The Lancet Emphasizes the Threats to the Academic Medical Mission

We just discussed an important article in the Lancet calling for major global reforms of health care education.(1)  An accompanying editorial(2) argued for the critical importance of upholding the mission of higher education, because that mission is critical to human civilization:

Louis Menand has investigated the current role of the modern university in his startlingly powerful book, The Marketplace of Ideas. Menand argues that: 'The pursuit, production, dissemination, application, and preservation of knowledge are the central activities of a civilisation.' More importantly still, 'the ability to create knowledge and put it to use is the adaptive characteristic of humans'. The goal of the university is 'to make more enlightened contributions to the common good'.

The editorial argued strongly for the revitalization of the university's mission:

'It is the academic's job in a free society to serve the public culture by asking questions the public doesn't want to ask, investigating subjects it cannot or will not investigate, and accommodating voices it fails or refuses to accommodate.'

The education of doctors, nurses, and public health workers must seek to: strengthen the overall intellectual culture of a society; define principles for public aspiration; give life to and enlarge the best and most proven ideas of the age; refine the grounds for the private exchanges that take place in our lives; facilitate the exercise of political power; and enable professionals to detect what is important and discard what is irrelevant, accommodate oneself with others, have common ground between colleagues across societies, ask good questions and find the means to answer them, and have the resources to adapt to national and global circumstances. Some readers might recognise that these words are adapted from John Henry Newman's On the Scope and Nature of University Education.

In England, Newman argued for the university as a centre of intellectual liberty, a vital force for progress in society. Menand writes about the university as a 'zone of autonomy'. The importance of tertiary education as a means to advance health, reason, democracy, and justice needs to be rediscovered.

But arguing so forcefully for upholding the academic mission makes sense only if that mission is under threat. The Lancet editorial only briefly alluded to why this might be:

What this Commission argues for is nothing less than a remoralisation of health professionals' education. For decades, health professionals have colluded with centres of power (governmental, commercial, institutional, even professional) to preserve their influence. The result? A contraction of ambition and a failure of moral leadership.

While the original article by Frenk et al suggested that health professionals' education has shortcomings, it did not argue that the academic mission is threatened.  Although the message of the accompanying editorial is that the mission needs a strong defense, it did not clearly explain the extent of the threat to it. 

However, this blog, Health Care Renewal, is largely concerned with threats to health care's core values, including threats to the mission of academic medicine, largely from concentration and abuse of power.  The largest set of threats come from the ascendancy of financial goals amidst the commercialization of health care (mentioned briefly both in Frenk et al and the editorial).  We have discussed the nature of the threats in detail.  For example,

• Abandonment of traditional prohibitions of the commercial practice of medicine - In the US, a Supreme Court decision was interpreted to mean that medical societies could no longer regulate the ethics of their members.  Until 1980, the US American Medical Association had  ruled that the practice of medicine should not be "commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade."  After then, it ceased trying to maintain this prohibition.  The result was increasing, now rampant commercialization.  See posts  here and here.
• Making money takes precedence over education -  A recent survey showing that more than half the faculty at multiple US medical schools felt they were valued more for how much money they brought in than their teaching or patient care abilities (here), confirming previous anecdotal reports (see here). 
• The medical school re-imagined as a biotechnology company -  In 2000, a Vice President of the American Association of Medical Colleges(3) wrote that research universities must respond to "societal demands that they become engines of economic development…."  Many universities now defend lax conflict of interest policies with similar arguments.  For more details, go here.
• Faculty become employees of industry - For numerous examples of this and other kinds of conflicts of interest, go here.  A survey by Campbell et al suggested that approximately two-thirds of medical academics get significant payments from industry.(4)
• Academics become "key opinion leaders" paid to market drugs and devices - Marketers regard "key opinion leaders" as salespeople who appear more credible because of their professional guise.  See anecdotal evidence here.  
• Control of clinical research given to commercial sponsors - A study by Mello et al showed how universities' grant administrators are willing to sign contracts giving commercial sponsors control over key aspects of human research studies.(5)  See post here. 
• Conflicts of interest allow manipulation and suppression of clinical research - Commercially sponsored research design, implementation, and dissemination are often manipulated to favor the sponsor's interests.  When such manipulation fails to produce favorable results, the results may simply be suppressed.
• Academics take credit for articles written by commercially paid ghost-writers - Such ghost-writing is often part of organized stealth marketing campaigns. 
• Whistle blowers are discouraged, or worse, and academic freedom is damaged.  Discussion of some examples of what may happen to whistle blowers is here.  The survey mentioned earlier (here) showed that about one-third of faculty fear they may be punished for speaking  out. 
• Leadership of academic medical centers by businesspeople - Ill-informed management may result from leaders who have no background or training in actual health care. 
• Leaders of teaching hospitals and universities become millionaires -  A recent example is here, and more may be found here.  Leaders of academic medical centers and the parent universities of medical schools often make more than $1 million a year in the US.  When such amounts are in play, executives may focus more on short-term measures that lead to even more pay than on upholding the mission. 
• Medical school leaders become stewards (as members of boards of directors) of for-profit health care corporations - A recent example is here, and a summary of how we discovered this phenomenon in 2006 is here.   The conflict of interest is severe because directors of for-profit corporations are supposed to have unyielding loyalty to the interests of the corporation and its stockholders, although they are frequently accused of acting mainly as cronies of the top hired executives (see here and here).
• Leaders of failed finance firms become stewards of academic medicine - We have found numerous examples, recently here, here, and here, of top executives and/or board members of the finance firms who helped bring on the global financial collapse also being trustees of medical schools, academic medical centers, or their parent universities.  Such "stewards" may bring to the academic environment the "greed is good" culture now pervasive in finance. 

So the threats are real and substantial.  However, their scope generally generally gets little attention.  Even when specific threats appear in the academic literature, their importance may be soft-pedaled, and their confluence with other threats ignored.  Of course, trying to discuss the full breadth and depth of these threats, as we endeavor to do on this blog, threatens in turn those who have personally profited from the current system.  Hence, we frequently cite the anechoic effect, the phenomenon that important threats to health care's core values are often just not discussed in polite company.

Therefore, we applauded the article by Frenk et al for concatenating some of the most important challenges to health care professionals' education, and we now applaud the Lancet editorial for emphasizing the threat to the academic medical mission.  We hope that these two articles, appearing in one of the most prestigious and well-read medical journals, will help to combat the anechoic effect.  Meanwhile, we will continue to blog about threats to core values in the hope that discussing them will lead to solutions.
References

1.  Frenk J, Chen L, Bhutta ZA, Cohen J, Crisp N, Evans T et al. Health professionals for a new century: transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world.  Lancet 2010; 376: 1923-1958.  Link here.
2.  Horton R. A new epoch for health professionals' education.  Lancet 2010; 376: 1875-7.  Link here.
3. Korn D. Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2000; 284: 2234-2237. Link here.
4. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. Llink here.
5. Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 21.  Link here.

"Unreasonably Dangerous" Heparin

It is time for an update on the case of the deadly contaminated heparin sold by Baxter International, which has received much less attention than seems warranted given its human costs (81 lives).  How the heparin was contaminated, and how the contaminated heparin ended up being sold as a US Food and Drug Administration approved American product are still unknown.  Despite the fact that the outcome of this case were so bad, it received disproportionately little attention when it was first made public, and now seems to have become nearly anechoic.

Case Summary 

Baxter International imported the "active pharmaceutical ingredient" (API) of heparin, that is, in plainer language, the drug itself, from China. That API was then sold, with some minor processing, as a Baxter International product with a Baxter International label. The drug came from a sketchy supply chain that Baxter did not directly supervise, apparently originating in small "workshops" operating under primitive and unsanitary conditions without any meaningful inspection or supervision by the company, the Chinese government, or the FDA. The heparin proved to have been adulterated with over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), and many patients who received got seriously ill or died. While there have been investigations of how the adulteration adversely affected patients, to date, there have been no publicly reported investigations of how the OSCS got into the heparin, and who should have been responsible for overseeing the purity and safety of the product. Despite the facts that clearly patients died from receiving this adulterated drug, no individual has yet suffered any negative consequence for what amounted to poisoning of patients with a brand-name but adulterated pharmaceutical product.  (For a more detailed summary of the case, look here, and for all our posts on this topic, look here.)

