of corruption prevention and control programmes.
- Given a particular country situation or programme, explain how corruption can be reduced in drug supply, financial systems, and delivery of health services.
- Become an effective advocate for anti‑corruption strategies and reforms to promote accountability and transparency in health programmes.
The rest of the paper was devoted to specific content that might be included in such courses, and various activities that could facilitate learning.
Although the paper seems to be aimed at people in developing countries, I would submit that its content, and the sort of courses it proposes, would be equally useful in developed countries, including the US. After all, Transparency International has pointed out that health care corruption seems to plague most countries regardless of income, level of economic development, or type of organization of health care systems. The details of how corruption occurs just vary from country to country according to these factors. On Health Care Renewal, we certainly have documented some striking instances of corruption in developed countries, mainly in the US, as well as corruption's little siblings, conflicts of interest and self-interested mismanagement.
However, I suspect that courses about health care corruption are rare, if not completely non-existent, in US medical schools, as are courses about corruption occuring "within country" at US public health schools. In fact, the only "politically correct" way to talk about health care corruption in most developed countries is to talk about how it affects other, usually less developed countries.
At least the author of the paper, Taryn Vian, has the courage to teach her course in the US, at the Boston University School of Public Health. (She also drew on experience giving professional workshops in several countries.) However, while the course does include examples from the US and developed countries, it is aimed at students interested in international public health. I would guess that no one has invited Ms Vian to each the course for US medical students at BU or elsewhere. (And if anyone knows about similar courses taught at US medical schools, US public health schools directed at in-country problems, or at medical or public health schools in other developed countries, please let us know.)
It is a striking example of the anechoic effect that corruption in health care is not considered an important topic for US medical schools. Of course, as long as we do not talk about the problem, we can pretend it does not exist. Is it any wonder that our health care continues to get more expensive and less accessible?
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
A Solution To Pharma's Repeated Drug Offenses: Incarceration
Some straightforward common sense follows. No spin, no indirection, no excuses:
Pfizer has recently paid a $2.3 billion dollar settlement on civil and criminal charges that potent drugs were being improperly promoted (i.e., pushed onto unsuspecting physicians and patients) for uses not approved by the regulatory agencies responsible for such matters.
What is the real world meaning of these charges?
The meaning is that patients - the final consumers - were ingesting drugs that were not only not indicated, but held possibilities of harming the drug taker.
We have seen negative outcomes from these practices before in the form of, for example, children in whom improperly pushed antidepressants caused suicidal thoughts and actual suicide (the teenage daughter of a friend of my mother hanged herself after starting such drugs, resulting in a lawsuit that the parents ultimately won).
It demonstrates reckless and malicious disregard for others to tamper with people's lives in this fashion. Perhaps sociopathy is an apt description of such behavior. One wonders about the adverse consequences to patients of this latest round of pharma fraud.
Ultimately, those engaging in these practices (usually at the group director or VP level) are doing the following:
They are gambling with the lives and well-being of countless patients.
In some of these cases, patients will have been harmed; in others, patients will have died. In the former case, the perpetrators of the fraud are facilitators of the injury. In the latter case, the perpetrators are accessories to murder.
Fining a corporation is a nearly useless exercise, as ultimately the conversation in the executive offices and Wall Street will be about the cost of doing business, not about crimes or morals. Terminating perpetrating individuals is also not extremely effective in motivating reform, even if terminated with prejudice, if those terminated have already made their fortune.
The solution to this problem is straightforward. Deal with the individuals involved in the following manner:
Where the executives behind these abuses belong: jail
Time in jail for these executives is a needed remedy.
The following, however, is the situation we have:
This is inexcusable. Healthcare advocacy groups and relatives of those injured need to lobby for the solution proposed in the first picture: long, stiff sentences for those committing medical fraud and quackery by proxy in the form of these industry abuses.
Finally, the Pfizer scenario causes me to ask:
Is the leadership of this company competent to manage its operations? Or, is that leadership - for instance a CEO lacking science and biomedical education and experience - an "enabler" of the creative marketing for drugs -- creative advertising campaigns being seen as a virtue in his prior industry?
-- SS
Pfizer has recently paid a $2.3 billion dollar settlement on civil and criminal charges that potent drugs were being improperly promoted (i.e., pushed onto unsuspecting physicians and patients) for uses not approved by the regulatory agencies responsible for such matters.
What is the real world meaning of these charges?
The meaning is that patients - the final consumers - were ingesting drugs that were not only not indicated, but held possibilities of harming the drug taker.
We have seen negative outcomes from these practices before in the form of, for example, children in whom improperly pushed antidepressants caused suicidal thoughts and actual suicide (the teenage daughter of a friend of my mother hanged herself after starting such drugs, resulting in a lawsuit that the parents ultimately won).
It demonstrates reckless and malicious disregard for others to tamper with people's lives in this fashion. Perhaps sociopathy is an apt description of such behavior. One wonders about the adverse consequences to patients of this latest round of pharma fraud.
Ultimately, those engaging in these practices (usually at the group director or VP level) are doing the following:
They are gambling with the lives and well-being of countless patients.
In some of these cases, patients will have been harmed; in others, patients will have died. In the former case, the perpetrators of the fraud are facilitators of the injury. In the latter case, the perpetrators are accessories to murder.
Fining a corporation is a nearly useless exercise, as ultimately the conversation in the executive offices and Wall Street will be about the cost of doing business, not about crimes or morals. Terminating perpetrating individuals is also not extremely effective in motivating reform, even if terminated with prejudice, if those terminated have already made their fortune.
(The $2.3 billion could have been used, in fact, as a war chest to reduce the need for layoffs during economic downturns, like our current one, were it not wasted in paying fines due to the behaviors of unscrupulous executives.)
The solution to this problem is straightforward. Deal with the individuals involved in the following manner:
Where the executives behind these abuses belong: jailTime in jail for these executives is a needed remedy.
The following, however, is the situation we have:
This is inexcusable. Healthcare advocacy groups and relatives of those injured need to lobby for the solution proposed in the first picture: long, stiff sentences for those committing medical fraud and quackery by proxy in the form of these industry abuses.
Finally, the Pfizer scenario causes me to ask:
Is the leadership of this company competent to manage its operations? Or, is that leadership - for instance a CEO lacking science and biomedical education and experience - an "enabler" of the creative marketing for drugs -- creative advertising campaigns being seen as a virtue in his prior industry?
-- SS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
RSS Feed (xml)