Why Pretend An Advertising Executive and Chamber of Commerce Leader Are Public Health Experts?

Obesity as a public health problem has been the subject of considerable discussion.  So that luminaries from the prestigious Partners Healthcare system and Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield would weigh in on the issue at a public meeting should surprise no one.  But see this report by the Boston Herald:

When asked about rising health-care costs, Jack Connors - chairman of the Partners chain, which includes Mass. General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals - said yesterday, 'Taking care of yourself starts at home.'

'What happened to individual responsibility?' Connors said at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast at the Westin Boston Waterfront. 'Why is obesity such an epidemic (when) we all know that a big part of being healthy is exercising and eating the right food?'

Blue Cross Blue Shield Chairman Paul Guzzi echoed Connors’ attitude yesterday.

'What is the responsibility of the individual?' said Guzzi, who as the chamber’s chief executive hosted Senate President Therese Murray’s speech on health care yesterday, despite his dual role as Blue Cross chairman.

Jack Connors is currently chair of the board of Partners Healthcare.  A quick biography is here:

John M. Connors, Jr., 67, Chairman Emeritus of Hill Holliday (formerly Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos, Inc). (full service marketing and communications company) since 2006. Chairman of Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos, Inc. from 1995 until 2006, during which time Mr. Connors also served as President and Chief Executive Officer until 2003. Mr. Connors was a founding partner of Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos. Director of Covidien Ltd. Mr. Connors’ 40 years of business experience includes cofounding and developing one of the top advertising and marketing communications firms in the United States, advising many of the top branded companies in the world, and serving on the boards of dozens of entities, including public companies, private companies, hospitals and colleges. (Biographical Information as of 4/16/10)

Although Mr Connors did once run a medical education and communications company (see this post), he has no obvious direct experience or training in biology, epidemiology, public health, or medicine.

Similarly, here is biography of Paul Guzzi:

Paul Guzzi is president and chief executive officer of the Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce, one of the region’s leading business associations.

Mr. Guzzi brings extensive experience in both business and government to his work at the Chamber. A former Massachusetts secretary of state and chief secretary to the Governor, as well as a member of the management teams of two Fortune 500 companies; he is a leading advocate for economic development and job creation.

Prior to leading the Chamber, Mr. Guzzi was vice president of state and community affairs for Boston College. Previously, he was a consultant for Heidrick & Struggles, an international recruitment and consulting firm. Mr. Guzzi also served as a vice president at Data General Corporation and as a senior vice president at Wang Laboratories. During his tenure at Wang, he worked closely with Dr. An Wang to oversee the restoration and transformation of what is now the Wang Theatre.

Mr. Guzzi began his public service career as a state representative from Newton in 1970. He was elected Massachusetts secretary of state in 1974. Mr. Guzzi served as a chief of staff for Governor Edward King and chief administrator of the Board of Regents of Public Higher Education.

A graduate of Harvard University, Mr. Guzzi holds a Bachelor of Arts degree in government. He completed the Harvard Business School Management Development Program. He was also an officer in the U.S. Marine Corps Reserve.

Again, Mr Guzzi has no obvious training or experience in biology, epidemiology, public health, or medicine.

So maybe it should be no surprise that the Boston Herald article chronicled some skepticism about these worthies' public health pronouncements.

Calling the pair’s comments 'pure smoke blowing,' Boston University public health professor Alan Sager said, 'Sure individual responsibility matters, but the responsibility for efficient, affordable, high-quality health care for all Americans falls on everybody who works in health care.'

By the way,

Connors said a major reason for rising health-care costs is that a high percentage of people who leave the hospital are later readmitted, because they don’t follow their doctors’ directions. He owns a company, Dovetail Health, that makes money by helping elderly patients readjust to life after hospitalization, including staying on their medications.

Every week I get piles of notices of "healthcare" conferences at which most of the speakers are health care organizational executives with no obvious expertise or experience in actual health care, or in biology, epidemiology, public health or medicine. I think I dimly remember a time when most people who gave public remarks on health care actually knew something about health care, not just about making money (often personally in large amounts) from the health care "industry."

Note that while the Herald was able to find people who were skeptical about these health care leaders' remarks, there was no report that their audience (presumably made up mainly of business people) roared with laughter at their efforts to talk about controversial topics which they did not seem to really understand.

We need to ask why we have become so deferential to leaders of large (and and least heretofore prestigious) health care organizations that we treat them like true experts on biology, epidemiology, public health or medicine when they have no obvious expertise, or even knowledge in these areas?

Thanks to one of our anonymous scouts for a tip on this item.

Investigations, Indictments and Guilty Pleas at Famous US Teaching Hospitals

Some of the US most prestigious academic medical centers have been receiving unusual scrutiny lately.

Mount Sinai Medical Center and New York - Presbyterian Hospital.

As reported first by the Wall Street Journal,

Federal prosecutors are investigating allegations that bid rigging and fraud at Mount Sinai Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital resulted in the hospitals awarding contracts worth tens of millions of dollars to outside contractors.

Purchasing officials at the hospitals, two of the city's largest and most prestigious, are alleged to have gotten more than a million dollars in payments from companies that were then given lucrative contracts to perform work such as re-insulating pipes and removing asbestos, according to documents filed in the Southern District of New York.

Nine contractors are involved in the case. So far, eight people and three companies supplying the hospitals have pleaded guilty to charges including bid-rigging, mail fraud and tax fraud. Three more people have been indicted on similar charges.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation and Internal Revenue Service have been investigating and the Justice Department's Antitrust Division is prosecuting the allegations in the case.

Some relevant specifics:

The most recent indictment, handed up by a federal grand jury April 6, involved the alleged awarding of more than $195,000 in maintenance and insulation contracts. Mario Perciavalle, associate director of plant services at Mount Sinai, is accused of taking at least $20,500 in cash from a Long Island City company in 2004 and 2005 in exchange for the company, unnamed in documents, winning the deals.

Prosecutors also are pursuing a case involving a former official at New York-Presbyterian, Salvatore Scotto-DiVetta, a supervisor at the hospital's Facilities Operations department. He pleaded guilty in March to rigging bids for re-insulation contracts, the Department of Justice said.

The next day, the Journal reported:

Two New York-Presbyterian Hospital officials and two contractors who did business with the prestigious hospital were indicted on fraud charges Tuesday in the latest cases stemming from a federal investigation into bid-rigging and fraud.

The indictment alleges that the hospital officials—Santo Saglimbeni of Armonk, N.Y., and Emilio Figueroa, whose hometown wasn't given—received payments and gifts in exchange for awarding contracts to certain companies.

And already the box score for this investigation increased:

As a result of the investigation, a total of five hospital employees, 10 people outside the hospitals and six companies have either pleaded guilty or face charges.

The comments by hospital officials had a familiar ring to anyone who has been following the hearings in Washington on the global financial collapse. From the first article:

A Mount Sinai spokesman said the hospital notified the Justice Department 'about the possibility of impropriety immediately after it was identified in an internal audit' and is cooperating with the investigation. The spokesman said the hospital dismissed the employee under investigation and instituted tougher contracting systems.

From the second:

New York-Presbyterian was an 'unknowing victim of these alleged crimes,' a hospital spokeswoman said. She also said that the staffers named in the indictment no longer work at the hospital, and it is cooperating with the investigation.

Partners Healthcare System

Just out today in the Boston Globe:

The US Department of Justice has opened a civil investigation into possible anticompetitive behavior by Partners HealthCare System Inc., the region’s most powerful hospital and physician network.

In a letter sent to Partners and the state’s three largest health insurers on April 19, investigators from the Justice Department’s antitrust division demanded documents relating to Partners’ 'contracting and other practices in health care markets in Eastern Massachusetts.'

The letter, obtained by the Globe, said the probe sought to determine whether the practices violated the Sherman Antitrust Act, which bars companies from using their market power to limit trade or artificially raise prices.

The background is:

Boston-based Partners has been under growing scrutiny because of its market power and ability to draw high prices from insurers. The company employs about 5,500 physicians and operates a half dozen smaller hospitals, in addition to their prestigious Harvard-affiliated Boston teaching hospitals, Mass. General and the Brigham.

Earlier this year, Attorney General Martha Coakley issued a report documenting that Massachusetts insurance companies pay some hospitals and doctors, including those in the Partners network, twice as much money as others for essentially the same patient care. The report pointed to the market clout of the best-paid providers as a main driver of the state’s spiraling health care costs.

A 2008 Globe Spotlight Team series focused on the Boston market found that hospitals such as Mass. General and the Brigham typically are paid 15 to 60 percent more for essentially the same work as other hospitals.

Soon after that series, Coakley launched her investigation into whether Partners and Blue Cross-Blue Shield, the state’s largest health insurer, may have illegally colluded to increase the price of health insurance statewide over the last decade, according to several legal and government sources.

And again, the official response had a familiarly evasive ring:

Partners spokesman Rich Copp yesterday noted that the hospital network already has supplied similar information to investigators from the state attorney general’s office, which launched its own review of Partners’ contracting practices last year. He noted in Partners’ defense that it vies with other providers in the area’s 'highly competitive' health care market.