Civil Cases Plod Forward
If there is any ongoing official investigation of this case, it has not been made public.  Civil cases filed by patients allegedly injured by the heparin, or by relatives of patients who died allegedly from the heparin, seem to be proceeding at a glacial pace.  However, there is one development in one set of civil cases worthy of note.  As reported two weeks ago by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal:

A state court in Illinois has granted a partial summary judgment to two plaintiffs suing Baxter International Inc. over contaminated blood thinner, saying that some of the company's heparin was 'unreasonably dangerous.'

The suit involves tainted imported heparin ingredients from China that caused a public health crisis in 2008, and were linked to more than 80 deaths in the U.S. and many other serious allergic reactions.

Some 300 cases nationwide against Baxter and its main ingredient supplier, Wisconsin-based Scientific Protein Laboratories LLC, were consolidated in Chicago in Cook County Circuit Court.

Both companies have said that they weren't negligent and weren't responsible for the deadly reactions among patients.

The Illinois judge's ruling, dated Wednesday, involved a motion for partial summary judgment that named only Baxter. The motion was filed on behalf of two plaintiffs in the consolidated cases, one of whom died.

The ruling cites statements by Baxter's corporate quality vice president and the president of the company's medication delivery division that the heparin was defective.

Baxter argued in its defense that a jury should address the question of whether a product is 'unreasonably dangerous.' The company noted that the two Baxter executives who agreed in depositions that the heparin was defective aren't doctors or scientists. However, Judge Jennifer Duncan-Brice wrote that the issue before her wasn't whether heparin actually caused the death or injury to the plaintiffs, but just whether the product was, as a matter of fact, contaminated.

The most basic responsibility of a pharmaceutical company is to produce pure, unadulterated product.  As the current director of the US Food and Drug Administration wrote in this week's New England Journal of Medicine, the agency's "modern regulatory functions began with the passage of the 1906 Pure Food and Drugs Act, a law, more than a quarter of a century in the making, that prohibited interstate commerce in adulterated and misbranded food and drugs."  However, in the 21st century, drug companies are increasingly failing to produce unadulterated products, and the FDA is having increasing difficulty assuring patients that the drugs they take meet even the most basic safety standards. 

I submit that corporate cultures increasingly influenced by the arrogant, greedy, amoral leadership of the financial services industry that lead us to the brink of another depression are also leading us to the brink of a poisonous era in health care.  Corporate leaders intent on cutting costs, and paying themselves as much of the resulting proceeds as possible, may see quality and safety as just another cost cutting target.  Corporate leaders brought up in the culture of finance, but untrained and inexperienced in engineering, science, and medicine find it all too easy to ignore quality and safety and focus on the bottom line.  (It is ironic that in the quote above, Baxter International's attorneys made light of the judgments of the company's own executives because they are not physicians or scientists.)

Meanwhile, society seems to have been so mesmerized by the mantra that laissez faire capitalism will lead to miraculous "innovation" that we do not even attend to instances in which it lead instead to death.

As we have said until being blue in the face, as long as the leaders of health care organizations are not held accountable for the results of their decisions on health care quality, cost, and access (even in such extreme quality violations as those resulting in multiple patient deaths), we can expect continuing decisions that sacrifice quality, increase costs, and worsen access, but that are in the self-interest of the people making them.


To really reform health care, we must hold health care organizations and their leaders accountable (and not blame all the problems on doctors, other health care professionals, patients, and society at large).

American Medical Schools Are "Only In It for the Money" Say Their Faculty

We recently discussed the plight of young medical faculty.  It appears that their plight is even worse than we imagined.

Last month, an abstract was presented at the Annual  Conference on Research in Medical Education at the Annual Meeting of the Association of American Medical Colleges, in a session entitled "Your Career is More than Your Specialty."  The citation would be: Pololi L, Ash A, Krupat E.  Faculty Values in the Culture of Academic Medicine: Findings of a National Faculty Survey.

The authors described a large survey, of over 5000 faculty at 26 US nationally representative medical schools, done as part of the National Initiative on Gender, Culture, and Leadership in Medicine (known as C ‐ Change) project.  The overall response rate was good (53%).   Here are the striking results:

51% agreed that 'the administration is only interested in me for the revenue I generate'; 31%; that 'the culture of my institution discourages altruism'; 31%, that other people have taken credit for my work'; and 30% that 'I am reluctant to express my opinion for fear of negative consequences.' Half perceived that the institution does not value teaching and 27% that it does not reward clinical excellence; Over half disagreed with the statement that their own values are aligned with those of the institution. Also, 30% had seriously considered leaving academic medicine and 46% their own institution, both in the prior year.

These results show that US medical education is in moral crisis, and probably close to catastrophe.  These results should provoke shame and outrage, and cause widespread discussion. On the other hand, it is remarkable that they were allowed to see the light of day at all, given the persistent strength of the anechoic effect.  Pololi and colleagues obviously never got the message that one is never ever supposed to discuss such things in public.

Instead of being about discovery and dissemination of knowledge, the fundamental mission of education, a majority of large sample of faculty surveyed says American medical schools are about making money.  Instead of putting teaching first, half of the faculty said their institutions explicitly do not value teaching. Instead of supporting free speech, free enquiry, and academic, a significant minority of faculty say that are afraid to speak out.

It is no wonder that nearly half of the faculty are considering leaving.

On Health Care Renewal, we have discussed evidence, mostly anecdotal, about the rot within the foundations of medicine and health care.  (Note, posts on conflicts of interest, often affecting medical school faculty and leadership, are here; we have posted about how academic medicine has often allowed suppression and manipulation of research;  posts on excessive compensation of health care executives, including those of academic institutions, not based on upholding the academic mission are here.)  Now it appears that the rot is so severe that the whole edifice is about to fall down.

Our foolish transformation of the calling and profession of medicine into a business (see posts here and here)  at a time when businesses were taken over by the arrogance, greed, unscrupulousness, and amorality that lead to the global financial collapse will surely also lead to a global health care collapse if something is not done very soon.

We need a new effort much bigger than but at least as influential as the Flexner Report to re-imagine academic medicine again as valuing teaching, learning, research and patient care, while regarding its financing only as the means to reach those ends.

The Carnegie Foundation sponsored the original Flexner Report, and the Rockefeller Foundation then hired Dr Flexner to reform medical education (see Mitka M.  he Flexner Report at the century mark:  a wake-up call for reforming medical education .  JAMA 2010; 303(15):1465-1466. Link here.) Will anyone or any organization have the courage to sponsor a new, bigger, and likely much more contentious effort?

Meanwhile, the academic leaders who have personally profited from and colluded with the transformation of the system into one that is only in it for the money should resign. The few remaining leaders will need to draw upon all their honesty, integrity, knowledge, and determination to rebuild the system.

Finally, shame on all of us for letting us get to this place.

With apologies to the late Frank Zappa and the Mothers of Invention.

Interface Problems, Ill-Informed Leadership, Suppression of Whistle Blowing: A New Look at a Historic Case

Three issues that come up frequently on Health Care Renewal are problems with man-machine interfaces in health care information technology (IT), as in this post by Dr Scot Silverstein; ill-informed and mission-ignorant or hostile leaders, sometimes in a position to overrule health care professionals, as in this post; and whistle-blowers, and their silencing.

A truly amazing story just surfaced that deals with all these issues, albeit not in health care.  If it is true, and if it had been revealed earlier, maybe society would have become more concerned earlier with these issues, and maybe they would have not ended up plaguing health care so.

Let me first just go through the basic structure of the story to underline the parallels with health care issues.  Then I will quote the specifics.

(If you do not instantly recognize the story, I suggest going through this post sequentially, not jumping to the end, to make its impact more clear.)

The Structure of the Story

Introduction
A large corporation had just put on-line, with much publicity, a high-technology system that was advertised as bigger, faster, better than the competition. 

Confusing Interface and Terminology, Wrong Control Input 

A few days after becoming operational, those in charge suddenly noticed a looming and severe problem.  A technician was ordered to make an extreme control input to avoid the problem.  However, there was confusion about the terminology of the input.  While the system he was controlling was new, and had a new interface, it was operating in an area in which the old terminology, from a time in which the interface for the particular control worked in the opposite direction, was still in use.  So his extreme input was in exactly the wrong direction.  By the time the mistake was clear, and the control was reversed, it was too late, and the first stage of the catastrophe ensued. 