'The Department of Justice has requested the same information that we have provided to the attorney general’s office,' said Copp. 'We will continue to cooperate with both government agencies during this ongoing analysis of health care in Massachusetts.'

Summary

So there it is.  Multiple indictments for and guilty pleas to charges of bid-rigging and fraud at two New York academic medical centers, and state collusion and federal anti-trust investigations of a Massachusetts hospital system.  The issues involve four of the most prestigious teaching hospitals in the US.

Of course, not all the indictments may result in convictions, and the investigations may not result in charges.  But this involves some institutions that at one time would have appeared beyond reproach.  The lack of clear denials from the inevitable official spokespeople, and attempts to deny responsibility for the actions of employees elsewhere identified as "officials" do not provide much reassurance.

Of course, readers of Health Care Renewal would have known that questions could be raised about leadership and governance of these once-revered institutions.  Questions could be raised about the incentives implied by the huge compensation given to the top hired executives at New York - Presbyterian, awarded by a board of trustees that includes some of the leaders of the more prominent failed finance corporations involved in the global financial collapse.  Questions could be raised about the dominant presence of finance leaders and possibly conflicted individuals on the Partners board, and apparent interlocks among Partners leadership and the leadership of the largest health insurer in Massachusetts, which was willing to pay that system so much.

Maybe, instead of lecturing the more lowly among us about our responsibilities to improve health care, the leaders of our previously most august health care institutions need to introspect more about their own responsibility to address the metastasis of "greed and incompetence" in health care from the financial sector.

A "Very Well Paid Boob" on the Harvard Corporation?

The ongoing investigation of the global financial collapse may also shed some indirect light on what has gone wrong with health care.  Consider the recent testimony by two leaders of the nearly failed, then bailed out global financial giant Citigroup, as reported by the New York Times. One of the leaders was Robert Rubin,

Robert E. Rubin, the former Treasury secretary, faced withering questions from the panel, the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, for his spare expressions of remorse. Repeatedly playing down his role as chairman of the executive committee of Citigroup’s board, he was met with anger and disbelief.

'You were either pulling the levers or asleep at the switch,' Philip N. Angelides, the committee’s chairman, told him.

Mr. Rubin stopped short of accepting personal responsibility. He grudgingly conceded that a few savvy investors saw the crisis coming, asserting that nearly everyone in the financial services industry had failed to see a dozen powerful forces — from excessive debt levels to trade imbalance — come together in a perfect storm.

'We all bear responsibility for not recognizing this, and I deeply regret that,' Mr. Rubin said.

Mr. Rubin’s stance left several members of the panel angry. Mr. Rubin earned more than $100 million during a decade at Citigroup.

Mr. Angelides, a former California state treasurer and a fellow Democrat, did not buy it. 'You were not a garden-variety board member,' he said. 'I think to most people chairman of the executive committee of the board of directors implies leadership. Certainly $15 million a year guaranteed implies leadership and responsibility.'

Attempts by Mr Rubin (and to some extent, former Citigroup CEO Charles O Prince III) to disavow responsibility met with more derision. For example, yesterday, see a New York Times editorial:

The latest public hearings of the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, held last week, made headlines for eliciting more apologies from financiers who presided over the market collapse.

You may recall a similar flurry last year, when Lloyd Blankfein, the chairman and chief executive of Goldman Sachs, was widely credited for having apologized for his firm’s role in the financial crisis.

We did not buy it then; Mr. Blankfein never said what he was sorry for or to whom he was apologizing. And we are not buying it now.

Mr. Prince says he 'could not' foresee the impending collapse, when he could have and should have seen it coming. Certainly, others did. Mr. Rubin has said that under his employment agreement, he was not responsible for the bank’s operations. But he was a towering figure at Citi, a source of its credibility and prestige. That implies responsibility, no matter what his contract said. Add all that to the 'I wasn’t the only one' context of both men’s comments, and their regret translates as, 'We feel bad about an accident we were powerless to prevent.'

Except that the financial crisis was not an accident and they were not powerless. The crisis was the result of irresponsibility and misjudgments by many people, including Mr. Prince and Mr. Rubin. Citi, under their leadership, epitomized the financial recklessness that ruined the economy.

A Seattle Times columnist was even more harsh, calling Rubin a "very well paid boob," and:

Rubin was barely contrite and went back to his meme of 'who knew?,' adding the unintended comedic line about how leaders shouldn't be responsibility for the 'granularity' of little things -- such as $40 billion in essentially fraudulent collateralized debt obligations. Rubin was being paid more than $100 million as a senior adviser to Citi while it headed toward collapse and a $45 billion taxpayer rescue. So 'granularity' is in the eye of the beholder.

Commission vice chairman Bill Thomas said, 'Apparently you get to the top without having had to experience anything the people underneath you do. You don't have a comprehension. You're not informed, but you get to make all this money on the upside, but there's no downside.'

Indeed. Rubin and Citigroup epitomize the public policies and the corporate practices that brought the economy to the brink of a new depression.

As Bill Clinton's Treasury Secretary, Rubin championed financial deregulation and the financialization of the economy as manufacturing was hollowed out. Among other things he helped keep derivatives from being regulated and encouraged the creation of 'too big to fail' institutions such as Citi. Rubin led the battle to dismantle Glass-Steagall, so Citi and its giant siblings could gamble in investment banking, while also doing commercial banking and insurance. An alum of Goldman Sachs, Rubin was fine with big compensation for executives, even if their leadership wrecked the bank (Prince walked away with $120 million). Funny how Rubin was offered the lucrative Citi position after he left such 'government service.'

So what does this tell us about health care? As we noted before, while Robert Rubin is no longer on the board of Citigroup, he has been a member of the Harvard Corporation since 2001. The Corporation is ultimately responsible for the US' oldest and most prestigious university, its equally prestigious medical school and teaching hospitals. Yet under Rubin's stewardship, Harvard's endowment has fallen a prodigious amount, and Harvard and its Partners Healthcare hospital system have faced charges of conflicts of interest and various sweetheart deals. Perhaps this is to be expected when the ultimate steward may be a "very well paid boob."

While Rubin's impressive resume and wealth in 2001 may have provided a rationale for his appointment to the Corporation, what would be the rationale for his continuing service?

As we have pointed out, as the world economy was driven to near ruin by "masters of the universe," some of the same also became leaders of academia and academic medicine in their spare time. Maybe this made sense 10 or 20 years ago, but why does it still make sense? On the other hand, now that we understand how bad the leadership of finance really was, it is a little easier to understand why the leadership of health care has become so bad.

One Small Step Towards Reducing Conflicts of Interest Affecting Academic Medical Leaders

Two articles, one in the New York Times by Duff Wilson, the other in the Boston Globe by Liz Kowalczyk, brought the issue of the conflicts of interest generated by leaders in academic medicine sitting on the boards of health care corporations to wide attention.  The news was that Partners Healthcare, the large hospital network that includes two of Harvard University's main teaching hospitals, for the first time is limiting the role its leaders can take on such boards of directors.  As written by Duff Wilson,

The owner of two research hospitals affiliated with the Harvard Medical School has imposed restrictions on outside pay for two dozen senior officials who also sit on the boards of pharmaceutical or biotechnology companies. The limits come in the wake of growing criticism of the ties between industry and academia.

Medical experts say they believe the conflict-of-interest rules at the institution, Partners HealthCare, go further than those of any other academic medical center in restricting outside pay from drug companies. The rules, which became effective on Friday, impose limits specifically on outside directors who guide some of the nation’s biggest companies.

Senior officials at the two hospitals, Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s Hospitals in Boston, must limit their pay for serving as outside directors to what the policy calls 'a level befitting an academic role' — no more than $5,000 a day for actual work for the board. Some had been receiving more than $200,000 a year. Also, they may no longer accept stock.

The proper pay for time spent on board meetings under the new policy was calculated at $500 an hour for a 10-hour day, said Christopher Clark, a senior lawyer at Partners and director of a new office for interactions with industry. Stock and options were banned because they tie the director’s fortunes to company profits.

As far as I know, this policy is the first instance of a US not-for-profit academic medical institution limiting the role its leaders and/or faculty may take as directors of for-profit health care corporations. So it is an important step. Furthermore, also as far as I know, the coverage this news item received on Sunday is the first time this issue has been discussed openly in the mainstream media.

A New Species of Conflicts of Interest

On the other hand, we first discussed the conflicts posed by leaders of academic medicine sitting on the boards of for-profit health care corporations in 2006 on Health Care Renewal, calling it a "new species of conflict of interest" at that time.  Since then, we have found many other examples of such conflicts.  We noted that sitting on a corporate board is a particular problem for an academic medical leader because a corporate director has a legal obligation to advance the profits and financial fortunes of the corporation he or she serves. As Robert AG Monks put it, corporate directors are supposed to "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders" [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.]  This legal requirement ties a corporate board member far more tightly to the interests of the corporation than do the obligations of, for example, a consultant to the corporation. 