Ill-Informed Management Overrules the Professionals

It is possible that the catastrophe could have been ameliorated if a crucial part of the system were then to have been quickly shut down.  The highest ranking professional on duty ordered it shut down.  However, soon after the events above, a top executive in the corporation, who was nearby only because of all the hoopla surrounding the system's roll out, came on the scene.  He countermanded the order for the shutdown, possibly thinking continuing operation would cost less money and result in less bad publicity.  True disaster then ensued.

Whistle Blowing Suppressed

After the disaster, there were several government hearings.  The top executive denied any knowledge of the decision making that lead to the disaster.  A professional who had not been present when the decisions were made, but was told about them by those who were present, avoided mention of the events above, because the top executive had told him that if he were to have told the truth, the company would have been found negligent, its insurance would not have covered the disaster, and it would have gone bankrupt, and everyone would lose their jobs.  So he never told anyone except first-degree relatives.  The other people who were present for the events above did not testify, for reasons to be discussed below.

So this story has all the familiar elements.  But so have many others.  Why was the suppression of this version of the story (assuming its true, which is not proven) so important?

The Real Story

Let us go through the elements again, this time with quotes from the article in the London, UK, Telegraph:

Introduction and Context

All families have their secrets, but usually about things that don’t matter to anybody else. Not in the case of Louise Patten, though – or The Lady Patten to give her her full title, the wife of former Tory Education minister, Lord (John) Patten, though her own career as one of the first women board directors of a FTSE 100 company, and as a successful author of financial thrillers, means that she has plenty of achievements in her own right.

As a teenager in the 1960s, Patten was let in on a secret by her beloved grandmother, which, if revealed, she was warned, would result in two things. The first was awful – it would destroy the good name of her dead grandfather, Charles Lightoller, awarded the DSC with Bar in the First World War, and a hero again for his part in the evacuation of Dunkirk in 1940. But the second would change history, overturning the authorised version of one of the world’s greatest disasters, the sinking of the Titanic with the loss of 1517 lives in April 1912.

The tension between these two outcomes goes some way to explaining why, for 40 years, Patten kept quiet....

'After the collision,’ Patten goes on, 'my grandfather went down with the Captain and [First Officer] Murdoch to Murdoch’s cabin to get the firearms in case there were riots when loading the lifeboats. That is when they told him what had happened.'

Confusing Terminology and Interface

'Instead of steering Titanic safely round to the left of the iceberg, once it had been spotted dead ahead, the steersman, Robert Hitchins, had panicked and turned it the wrong way.’

At first glance it sounds extraordinary that anyone – much less the man put in charge of the wheel on the maiden voyage of what was then the world’s most expensive ocean liner – could have made such a schoolboy error.

'Titanic was launched at a time when the world was moving from sailing ships to steam ships. My grandfather, like the other senior officers on Titanic, had started out on sailing ships. And on sailing ships, they steered by what is known as “Tiller Orders” which means that if you want to go one way, you push the tiller the other way. [So if you want to go left, you push right.] It sounds counter-intuitive now, but that is what Tiller Orders were. Whereas with “Rudder Orders’ which is what steam ships used, it is like driving a car. You steer the way you want to go. It gets more confusing because, even though Titanic was a steam ship, at that time on the North Atlantic they were still using Tiller Orders. Therefore Murdoch gave the command in Tiller Orders but Hitchins, in a panic, reverted to the Rudder Orders he had been trained in. They only had four minutes to change course and by the time Murdoch spotted Hitchins’ mistake and then tried to rectify it, it was too late.

A Manager Countermanding the Professional

If the steersman Hitchins had made a human error, Bruce Ismay, chairman of the White Star Line, owners of the Titanic, and another survivor of the sinking, gave a lethal order.

'Titanic had hit the iceberg at her most vulnerable point,’ explains Patten, 'but she could probably, my grandfather estimated, have gone on floating for a long time. But Ismay went up on the bridge and didn’t want his massive investment to sit in the middle of the Atlantic either sinking slowly, or being tugged in to port. Not great publicity! So he told the Captain to go Slow Ahead. Titanic was meant to be unsinkable.’

However,

'If Titanic had stood still,’ she demonstrates, 'she would have survived at least until the rescue ship came and no one need have died, but when they drove her 'Slow Ahead’, the pressure of the sea coming through her damaged hull forced the water over the bulkheads and flooded sequentially one watertight compartment after another – and that was why she sank so fast.’

Whistle Blower Suppressed, the Cover Up

Why, though, I puzzle, would Patten’s grandfather, who sounds like a thoroughly honest and brave man, have lied and carried on lying? 'Because,’ she explains, 'when he was on the rescue ship, Bruce Ismay pointed out to my grandfather that if he told the truth, the White Star Line would be judged negligent and its limited liability insurance would be invalid. Ismay pretty much said that the whole company would go bust and everyone would lose their jobs. There was a code of honour among men like my grandfather in those days. So he lied to protect others’ jobs.’

But why didn’t her grandmother speak up after her husband’s death in 1952? 'She was worried about showing this heroic figure to be a liar. And my mother, who also knew the secret and was even uncomfortable with Granny having told me, felt even more strongly about it. She hero-worshipped my grandfather.’

So there this secret sat, locked in a family circle from which Patten is now the only survivor.

Conclusion

The story does seem amazing. I am hardly an expert on the sinking of the Titanic, so should not try to comment on its truth. It does have some plausibility, and provides an explanation for one of the most important and influential disasters of the 20th century that is still poorly understood and a cause for controversy.

In my humble opinion, if it were true, and had it come out earlier, this amazing story would have focused society's concerns on issues that have instead become scourges of our current era, and particularly important, if not frequently enough discussed causes of our health care dysfunction.

The Titanic disaster lead to major changes in numerous safety practices, leading to rules about the adequacy of lifeboats and radio communication, and even swimming proficiency requirements in higher education. (I had to pass a swimming test as a Brown University freshman that was a legacy of the sinking of the Titanic, I was told.) Most of these practices increased the survivability of accidents.

What if the focus was also on the causes of accidents? What if there was a groundswell of advocacy, starting in 1912, against pressure from business and financial leaders on professionals sworn to protect the public's health and safety, and against intimidation of whistle-blowers whose revelations could protect public health and safety? Maybe health care, and many other parts of life, would have turned out better?

Small Hospital System Loses $61 Million Betting on Financial Derivatives, But Pays CEO Nearly a Million Dollars

As we have quoted many times, sunlight is the best disinfectant.  New US Internal Revenue Service requirements for reporting by not-for-profit organizations has resulted in more transparency about the finances of many health care organizations, and this transparency has shown that the culture of perverse incentives and management privilege has spread far and wide.

How far and wide?  Consider this story in the (Harford County, Maryland) Aegis:

Harford County’s Upper Chesapeake Health lost $70 million because of bad bets in the derivatives markets two years ago, but still paid its chief executive more than $900,000 in annual salary and bonuses.

According to figures from their latest tax returns and from the state agency that regulates hospital rates, Upper Chesapeake Medical Center in Bel Air and Harford Memorial Hospital in Havre de Grace, hospitals owned and operated by nonprofit Upper Chesapeake Health Inc., posted huge losses in their fiscal year ending December 2008.

The losses were the result of an increase in non-operating expenses, according to the Maryland Health Services Cost Review Commission.

The hospitals had combined revenue of $254 million for the year, but posted a combined net loss of $61 million.

The two hospitals also paid out some of the highest salaries in Harford County, led by their CEO, Lyle Sheldon, who made more than $900,000 in 2009, a figure which was first reported by The Baltimore Sun on Aug. 29.

Including Sheldon, the hospitals’ top administrators and top medical staff, who are hospital employees, received a combined $5 million in salary, bonuses and other compensation in 2009.

So how did the hospital's management explain the huge loss?

'That was the year the stock market fell, in fiscal year 2008,' Dean Kaster, Upper Chesapeake’s senior vice president of corporate strategy and business development, said Tuesday in explaining the 2008 loss.

'We saw a significant change in terms of how some of the instruments we used in managing our debt service were valued and during that time period what these dollar changes reflected was an accounting loss directly related to the decline in the overall market in 2008,' he said.