Moreover, some have charged that many for-profit corporate board members are just cronies of the top corporate leaders.For example,

Tthe cronyism of major corporate boards, especially those in the finance area, has become legendary. Rubber-stamp directors who rarely buck the chairman or challenge the CEO are unfortunately all too common. These boards did not serve either their companies or shareholders well.

[per Ritholtz B. Bailout Nation.  Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2009. pp. 198-199.]

In that case, this would only makes things worse, tying board members to the personal interests of top managers of health care corporations, rather than to the interests of the entire stockholder population.

A (Baby) Step in the Right Direction

Given the potential severity of board of directors level conflicts of interest for academic medical leaders, any step that reduces them deserves applause.  That being said, Partners Healthcare's restrictions on these conflicts are at best baby steps in the right direction.

Note that the new policy only affects a small number of people.  Liz Kowalczyk wrote, "the policy affects roughly 25 vice presidents, clinical department heads, and other top executives...."  So it neither affects lower ranking clinical leaders, or Partners' own board.

The policy's limit on directors' compensation ($500/ hour, or $5000/ day, assuming a 10-hour day, which would annualize to $1,040,000 per year assuming an 8-hour day, and $1,300,000 assuming a 10-hour day), might be comparable to the current exaggerated earnings of top Partners' executives, but substantially exceeds the compensation of most practicing physicians or medical academics, and hence does not seem to be a very significant limitation.  Requiring payments be made in cash rather than stock options might be regarded as an improvement rather than a restriction. 

The policy does not restrict the number of boards a Partners leader may sit on.

Finally, the policy does not do anything substantial to manage to conflicts generated by board members' legal obligations to their companies and stockholders, nor their tendency to become cronies of top corporate management. 

Are Conflicts of Interest Even a Problem?

While acknowledging the new, slightly restrictive policy, top Partners leaders did not seem to want to acknowledge that there is any downside to academic medical leaders sitting on health care corporations' boards.  For example,

'We thought it was a very good idea to have institutional officials serve on boards, but we did not want to have personal enrichment,' [former Partners Chief Academic Officer and current Professor] Dr. [Eugene] Braunwald said.
[NY Times]

Note that for most people, $500/hour appear to be personally enriching.  

Also,

'These relationships also have significant benefits,' ... [Christopher Clark, director of Partners Office for Interactions with Industry] said. 'They give us some insight into how the companies work and how they are doing, and making sure the companies are aware of the academic perspective.'
[Boston Globe]

Mr Clark did not note the many other ways to see how companies work and to communicate the academic perspective to them which do not involve academic leaders being paid by these companies.

Dr Dennis Ausiello, chief of medicine at Massachusetts General Hospital, said

Pfizer and other companies were crucial to translate academic research into drugs that benefit patients. At Partners, he has oversight of a research, ventures and licensing office that seeks to commercialize the hospitals’ intellectual property.

'I’m very proud of my board work,' he said. 'I’m not there to make money. I certainly think I should be compensated fairly and symmetrically with my fellow board members, but if my institutions rule otherwise, as they have, I will continue to serve on the board.'

While drug companies do make products that are good for society, could they not continue to do so without academic leaders on their boards? If Dr Ausiello did not care about his compensation, why did he continue to accept it?

So it is hardly clear that Partners Healthcare's leadership even now would credit Harvard Professor Emeritus and Editor Emeritus of the New England Journal of Medicine Dr Arnold Relman's point of view,

I think that’s a gross conflict for an official of an academic medical center to be on the board of a pharmaceutical company.

It’s happening more and more around the country. If it isn’t stopped, I think the academic institutions are going to lose the confidence of the country and the government and they will no longer deserve the tax exemption or anything else. They will be part of industry itself.

Indeed. But at least now, the issue may be apparent to more people than just the dedicated readers of Health Care Renewal.  The more it is discussed, the more academic medical leaders may realize how much credibility they would gain if they were seen as impartial experts and dedicated physicians, rather than the protectors of corporate stockholders, or worse, the cronies of corporate bosses.

ADDENDUM (4 January, 2010) - see also comments by Professor Margaret Soltan on University Diaries, Merrill Goozner on the GoozNews blog, and Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

ADDENDUM (6 January, 2010) - see also comments by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog.

"Man's Best Hospital," Run by the Boss of a MECC (Medical Education and Communications Company)?

In January, 2009 we posted about how the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts and of Partners HealthCare, made a secret oral agreement that BCBS would pay Partners at a higher rate than that given to other hospitals.

Why BCBS would want to pay so much to this one hospital system was never clear. Partners does include some extremely prestigious hospitals, including the Brigham and Womens Hospital, and the Massachusetts General Hospital, ("Man's Best Hospital" in the House of God), but there are some other very prestigious teaching hospitals in Boston that were not blessed by BCBS' largess.

We speculated about one possible cause: the leadership of the two organizations may have felt they had more in common with each other than with the constituencies of their own organizations. A few leaders of each organization had direct ties to the other. Many leaders of both organizations were simultaneously leaders of finance, the same sector that has brought us what is now called the Great Recession. Leadership of both organizations had conflicted loyalties. The organizations' CEOs at the time, and many members of their boards had divided loyalties and apparent conflicts of interest. For example, Jack Connors, the chair of the Partners HealthCare board, is also the Chairman Emeritus of marketing communications company Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopoulos Inc, whose clients include pharmaceutical and pharmacy benefits manager CVS / Caremark, and is also a member of the board of directors of Covidien, a medical device company.

The Boston Globe just published a report that Mr Connors had even more intense conflicts that had not heretofore been made public.

He's chairman of New England's largest healthcare company, and that position atop Partners HealthCare has tested the limits of Jack Connors's considerable corporate dexterity.

Though he has no background in medicine, Connors has been Partners' chief overseer, champion, and its most public face for 13 years.

[One board member] is the cofounder and chairman emeritus of Partners' advertising firm. That would be Jack Connors. And that potential point of conflict has been disclosed....

But to the chagrin of some former board members, never brought up for board review was Connors's stake in a leading medical education firm whose sale in 2004 made Connors a very wealthy man.

Nor has the board notified public officials of Connors's ownership of a fledgling home healthcare firm that has directly solicited Partners' hospitals for business.

Connors and top Partners officials defended the decision not to publicly disclose Connors's potential conflicts, saying that because Partners did not directly contract with either of Connors's firms there were no conflicts to report. Connors also defended his right to be an entrepreneur in the healthcare business while also chairing Partners' board, and strongly denied ever using his position for personal or financial advantage.

The larger company, M/C Communications, grew to become the biggest commercial provider of continuing education to physicians in the decade between its inception in 1994 and when Connors sold it in 2004. It profited hugely from an exclusive commercial relationship it maintained with Harvard Medical School, whose faculty teach at seminars the company holds. Partners' signature institutions, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, are major teaching affiliates of Harvard Medical School.

In addition, M/C Communications benefited financially from millions of dollars in sponsorship revenue paid it from major pharmaceutical firms eager to play to this professional audience.

Connors said he was under no obligation to disclose his ownership of M/C Communications to the Partners board. He said that while there is an 'affiliation' between Harvard Medical School and the two Partners hospitals, there is no formal contract between them.

Connors said he informed Partners executives of his ownership of M/C Communications, and that they determined it did not warrant disclosure to the full Partners board.

'There is no contract between Partners and Harvard,' Partners said in a statement to the Globe.

Connors made a name for himself as an executive with Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos, the Boston advertising company that he helped found and guided throughout a long career. Less well known is that he made most of his fortune from M/C Communications, which he sold to Bain Capital for $450 million in 2004.

The sale was the largest of a private healthcare-related company in Massachusetts that year, according to TM Capital Corp., an investment banking company. Connors, who led an investor group that bought the firm outright for $13 million in 2000, made about $250 million from its sale.

After his 2004 windfall, he founded a company that helps elderly patients readjust to life at home after a hospitalization.

That company, Dovetail Health, has - Connors acknowledged - solicited business from hospitals owned by Partners. And Connors confirmed that after Dovetail executives failed to convince Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to contract with the firm, he personally spoke to the giant insurer's president, Cleve L. Killingsworth, on Dovetail's behalf. Partners and Blue Cross Blue Shield regularly negotiate over $2.5 billion worth of medical business a year.

Connors acknowledged in an interview that it might have appeared 'inappropriate' to some for him to pitch Killingsworth. But he said the conversation stemmed from a shared belief that new ways must be found to reduce frequent return trips of elderly patients to the hospital. More recently, however, he said he does not believe his approach to Killingsworth was inappropriate.

So let's try to recap this.

While Jack Connors has been chairman of the board of Partners HealthCare, the largest and most prestigious hospital system in Massachusetts, he also ran an advertising agency that did business with Partners, and has been on the board of Covidien, a medical device company. Both of these relationships he disclosed to his fellow board members, although no one seemed troubled by them.