Kaster said Upper Chesapeake, like many hospitals, has investment instruments it uses, called derivatives and hedges, to manage its long-term debt. He said the value of those instruments changed in fiscal year 2008.

In simpler terms, like many corporate, institutional and individual investors, Upper Chesapeake got burned by taking risks that backfired when the economy tanked.

Since those markets have come back, Kaster said, Upper Chesapeake has recovered two-thirds, or about $46.7 million, of the $70 million it lost from investments.

Of course, 2008 was the year of the great recession/ global financial collapse, or whatever we may end up calling it, happened. The value of many investments, and many peoples' homes, imploded. The best current  explanation of the collapse had to do with the bets financial institutions made on risky derivatives which their managers often did not understand. In hindsight, these bets seem somewhere between unnecessarily risky and stupid.

Many smaller businesses and organizations were fortunate to be financially conservative enough not to have bet on derivatives. But little Upper Chesapeake Health apparently bet a large chunk of its money on them, and lost badly. Although VP Kaster belabored the obvious in noting that 2008 was the year of the collapse, he did not explain what the stewards of a not-for-profit health care institution were doing when they were betting on risky derivatives.

One thing they were doing was making a lot of money themselves.

At UCH, the highest compensated employee is President and CEO Lyle Sheldon.

Sheldon’s annual compensation for the hospital’s fiscal year 2009, the most recent information available, was $918,957, according to the Form 990 submitted to the IRS.

Sheldon’s base salary for the year was $535,000 and his bonus and incentive compensation was $224,007.

Sheldon’s compensation is nearly $500,000 more than the next highest paid employee for UCH.

Other executives did well too:

Second to Sheldon, the next highest paid employee in UCH’s upper management is Joseph Hoffman III, the senior vice president and CFO, who was paid $420,355 in the hospital’s fiscal year 2009. His base salary was $272,210 and his bonus and incentive compensation was $91,439.

Senior Vice President and COO Kenneth Kozel was paid $352,538, according to Upper Chesapeake’s Form 990. Kozel received additional nontaxable benefits and deferred compensation on Harford Memorial’s form, bringing his total compensation to $396,039.

Kaster, the senior VP for strategy and business development, was paid $281,142, according to Upper Chesapeake’s form. He also has additional nontaxable benefits and deferred compensation on Harford Memorial’s form, bringing his total to $330,598.

Vice President of Human Resources Toni Shivery’s Upper Chesapeake compensation was $204,531, with an additional $33,895 from Harford Memorial, bringing the total to $238,426.

Note that the CFO of this small hospital system, the person who ought to be most directly responsible for the decision to "invest" in derivatives, made over $420,000, and the vice president for strategy and business development, responsible for the simplistic discussion of derivatives above, made over $330,000.

Providing such perverse incentives seems to contradict the hospital system's high-minded statements of values, which includes:

Responsibility: We take responsibility for our actions and hold ourselves accountable for the results and outcomes.

A CEO who truly accepted responsibility for a $61 million loss from risky bets on opaque derivatives would not accept total compensation of over $900,000. A CFO who truly accepted responsibility for these bets would not accept over $400,000.

So in summary, we see that now CEOs of even the smallest community hospital systems seem entitled to make nearly a million dollars a year. We see that even CEOs whose institutions lose millions due to risky investments still receive such compensation. We see that the executives who seem directly responsible for making such money losing investments still earn hundreds of thousands of dollars.

This is an extreme illustration of how perverse incentives permeate health care, how CEOs command pay beyond the dreams of ordinary people, even when their leadership is financially calamitous, and how little health care leaders support their organizations' idealistic values.

Are leaders who are not held accountable for easily measured financial performance likely to be good stewards of clinical performance, which is much harder to measure?

If we do not hold health care leaders accountable, if we do not provide them with incentives that are proportional to their actual performance, why should we expect health care organizations to do any more than satisfy their leaders' self-interest?

How the Fallacy of the "Perfect" Health Care Market Undermined Professionalism and Caused Health Care Dysfunction - in the New York Times

We began this blog way back in 2005 to discuss threats to physicians' values, especially from concentration and abuse of power.  Personal experience, and cases and anecdotes described by colleagues suggested that a dysfunctional health care system was making patients and physicians miserable.  Interviews with more physicians suggested pervasive threats to their values, many stemming from how leaders of health care organizations wielded their power.  

Threats to Professional Values

In a 2007 post, based on an article in JAMA by Dr Arnold Relman, I asserted that the notion that threats to physicians' professional values are a major cause of health care dysfunction was becoming mainstream.  Furthermore, Dr Relman's review of the history of the problem suggested that the rising power of for-profit health care corporations, for whom making money came before the health and safety of patients, was a primary culprit. 

Dr Relman has discussed the issue frequently (e.g., see this post).  However, despite occasional publication in some prestigious medical journals, his views seem to have gotten little traction. 

Arrow's Analysis: Is Health Care a Perfectly Competitive Market?

Amazingly, however, the issue has made it into the New York Times, in the form of two posts in the Economix blog by health economist Prof Uwe Reinhardt.  Prof Reinhardt started by resurrecting the classic article by "Nobel laureate economist Kenneth Arrow," which argued that health care's special context means that the health care market cannot be truly competitive.

First Prof Arrow reviewed the characteristics of a perfectly competitive market:

To lay down a standard to which to compare the health care sector, Professor Arrow explained first on what basis economists consider a perfectly competitive market for some good or service as 'maximizing human welfare,' an outcome economists describe as 'efficient.'

The crucial characteristics of a perfectly competitive market are (1) that all of the quality dimensions of the good or service traded in that market are accurately understood by buyer and seller; (2) that potential buyers have full transparency on the price they will have to pay per unit of that good or service; (3) that it is easy and relatively costless for potential sellers to enter and exit this market; (4) and that there are so many potential buyers and sellers that none individually can affect the market price of the thing being traded.

If those and some other conditions are met, Professor Arrow explained, then for any given initial distribution of income and wealth that market will settle down at a unique equilibrium, that is, a state from which no potential buyer or seller would want to move. This equilibrium has important attributes.

First, in what Professor Arrow calls the First Optimality Theorem of welfare economics, it can be shown that in this equilibrium the traded good or service is allocated among buyers in such a way that it would be impossible through any reallocation to make someone happier without making someone else less happy.

It is an allocation that economists call Pareto efficient, in honor of the Italian industrialist, economist and philosopher Vilfredo Pareto (1848-1923), who first proposed this criterion.

For any given initial distribution of income and wealth, economists declare the associated Pareto-efficient allocation of the thing being produced and traded to be 'welfare-maximizing' — hence the term 'welfare economics' for this type of analysis.

Second, and very importantly, in what Arrow calls the Second Optimality Theorem, he explains that if on ethical grounds society wished to distribute a good or service (for example, education or health care or food or beach houses) among people in a particular way — like egalitarian principles — it need not have government directly involved in producing or distributing that good or service.

In his second blog post, Prof Reinhardt summarized why health care cannot be such a competitive market. The problems are uncertainty and asymmetry of information:

This uncertainty has several aspects.

First, physicians may not agree on the medical condition causing the symptoms the patient presents.

Second, even if physicians agree in their diagnoses, they often do not agree on the efficacy of alternative responses — for example, surgery or medical management for lower-back pain.

Third, information on both the diagnosis of and the likely consequences of treatment are asymmetrically allocated between the sell-side (providers) and the buy-side (patients) of the health care market. The very reason that patients seek advice and treatment from physicians in the first place is that they expect physicians to have vastly superior knowledge about the proper diagnosis and efficacy of treatment. That makes the market for medical care deviate significantly from the benchmark of perfect competition, in which buyers and sellers would be equally well informed.

Uncertainty and asymmetry of information about the quality of goods or services being traded is not, of course, unique to the medical care market. It is ubiquitous in modern economies that trade in highly complex goods and services. We find these characteristics, for example, in financial transactions, including all types of insurance; in automobile repairs, in plumbing and even in the purchase of some consumer electronics.

Wherever asymmetry of information is present, there exists the potential for the better-informed market participants to exploit the ignorance of the less well informed. How society responds to this flaw in markets depends on the severity of its consequences.

In the market for electronic products, for example, the consequences appear to be regarded as trivial. A customer may be seduced into purchasing an excessively complex and expensive product, but society takes no action on this front. In finance, on the other hand, the consequences of asymmetric information can be severe, as we have been reminded once again in the recent financial crisis.

Professional Standards and Mission-Oriented Non-Profit Organizations to Remedy Market Imperfections
Prof Arrow suggested that how health care worked when he wrote his article, in 1963, could be partially explained as attempting to remedy the problems created by uncertainty and asymmetry of information.

Professor Arrow explained many of the nonmarket social institutions and regulations characteristic of medical care [at that time] that he had identified as 'attempts to overcome the lack of optimality resulting from asymmetry of information and the inability of competitive markets to allocate efficiently all of the risks inherent in health care.'

Pointedly, he said, 'It is the general social consensus, clearly, that the laissez-faire solution for medicine is intolerable.'

That was then and this is now.

The Rise of "Greed is Good"

The problem is, of course, that health care has changed a lot since 1963. In an interview with the Atlantic from 2009, Prof Arrow defended his basic analysis:

I think the fundamental questions are the same. I also think there are more problems in the market today than when I wrote the paper. But I think the basic analysis hasn't changed.

He also discussed how failure to heed it have lead to our current dysfunctional health care system:

The market won't work -- it doesn't work well in the health context. But something else supplements the market, and the thing I put stress on in the paper are the elements that put a non-economic influence on the market: professional commitments to provide a service, to engage in services that aren't self-serving. Standards of caring decided by non-economic actors. And one problem we have now is an erosion of professional standards. In a way there is more emphasis on markets and self-aggrandizement in the context of healthcare, and that has led to some of the problems we have today.

Furthermore, he commented on those who sold the idea, which today ought to be totally discredited, in my humble opinion, that health care could be a perfect market, and this market would make everything right:

Sometimes I think it's because of the Chicago School. I think there has been a general drift around the country towards the idea that greed is good. Look at Wall Street. All of these industries involve a professional element in which information is flowing. You're supposed to be constrained to be honest about it. I don't really know why. But there is now more of an emphasis on popularization, which does improve efficiency but can also lead to an erosion of professional standards. There was this idea that professional standards were a mask for monopoly power--a Chicago theory, which I believe came from George Stigler. I don't know if they were that influential, but they seemed to be saying a lot of things that people were taking up in practice. I'm not totally sure why these professional standards changed, but it's more than medical reasons.

So you do not need to take it from me, take it from a Nobel laureate economist.  It now seems clear in retrospect that a major characteristic of modern health care is how the "better-informed market participants ... exploit the ignorance of the less well informed."

Summary: What is to be Done?
We have been sold a real bill of goods that health care could function as an ideal market. That bill of goods has lead to the deprofessionalization and commercialization of physicians, the destruction of the basic values of health care professionals, and the rise of health care organizations that put making money ahead of patients' health, safety, and welfare. And in health care, the dominant slogan has become "greed is good." This is true of course, but only for the greedy.

True health care reform would help physicians and other health care professionals uphold their traditional values, including, as the AMA once stated, "the practice of medicine should not be commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade." True health care reform would put health care "delivery" back in the hands of mission-focused, not-for-profit organizations, which put patients' health, safety and welfare first.

These reforms, however, would certainly threaten the continuing wealth of a lot of people who have profited mightily from the current dysfunctional system. So do not expect them to be happy about even the discussion of them.

A $7.8 Million Golden Parachute for a Not-For-Profit Health Care System CEO Who "Didn't Leave Under Great Circumstances"

These sorts of hits just keep on coming.  This story comes from the Baltimore Sun.

The Golden Parachute

First, let us just review the financial details,

Former University of Maryland Medical System CEO Edmond F. Notebaert, who resigned two years ago during a tumultuous time that included infighting and a board shakeup, is again the subject of controversy over his $7.8 million pay package.

The package included $2.4 million in severance, about $639,000 in salary for seven months, deferred bonuses and contributions to a retirement plan that instantly vested when he left.

By the way, Mr Notebeart did not actually go into retirement after he received this largess,

A spokeswoman for Temple University, where Notebaert now heads the health system, said he was not available for comment.

The Justification
The view from some amongst the local leadership was that the price was reasonable,

[Current Board Chairman Stephen A] Burch acknowledged that Notebaert's compensation was large but said it was justified because of Notebaert's experience and accomplishments while working at the medical system. The system added Shore Health System and Chester River Health System to its roster of institutions under Notebaert's tenure.

Total profit reached $301 million during Notebaert's tenure, compared with $49 million during the prior five-years, according to the medical system. Revenue was $2.1 billion when Notebaert left in fiscal 2009, Burch said.

'Mr. Notebaert's salary reflected his many years of successful and significant experience at large, complex health systems and was well within the range of comparable executives,' Burch said.

The Lack of Disclosure
Of course, the golden parachute given to Mr Notebaert did not seem to be something that UMMS wanted to boast about:

Notebaert walked away with the compensation — details of which weren't disclosed in filings with the Internal Revenue Service until this week — after he announced his retirement in July 2008.

The Process
In fact, there were questions raised about the process that lead to the golden parachute,

The system's protocol for deciding compensation came under fire in the months after Notebaert's retirement because the pay was awarded without full board approval. Now, the recently detailed pay package is drawing criticism anew.

"This is an outrageous case of excessive executive compensation in a public institution," Gov. Martin O'Malley said Wednesday in an e-mailed statement. "This sort of 'golden parachute' has no place in the public sector."

Furthermore,

[Maryland's Speaker of the House, Michael E] Busch served as interim chairman of the board after Chairman John P. Erickson resigned amid the controversy. Busch said the compensation committee at the time left the rest of the board in the dark about Notebaert's payout.

The Questions About Prior Performance
In addition, the Baltimore Sun article recounted some major questions raised about Mr Noteabert's leadership:

Tensions had arisen between him and physicians over how the system was run. Shortly after his departure, one-third of the board resigned, including the chairman and vice chairman.

Also,

Under Notebaert, physicians had complained that relations between the medical system and the medical school had deteriorated to a point that jeopardized both institutions. Critics said the system was becoming too focused on profits and less on medicine and research.

In addition,

Maryland's House Speaker, Michael E. Busch, who serves on the medical system board, said there is little legal recourse to try to recoup any of the compensation and that he thought the severance package was excessive given the dysfunction at the medical system when Notebaert left.

'I think a lot of the members of the board disagree with the payment, considering how he left,' Busch said. 'It's not like he left being hailed by the institution. He didn't leave under great circumstances.'

In addition, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said,

There were quite a few messes that had to be cleaned up over the last four years and leadership dysfunction at UMMS was one of them

The Summary

So there you have it, a leader noted for his "dysfunction" by the state Governor, and for his bad relationships with health care professionals, who felt he was putting profit ahead of the system's mission, walked off with a $7.8 million golden parachute provided without the approval of the hospital system's full board of directors, and only disclosed two years later. Mr Notebaert seems to be another member of the enlarging group of health care organizational leaders who received enough compensation to make them rich, despite performance that was questionable at best.

For other posts about the often outrageous compensation given health care leaders, often seemingly completely at odds with their performance, look here.  For a longer discussion of the implications of current executive compensation in health care, look here. 

I will just conclude, as I have before, with this....  executive compensation in health care seems best described as Prof Mintzberg described compensation for finance CEOs, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit." As it did in finance, compensation madness is likely to keep the health care bubble inflating until it bursts, with the expected adverse consequences. Meanwhile, I say again, if health care reformers really care about improving access and controlling costs, they will have to have the courage to confront the powerful and self-interested leaders who benefit so well from their previously mission-driven organizations. It is time to reverse the coup d'etat of the hired managers.

What Happens When "We'll Manage it the Way We Damn Well Want"

Back in the early days of Health Care Renewal (2005, to be exact), we first wrote about some very strange actions by the management of Phoebe Putney Health System.  At first, we noted that the Phoebe Putney responded to a reporter's inquiry about lavish travel expenses pertaining to the system's Cayman Islands health insurance subsidiary by saying, "We own it. We'll manage it the way we damn well want."

Then the story got far more convoluted.  In 2006, we wrote about the over the top response to anonymous faxes challenged hospital management's commitment to the institution's mission.  The system CEO compared the fax senders to "terrorists."  After the local district attorney handed over his investigative records to hospital system private investigators, the investigators allegedly threatened a local accountant whom they accused of sending the faxes.  Allegations that the district attorney received campaign funding from and may have had other financial ties to the hospital system surfaced.  The district attorney indicted the accountant and a physician colleague on charges of burglary and assault in the absence of any police report of such crimes.  We commented that regardless of the outcomes of the legal case, the hospital system's management's actions seemed at variance with its stated mission.

Now, in 2010, the case is in the news again.  Since our last post, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, the prosecution of the accountant, Mr Charles Rehberg, and physician, Dr John Bagnato, failed.  The district attorney, Ken Hodges,

provided the information gathered through the subpoenas to Phoebe Putney, which the hospital system used to file a civil suit against Rehberg and Bagnato -- a suit that was ultimately dropped. Rehberg then countersued Phoebe Putney, and that case was settled out of court for an undisclosed sum.

Meanwhile, more ties between Hodges and the Pheobe Putney system turned up:

Hodges' decision to run for attorney general elevated the case from a localized matter to one of statewide import. While still a prosecutor in Albany, Hodges received political contributions from Phoebe Putney executives and individuals connected to the hospital system, and his wife was hired as public affairs manager at Phoebe Putney's hospital in Albany.

Since leaving the prosecutor's office in Dougherty County, Hodges has gone to work for the Baudino Law Group, which represents Phoebe Putney. According to records Phoebe Putney must file with the Internal Revenue Service, the hospital system paid Baudino more than $8 million for the fiscal year ending July 31, 2008, the most recent data available.

Now, it is Rehberg who is suing Hodges, for abuse of power. "Charles Rehberg's suuit essentially accuses him and another prosecutor of filing criminal chargest that they knew to be based on fabricated information." A preliminary hearing took place yesterday.

So, in summary, two individuals sent anonymous faxes that charged that the Phoebe Putney system failed "to fulfill its charitable obligations as tax-exempt entity."  Hospital system executives accused them of terrorism, and hospital system investigators allegedly threatened them.  However, a criminal investigation by a district attorney with alleged financial ties to the hospital system ended without any convictions.  A lawsuit by the system against the individuals was dropped.  A suit by the indviduals against the hospital system was settled by the system.  A suit by the individuals charging that the then district attorney abused his power by basing criminal charges on false information is pending. 

So what did the hospital system's management's actions in this case have to do with the system's stated values? -

Phoebe pursues its mission through a patient-centered environment of care reflecting high standards and promoting a balance of professional preparation and service, continuous improvement and based on core values where:

* PEOPLE come first, are treated with dignity and respect, and diversity of culture and thought is respected.
* RELATIONSHIPS are built on honesty and integrity.
* REPUTATION is built on trust and pride.

In fact, the Phoebe Putney management's pursuit of Mr Rehberg and Dr Bagnato seems diametrically opposed to these values, intended to crush all criticism of management by any means. Once again, we see leaders of once-respected not-for-profit health care institutions whose main goal seems to be consolidating their power and thwarting criticism.

I say again, to truly reform health care, our health care organizations must be lead by those who put the institutions' missions ahead of their self-interest, who manage according to the mission rather than "the way we damn well want."

A University President on Commission

The Miami Herald reported on the latest thing in executive compensation for leaders of academia (and academic medicine):

Florida State University's new president will have a larger salary than his predecessor, T.K. Wetherell, and stands to make even more in bonuses as a reward for big-time fundraising.

FSU trustees chairman Jim Smith confirmed Monday that Eric Barron has signed a contract that includes a base salary of $395,000 a year in state and private dollars, plus the chance to earn annual bonuses of $100,000 for every $100 million in private donations raised. He'll also get free housing and a car, Smith said, as well as a retention bonus of $200,000 after a few years.

Housing and car allowances have become standard fare for university president contracts, and in recent years Florida's university presidents have ranked among the top in the country for salary and compensation packages. But the bonus provision in Barron's five-year contract is a signal that the trustees want to see FSU's $447-million endowment grow by $1 billion over the next five years.

'We said $1 billion in five years, and we're serious about that,' Smith said Monday. FSU's trustees gave him the authority to negotiate with Barron, 58, and sign a contract.

Note that Florida State University is the parent institution for the Florida State University College of Medicine.

We have all heard jokes that university presidents now need to spend more time fund raising than doing anything else. Also, we have all heard the phase "no margin, no mission" too many times. However, in this case, the search for margin seems to have completely trumped the mission. As the article implied, I have not previously heard of a university president who gets bonuses only according to how much money he or she raises. I also have not previously heard of such bonuses being based simply on a percentage of the money raised. Thus effectively, the new president is being paid on commission, the commissions being based purely on fund-raising.

The problems are obvious.  First, structuring a bonus so that it is only a function of fund-raising raises fund-raising above upholding the university's mission.  Yet the board of the university has a duty of obedience, which  "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."  Making the university president's bonus solely dependent on the dollar amount of funds raised would seem to violate that duty.

Second, structuring a bonus so that it is only a function of fund-raising suggests that where or how the funds are raised is no longer important.  Fund-raising done wrong can lead to conflicts of interest, obligations to unsavory people, or other ethical or legal issues.  Yet the proposed bonus would apparently be paid according to the amount paid, no matter what.

Perhaps in this era of "greed is good," such a brutal reminder that academics are now expected to care more about revenue that teaching and research should not be a surprise.  But if the only incentive the university president has is fund-raising, what sort of academic institution do we expect will result?

"Compensation Madness" - "Insiders Hijacking Established Institutions for their Personal Benefit"

As we learn more about the causes of the global financial melt-down, aka great recession, the lessons appear more applicable to health care.  My latest example comes from last week's Wall Street Journal.  There appeared an article by a Professor from the Faculty of Management of McGill University (Montreal, Canada) on executive compensation that has important lessons for health care (Mintzberg H. No more executive bonuses. Wall Street Journal, Nov 30, 2009.  Link here.)

Prof Mintzberg's first major premise was that current executive compensation at major corporations resembles a rigged casino:

Although these executives like to think of themselves as leaders, when it comes to their pay practices, many of them haven't been demonstrating leadership at all. Instead they've been acting like gamblers—except that the games they play are hopelessly rigged in their favor.

First, they play with other people's money—the stockholders', not to mention the livelihoods of their employees and the sustainability of their institutions.

Second, they collect not when they win so much as when it appears that they are winning—because their company's stock price has gone up and their bonuses have kicked in.

Third, they also collect when they lose—it's called a 'golden parachute.'

Fourth, some even collect just for drawing cards—for example, receiving a special bonus when they have signed a merger, before anyone can know if it will work out. Most mergers don't.

And fifth, on top of all this, there are chief executives who collect merely for not leaving the table. This little trick is called a 'retention bonus' —being paid for staying in the game!

Prof Mintzberg points out that while there is no some recognition that the compensation system needs to be fixed, most proposals would simply tinker with the notion of pay for performance. However, Prof Mintzberg believes that such tinkering is hopeless, because the whole system is based on false assumptions. These are

"• A company's health is represented by its financial measures alone—even better, by just the price of its stock."

However,

Companies are a lot more complicated than that. Their health is significantly represented by what accountants call goodwill, which in its basic sense means a company's intrinsic value beyond its tangible assets: the quality of its brands, its overall reputation in the marketplace, the depth of its culture, the commitment of its people, and so on.

So the elements of true performance are multiple, and extremely hard to measure.

The consequences of making simple financial measures the only metric of performance are severe:

This flawed assumption, though, does far more damage than simply distorting CEO compensation. All too often, financial measures are a convenient substitute used by disconnected executives who don't know what else to do—including how to manage more deeply.

Or worse, such measures encourage abuse from impatient CEOs, who can have a field day cashing in that goodwill by cutting back on maintenance and customer service, 'downsizing' experienced employees while others are left to 'burn out,' trashing valued brands, and so on. Quickly the measured costs are reduced while slowly the institution deteriorates.

"• Performance measures, whether short or long term, represent the true strength of the company."

Prof Mintzer suggested that this has lead to an attempt to subsitute long-term rather than short-term financial measures. However, no one knows how long "long-term" should be.

" • The CEO, with a few other senior executives, is primarily responsible for the company's performance."

This one is especially pernicious

What if the CEO was lucky enough to have been in the right place at the right time? When it comes to a company's current performance, history matters, culture matters, markets matter, even weather can matter. How many chief executives have succeeded simply by maneuvering themselves into favorable situations and then hanging on while taking credit for all the success? In something as complex as the contemporary large corporation, how can success over three or even 10 years possibly be attributed to a single individual? Where is teamwork and all that talk about people being 'our most important asset?'

More important, should any company even try to attribute success to one person? A robust enterprise is not a collection of 'human resources'; it's a community of human beings. All kinds of people are responsible for its performance. Focusing on a few—indeed, only one, who may have parachuted into the most senior post from the outside—just discourages everyone else in the company. Sometimes, there is the impression that a forceful chief executive has turned around a troubled company. But how sure can we be that such a turnaround will be long-lasting? After all, so many of these supposed corporate resurrections eventually go sour.

So Prof Mintzberg observed, "if you do pay bonuses, you get the wrong person in ... [the CEO] chair."

Thus,

Executive bonuses provide the perfect tool to screen candidates for the CEO job. Anyone who insists on them should be dismissed out of hand, because he or she has demonstrated an absence of the leadership attitude required for a sustainable enterprise.

In summation, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit."

I submit that Prof Mintzberg's essay is as applicable to health care organizations, not only public for-profit health care corporations, but also many of the not-for-profit organizations that have sought to become more businesslike, as it is to any large corporations.

We have discussed numerous examples of ill-informed, self-interested, conflicted and corrupt leaders of health care organizations, most of whom became rich despite, or perhaps because of these attributes.

We have seen examples of many of what Prof Mintzberg lists as examples of outcomes of the bonus culture:
- Short-term results twisted and hyped to enhance the reputation of a "visionary" CEO.  (For example, see the cautionary tale of the Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation.  See posts here and here.)
- Leaders who focus only on short-term financial results, rather than the multi-faceted health care mission (For example, see how one academic health care leader revealed that institutions are only in it for the money.)
- Cutting back on quality to cut costs and maximize short-term financial results.  (For example, see the consequences of the out-sourced heparin, or failure to do adequate maintenance on over-worked production facilities.)

I would underline one particular point. The perverse incentives generated by the current bonus culture in business have lead to practices antithetical to the long-term prosperity of corporations, including cutting the quality and quantity of the product to cut costs, and firing or over-working employees, including the most experienced and sophisticated ones (outside of the leaders' inner circles). This would be bad for any kind of organization, but in health care can lead to distress, disease, disability, and death.

I again submit that to truly reform health care, we need to reform the current business culture of health care.  One primary element of that reformation is refocusing leadership on the health care mission.  For not-for-profit health care organizations, the mission must take precedence over making more money.  On the other hand, for-profit health care corporations that put short-term revenues (and bonuses paid to top leaders) before the quality of their products and hence their long-term reputations may find themselves, like some US automobile companies, without markets, without profits, and bankrupt. 

Genzyme's "Remarkable Business'Strategy" and Contaminated Drugs

In June, 2009, an article in the Boston Globe described how the Boston area based biotechnology company Genzyme sold some astonishlingly expensive drugs, using

a remarkable business strategy: In countries from Colombia to Taiwan to Libya, the Cambridge firm has compiled an extraordinary track record of searching out patients like Tania, providing desperately needed treatment, and then successfully pressing their governments, even poor ones, to pay full price for the most expensive drugs in the world.

The article focused on how Genzyme marketed Cerezyme for Gaucher's disease.

When Genzyme Corp. first introduced a bioengineered drug for Gaucher (pronounced GO-shay) disease in the 1990s, the very idea seemed almost absurd to most people in the pharmaceutical industry. It was expensive to manufacture, there were vanishingly few known patients, and it wasn't clear how you could sell enough of it to recoup research costs, never mind make a profit.

Genzyme's solution, elegant in its way, was to set a price high enough to earn a substantial profit no matter how small its pool of patients. Then the company surprised the medical world - and its investors on Wall Street - by showing that American health insurers could be persuaded to pay the six-figure price tag. And with the only effective treatment for Gaucher disease, Genzyme never needed to lower the price, even as production efficiencies raised profit margins on the drug to as much as 90 percent.

The drug started to bring in tens of millions of dollars a year, then hundreds of millions. Today this one drug, prescribed for about 5,000 patients, has transformed Genzyme and its chief executive, Henri Termeer, into one of the great success stories of biotechnology, fueling its expansion into a $16 billion company with offices and factories worldwide.

By the early 2000s, Genzyme had reached most of the known Gaucher patients in the United States, so it had begun pushing outward to new markets. Genzyme created divisions within the company to find overseas patients; it hired experts to cajole balky governments into paying for the patients' Cerezyme doses. Some of the company's successes were extraordinary: hundreds of patients in Brazil. Patients in Taiwan, Kuwait, and Bulgaria. The government of Libya's Colonel Moammar Khadafy pays for Cerezyme for a handful of patients.

As it notched these successes, the company stayed largely under the radar of public health activists who were pushing drugmakers to discount AIDS drugs and other lifesaving medications whose retail prices were financially out of reach to many governments.

Biotechnology drugs like Genzyme's, though crushingly expensive for each patient, were so rarely prescribed that they did not attract the same attention, and Genzyme followed an extremely disciplined 'one price' strategy: find patients; donate the drug at first if necessary, but press constantly to be paid full retail price.

The "one price" for Cerezyme in Costa Rica was $160,000 per year of therapy.

I thought about posting about this story when it came out, focusing, of course, on the amazing price of Cerezyme. However, then I wondered: while the price of Cerezyme seemed extremely high, could anyone say that it was outrageously and unfairly high? After all, the drug was expensive to develop and produce, could not be sold in volume, and provided apparently very effective treatment for an otherwise untreatable disease. So I put the article in a file, and did not post about it.

Then a few days later, another story ran in the Globe, this time about problems in the Genzyme plant that produces Cerezyme:

n an unprecedented move for Genzyme Corp., the state’s largest biotechnology company has halted production of two drugs for rare genetic disorders after a virus was discovered in production equipment at its Allston plant.

The drugs are used by 8,000 people worldwide and cost about $200,000 per patient annually. While the virus has the ability to taint the drugs, it is not considered harmful to humans, officials said. The manufacturing plant will remain shut through July while it is decontaminated as a precaution.

Shipments of the drugs, Cerezyme and Fabrazyme, have been put on hold while the US Food and Drug Administration seeks assurance from the company that none of its inventory is compromised. Genzyme officials believe the inventory was not affected.

The current supply will need to be rationed, Genzyme said.

My first thought was that if Genzyme can charge so much for Cerezyme, at least it ought to be able to afford a pristine production process. On the other hand, I also realized that manufacturing processes in biotechnology are complex and difficult, perfection is not always possible, and the contamination in question did not appear harmful. So I put this article in the file too, and did not post about it either.

Four days ago, the Boston Globe published yet again about troubles in same manufacturing plant.

Genzyme Corp., the Cambridge biotechnology giant that has spent five months scrambling to regain its footing after detecting a virus at its Allston plant, is facing a new contamination problem: bits of steel, rubber, and fiber found in drugs made by the company and shipped from the same site.

Federal regulators yesterday warned doctors to look for foreign particles in five Genzyme drugs used to treat rare genetic disorders, including two - Cerezyme and Fabrazyme - that have been rationed because of the viral contamination detected in the Allston Landing plant last summer. The five drugs represent roughly half of Genzyme’s $4.6 billion in annual sales.

Particles are believed to have been found in less than 1 percent of the Genzyme drugs based on product lots examined, according to a statement from the Food and Drug Administration. The FDA warned physicians, however, to carefully examine vials of the products and filter them before they are given to patients - steps that are considered standard procedure within the industry. If they find particles, the FDA asked for the vials to be returned to the manufacturer. The agency warned that ingesting the particles could have effects that include allergic reactions and blood clotting.

FDA inspectors arrived at the Allston plant last month to begin an investigation into Genzyme’s production operations.

In addition, a New York Times article noted:

'Biological manufacturing is extremely complex and prone to problems,' including contamination, said Jean-Jacques Bienaime, chief executive of BioMarin Pharmaceuticals, a biotech company that also makes drugs for rare diseases, including one it co-developed with Genzyme. Mr. Bienaime said his company always maintained at least a year’s worth of inventory in case of a production outage.

But Genzyme did not have such an inventory of Cerezyme and Fabrazyme.

Finally, today the In Vivo blog posted a discussion of Genzyme's production woes which suggested that the two different types of contamination at the plant, and the failure of the company to reliably ship pure, unadulterated drug to patients were not simply the results of bad luck or failure to attain unattainable perfection.

Friday's announcement that bits of rubber and other detritus were found in vials of five different drugs manufactured at Genzyme's beleaguered Allston Landing plant was worthy of the satirical publication "The Onion"--except that it was true.

The picture grew murkier over the weekend, with the arrival of another Form 483 missive from FDA about ongoing manufacturing issues and a complete response for Lumizyme, Genzyme's enzyme replacement therapy for Pompe disease has been subject of more regulatory twists and turns than the plot of a Dan Brown novel.

The origin of the problem goes back three years, to the original approval of Myozyme, basically the same drug as Lumizyme only manufactured on a much smaller scale, at a 160-liter scale facility in Framingham. Genzyme underestimated the demand for the drug, and plans to shore up capacity with a 4000-liter facility in Belgium were put in place. Only as a stop gap, the company also decided to devote 1/6th of its manufacturing capacity at Allston to the making of the drug.

And that decision has proved problematic. The stress of running an aging plant full tilt meant there was no time for necessary facility upgrades that might threaten the inventory of drugs manufactured at Allston, among them Cerezyme for Gaucher disease and Fabrazyme for Fabry disease. Genzyme CEO Henri Termeer admitted as much in the Nov. 16 investor call, noting '"the introduction of the production of Myozyme in Allston was a very significant factor in the complications we have experienced there.'

Too bad that realization didn't happen one year ago. That's when regulators started sending warning letters outlining concerns related to what sound like bread-and-butter manufacturing issues: microbial monitoring, equipment maintenance, and process controls.

What's most amazing is that problems are ongoing. Recall that six-week interlude this summer when the firm took the entire plant offline to sterilize it after discovering yet another unrelated problem--several bioreactors contaminated with a non-lethal to humans but problematic Vesivirus.

On the company's Nov. 16 call to investors, management confirmed that the latest 483 letter relates not to a new problem created by Genzyme's decontamination efforts but arising because of 'an older piece of equipment'. As Genzyme's EVP of Therapeutics, Biosurgery, and Corporate Operations said during a Q&Asession with analysts, '"There was a number of issues there that they [regulators] highlighted and many of which we were very aware of and working to address.'

Management's solution? Take the plant off line again for a few weeks to, as Meeker puts it, 'allow us to move more quickly to address those issues.' Does everyone feel better now?

In some strange way, the very minor nature of these gaffes is the most damning element of the story. It throws management's judgment into question and again casts doubt on the ability of the current team to resolve a situation that should never have escalated to this level.

So now it is time to discuss Genzyme's production woes on Health Care Renewal.  For $160,000 a year, it seems reasonable to expect that patients could expect a reasonably well-thought out, conservatively planned production process that would be able to reliably produce sufficient quantities of pure, unadulterated drug.  Instead, Genzyme's "remarkable business strategy" did not seem to include adequate maintenance of production facilities with adequate capacities, or even keeping an adequate reserve supply of product in anticipation that over-working a single aging facility with aging equipment might lead to something breaking down. 

By the way, for overseeing this "remarkable business strategy," Genzyme paid its CEO, Henri A Termeer, $13,773,782 in total compensation last year (per the 2009 proxy statement).  Presumably mainly from the stock and option awards he has accumulated over the year, Mr Termeer now owns 4,080,387 shares of Genzyme stock, 1.5% of total outstanding shares.  For that money, patients, share-holders, and line employees ought to expect "remarkable business strategies" that include attention to such basics as good maintenance of production facilities. 

Maybe the company's well compensated (more than $400,000 a year) directors should have been more vigilant about overseeing the management's "remarkable business strategy."  The board  included Gail K Boudreaux, an Executive Vice President of UnitedHealth Group, Charles L Cooney PhD, the Haslam Professor of Chemical and Biochemical Engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Dr Victor J Dzau, Chancellor of Health Affairs at Duke University and CEO of Duke University Health Systems, who seemingly have some relevant expertise, although the board also included Richard F Syron PhD, the former CEO of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, (Freddie Mac), who resigned in 2008 after the failure of the company which was later bailed out by the US government.   

So once again we see how leaders of health care organizations, in this case perhaps blinded by the prodigious amounts of money they were making, failed to exercise rigorous oversight over how their company produced its product.  The actual production part of biotechnology may seem far less glamorous than other aspects of the company.  Yet, if a drug company cannot reliably produce pure, unadulterated drugs, all its advanced research, cutting edge finance, and glitzy marketing may be for nought. 

This case is another argument for finding health care corporate leaders who remember that long term success comes from putting patients, not dollars, not glitz,  first. 

NY Times Proclaims Anyone Can Run a Health Care Organization "with a Little Studying Up"

Last week, the NY Times published a somewhat breathless article on the wonderful opportunities available in health care management. Health care management seems to be the one area that is growing during the "great recession."

Health care may be a costly drag on the economy, but it’s still a great place to find a job.

Midcareer managers and other workers have been migrating to health care jobs for years, of course. Now, with the recession, the lure is even stronger.

The article suggested managing health care organizations does not require knowing much about health care.

'The demand for talented leaders in health care is only going to go up,' predicted Jane Groves, a senior vice president at Integrated Healthcare Strategies, an executive search and consulting firm in Kansas City, Mo. 'All that demand can’t and shouldn’t be filled by people already working in health care.'

The article supplied success stories of health care managers who came from unrelated fields, without any actual experience giving care, or knowledge of biomedicine. For example,

Frank Pinkowsky worked as a manager at DuPont for 24 years before taking a position as senior vice president for human resources at the Guthrie Clinic in Sayre, Pa. 'Don’t underestimate the value of what you learned working for someone else,' he advised.

Also,

'We just recently recruited a vice president for human resources from the supermarket industry,' said Mike A. Helm, a senior executive at Sutter Health, a hospital chain with 45,000 employees in Northern California. Sutter hires 20 to 30 executives a year.

At most, becoming a top healthcare executive only requires some course-work on health care management, perhaps on-line rather than in a classroom. Again, no real experience giving care, or knowledge of medicine or biology is required. For example,

Colin Ward, a 37-year-old Baltimore hospital executive, also successfully switched careers, leaving ESPN after eight years of producing sports broadcasts. 'I felt like I wanted to be contributing in some other way,' he said.

After 11 months of graduate classes in the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and a year as a paid apprentice at a Baltimore hospital, he had a master’s degree in health science and management.

Mr. Ward stayed at the hospital, Lifebridge Health, for three more years and in 2007 moved to his current post at the Greater Baltimore Medical Center in Towson, Md., as director of corporate strategy.

In general,

Many managers with experience in fields like human resources, finance and marketing find a welcome in health care, with a little studying up. Online courses, books, journals and professional magazines provide material.

The article argued that managing health care information technology also does not require any real knowledge of actual health care.

The Obama administration’s $19 billion 10-year campaign to promote electronic medical records opens another huge opportunity, said Dr. Blackford Middleton, a technology research expert at Partners Healthcare in Boston. An estimated 40,000 to 160,000 additional health information professionals could be needed, he said.

The industry trade association, known as Himss [sic] for the Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, offers an array of online courses that can help technology workers move into health care.

The article did allow

Health care does, of course, have its own jargon and a host of complex challenges. Managers have to know how to deal with doctors, nurses and professional groups, as well as with regulators.

But perish the thought that health care executives who have to deal with lesser species like doctors, nurses and other professionals have to understand much about what these lowly folks actually do.

Somehow, the lessons from the bankrupt automobile companies led by executives with business degrees but no real knowledge of or interest in automobiles and how they are made, and from failed finance companies which sold complex financial derivatives that their executives did not understand do not seem to obtain.

It does all have a certain degenerate, bubble about to burst odor. The notion is the health care boom is so intense that anyone can run a health care organization.

We did find out that anyone can run an automobile company or finance firm too. The results just may not be so pretty.

Is it any wonder that in this climate, people with no understanding of the health care mission are running health care organizations, and soon the organizations are run in conflict with that mission?

As we have said before, to really reform health care, we need health care leaders who actually understand health care, and support its values. But the bubble may have to burst before many people learn that lesson. For now, there is too much money to be made.