However, while a Partners board member, Connors was also the founder, and ultimately profited very handsomely from the sale of M/C Communications. M/C Communications apparently begat M/C Holding Corporation, which in turn owns M/C Communications and Pri-Med Institute LLC. M/C Communications now describes itself as " established in 1994 and has become a leading provider of medical education event management solutions for health care professionals and others around the globe." M/C Communications runs Pri-Med, which is described thus: "Pri-Med is a platform for science and medicine that includes meetings, resources, online, and new media tools designed to meet the information and education needs of today’s practicing physician." Pri-Med markets itself to industry, presumably the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and device industry, "Sixty percent of doctors’ offices restrict rep access, making it more challenging than ever to get in front of your customers. But with Pri-Med, you get to meet clinicians in a professional environment where they seek you out. More than 66% of attendees say they come to Pri-Med events to meet you, industry representatives." So Connors' company was a medical education and communication company (MECC), which provided what appeared to be educational programs to physicians that in fact were also sold to the health care industry as marketing opportunities.

So Partners HealthCare, which includes two of the world's most prestigious teaching hospitals, has been run by the boss of a MECC? Say it ain't so.

Not only did Connors own a company that had an exclusive contractual relationship (as described above) with the Harvard faculty who staff the main Partners HealthCare hospitals, that company was engaged in marketing the products of sponsoring drug and device companies disguised as education. Finally, Connors denied that this presented any kind of conflict of interest, because Partners HealthCare has no explicit contract, just an "affiliation" with Harvard Medical School.

Finally, just to ice the cake, Connors' latest venture is a home health care company that did business with Partners, and tried to do business with BCBS, spearheaded by Connors' direct conversations with the BCBS CEO.

Jack Connors thus seems to have just become the latest poster boy for leaders of health care organizations who put their personal financial interests ahead of their responsibilities to those organizations, and function as a power elite whose collective interests trump those of the constituents of the organizations they run.

Quoting from BoardSource, the main duties of the leader of any US not-for-profit are:

Duty of Care

The duty of care describes the level of competence that is expected of a board member, and is commonly expressed as the duty of 'care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in a like position and under similar circumstances.' This means that a board member owes the duty to exercise reasonable care when he or she makes a decision as a steward of the organization.

Duty of Loyalty

The duty of loyalty is a standard of faithfulness; a board member must give undivided allegiance when making decisions affecting the organization. This means that a board member can never use information obtained as a member for personal gain, but must act in the best interests of the organization.

Duty of Obedience

The duty of obedience requires board members to be faithful to the organization's mission. They are not permitted to act in a way that is inconsistent with the central goals of the organization. A basis for this rule lies in the public's trust that the organization will manage donated funds to fulfill the organization's mission.

By leading companies that did direct business with Partners and its staff, and failing to disclose that he was doing so to his fellow Partners board members, Connors appeared to have violated the Duty of Loyalty.

By running a MECC that helps drug and device companies market to physicians in the guise of education, using faculty from the academic teaching hospitals that he lead, Connors seems to have mocked the mission of the academic hospitals within Partners, and thus appeared to violate the Duty of Obedience.

This episode certainly does suggest that health care, and the organizations involved in this case, are lead by an "old-boy network," as one person interviewed for the Globe article suggested. More than just an old-boy network, they seem to be lead by chummy members of the power elite whose collective personal interests supersede the missions of the organizations they are supposed to steward. When this happens, is it any surprise that health care becomes less accessible, more expensive, and of lower quality?

Yet challenging the power elite that are increasingly revealed as controlling much of health care seems to be something that one cannot talk about when discussing health care reform. However, failing to address this problem will likely doom any effort, no matter how well intentioned, to improve health care.

Hat tip to and see comments by Alison Bass on the Alison Bass Blog.

ADDENDUM (3 June, 2009) - See also comments by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog.

A Health Care CEO Who Didn't Put His Own Pay First

We recently posted about executives at two different not-for-profit health care insurance companies/ managed care organizations whose pay seemed to keep levitating, despite organizational financial losses, and commented on how the compensation of top executives of health care organizations seems always to go up, regardless of the financial fortunes, or quality of the products or services provided by their organizations. (Posts here and here.)

Today's Boston Globe, however, provided a contrast. The background is that the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (BIDMC), a renowned Harvard teaching institution, is facing a budget shortfall.

Paul Levy, the guy who runs Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, was standing in Sherman Auditorium the other day, before some of the very people to whom he might soon be sending pink slips.

In the days before the meeting, Levy had been walking around the hospital, noticing little things.

He stood at the nurses' stations, watching the transporters, the people who push the patients around in wheelchairs. He saw them talk to the patients, put them at ease, make them laugh. He saw that the people who push the wheelchairs were practicing medicine.

He noticed the same when he poked his head into the rooms and watched as the people who deliver the food chatted up the patients and their families.

He watched the people who polish the corridors, who strip the sheets, who empty the trash cans, and he realized that a lot of them are immigrants, many of them had second jobs, most of them were just scraping by.

And so Paul Levy had all this bouncing around his brain the other day when he stood in Sherman Auditorium.

He looked out into a sea of people and recognized faces: technicians, secretaries, administrators, therapists, nurses, the people who are the heart and soul of any hospital. People who knew that Beth Israel had hired about a quarter of its 8,000 staff over the last six years and that the chances that they could all keep their jobs and benefits in an economy in freefall ranged between slim and none.

'I want to run an idea by you that I think is important, and I'd like to get your reaction to it,' Levy began. 'I'd like to do what we can to protect the lower-wage earners - the transporters, the housekeepers, the food service people. A lot of these people work really hard, and I don't want to put an additional burden on them.'

'Now, if we protect these workers, it means the rest of us will have to make a bigger sacrifice,' he continued. 'It means that others will have to give up more of their salary or benefits.'

He had barely gotten the words out of his mouth when Sherman Auditorium erupted in applause. Thunderous, heartfelt, sustained applause.

The editorialist's conclusion was:

Paul Levy is trying something revolutionary, radical, maybe even impossible: He is trying to convince the people who work for him that the E in CEO can sometimes stand for empathy.

Note that Levy is one of the few health care CEOs who blogs, and he appears to write his blog on his own, unfettered by public relations flacks or risk-averse lawyers. His discussion of his revolutionary plan is here.

Further note the context in which he is working. While his medical center does not seem to receive particularly payments from insurance companies and managed care organizations, a previously secret agreement between the previous CEO of Partners Healthcare, another renowned, but competing Harvard-affiliated medical system and the previous CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts, the state's biggest, and not-for-profit health care insurer/ managed care organization awarded much higher payments to that health care system (see posts here and here). And the current CEO of that Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts just received (see this post) a substantial raise, enough to make him the best paid health care CEO in the state, while his organization's revenues and membership decreased.

This case shows it is possible for a health care CEO to put the organization's mission, and the welfare and morale of its hard working staff ahead of his own remuneration. If only this example were not so rare.

To Whom Did the "Scorpions in a Bottle" Owe Their Allegiance?

In 2000, an important meeting took place between two men.

The first was a member of the board of directors of Merck Inc, the global pharmaceutical company, and of the board of Charles River Laboratories, which helps "our global partners accelerate drug discovery and development by providing them with tailored research models and preclinical, clinical, support services." The second was a member of the board of IMH Health, which advertises that it provides "global information, analytics and consulting" to support "the life cycle of medicines," from "the earliest stages of research and development through product launch, product maturation and patent expiration," and on the board of BankBoston Corporation, a national and international bank holding company. What might they have talked about?

It does not seem unreasonable to guess that they talked about pharmaceutical development. But that was not their topic.

In fact, the two men were Dr Samuel O Thier, who was then also the CEO of Partners Healthcare, and Mr William C Van Faasen, then CEO of Blue Cross and Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts. Their subject, as we discussed recently, was a secret increase in the reimbursement BCBS would give to Partners, far beyond the reimbursement given to other Boston teaching hospitals. Why BCBS was so willing to pay so much money to one hospital system is unclear. This revelation of this secret agreement showed how an important precept of the supposedly "market-based" US health care broke down. We had previously discussed that in a deregulated system, organizations like hospitals and health insurers/ managed care organizations were supposed to have negotiated vigorously for their interests. The former would try to maximize their reimbursement. The latter would try to minimize their costs. In the secret agreement between Thier and van Faasen, this did not happen.

I cannot explain why this secret agreement was made. I can point out some factors that may have been influential, but have not often been discussed.

The first factor is that the people leading health care organizations often have divided loyalties, and hence their actions on behalf of particular organizations may not be completely explained by their roles with these organizations, and consequent responsibilities and duties. For example, as noted above, the CEO of Partners also was a director of a pharmaceutical corporation, and a contract research/ drug development corporation. His responsibilities to advance the mission of Partners may have conflicted with his fiduciary duties to the stock-holders of Merck and Charles River Laboratories. Similarly, the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield was also a director of a drug development corporation and an international finance corporation. His responsibilities to advance the mission of Blue Cross Blue Shield may have conflicted with his fiduciary duties to the stock-holders of IMH Health and BankBoston Corporation.

The second factor may be revealed by considering the current leadership of the two organizations, leadership which has maintained the secret agreement (at least until it was made public).

The current Board of Trustees of Partners Healthcare, which has 16 members, includes:
- Jack Connors, the chair of the board, who is also the Chairman Emeritus of marketing communications company Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopoulos Inc, whose clients include pharmaceutical and pharmacy benefits manager CVS / Caremark, and is also a member of the board of directors of Covidien, a medical device company.
- Anne M Finacane, who is chief marketing officer for Bank of America, an international financial corporation
- Steven S Fischman, who is President and Chief Operating Officer of New England Development, and real estate development and investment company.
- Edward P Lawrence, a member of the board of directors of Invesco, a global investment management corporation, and of AMVESCAP PLC, another global investment management corporation.
- Jay O Light, an "advisor/trustee to several corporate and institutional pools of capital," a member of the board of directors of Blackstone Group Management, the general partner of the Blackstone Group, a global investment and advisory firm, and a member of the board of directors of ESurg.com, an online source of health care supplies and information.
- Terrence Murray, who is on the board of directors of CVS/Caremark, and is former chair of FleetBoston Financial Corporation and its predecessor FleetBoston, into which BankBoston merged, and which subsequently merged into Bank of America.
- Gary A Spiess, former vice-president of FleetBoston Financial.
- Dorothy A Terrell, a venture partner of First Light Capital, a venture capital firm.
- David A Thomas, a member of the board of directors of Cambridge Trust Company.

The current Board of Directors of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, which has 18 members, includes:
- Mara Aspinall, senior advisor to Genzyme Corporation, a biotechnology firm, member of the board of directors of Predictive Biosciences, also a biotechnology company, and member of the board of trustees of the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a component of Partners Healthcare.
- Brian Barefoot, a former executive vice president and director of investment banking for PaineWebber Inc, an investment firm that was merged into UBS.
- Samuel Cabot III, a member of the board of directors of Fiduciary Trust Company, an investment management firm.
- Richard C Garrison, senior vice president and "catalyst" of Vertex Pharmaceuticals, a biotechnology company.
- Paul Guzzi, member of the Partners Healthcare corporation.
- Marian L Heard, is a member of the board of directors of CVS/ Caremark.
- Philip W Johnston is president and CEO of Johnston Associates, a consulting firm whose clients include Partners Healthcare, numerous medical device companies, including Covidien, and numerous other health care corporations.
- Cleve L Killingsworth, a member of the board of overseers of TIAA/CREF, an investment company.
- Karen Kruck, a senior managing director and head of strategy for State Street Global Advisors, an investment management company.

So another factor seems to be that the leadership of organizations which are supposed to negotiate at arms' length may have more in common with each other than with their organizations' constituencies. Note that these two boards have a lot in common. Both have disproportionate numbers of members who work or retired from one sector of the economy, financial services, and are or were top leaders within that sector. (Half, 8/16 of Partners board members are from this sector. 22%, 4/18 of the Blue Cross Blue Shield board are from this sector.) Keep in mind that of the employed US population, less than 6% work in this sector. This sector is also that which has brought us the global financial crisis.

There are also a variety of interlocks and overlaps among the two boards. These include:
- A major client of a firm run by a member of the BCBS board (Johnston) is Covidien, whose own board includes a member of the Partners board (Connors).
- Another major client of Johnston's firm is Partners itself.
- A member of the Partners board (Murray) and a member of the BCBS board (Heard) both sit on the CVS/ Caremark board.
- A major client of the former firm of a member of the Partners board (Connors) is CVS/ Caremark, a firm on whom a member of the BCBS board and a member of the Partners board sit.
- a member of the BCBS board (Aspinall) also sits on the board of a the Dana-Farber, a component of Partners.
- a member of the BCBS board (Guzzi) is also on the Partners corporation.

Finally, a number of the members of both boards have leadership roles in other health care corporations whose goals could conflict with Partners of BCBS respectively. Two members of the Partners board and three members of the BCBS board sit on the board of such health care corporations.

In summary, the current "market-based" approach to the organization of our health care system is based on the assumption that health care organizations will compete vigorously with each other, and different kinds of health care organizations will negotiate vigorously and at arms' length for their own interests.

However, it appears that the leaders of large health care organizations may have more in common with each other than with other members of their organizations' constituencies. For example, the leaders of a hospital system and of a health insurance/ managed care corporation may be more like each other than like their own employees, patients, trainees, etc. This may make it less likely that they will negotiate vigorously and at arms' length.

It also appears that conflicts of interest affecting these leaders may be widespread, and that conflicts can be of a variety of types.

Finally, it appears that leaders of the finance sector may have a disproportionate overlap with the leadership of health care organizations. The current global economic collapse have lead many to characterize the culture of the financial sector as marked by arrogance, greed, and corruption. Having this culture disproportionately influence the leadership of health care organizations may be responsible for some aspects of the ongoing health care crisis.

This case, and many others reported on Health Care Renewal, suggests that we need leaders of health care organizations to be dedicated to the principles and mission of their organizations, and not to have divided loyalties and conflicts of interest.

The "Scorpions in a Bottle" Shook Hands - A Secret Deal Between a Health Care System and a Managed Care Organization

The Boston Globe just published a series of investigative reports about a case that illustrates what went wrong with last 20 years' paradigm of health care reform. Remember how business-like management and competition were going to control health care costs (while improving quality and access)?

The reports focus on how Partners Healthcare, the health care system formed from the merger of the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Brigham and Women's Hospital, was able to use its position and prestige to improve its reimbursement. The key points from the key article:

- The merger occurred in a climate of deregulation and laissez faire, based on the theory that managed care would damp down hospital costs

Formed in an era of fervent deregulation, Partners has benefited throughout its history from remarkably limited government oversight, considering the vast impact of the merger on the medical marketplace. The administration of Governor William F. Weld never held a public hearing before approving the merger of the state's two biggest hospitals. And the state sharply curtailed regulation of hospital expansion in the 1990s, freeing Partners to dramatically expand into the suburbs, drawing patients and revenue from already struggling community hospitals.

Weld and the Legislature unleashed the forces that led to the creation of Partners when they ended the state's authority to regulate hospital rates in 1992. Beacon Hill wanted to force hospitals to jockey for contracts with savings-minded HMOs, which, at the time, sent their members only to select hospitals and doctors.

'I favor putting the scorpions in the same bottle . . . and letting them fight it out,' said Democrat Edward L. Burke, then cochairman of the Legislature's healthcare committee.

- The rationale for the 1993 hospital merger was cost control

But at the press conference announcing the deal in December 1993, leaders of the two hospitals said their alliance would only make them greater. They described twin ambitions underpinning their once unthinkable alliance: to build a high-quality healthcare system, and to save money. A lot of money.

They said their goal was to cut 20 percent out of their combined $1.2 billion annual budget, which meant saving $240 million a year.

'Put it this way,' said Dr. J. Robert Buchanan, who was then the head of Mass. General. 'We're pretty sure we've got to save 20 percent at minimum.'

The Boston Consulting Group, which helped facilitate the merger, told the hospitals that they could reduce annual costs by between 12 percent and 28 percent, according to a description of the consultants' analysis in a 1996 Harvard Business School study of the merger. Partners would not provide the consultants' recommendations to the Globe.

- But these plans soon went awry. The merged health care system did not control costs

But Partners made only a small fraction of the cuts. The company claims that the merger saved $200 million to $250 million - total - over five years.

Those savings came almost exclusively from administrative consolidation. The two hospitals have rarely collaborated on clinical operations. In fact, soon after the merger, Mass. General opened a new obstetrics unit that would compete with its sister hospital at a time of declining births in Massachusetts.

Partners' current management denies that saving such large sums was ever the intention, and argues the smaller amount they did save was a commendable achievement. Jay B. Pieper, then the Brigham's chief financial officer and now a Partners vice president, suggested there was no basis for the comments Buchanan made at the press conference.

'Everybody kind of scratched their head and said, 'Bob, what did you mean?' ' Pieper said.

According to Pieper and others, melding of medical services would not have saved much since each hospital had programs large enough to achieve economies of scale on their own. Consolidation would have inconvenienced patients and driven away top physicians, they said.

But Buchanan and other Partners founders told the Globe recently that their original intention had been the consolidation of services, at least for rare treatments, and possibly many more. The idea was "to have at least one superb major teaching hospital when all this is over," said Dr. Eugene Braunwald, Partners' former chief of research, who said that didn't happen because their finances never deteriorated to the point they had feared.

The year before his death in 1998, Partners cofounder Dr. H. Richard Nesson told the Globe that he was still looking for ways to consolidate.

'I do not believe, for example, that we should both be doing every kind of transplant,' Nesson said.

A decade later, Partners continues to offer an array of competing transplant programs, even though surgeons sometimes struggle to find enough work to keep skills sharp.

- As the merged hospital system concentrated its power, the state's biggest insurer abandoned any pretense of negotiating down its costs

It was the gentleman's agreement that accelerated a health cost crisis.

And Dr. Samuel O. Thier, chief executive of Partners HealthCare, and William C. Van Faasen, chief executive of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts, weren't about to put it in writing.

Thier's lawyers cautioned that a written agreement between the state's biggest hospital company and its biggest health insurer that would make insurance more expensive statewide might raise legal questions about anticompetitive behavior, according to officials directly involved in the talks.

And so, in May 2000, the two simply shook hands on this: Van Faasen would give Partners doctors and hospitals the biggest insurance payment increase since Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women's hospitals agreed to join forces in 1993.

In return, Thier would protect Blue Cross from Van Faasen's biggest fear: that Partners would allow other insurers to pay less. Those who helped broker the deal say Thier promised he would push for the same or bigger payment increases for everything from X-rays to brain surgery from Van Faasen's competition, ensuring that all major insurers would face tens of millions in cost increases. Blue Cross called it a 'market covenant.

The deal, never before made public, marked the beginning of a period of rapid escalation in Massachusetts insurance prices, a Spotlight Team investigation has found, as Partners repeatedly used its clout to get rate increases and other hospitals tried to keep up. Individual insurance premiums have risen 8.9 percent a year ever since the "market covenant," state figures show, more than twice the annual rise in the late 1990s.

- Then the hospital system used its dominant position to extract higher reimbursement from other insurers

Dr. Harris Berman said he felt like he'd wandered into an ambush.

The chief executive of Tufts Health Plan thought he had been invited to the Prudential tower on Oct. 23, 2000, to continue contract talks with top Partners officials. Thier, the Partners chief, wanted a substantial increase in payments for medical services, $100 million more than Berman was willing to pay for the care of his members over three years.

But Thier was done talking. He told Berman that Tufts insurance would no longer be accepted at Partners starting April 1. It was a devastating blow to Tufts' business. Almost as soon as Berman left his office, Thier launched a million-dollar marketing campaign to drive the point home. Signs went up at Partners reception desks notifying Tufts members that their insurance would soon be denied. A new website told them how to switch insurers. A call center in Texas was set up to field questions from worried patients and doctors.

Within days, major employers and thousands of Tufts members began threatening to cancel their policies. Tufts surrendered in little more than a week.

'I finally concluded, in the middle of the night one night, that our very viability was at stake,' Berman recalled later.

The humiliation of Tufts became an object lesson for other insurers, a lesson they would not soon forget.

- The result was markedly higher health care costs, and a big premium to Partners

Blue Cross has increased the rate it pays Partners by 75 percent since 2000, far more than increases given to other teaching hospitals that mainly treat adults. Other insurers have boosted payments to Partners by a similar amount.

Ellen Zane, Partners' chief negotiator in 2000, said she didn't realize the extent to which other hospitals were not keeping up with Partners until she left to become president of Tufts Medical Center in 2004.

'It turned out that insurers didn't support all hospitals as we thought they would,' said Zane, who said her hospital won't survive if insurers don't substantially increase reimbursement rates. 'I was quite surprised by the rate disparity when I came to Tufts Medical Center. In some ways, it defied logic.'

Tufts' patients, on average, are sicker than either Mass. General's or the Brigham's, based on a standard measure of patients' average severity level. But Tufts Medical Center is paid about 35 percent less, according to confidential Blue Cross rate information obtained by the Globe.

The cozy deal between Partners and Blue Cross and Blue Shield is now the subject of a state investigation, nine years later, according to this Boston Globe article:

Governor Deval Patrick will convene a panel of top state officials Monday to look into whether a recently disclosed, eight-year-old agreement between Partners HealthCare System Inc. and Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts drove up healthcare costs, making it harder to extend healthcare insurance to all residents.

The panel will also look at current contract negotiations between Partners, the state's biggest health care provider, and healthcare insurers to see whether the negotiations might also create artificially high rates that threaten healthcare reform, officials said.

And the Globe editorialized, in a rather subdued way, that the sort of "negotiation" that occurred between Partners and the state's biggest insurer was not the best way to do things:

But this is more than a case of men and women in white jackets putting one over on the suits at Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts and the other insurers. Especially now that the state is committed to health coverage for all its residents, anything that pushes up overall costs is the state's business.

Still, the higher rates that Partners-affiliated institutions outside of Boston generally get from insurers push up the state's overall health bill each time a suburban resident has a procedure done at a Partners facility and not at a lower-cost community hospital.

In the long term, rate-setting should move away from the private contracts that providers and insurers carve out together to ones based more on performance, with the state setting an allowable range for each procedure. In the best of all worlds, such rates would be universal - covering Medicare and Medicaid as well as privately insured patients - and would thus end the systematic underpayment of hospitals like Boston Medical Center and Cambridge Health Alliance that serve more low-income patients.

During the 1980s, many "health care reformers" pushed to take control of health care away from the doctors' "guild," which was blamed for ever rising costs, and give it over to bureaucrats and managers. They would be able to fix the "market failure," and provide health care in a business-like manner. By having private entities compete and negotiate with each other, a brave new world of low cost, accessible, high quality health care would ensue. (See post here.) Or that was the idea, but then it went so wrong.

The case of the market dominance of Partners Healthcare in Massachusetts shows how health care organizations unfettered by regulation, run by businesspeople, maximized their own financial results, but simultaneously caused vigorously rising costs. Whether the brave new world improved quality or not is an open question.

But why did it all go so wrong? In this case, a key question is why did Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Massachusetts so readily surrender to Partners' demands? The only explanation provided by the Globe article was this:

As the state slashed oversight of healthcare, no private company was able and willing to moderate Partners' ambitions. Blue Cross, which now controls 60 percent of the health insurance market, was best positioned to do so but flinched at the possibility of a public tangle. As former Blue Cross executive Peter Meade said at a meeting of company executives in 2000 at which some urged a tougher stand against Partners: 'Excuse me, did anyone here save anyone's life today? We are a successful business up against people that save people's lives. It's not a fair fight.'

That doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Admittedly, Partners, composed of two very prestigious hospitals, was known for the excellence of its care. However, a "tougher stand" did not require trashing the hospitals' reputation. Partners was arguing that its two hospitals were so much more excellent than some of Boston's other excellent academic teaching hospitals that they deserved very special treatment. (Full disclosure: please note that as a medical student, I did several rotations at one of those other excellent medical centers, now the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and I did my internship and residency and another one of those excellent medical centers, now Boston University Medical Center.)

Why were Blue Cross and Blue Shield leaders unwilling to reply? And why have they continued to increase Partners' disproportionate reimbursement without second thoughts, as long as what they were doing did not see the light of day?

The fact that the deal was never put in writing, much less fought over in the media, suggests that those who signed it were uneasy about it. So why did they do it?

There are no clearer explanations, leaving only speculation. But watch Health Care Renewal for our speculation about why the "scorpions in the bottle" became best of friends.

Meanwhile, this case illustrates just some of the consequences of health care run by bureaucrats and managers operating in secrecy and unfettered by external accountability.

The Fight at the Mar-a-Lago Club: the Madoff Case Opens a Window on Medical Centers' Ties to the Rich and Famous

We just discussed how the incredible scrutiny being given to the case of Bernard Madoff, the alleged author of the financial scandal of the century, has opened many windows on the mismanagement and misgovernance of health care organizations. For example, consider the attention given to a Madoff crony, one Robert Jaffe. The Boston Globe reported,

The scene was a society party at Donald Trump's famed Mar-a-Lago Club in Palm Beach, Fla. One guest was Robert Jaffe, 64, who had recruited investors for Bernard L. Madoff, the money manager who last week admitted to a Ponzi scheme in which he lost $50 billion of his clients' money. Another was 78-year-old Jerome Fisher, founder of the upscale shoe store chain 9 West, who reportedly lost millions with Madoff and was upset by Jaffe's presence at the club Saturday night.

According to Trump, the two almost came to blows. 'It was as if these people were born to be prizefighters,' Trump said in an interview yesterday.

A second Globe article provided more detail about Jaffe's relationship with Madoff:

Even in the rarefied world of high society in Palm Beach, Robert M. Jaffe cut quite the figure. With his impeccably coiffed hair, a golf game to envy, and a $17 million waterfront mansion, he was a man to be seen.

He was also the man to see, if you wanted in on a sure thing - Bernard L. Madoff's investment fund.

Jaffe moved among the rich and richer in Palm Beach and Boston, finding suitable clients, among the many who clamored to get a piece of Madoff's irresistible, too-good-to-be-true investment returns.

And,

As vice president of Cohmad Securities Corp., a company set up primarily to bring in clients for Madoff, Jaffe offered coveted access to the legendary New York firm. Jaffe used to keep a small office on Commonwealth Avenue in Boston, but the MBA dropout functioned more as a symbol of the extraordinary wealth and status Madoff clients could achieve.

Jaffe, who drove a green 1954 MG TF British convertible, seemed to find more success doing business on the golf course than in the boardroom.

Jaffe ... focused on recruiting clients with a high net worth. Investors and potential investors say that Madoff at times made it difficult to get in, often requiring connections and an investment of more than $1 million.

Jaffe provided those connections. Although his primary residence is in Palm Beach, he also has a home in Weston and is a member of the Pine Brook Country Club. A large number of the 360 members of the Weston club had investments with Madoff, according to members and employees. Jaffe played as recently as this fall on Weston's rolling fairways, where he was known as generous tipper.

Jaffe, who also runs M/A/S Capital Corp., a family-operated investment firm in Palm Beach, told the Palm Beach Daily News in an interview last week that he would refer potential investors to Madoff. If they became clients, Jaffe would be paid 1to 2 percent of the value of the first successful trade.

He described this arrangement as 'a common approach in the business.'

But that admission has taken some people in Palm Beach by surprise. People thought the breezy socialite was helping out friends by putting them in touch with Madoff.

Looking into Mr Jaffe's relationship with Mr Madoff also provides a view of the the relationships among not-for-profit academic medical centers and wealthy donors. Jaffe, it turns out, is also a prominent fund-raiser for Boston area hospitals,

Nonetheless, despite the scores of Palm Beach residents and Bostonians who have lost money with Madoff, Jaffe is still scheduled to preside over the Discovery Ball, a gathering of socialites and philanthropists Feb. 21 at the Breakers hotel in Palm Beach. In 2006, the last time Jaffe and his wife, Ellen, cochaired the fund-raiser for Boston's Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, they helped raise $2.25 million.

Furthermore,

Some say the cloud over Jaffe raises questions about his vast philanthropic efforts and leadership roles, including positions as chairman of the Palm Healthcare Foundation, an overseer of the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, and co-chair with his wife of the 2009 Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and Jimmy Fund's Palm Beach 'Discovery Ball.'

The Globe went on to report the impact of the Madoff affair and Jaffe's association with it on lavish hospital fund-raising events,

The situation highlights how the Madoff scandal has upended a crucial part of fund-raising for many of Boston's world-renowned hospitals. For years, the hospitals have gone to Palm Beach seeking donations from rich donors, many of them snowbirds or transplants from the Boston area. They hold lavish events at hotels and private parties at homes in an effort to attract donations.

Now, with many donors out millions, that strategy is being reevaluated.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, for instance, is reconsidering a March event in Palm Beach aimed at impressing donors with the hospital's latest medical advances.

'Because of the economy, we had already planned to scale back the extent of it,' said Paul Levy, Beth Israel's chief executive. 'We are considering what further steps we might take in light of the Madoff news because it affects too many people in Palm Beach. We don't need as large a place and we might want a place that's a little more modest.' At its 2007 gala, Beth Israel touted $15 million in gifts, though not all of the money was raised at the event.

'I don't know if it makes sense at all' to have the Jaffes chair the Discovery Ball, said Trump, the hotel and gambling tycoon, and a Dana-Farber contributor who attended the ball last year. 'I don't know the level of animosity or hatred, but I got a bit of it the other night.'

Other hospitals had already begun to rethink their fund-raising approaches before the Madoff scandal broke.

Tufts Medical Center, which has held a Palm Beach event for the past two years in conjunction with Tufts University School of Medicine, will not hold one this winter.

'We decided several months ago that with the economy the way it was, this wouldn't be the most productive year,' said Brooke Tyson Hynes, a spokeswoman. 'We'll reconsider it in the future.'

Children's Hospital Boston also scaled back a Palm Beach event prior to the scandal.

'We had decided before the economy was a problem not to hold an event but to instead engage in personal visits' with potential donors, said Janet Cady, president of the hospital's fund-raising trust.

The Globe article gave more of a flavor of these fund-raising events,

In the late 1980s, many of Massachusetts General Hospital's key donors who once lived in Boston and throughout New England asked the institution to hold events in and around Palm Beach, according to James E. Thompson, vice president for development at Mass. General.

The hospital holds an annual event, called an educational session, in which doctors speak about research at the hospital, followed by a reception. This year's session, scheduled for Feb. 3 at the Four Seasons Resort in Palm Beach, will go on as planned, said Thompson.

'We want to be sensitive and we've spoken to many of our key friends,' said Thompson. 'We're hearing that it's important that MGH continue to be in front of its key friends and contributors and that they want us to come. That doesn't mean all our close friends and competitors are as well off today as 12 months ago.'

Brigham and Women's Hospital is planning a series of events over three days starting Jan. 22, highlighted by a dinner at The Breakers.

'We're not changing our plans at this point,' said Jim Asp, vice president for development.

He added, 'The current uncertainty means donors are looking very carefully about the support they provide. They're taking a bit of a pause before they make some of their decisions. This is a time when it's important for us to stay close to our donors.'

But Dana-Farber has by far the biggest Palm Beach presence, with a full-time office and a schedule of events spread over five weeks, including a kick-off party, a preball dinner, 'breakfast with the doctors,' a dinner for 'major donors,' and the ball itself.

One starts to get a sense of how much academic medical centers have been caught up in the world of the rich and famous. One wonders what they gave up in order to cultivate the rich and famous. We have noted before how some teaching hospitals seem more focused on their profit margins and their CEOs' salaries, and on lavish buildings and high-tech equipment, then on general medical care, and sometimes on teaching at all. One wonders if hospital leaders have gotten distracted from their missions as they got caught up in the world of the rich and the famous.

At least the Madoff case has lead many people to question some of their assumptions about the rich and famous. First, from the New York Jewish Week, focusing on the dependence of Jewish not-for-profit organizations on a few rich donors,

Madoff’s alleged Ponzi scheme had such a devastating impact, they say, because so many organizations rely on informal networks of rich contributors who move in insular circles and operate on the basis of personal connections, not transparent fiscal procedures — the very qualities Madoff allegedly exploited to ensnare otherwise-savvy investors.

In recent years the donor bases of most major Jewish groups have shrunk as the focus shifts to small groups of big givers — a mode of fundraising that was seen, until now, at least — as more efficient and reliable than big networks of small givers.

All that may change as organizations assess the damage and struggle to recover.

'A whole ritual of the organized Jewish community is going to end: going down to Palm Beach and Boca Raton every winter, putting on a good show for these people in the country clubs and coming back with the funds you need to run your organization,'....

Madison Powers in CQ Politics on broader implications of the culture of access to the privileged,

The allegations in the pay-to-play scandal involving Illinois Gov. Rod R. Blagojevich and the admission by former NASDAQ chairman Bernard Madoff that his exclusive investment enterprise has (for more than 20 years) been nothing more than an elaborate ponzi scheme are perfect bookends to a familiar American narrative.

What both stories reveal, each in its own way, is how much American political and financial elites depend upon a series of elaborate rituals for the exchange of various forms of privileged access.

But whether illegal or not, such alleged behavior is part and parcel of a familiar political culture, and of a more general culture, in which some people routinely pay for or otherwise bargain for access, while others lacking the means — or awareness of the option — to pay, remain on the sidelines.

One problem with a culture of access for sale is that it offers no clear point at which we can agree when a line is crossed. But at some point the line is crossed, even if the boundary between what is conventionally accepted and what is not, is inherently fuzzy.

What the Madoff scandal makes clear is that the practice of buying privileged access is by no means confined to the political realm.

A culture of privileged access to economic opportunity or political power or both will always redistribute risk and reward in ways neither fair nor transparent.

Finally, Paul Krugman in the New York Times

So, how different is what Wall Street in general did from the Madoff affair? Well, Mr. Madoff allegedly skipped a few steps, simply stealing his clients’ money rather than collecting big fees while exposing investors to risks they didn’t understand. And while Mr. Madoff was apparently a self-conscious fraud, many people on Wall Street believed their own hype. Still, the end result was the same (except for the house arrest): the money managers got rich; the investors saw their money disappear.

But the costs of America’s Ponzi era surely went beyond the direct waste of dollars and cents.

At the crudest level, Wall Street’s ill-gotten gains corrupted and continue to corrupt politics, in a nicely bipartisan way.

Meanwhile, how much has our nation’s future been damaged by the magnetic pull of quick personal wealth, which for years has drawn many of our best and brightest young people into investment banking, at the expense of science, public service and just about everything else?

Most of all, the vast riches being earned — or maybe that should be “earned” — in our bloated financial industry undermined our sense of reality and degraded our judgment.

Think of the way almost everyone important missed the warning signs of an impending crisis. How was that possible? How, for example, could Alan Greenspan have declared, just a few years ago, that 'the financial system as a whole has become more resilient' — thanks to derivatives, no less? The answer, I believe, is that there’s an innate tendency on the part of even the elite to idolize men who are making a lot of money, and assume that they know what they’re doing.

After all, that’s why so many people trusted Mr. Madoff.

Now, as we survey the wreckage and try to understand how things can have gone so wrong, so fast, the answer is actually quite simple: What we’re looking at now are the consequences of a world gone Madoff.

Those are hard acts to follow, but to conclude in the health care context, we need to remember our core values, remember the calling of medicine comes before the siren songs of money and power, and stop idolizing "men who are making a lot of money," much less assume they know what they are doing.

Health Care Organizations Ensnared in Giant Ponzi Scheme

It seems that news about concentration and abuse of power in health care, about ill-informed, ill-advised, conflicted, self-interested, even corrupt management of health care organizations, has almost been swamped by stories of even worse concentration and abuse of power elsewhere, from mysterious hedge funds, to US state government, to countries on multiple continents. And yet, health care and health care organizations seem to have been swept up into these larger fiascos. We commented briefly earlier on one health care connection to the allegations that the Governor of Illinois tried to auction off an appointment to a US Senate seat.

Now it turns out that the spectacular collapse of a financial organization that really was a giant Ponzi scheme also has ensnared many health care organizations.

Reporting on the collapse of Bernard L Madoff Investment Securities is everywhere. (See this initial story, for example, in the New York Times.) Here is a list of the health care organizations that are involved.

Madoff was on the Board of Trustees of Yeshiva University, and its Treasurer. Yeshiva University is the parent university of the Albert Einstein College of Medicine. (The Board of Trustees web-site has had its content removed, but the cached version listed Madoff. This role was also reported by Bloomberg.)

Another member of the Yeshiva University board, J Ezra Merkin, ran a hedge fund, "which then put almost all of its $1.8 billion in capital in Madoff's hands." (per AP)

Yeshiva University itself was reported to have "lost tens of millions of dollars, if not more." (per New York Magazine.)

The Carl and Ruth Shapiro family charity, formerly a major donor to Boston health care institutions such as the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston Medical Center, and the Dana/Farber Brigham and Womens' Cancer Center, lost about half its assets, which had been invested with Madoff (per the Boston Globe).

Robert Jaffe, who "operated a company whose sole purpose was to market Madoff investment products," is "an overseer of Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center." (Also per the Globe.)

The North Shore - Long Island Jewish Health System was "believed to have lost millions" (per AP).

So besides being a stunning example of financial mismanagement and fraud, this case is a reminder of how prominent health care institutions got caught up in the contemporary business culture, which in turn was dominated by the self-proclaimed Masters of the Universe who lead the big financial institutions. But after the Madoff case, as one writer on TheStreet.com put it, "does anyone still doubt that the global banking and investing industry is full of greedy idiots?"

ADDENDUM (16 December, 2008) - see multiple posts about the relationships among Yeshiva University and Madoff on the University Diaries blog.

What Me Worry? - Academic Leaders Blissfully Unaware of the Commercial Purposes of their Research Center

A few weeks ago, the Boston Globe published an investigative report on differences in reimbursements insurers and managed care organizations provide to different hospitals and hospital systems. One major bullet point was that the Partners HealthCare system, whose flagship hospitals include the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Brigham and Womens Hospital, received higher reimbursement rates than other well-known hospital and health care systems. A second was by some measures of quality, the major Partners teaching hospitals did not do better than other Boston hospitals.

In the resulting debate in the blogsphere (for example, see these posts and accompanying comments, on the Running a Hospital blog, and on the Movin' Meat blog,) some argued perhaps Partners really did deserve the extra payment. After all, the Massachusetts General Hospital and the Brigham and Womens Hospital are two of the most prestigious hospitals in the US, and indeed, the world. It is not implausible that this prestige arose from some real quality advantages. Furthermore, as we and others have argued, the available measures of quality, including those proposed to govern so-called "pay for performance" (P4P) in health care, are deeply flawed. For example, because of the Massachusetts General Hospital's reputation, it may attract the most difficult and complex patients, and these patients' severity and complexity of illness may have caused the hospital to have high mortality rates, despite the best of care.

Thus, at the time, the extra reimbursement going to Partners hospitals did not seem an issue for Health Care Renewal. But this week another series of stories came out about "Man's Best Hospital," (as it was called in "Samuel Shem's" House of God).... And they suggested that the Partners system may have quality problems of another kind.

Revelations about a research center at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and the renowned psychiatrist who ran it resulted from discovery legal proceedings. Lawsuits against several drug companies claimed that children were injured by atypical anti-psychotic drugs produced by several companies. The plaintiffs asserted that Dr Joseph Biederman's research was "crucial to the widespread acceptance of pediatric uses of antipsychotic medicines," (per Gardiner Harris reporting in the New York Times). The Massachusetts General Hospital's web-site notes that Dr Biederman is "Chief of the Clinical and Research Programs in Pediatric Psychopharmacology and Adult ADHD at the Massachusetts General Hospital, and Professor of Psychiatry at the Harvard Medical School."

According to the NY Times article, Dr Biederman pressured Johnson & Johnson, the manufacturer of Risperdal (risperidone), an atypical antipsychotic drug, to finance a research center at Massachusetts General Hospital,

E-mail messages and internal documents from Johnson & Johnson made public in a court filing reveal that Dr. Biederman pushed the company to finance a research center at Massachusetts General Hospital, in Boston, with a goal to 'move forward the commercial goals of J.& J.'

Furthermore,

A series of documents described the goals behind establishing the Johnson & Johnson Center for the study of pediatric psychopathology, where Dr. Biederman serves as chief.

A 2002 annual report for the center said its research must satisfy three criteria: improve psychiatric care for children, have high standards and 'move forward the commercial goals of J.& J.,' court documents said.

A February 2002 e-mail message from Georges Gharabawi, a Johnson & Johnson executive, said Dr. Biederman approached the company 'multiple times to propose the creation' of the center. 'The rationale of this center,” the message stated, “is to generate and disseminate data supporting the use of risperidone in' children and adolescents.

Furthermore, David Armstrong, writing for the Wall Street Journal, noted

Internal J&J records that are part of the plaintiffs' filing indicate that Janssen (Johnson & Johnson subsidiary) paid, or was requested to make payments, of $500,000 to help start up the center in 2002, another $200,000 for operating funds in 2003 and an additional $250,000 for 2004 activities. Janssen declined to comment on those figures.

Dr. Biederman was receiving direct compensation from J&J during those years, according to records obtained by Sen. Charles Grassley, who has been investigating drug-company payments to the Harvard researcher at others at academic medical centers. In 2001, Dr. Biederman was paid $58,169 by J&J although he reported to Harvard that he was only paid $3,5000, according to Sen. Grassley. In all, Dr. Biederman received more than $1.6 million between 2000 and 2007 from drug companies while reporting to Harvard receiving only several hundred thousand, Sen. Grassley's documents show.

Also, per the WSJ,

The emails also suggest that the company's marketing staff were involved in creating the institute and that company officials helped to write and vet research work done by Dr. Biederman and his associates.

Officials from Massachusetts General Hospital denied that they knew what was really going on at the Center. Per an article in the Boston Globe,

Massachusetts General Hospital issued a statement yesterday saying that the center, the MGH-Johnson & Johnson Center for the Study of Pediatric Psychopathology, existed from 2002 to 2006 and gave many researchers 'the infrastructure necessary to complete projects related to the psychiatric care of children in an efficient, expeditious, and integrated manner.'

The hospital controlled the center's programs, it said, and, 'The grant agreements stated that the center was for scientific and educational purposes only and not for purposes of promoting, directly or indirectly, the products of Johnson & Johnson and its affiliates.'

The allegations in the Risperdal case 'have raised significant questions and concerns about the implementation of those agreements,' the statement said. 'The MGH takes these allegations very seriously and intends to investigate these issues thoroughly.'

Meanwhile, Harvard University denied any direct involvement. Per an article in Bloomberg News,

David Cameron, a spokesman for Boston-based Harvard Medical School, said Harvard isn’t involved with the J&J Center at Massachusetts General, a Harvard teaching hospital.

'Harvard Medical School does not ‘own’ any of its teaching hospitals,' Cameron said in an e-mail. 'While we are affiliated with them through academic appointments, all teaching hospitals are individually governed.'

A major theme of this blog has been how the leadership of ever larger and more dominant health care organization have forsaken their missions, and instead acted to threaten physicians' and other health professionals' core values. For example, a leader of academic medicine asserted that faculty were judged more for their ability to bring in money, to be "taxpayers," in his words, but not to teach, do research, or take care of patients. This occurred while health care organizations were increasingly run by people from the business world who had little experience in or knowledge of the care of patients, or of biomedical or clinical science.

The sorry tale of Dr Joseph Biederman now adds to the evidence that at even the most elite academic medical institutions commercial purposes may outweigh the academic or clinical mission. The remarkable feature of this story is that the leaders of the particular institutions involved seemed blissfully unaware of what was going on.

At best, the leaders of Massachusetts General Hospital did not seem to know what the purposes of their own so-called research units were. Although Harvard Medical School has long been identified with its prestigious teaching hospitals, and vica versa, now the Medical School says it was "not involved" in the hospitals' and its own faculty's research activities. It all has the smell of "plausible deniability." Maybe the leadership of ostensibly academic institutions no longer want to know too much about their institutions' academic activities, presumably as long as those activities brought in enough money to be good "taxpayers."

But if academic leaders claim to know nothing about and have no involvement in their organizations' academic activities, what sort of leaders are they, and what really are their missions?

Meanwhile, all too many medical academics cloak themselves in the mantles of their academic respectability while helping to hawk drugs and devices, while claiming to be perfectly uninfluenced by the tens or hundreds of thousands or more dollars they are making on the side, and uninfluenced by how the huge grants their sponsors hand to their institutions promote their careers, making their academic cloaks all the more showy.

For additional comment on this case, see this post in the Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry Blog, this one on the Alison Bass blog, and this one on the University Diaries blog.

ADDENDUM (1 December, 2008) - Also see this post on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog.