"Dreaming On" - The Illusions of the Leaders of Large Health Organizations, as Illustrated by Medtronic's Founder

On Health Care Renewal, we have posted story after story about amazingly well paid leaders of big organizations presiding over amazingly bad organizational behavior (including subversion of mission, conflicts of interest, deception, fraud, kickbacks, various other crimes and outright corruption).  Yet the leaders often seem curiously disconnected from what occurs on their watches, while they are sometimes hailed as "visionaries," and at times exude messianic confidence.

Medtronic's Founder on its Sacred Mission

A recent article appearing in an unexpected place provides an example of leaders' excess confidence in their own righteousness.  In the IEEE (Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers) Institute was a commentary by Earl Bakken, the founder of medical device/ biotechnology giant Medtronic, modestly proclaiming the "secrets of corporate success."

Keep in mind that while Mr Bakken founded the company, at age 91, while no longer its leader, he proclaimed, " I stay involved with my company."  As such, he remains proud of its mission statement,

In 1960, when corporate mission statements were rare, I wrote one that has never changed. It remains the company’s guiding principle. There are six tenets, but the first one is the most important: To contribute to human welfare by application of biomedical engineering in the research, design, manufacture, and sale of instruments or appliances that alleviate pain, restore health, and extend life.

Starting in the 1970s, I met with all new employees, explained our history and mission, and in each of their hands I placed a medallion imprinted with the mission statement. I encouraged them to live by it—at work and at home.

Note that the official mission also includes,

To strive without reserve for the greatest possible reliability and quality in our products; to be the unsurpassed standard of comparison and to be recognized as a company of dedication, honesty, integrity, and service. [ital added]

Apparently, he believes that under the "visionary leadership" and "astute direction" of the current, this mission remains central to the organization.

At Medtronic, we live our mission. It’s the basis for how we behave in relationship to our stakeholders, each other, our communities, and the world. But it also guides our relationships with ourselves. We live the Medtronic Mission every day in truly genuine ways by serving others. I am proud to have a mission that is so deeply woven into the fabric of this company that improves millions of lives throughout the world.

Here’s to dreaming on.

Honesty? Integrity? - the Company's 10 Year Track Record 

I hate to disillusion a 91-year old, but in light of the company's last 10 year track record, as discussed on Health Care Renewal, he does appear to be in a dream world.


Medtronic has provided our blog with lots of material, including some amazing stories about conflicts of interest (starting in 2006, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, nad here,) and revolving doors  (here, here, here, and here). 

The company has also made a series of legal settlements of various allegations of infamous behavior, in chronological order...
 
2006

- We discussed detailed and vivid allegations that Medtronic had been paying off doctors starting in 2003.
 - Medtronic subsidiary Sofamor Danek settled for $40 million allegations that it gave kickbacks to doctors in the form of sham consulting fees and lavish trips (look here).

2007

As Bloomberg summarized in 2014,

Medtronic agreed in 2007 to pay about $130 million to settle consumer suits accusing the device maker of hiding defects in its defibrillators.

 2008

- Medtronic subsidiary Kyphon settled a suit for $75 million and signed a corporate integrity agreement for allegations that it defrauded Medicare through a scheme that lead to excessive hospitalization for patients who received the company's spine surgery device (link here)

2010

Per the Bloomberg 2014 summary again,

The company agreed to a $268 million settlement of suits in 2010 over allegations that fractured wires in another line of defibrillators caused at least 13 patient deaths.

2011

-  Medtroinic settled for $23.5 million two other federal lawsuits alleging it paid kickbacks to encourage physicians to implant its devices (look here).

2014  

In June, we discussed a settlement Medtronic made of allegations that  Medtronic gave kickbacks (that is, bribes) to doctors to get them to use its cardiac devices.

2015

In April, 2015 we discussed three settlements made by Medtronic:
- Its subsidiary EV3 settled old allegations that it coached hospitals how to overbill the US government for procedures using its products
- The company settled allegations it gave kickbacks to physicians to induce them to use its neuromodulation devices.
- The company settled allegations it lied to the US military about US origins of its devices.

(And by the way, we will not belabor the contrast between the statement's committment to "recognize the personal worth of employees," and the gargantuan payments made to certain employees, that is, the top managers, all who got over $3.5 million in 2014, and the "visionary" CEO, who got over $12 million, look here. )

Summary

Someone needs to wake up Mr Bakken.  He may still believe in the mission statement, and wish that it is central to his company.  However, the track record seems to suggest that the mission statement has been honored often in the breach.

Perhaps the problem is that Mr Bakken is really much more detached from the company he founded than he now admits.  However, I worry that this immensely positive spin suggests that he, like many other health care oragnizational leaders, live in some sort of bubble into which no negative karma is allowed to penetrate.  Thus convinced of their own innate goodness, they can provide no check on continuing manifestations of corporate greed, most likely with the solace of the own fortunes they build up. 

IMHO, we need to break up these huge health care organizations which have become so big that those who run them cannot be in touch with what really goes on.  We need to reestablish the accountablity of leaders, and no longer allow them to get credit for all the good that happens, and dodge responsibility for all the bad.  True health care reform would entirely transform health care leadership, so that it can become well-informed, supportive of the mission, unconflicted, less self-interested, honest, and certainly law abiding. 

2:00 PM

Three More Settlements by Medtronic of Allegations of Deceptive Behavior, but No Umpire Says "You're Out"

Medtronic, the giant, previously US based device maker settled three lawsuits, all alleging deceptive practices, over three months in early 2015.  I will summarize the settlements in chronological order.

Medtronic Subsidiary EV3 Settled Suit Alleging it Coached Hospitals about How to Overbill Medicare

This was actually an old case, originally against a company that Medtronic bought out, but only settled this year, in February.  As reported by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

A Plymouth medical device company owned by Medtronic has agreed to pay $1.25 million to settle a federal lawsuit alleging that it wasted Medicare dollars.

The medical device company EV3 is settling a whistleblower’s claims that in 2006 and 2007, a company it acquired improperly coached hospitals across the country on how to overbill Medicare for minimally invasive procedures to remove hardened plaque from patients’ arteries using one of its devices, called the Silver Hawk.

Specifically, former sales representative Amanda Cashi alleged that the company told hospitals that 80 percent of their patients for the Silver Hawk procedure should stay overnight in the hospital following an atherectomy, leading to higher Medicare payments. The promises of higher reimbursement were intended to drive sales of Silver Hawk devices. Cashi and federal prosecutors who joined her lawsuit said most of the patients should have gotten lower-paying same-day procedures in an outpatient setting.

As is standard operating procedure for such litigation,

[Irish Medtronic subsidiary] Covidien, which negotiated the settlement agreement, is not admitting wrongdoing and specifically denies the allegations in the six-year-old lawsuit, the settlement agreement says.

'Medtronic is committed to the highest standards of ethical conduct, and we take responsibility for delivering outstanding results to our partners, patients and colleagues,' a company statement said. 'The case relates to historical conduct that took place under Fox Hollow. … We are pleased to have the matter resolved.'

Of course, there may be a bit of irony there, since I doubt that the original manufacturer of Silver Hawk, FoxHollow, or its successors were pushing to get the case resolved quickly, and Medtronic likely ultimately financially benefited from the prolonged delay. 

Note that in 2005 we first posted about the questionable clinical research data that FoxHollow used to promote the device

Medtronic Settled Suit Alleging it Gave Kickbacks to Doctors to Promote Unjustified Procedure that Used Medtronic Neuromodulation Device

Just two days later, the Star-Tribune reported,

Medtronic PLC will pay $2.8 million to the U.S. Justice Department to settle a false-claims case that alleged that the Minnesota devicemaker made illegal payments to doctors to recommend a medical procedure that was neither safe nor effective.

In particular,

The case surrounds allegations of corporate promotion of uses of a neurostimulation device that were not approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The Justice Department said Medtronic paid doctors in 20 states 'tens of thousands of dollars' to encourage health providers to use the device off-label.

This 'created a new, rapidly expanding market for their devices and a potentially huge source of profit for themselves at the expense of the federal Treasury,' the government said in a federal lawsuit.

As in the previous case, the settlement allowed Medtronic to deny "it did anything wrong."

Medtronic Settled Suit that Alleged it Sold Chinese or Malaysian Spinal Surgery Devices as Made in the USA

Finally, in April, 2015, the Star-Tribune again reported,

In its third federal settlement in two months, Medtronic PLC has agreed to pay $4.4 million to settle allegations that it deliberately violated U.S. law requiring that devices sold to the military be manufactured in the United States or its international trading partners.

The False Claims Act lawsuit, handled by Minnesota U.S. Attorney Andrew Luger’s office, alleged among other things that the formerly Fridley-based med-tech company brought spinal surgery devices in from China and then relabeled them 'Manufactured in Memphis, TN,' where its spinal division is based, before selling them to the government.

Of course,

Medtronic spokeswoman Cindy Resman said that although the company has since improved its country-of-origin disclosures in government contracts, it 'makes no admission that any of its activities were improper or unlawful.'

The settlement focused on 'a limited number of accessories and surgical instruments used in spinal surgeries that were provided to Medtronic by third-party suppliers and were manufactured in China or Malaysia. The overwhelming majority of Medtronic’s products are manufactured in the United States or its trading partners, such as Mexico or Ireland,' she said in an e-mail.

But can you believe them now?

Discussion

Medtronic made three settlements over three months, all of allegations that it deceived, directly or indirectly, doctors, patients, or the government.  These settlements were not isolated events.  In June, 2014 we discussed a settlement Medtronic made of allegations that  Medtronic gave kickbacks (that is, bribes) to doctors to get them to use its cardiac devices.  Previously, as we noted then, ...   As Bloomberg summarized,

 Medtronic agreed in 2007 to pay about $130 million to settle consumer suits accusing the device maker of hiding defects in its defibrillators. The company agreed to a $268 million settlement of suits in 2010 over allegations that fractured wires in another line of defibrillators caused at least 13 patient deaths.

In fact, Medtronic has provided our blog with lots of material.  We first discussed detailed and vivid allegations that Medtronic had been paying off doctors starting in 2003 here in 2006.  Medtronic has been involved in other lawsuits alleging various kinds of deception.
-  In 2011, it settled for $23.5 million two other federal lawsuits alleging it paid kickbacks to encourage physicians to implant its devices (look here).  
- In 2008, Medtronic subsidiary Kyphon settled a suit for $75 million and signed a corporate integrity agreement for allegations that it defrauded Medicare through a scheme that lead to excessive hospitalization for patients who received the company's spine surgery device (link here)
- In 2006, Medtronic subsidiary Sofamor Danek settled for $40 million allegations that it gave kickbacks to doctors in the form of sham consulting fees and lavish trips (look here).

One loses count of all the settlements and cases in which Medtronic was accused of deceptive practices.  Some settlements were for larger amounts, some for smaller.  Yet none of the settlements were large enough to really affect a company which reported earnings of just under $1 billion in 2014 (per this WSJ article.)   None of the later legal settlements seem to have taken into account the company's previous record.

But this is typical of how legal settlements made by large health care corporations are handled.  Almost never is the settlement big enough to have deterrent value.   

The revenues of the company could very well have been increased by the activities alleged to have occurred in the course of this litigation, and these revenues were likely used to justify outsize compensation for top corporate managers.  According to the company's 2014 proxy statement, in fiscal 2014, CEO Omar Ishrak got $12,118,846 in total compensation.  All other listed executives got at least $3.5 million.  In none of these cases did anyone at the company who might have authorized, directed, or implemented bad, and particularly deceptive behavior suffer any negative consequences.   

But this is typical of the impunity seemingly granted to top health care organizational managers.

In baseball, it's three strikes and you're out.  For the leaders of big health care corporations, however, no matter how many strikes your company makes, you never seem to be out.  Despite a continuing stream of ethical issues occurring on their watch, management usually succeeds in becoming filthy rich.


Maybe that would change if the public, or health care professionals, knew all about such things.  However, these settlements remain anechoic.  Although the latest Star-Tribune article did note that the latest 2015 settlement occurred after two previous settlements this year, none of the reporting about these settlements seems to have noted all the previous settlements.  Finally, the discussion of these cases involving a prominent device company and multiple allegations of deceptive, dishonest, unethical behavior never seems to go beyond business sections of media outlets.  Even though such continuing dishonest behavior could have corrosive cumulative effects on health care ethics, the morale of health professionals who have to deal with such deception, and patients' and the public's health, discussion of it never makes it into the medical and health care literature, a striking example of the anechoic effect.

Maybe if more health care professionals, and the public at large, knew the story better, they might ask what sort of stewardship was exerted by the Medtronic board of directors? Maybe they could ask current Medtronic board members, like Rensellaer Polytechnic Institute President Shirley Ann Jackson, and  former US Secretary of Health and Human Services Michael O Levitt,  and former board members, like Dr Victor J Dzau, who was pressured to leave the Medtronic board after he became President of the Institute of Medicine and this membership was noticed (look here)  These board members were making over $200,000 a year, and piling up Medtronic stock, supposedly for exerting stewardship over the company.

But typically board members of big health care organizations remain unaccountable.  

There seems to be increasing recognition that the continuing rise in US health care costs is unsustainable, and that these costs are not buying us good health care.  There are calls to avoid unnecessary, and sometimes harmful care.  Yet there is a persistent disconnect between how continuing dishonest behavior by health care organizations, impunity of their leaders, and lack of accountability by their board members fuel rising costs, shrinking access, and bad outcomes for patients.

To truly reform health care, we will have to at least recognize the causes of the current dysfunction.  Recognizing how health care dysfunction is created by unaccountable, dishonest leadership should lead to true reform that would promote well-informed, honest, accountable leadership that puts patients' and the public's health ahead of personal gain.  

5:34 PM

Turn, Turn, Turn - Another Health Care Revolving Door Update

It has been a while since our last revolving door update, so it's time to take another spin.


Summary of the Revolving Door Phenomenon

Before we get to some cases, though, let me summarize an important article on the revolving door that came out since.  This was published by U4, the "anti-corruption resource center" NGO based in lovely Bergen, Norway.  The title was "The Revolving Door Indicator: Estimating the distortionary power of the revolving door."  Although it's main point was to summarize a new measure the importance of the revolving door in a particular economic sector, it started with a very useful summary of the revolving door phenomenon.  It included a useful definition

According to Transparency International UK, the term 'revolving door' refers to 'the movement of   individuals between positions of public office and jobs in the private sector, in either direction.'

To expand,

The revolving door involves two distinct types of movement.  The first is from the public to the private sector, as regulators (ministers, cabinet secretaries, legislators, high-level officials, advisers) leave the public sector to enter the private sector they have regulated. The second is from the private to the public sector, as high-level executives of regulated companies enter the executive branch, the legislature, or key regulatory agencies.

It also included some idea of prevalence

The revolving door is particularly common in countries where explicit bribes cannot be paid safely, and thus regulators look forward to future employment with the regulated firms

We will discuss what the U4 report said about the implications of the revolving door after a quick review of the cases we have run across since May, 2014, involving the US government.  They will be listed in order of their appearance in the news.

Former National Coordinator for Health Information Technology and Colleague at ONC to Aledade (Company Supporting Accountable Care Organizations)

In June, 2014, various versions of this story appeared.  The Modern Healthcare version stated,

Dr. Farzad Mostashari, former head of the Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, is starting a new firm, Aledade, to help independent primary-care physicians form accountable care organizations. The startup has $4.5 million in seed funding from venture capital firm Venrock.

Independent practices looking to form ACOs have to expend money 'to hire the people, to get the agreements, to get the licenses, to do the legal work, to hire the executive director, and a medical director, practice transformation, the analytics software, the data warehousing, the EHR interfaces,' he said. 'All of that takes money,' often $1 million to $2 million.

Note that the current concept of the "accountable care organization" [ACO] includes heavy dependence on the electronic health records (EHRs) and other health information technology that Dr Mostashari had been so vigorously promoting as head of the ONC, so this transition seems to fit the revolving door rubric.

It also turns out that one of Dr Mostashari's former ONC colleagues was already at Aledade  

Mostashari will be joined by Mat Kendall, a former leader with the regional extension center program at ONC, who will be executive vice president

Former US Senators to Lobby for Medtronic and Covidien

In August, 2014, per Bloomberg,

Former U.S. Senators Trent Lott and John Breaux are part of a lobbying effort by companies that want to preserve the option of reducing their corporate taxes by moving their legal addresses overseas.

Nine U.S. companies that have sought cross-border mergers for tax reasons, are considering doing so or are targets of such deals have been pressuring lawmakers since April on legislation to stop the practice, federal disclosure reports show.

They include Medtronic Inc., the Minneapolis-based company that is seeking to acquire Dublin-based Covidien Plc. Medtronic paid Breaux-Lott Leadership Group $200,000 in June to block legislation from moving forward. Breaux, a Democrat, was once a member of the Senate Finance Committee. Lott, a Republican, is a former Senate majority leader.

Note that as Senator, Breaux had an important role in health policy, particularly the passage of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

Former Assistant Secretary of Health and Human Services to Drinker Biddle & Reath (Lobbying Firm)

In August, 2014, per the Washington Post,

District Policy Group, the lobbying unit of law firm Drinker Biddle & Reath, is experimenting with a new model of using outside consultants to capture new business in the health-care field.

The group, which lobbies primarily on health-care policy, has taken the unusual step of forming an advisory board that includes external consultants. The outside advisers are not employees of the firm and instead receive a consultant’s fee, which means the firm does not have to pay their salary or benefits, but can still tout their services to clients.

The board was formed in July and is made up of four Drinker Biddle attorneys and two outside consultants, Tracy Sefl, a Democratic communications strategist, and Michael O’Grady, a health economics specialist and former Health and Human Services assistant secretary under President George W. Bush. Both Sefl and O’Grady have day jobs running their own consulting shops.

This seems to require no further comment.

Former Federal Trade Commissioner to Herbalife

In October, 2014, per the Hill,

Herbalife has hired a former federal regulator to run its compliance program as it deals with allegations of running a pyramid scheme.

Pamela Jones Harbour, who served at the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) from 2003 to 2010, has been named the company’s senior vice president of global member compliance and privacy, according to media reports.

The FTC opened a probe into Herbalife’s business practices earlier this year after lobbyists, interest groups and policymakers asked for a review.

Shortly after the FTC announced its investigation, the FBI began looking into how the direct-selling company recruits new distributors.

Herbalife is best known for its meal-replacement shakes and dietary supplement products. Harbour says she has been a Herbalife customer since 2004, according to Reuters, favoring the company’s Formula 1 shake mix.

Note that the FTC devotes considerable energy to health care issues, and Herbalife styles itself a "a global nutrition company" which makes "weight management" and "energy and fitness" products.

Director of US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to Merck as President of Merck Vaccines, then Executive Vice President for Strategic Communications, Global Public Policy and Population Health

In December, 2014, per a news release on BusinessWire,

Merck (NYSE:MRK), known as MSD outside the United States and Canada, today announced the appointment of Dr. Julie Gerberding, 59, as executive vice president for strategic communications, global public policy and population health, effective Dec. 15. In this newly created Executive Committee position, Gerberding, who most recently served as president of Merck Vaccines, will be responsible for Merck’s global public policy, corporate responsibility and communications functions, as well as the Merck Foundation and the Merck for Mothers program.

Note that

Prior to joining Merck, Gerberding served as director of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) from 2002-2009 and before that served as director of the Division of Healthcare Quality Promotion.

From UnitedHealth (Optum Subsidiary) Executive to Administrator of the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the Department of Health and Human Services

In January, 2015, per the Business Journals,

Marilyn Tavenner's replacement at the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services is a former executive at one of the contractors for the initially botched HealthCare.gov insurance exchange.

Andy Slavitt, former group executive vice president of United Health Group's Optum unit, joined CMS last June to help fix HealthCare.gov. Now he'll be acting administrator of CMS.

An Optum subsidiary, Quality Software Services Inc., was one of the original contractors for HealthCare.gov. QSSI developed the exchange's data services hub and a registration tool that allows users to create secure accounts.

Apparently nothing succeeds like failure.


Discussion

I apologize for the somewhat desultory way I have been summarizing health care revolving door cases.  My excuse is that such cases are almost never publicized as such.  Most of the stories above were found when looking for something else.  Despite its potential importance, the revolving door phenomenon gets little consistent coverage in the news media, and the particular issue of the revolving door affecting health care is particularly anechoic.  (If one searches for "'health care revolving door," one finds discussion of patients who are frequently re-admitted to the hospital.)  There is one website devoted to the revolving door affecting the US government, (OpenSecrets.org has a database here.)   However, it is not searchable by sector, and seems not to be complete (that is, for example, it fails to contain most of the cases I listed above). 

None of the cases above got more than minimal media coverage, yet they all involved people who at one time held high government positions, including US Senators, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), a Federal Trade Commission (FTC) commissioner, the director of Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) within the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), an Assistant Secretary of DHHS, and the National Coordinator for Healthcare Information Technology. So the anechoic effect persists regarding this issue.

Yet the revolving door is a significant issue.  As discussed in the U4 article, 

The literature makes clear that the revolving door process is a source of valuable political connections for private firms. But it generates corruption risks and has strong distortionary effects on the economy, especially when this power is concentrated within a few firms.

Also, the principal way the revolving door can benefit a company is...

The rent-seeking channel: The revolving door is used to capture public resources, through legal and illegal means, rather than to increase production or efficiency.  Transparency International UK (2011) and the OECD (2009) point out that the revolving door may lead to various schemes involving conflicts of interest, both during and after a regulator’s term in public office. This in turn generates undue bureaucratic and political power for firms using such schemes

Furthermore,

The revolving door is also related to lawful behaviours (Brezis 2013), termed 'legal corruption' by Kaufmann and Vicente (2011). This phrase refers to 'efforts by companies and individuals to shape law or policies to their advantage, often done quasi-legally, via campaign finance, lobbying or exchange of favors to politicians, regulators and other government officials. […] In its more extreme form, legal corruption can lead to control of entire states, through the phenomenon dubbed ‘state capture,’ and result in enormous losses for societies'

So,

Firms connected through the revolving door may therefore derive undue advantages by legally and illegally influencing the formulation, adoption, and implementation of laws, regulations, and public policies. For example, when firms are connected to (former) members of Parliament [or the legislature], they may influence the enactment of laws and regulations in their favour. When firms are connected to (former) ministers [or in the US, cabinet secretaries] and their advisers, they may influence the upstream formulation and implementation of policies and regulations in their favour. When firms are connected to (former) high-level officials, they may influence the downstream implementation of regulations in their favour.

Finally,

Empirical studies suggest that the revolving door gives firms political and bureaucratic power that enables them to divert state resources by biasing public procurement processes (Goldman, Rocholl, and So 2013; Cingano and Pinotti 2013), obtaining preferential access to public finance (Faccio, Masulis, and McConnell 2006; Boubakri et al. 2012), and unduly benefiting from tax exemption, arrears, and subsidies (Faccio 2010; Slinko, Yakovlev, and Zhuravskaya 2005; Johnson and Mitton 2003).

Therefore, firms politically connected through the revolving door tend to shape laws and regulations in their favour and to divert state resources to their own benefit. They are unlikely to gain a productivity advantage, and indeed may reduce productivity in the private and the public sectors. The literature on state capture and political influence (Hellman and Kaufmann 2004; Hellman, Jones, and Kaufmann 2003; Slinko, Yakovlev, and Zhuravskaya 2005) supports the thesis that such distortions result from the high concentration of political and bureaucratic power among a few powerful firms.

That all suggests that the revolving door in health care ought to get attention beyond posts in Health Care Renewal, but so far there has been precious little of that.  The continuing egregiousness of the revolving door in health care shows how health care leadership can play mutually beneficial games, regardless of the their effects on patients' and the public's health.  Once again, true health care reform would cut the ties between government and corporate leaders that have lead to government of, for and by corporate executives rather than the people at large

10:46 AM

Outsize Compensation for "Teflon-Coated" Executives - After Many Lawsuits and Negative News Stories, Norton Healthcare Executives Still Get Millions

In an earlier era of chemistry, politicians who continued to acquire votes while shedding doubts, criticisms, and allegations were called "Teflon-coated."  Teflon may be outdated now, but there certainly seems to be some health care executives who have unique non-stick coatings.

The Executives' Compensation

Our latest example comes from the Louisville (KY) Courier-Journal, which just published an article about the compensation received by top executives of one of the region's major hospital systems.  The essentials were:

From 2011 to 2013, the three most recent years available, tax records show the chief executive of Norton Healthcare, Stephen A. Williams, received total compensation that averaged $3.2 million a year.

The yearly numbers were:

2013: $2,447,122
2012: $4,705,333
2011: $2,376,186

Other top executives also were paid handsomely,

The tax reports show Norton paid chief operating officer Russell Cox an average of $1.5 million annually over the three years and chief financial officer Michael Gough $1.2 million. Cox also was promised an average of $547,580 annually over those years in additional future compensation and Gough $375,567 a year.

The Usual Talking Points as Justification

The justification given for such munificent pay for top hired managers of non-profit organizations that are supposed to put patient care (and sometimes teaching and research) ahead of personal enrichment never seems to go beyond the talking points we have previously discussed.

 It seems nearly every attempt made to defend the outsize compensation given hospital and health system executives involves the same arguments, thus suggesting they are talking points, possibly crafted as a public relations ploy.   We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use here, here here, here, here, and here, and here. 

They are:
- We have to pay competitive rates
- We have to pay enough to retain at least competent executives, given how hard it is to be an executive
- Our executives are not merely competitive, but brilliant (and have to be to do such a difficult job).

True to form, per the Courier-Journal article,

Industry leaders — and Norton board members — say the salaries and bonuses are essential to attract and retain executives with the skills to run complex organizations as they navigate enormous reimbursement and regulatory changes. Norton operates five hospitals and has revenues of about $1.8 billion.

In an interview, Hank Robinson, Norton's finance committee chairman and former board chairman, said Williams' compensation is 'very fair, very competitive and appropriate.'

So there, in three sentences, were direct versions of the "competitive rates," and "retention" talking points, and an indirect version ("skills to run complex organizations") of the "brilliance" talking point.

Also, the Courier-Journal article included,

Norton's chief communication officer, Thomas Johnson, points out that since Williams was named CEO, the company's revenues have climbed sixfold, and its work force has tripled to more than 12,000 employees, making it the third-largest employer in the Louisville area.

That was another indirect version of the "brilliance" talking point, since Mr Johnson seemed to be arguing that the CEO was the person most personally responsible for the "company's" [not "hospital system's?" - Ed)] increased revenue, regardless of the work of the more than 12,000 other employees.  Of course, Mr Johnson doubtless reports nearly directly to the CEO.

Pointedly left out of the discussion was that Norton Healthcare's financial performance in the recent years in which the CEO had received so much money was hardly brilliant.   As apparently first reported in Modern Healthcare in August, 2014, but going back to 2012,

A multimillion-dollar installation of an electronic health-record system dragged down Norton Healthcare's financials in 2012 and 2013, but the Louisville, Ky.-based health system rebounded in the first half of this year.

Norton—like many others racing to adopt the latest health information technology—began implementing an Epic Systems Corp. EHR in 2012. Norton's five hospitals and several physician practices fully converted to the Epic system by 2013. In total, the EHR cost nearly $80 million to install, according to Norton's audited 2013 financial documents (PDF).

According to Modern Healthcare, Norton had a $13.4 million operating loss in the first half of 2013.  However, Norton CEO Williams received nearly $2.5 million in 2013. So these negative financial results in 2012 and 2013 did not apparently drag down the CEO's compensation in those years.

Compared to What?

The Courier-Journal went a bit farther in their reporting of executive compensation at Norton Healthcare than other media outlets have when reporting on the pay of other health care leaders.  In particular, reporter Andrew Wolfson delved into how Mr Williams' compensation was justified by comparing it to the compensation of other health care CEOs.

The Norton finance committee chair, Mr Robinson

said it is derived through a rigid process based on an outside consultant's survey of pay at 66 comparable hospitals nationwide. The board then sets it at the 65th percentile of that compensation, which Robinson described as standard industry practice.

Furthermore,

Norton's consultant, Integrated Healthcare Strategies, says it looks at comparable peer groups — hospital companies, some larger and some smaller — to find a benchmark for Norton's board.

They include Baptist Health of Florida, whose CEO was paid $3.2 million in 2013, and Inova Health Care Services, of Falls Church, Va., whose top executive received total compensation of $4.2 million in 2012.

'Norton tries to set salary a little bit above the middle of the market,' Integrated's Dave York said in an interview. 'They are neither a conservative nor an aggressive payer.'

That still begged the question of why the compensation was "above the middle of the market," specifically, the 65th percentile?  Presumably, the board thought that CEO Williams has been at the 65the percentile of CEO performance.  But why did they pick that figure? What evidence is there that Mr Williams was better than average?

The Courier-Journal article also questioned the choice of the group of CEOs whose pay was used for comparison,

But Paul R. Dorf, managing director at Compensation Resources Inc., a Saddle River, N.J., consulting firm, who reviewed Norton's executive pay at the newspaper's request, said 'it doesn't seem right.
They are exceptionally well compensated,' he said.

The average compensation for the top 147 nonprofit hospital CEOs in 2012 was $2.2 million in 2012, according to Modern Healthcare, an industry publication.

Williams' average compensation from 2011-13 was more than paid in 2012 to the CEOs of 20 of the 25 top grossing nonprofit hospitals in the U.S., all of which were bigger than Norton, according to Becker's Hospital Review, another industry news outlet.

Given that compensation consultants like Mr Dorf usually seem to back the status quo for executive compensation, Mr Dorf's doubts should be underlined.  The Courier-Journal's coverage did suggest that the CEO and other top executives of Norton Healthcare are paid not only much more than the typical hospital employee, and the health care professionals who make the hospital run, but more than CEOs and top executives of other hospitals.  The reasons for this unclear.

Left unanswered were further questions.   Why are so called market comparisons limited to other CEOs or top managers, and never take into account other hospital employees, especially the health care professionals who actually provide the health care?  Why is the complexity of the managers' jobs never compared to complexity of other health care jobs, like the care of complex patients with multiple diseases, or neurosurgery, for example?  How is the "brilliance" of the managers measured, and compared to the brilliance of other employees, especially health care professionals?

Shedding Doubts, Criticisms, and Allegations

A little internet searching and dot connecting, however, did suggest that there may be one argument for the "brilliance" of the Norton Healthcare leadership, but it is an argument that the hospital system's board might not have been eager to make.

It seems, at least in my humble opinion, that the leadership has been brilliant, but brilliant in fending off multiple questions that have been raised in recent years about its management of the health care system, particularly questions about the ethics and integrity of their health care system's acts and practices. 

So far I have found the following issues, in more or less chronologic order,

Top Spine Surgeons' Questionable Royalties

In 2010, the Wall Street Journal reported that spine surgeons at Norton had been collecting millions in questionable royalty payments.

Norton Hospital in Louisville, Ky., may not be a household name nationally. But five senior spine surgeons have helped put it on the map in at least one category: From 2004 to 2008, Norton performed the third-most spinal fusions on Medicare patients in the country.

The five surgeons are also among the largest recipients nationwide of payments from medical-device giant Medtronic Inc. In the first nine months of this year alone, the surgeons—Steven Glassman, Mitchell Campbell, John Johnson, John Dimar and Rolando Puno—received more than $7 million from the Fridley, Minn., company.

Furthermore, Norton surgeons' use of spinal fusion for disc problems, a procedure whose benefits do not clearly outweigh its harms, was particularly notable.

At Norton, spinal fusions on patients who only suffered from aging disks accounted for 24% of the 2,475 fusions the hospital performed for Medicare between 2004 and 2008, compared with 17% nationally. This placed it 11th in percentage terms out of 60 hospitals that performed 1,000 or more spine fusions in those years, and fourth in raw count. Norton ranked third nationally in the overall numbers of spine-fusion surgeries.

Furthermore, the WSJ reported that it had obtained documents from a lawsuit filed by whistle-blowers against Medtronic which alleged

the five surgeons at Kentucky's Norton Hospital became Medtronic's biggest spine client [sic] after they signed consulting and royalty deals in early 2001.

We posted briefly about Norton's spinal fusion enthusiasts here, and Dr Howard Brody discussed it extensively on his blog, concluding,

some of my surgeon colleagues who actually care about professionalism and ethics believe that these 'royalty and consulting' payments are a huge cesspool. It's that much harder to get to the bottom of it because the device companies have been smart about how to cover their tracks.

Yet while there have been continuing questions raised about the actions of Medtronic vis a vis its medical "consultants" since then, it seems that no one has so far thought to question the role of Norton Healthcare, especially given that the hospital system doubtless collected millions for the performance of these procedures in its operating rooms.    

University of Louisville Litigation Claims Contract Violations, Debts Owed by Norton Healthcare

Apparently since at least 2013, Norton Healthcare has been involved in litigation with the University of Louisville over Kosair Children's Hospital, which is run by Norton on land owned by the University.  As summarized in Louisville Business First in October, 2013,

Norton Healthcare Inc. has filed a complaint in Franklin Circuit Court that seeks to establish that the University of Louisville has no legal right to evict the organization from Kosair Children’s Hospital.

Louisville-based Norton owns and operates Kosair Children’s Hospital on land it leases from the state.

U of L executive vice president of health affairs David Dunn issued this response late Friday to Norton's claim:

'It’s unfortunate that Norton filed a lawsuit instead of meeting to negotiate a long-term agreement for the care of children at Kosair Children’s Hospital. The University of Louisville’s repeated attempts to meet and negotiate have been rejected again and again by Norton’s CEO, who told us today that he will neither meet nor negotiate while their lawsuit is pending.'

'This is a disturbing trend in dealing with Norton as we try to resolve these complicated matters in a way that best meets the needs of Kosair Children’s Hospital, the patients we serve and U of L’s Department of Pediatrics. It is our hope that, later today, Norton will take a deep breath, accept our invitation to meet, and we all can focus on securing a long-term agreement to best serve the children of our community.'

Furthermore, the University of Louisville also demanded

that the hospital company rectify alleged violations  of a land lease and other agreements

In addition,

other claims in U of L's letter was that Norton owes U of L millions of dollars related to the Kosair agreements.

The dispute apparently also involves the University of Kentucky and the KentuckyOne hospital system. Some of the other relevant issues were summarized on the Kentucky Health Policy Institute website here.  It seems that patient care and medical education have become caught in the cross-fire between these powerful organizations. It is not obvious that Norton Healthcare is more or less responsible for this state of affairs than the other large organizations involved. However, neither is it obvious that Norton has taken the high ground regarding this matter.

Kosair Charities Sues Norton Healthcare for Misusing Charitable Funds

In mid-2014, another litigation front opened against Norton Healthcare.  As reported then by the Louisville Courier-Journal,

Kosair Charities, which has given more than $6 million annually to Kosair Children's Hospital, is accusing parent company Norton Healthcare of misusing some of that money to enhance its bottom line and 'line the pockets' of its executives.

In a lawsuit filed Thursday in Jefferson County Circuit Court, the charity says Norton has refused to provide an accounting of how Kosair's donations are spent.

'We have an obligation to the kids and our donors to make sure the money is being used to help children,' said Randy Coe, president of Kosair Charities, which is the hospital's largest donor. 'We don't want our money to go into the Norton pot.'

Note that the source of generous executive compensation at Norton Healthcare is a direct point of contention in this legal matter.


This lawsuit stems from the previously cooperative relationship between Kosair and Norton,

 At one time, Kosair Charities and Norton each operated their own pediatric hospitals — Kosair Crippled Children's Hospital and Norton Children's Hospital.

But in 1982, Kosair agreed to close its hospital on Eastern Parkway and to help pay for a new one downtown that was named Kosair Children's Hospital.

Kosair Charities said that, in an agreement struck that year, Norton agreed to keep separate accounts for the children's hospital in exchange for millions of dollars of contributions. Kosair says that arrangement was continued when the agreement was renewed in 2006.

In fact, the charges brought in this lawsuit about Norton executive compensation led the Courier-Journal to publish the 2015 article about the hospital system's executive compensation. Also, in 2014, Norton further belayed this previous spirit of cooperation by counter-suing Kosair, again as dutifully reported by the Courier-Journal. These lawsuits have not been resolved.


Patient Lawsuit Claiming "Unfair, False, Misleading or Deceptive Acts or Practices" by Norton

Also first reported in August, 2014, by the Courier-Journal, was a lawsuit by a patient who claimed that  in the emergency department of a Norton hospital,

he was seen only by a nurse practitioner who failed to diagnose that he was suffering from an acute and potentially fatal version of diverticulitis, an inflammation of the intestinal lining — and sent him home with a prescription for oral antibiotics. Two days later, he began vomiting and was rushed back to the hospital, where he underwent emergency surgery for a perforated bowel and was fitted with a colostomy bag.

However, that hospital had been advertising

 You don't just deserve emergency care. You deserve remarkable care.

This lawsuit, which alleges that Norton Healthcare violated a law prohibiting "unfair, false, misleading or deceptive acts or practices" by advertising "remarkable care," but delivering much less,  has not been resolved, either.

Summary

The 2015 report about executive compensation at Norton Healthcare raise the same points that many, many stories about executive compensation in health care have raised before.  Top managers/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ executives in health care seem to be paid ever increasing amounts, even as other employees, including health care professionals, work harder, burn out more frequently, and may be laid off.  These executives' payments rise faster than inflation, and are seemingly unrelated to the financial performance of the the relevant health care organizations, much less the health care quality provided, or the positive effects on patients' or the public's health

Yet the defenders of excess compensation seem to get away with repeatedly reciting the same tired talking points, without clear logic, and certain without evidence.

In the current case, however, one talking point, the argument that the pay was justified by the executives' hard work and "brilliance" may be justified, albeit in a somewhat twisted way.  Executives at Norton Healthcare have been fending off questions about the ethics and integrity of their system raised by a barrage of news stories and claims, including many for which litigation is in progress, claiming the hospital system engaged in a variety of allegedly deceptive or dishonest practices.  One might think that the doubts raised by these claims might have threatened the compensation of the executives on whose watch they occurred.  Instead, perhaps they got even more pay for being "brilliant," not so much brilliant at providing excellent health care, but brilliant at keeping all these doubts at bay for so long, without so far actually disproving any of them. 

As we have said before, in US health care, the top managers/ administrators/ bureaucrats/ executives - whatever they should be called - continue to prosper ever more mightily as the people who actually take care of patients seem to work harder and harder for less and less. This is the health care version of the rising income inequality that the US public is starting to notice.

Thus, like hired managers in the larger economy, non-profit hospital managers have become "value extractors."  The opportunity to extract value has become a major driver of managerial decision making.  And this decision making is probably the major reason our health care system is so expensive and inaccessible, and why it provides such mediocre care for so much money. 


One wonders how long the people who actually do the work in health care will suffer the value extraction to continue?

So to repeat, true health care reform would put in place leadership that understands the health care context, upholds health care professionals' values, and puts patients' and the public's health ahead of extraneous, particularly short-term financial concerns. We need health care governance that holds health care leaders accountable, and ensures their transparency, integrity and honesty.

But this sort of reform would challenge the interests of managers who are getting very rich off the current system.  So I am afraid the US may end up going far down this final common pathway before enough people manifest enough strength to make real changes. 

8:56 AM

Marketers' Systemic Influence over Ostensibly Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed Publications: the Medtronic Infuse BMP-2 Example

On the heels of our discussion of how one pharmaceutical company employed a "publications strategy" to commission and control randomized controlled trials to serve marketing purposes, a US Senate committee has released a report about how a device/ biotechnology company "influenced the content of articles in peer-reviewed scientific publications to present... [its product] in the best possible light."

The report was summarized by the Wall Street Journal,

A report by the Senate Finance Committee based on thousands of documents it subpoenaed from Medtronic Inc raises new questions about the integrity of the medical research underpinning one of the medical-device maker's products.

Medtronic was 'heavily involved in drafting, editing and shaping the content of medical journal articles' about the product—a bone-growth protein used in spine surgery called Infuse—even as it was paying the physicians who wrote those articles a total of $210 million for unrelated work, the Senate report alleges.

In one instance, a Medtronic employee recommended to one of the physicians not publishing a list of side effects associated with Infuse in a 2005 journal article, company emails show. Medtronic marketing officials also urged inserting language into other journal articles touting the use of Infuse as better for patients than using bone harvested from their pelvises because of the pain associated with the latter, other company documents show.

Medtronic's influence extended to preparing a physician's 2002 speech to a panel advising the Food and Drug Administration on whether to approve the drug, the report alleges. The physician's disclosure to the panel at the time suggested his testimony was independent, but the company had in fact helped him draft it and paid him as a consultant the previous year, company documents show. Medtronic later hired the physician as an executive.

In response to the Senate report, Medtronic issued a statement saying it 'vigorously' disagreed with any suggestion that 'it improperly influenced or authored any of the peer-reviewed published manuscripts.' The company also denied that it 'intended to under-report adverse events' associated with Infuse.

The Extent of the Problem

The report itself is available here. It is worth discussing some of its sections about how the company is alleged to have influenced the peer-reviewed, scholarly clinical literature in more detail.

First, it asserted that "Medtronic employees, including employees working for its marketing department, collaborated with physician authors, many of whom had significant financial relationships with Medtronic, to draft" 11 specific articles in the literature published between 2002 and 2009.

Obfuscating Adverse Effects

The report provided detail about specific instances in which Medtronic employees appeared to influence publication to further marketing objectives.  The first was apparently to cloud discussion of adverse effects of its product [italics added for emphasis]:

documents indicate that a Medtronic employee involved in editing a draft of the 2005 Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery (JBJS) article by Burkus, et al. about a similar InFuse procedure involving allograft bone (a cage made from donated bone rather than the FDA-approved titanium), recommended that 'significant detail' concerning adverse event  data should not be published.

On June 16, 2004, Dr. Julie Bearcroft, Director of Technology Management in Medtronic’s Biologics Marketing Department, wrote an e-mail to other Medtronic employees, commenting on a draft of the study, 'I have made some significant changes to this document (some at the request of Dr. Burkus) both in format and content.  In this e-mail, she asked: 'How much information should we provide relative to adverse events? . . . You will see my [note] in the attached document but I don’t think significant detail on this section is warranted.'  The referenced note in the draft article stated: 'I don’t believe we want to report in the same manner as we do in IDE studies. I personally think it is appropriate to simply report the adverse events were equivalent in the two groups without the detail.' According to an internal e-mail, the adverse events were observed in the trial and formatted in a detailed table. But following the advice of Bearcroft, this table of adverse events was not included in the published paper.

On July 3, 2004, after Medtronic edited the paper, Dr. Burkus sent a draft to his co-authors writing that 'this manuscript documents the superiority in clinical and radiographic outcomes with the use of rhBMP2 in a study population of only 133 patients.'

According to the Carragee et al. Spine Journal article published in 2011, the 2005 JBJS article 'reported no complications, such as end-plate fracture, collapse, and implant migration associated with rhBMP–2 despite the clear radiographic findings in at least the one presented case.  The e-mail exchange indicates that, in addition to Medtronic editing the manuscript without attribution, the company was recommending that the article omit a complete accounting of adverse event data, including serious adverse event data that were already considered a documented concern by FDA in similar application.
 
These types of adverse events were disclosed in Table V of a 2009 follow-up article concerning the original IDE study. Studies published in 2007 revealed that InFuse is associated with 'a clinically important early inflammatory and osteoclastic effect of the rhBMP–2 in soft tissue and bone, respectively.  In other words, Medtronic recommended against including information in the study that was ultimately revealed to have an association between In-Fuse and weakening that could lead to collapse of the bone and implant and required that patients undergo additional surgery.

Note that in this example, someone explicitly associated with marketing apparently edited a draft of a scholarly article, suggested that detail about adverse effects of the company's product be omitted, and that the published article in fact omitted such detail.

The report also included an example in which another Medtronic employee apparently tried to "tone down" the discussion of adverse effects of the product, but did so too late to influence the published version. 

Emphasizing the Adverse Effects of an Alternative to Using the Company's Product

On the other hand, the report also included an example in which it alleged that a company employee suggested adding emphasis to the drawbacks of using a management strategy that did not include use of the company's product.

Documents show that Medtronic edited draft publications to stress the pain patients experienced from undergoing a bone graft procedure instead of receiving InFuse. Medtronic markets InFuse as a less painful alternative to bone graft procedures for patients undergoing spinal fusion surgery.

In particular,

After receiving a draft of an early InFuse study 52 to review in October 2001, Medtronic’s Neil Beals, whose 'primary job responsibility was to manage Biologics marketing programs and initiatives,'  recommended that the physician authors of the study emphasize pain experienced by patients who received the bone graft. The patients were divided into an investigative group that received InFuse and a control group that received a bone graft obtained from the iliac crest of their pelvis.  An October 31, 2001 e-mail shows that Beals suggested to Dr. Burkus that 'a bigger deal should be made of elimination of donor site pain with INFUSE . . . so that ‘equivalent’ results aren’t received as a let down.'   Again, after reviewing a later draft of the study, Beals asked Dr. Burkus on March 8, 2002, 'would it be appropriate to make a bigger deal out of donor site pain and include more discussion and references?  Subsequently, a sentence was inserted at the end of a later draft, and included in the published version of the article, that read, 'The use of rhBMP–2 is associated with high fusion rates without the need for harvesting bone graft from the iliac crest and exposing the patient to the adverse effects associated with that procedure.'

Medtronic also sought to include discussion of long-term pain in the Baskin, et. al. 2003 paper on InFuse in the cervical spine. In a draft of the publication that was being circulated on August 30, 2002, the authors wrote, '[b]y 12 months after surgery, the patients [sic] graft-site pain had resolved . . . and no patients complained about the graft-site appearance.'  Beals inserted comments after this sentence stating, 'ALTHOUGH THE PATIENTS DID NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT APPEARANCE DIDN’T SOME STILL EXPERIENCE PAIN AT THE DONOR SITE? SEEMS LIKE RESIDUAL EFFECTS OF DONOR SITE SHOULD BE NOTED.  [sic] [emphasis in original]. In an e-mail to his colleague, Beals wrote, 'I would also add in more discussion on donor site pain and need for osteogenetic graft material (plant seed of doubt for just using allograft by itself ).  A review of the final published article reveals that, after Beals made the suggestion to emphasize pain at the bone graft site, a sentence was added in the final version of the article that read,  '. . . even at the 24-month follow-up assessment, some patients continued to experience residual pain at the donor site, and rated the appearance of the site as only fair.'

Note that in these two examples, another marketing employee edited drafts of two scholarly articles, suggested that more emphasis be put on supposed adverse effects of the procedure that the articles compared to the procedure which used the company's product, and that the two articles included such emphasis. 

Deceptive Response to Peer Reviewers' Criticisms of Apparent Bias 

Finally, the report included an instance in which a company employee managed correspondence between an article's ostensible first author and journal editors to try to defend wording which reviewers had criticized for bias in favor of the company's product.

In summary,

E-mail exchanges between Dr. Burkus and Medtronic employees regarding a study of InFuse utilizing the posterior lumbar interbody fusion (PLIF) technique and published in The Spine Journal in 2004 demonstrates that Medtronic employees not only edited the draft manuscript to include comments supportive of InFuse,  they also covertly participated in the peer-review process by drafting responses to peer-reviewers on behalf of the physician authors named on the paper.

In particular, one employee, Rick Treharne, previously identified as "Senior Vice President of Clinical and Regulatory Affairs," wrote a very positive summary statement for the article's discussion section:

In a January 10, 2003, e-mail to Dr. Burkus, Rick Treharne wrote, 'In looking over the data, I was impressed with how well the BMP patients actually did. So much so that I added a few paragraphs at the end that you may not agree with.' 

However, the reviewers were skeptical,

One reviewer wrote: 'Unless the authors can discuss the results of this study in an unbiased manner, which they have been unable to do in its present form, this data should not be published.'  Another reviewer wrote: 'The manuscript is full of biased statements that are a reflection of the data evaluators—the company that markets the product.'  That reviewer recommended a discussion of potential bias in the text of the paper writing,  'As it stands it is an advertisement for a specific product without significant scientific merit.'

Then, Medtronic employees then took over the process of responding to this review, to wit,

E-mail correspondence on May 28, 2003, indicates that Medtronic’s Rick Treharne wrote and sent Dr. Burkus a draft letter to Dr. Tom Mayer, Editor-in-Chief of The Spine Journal, to address concerns raised by orthopedic surgeons tasked with peer-reviewing the submitted PLIF paper. A subsequent e-mail by Julie Bearcroft notes that she and Dr. Burkus collaborated further on the response to the peer-reviewers of this study during a Lumbar Spine Study Group event.

In response to the peer-reviewers’ concerns about bias in the manuscript, the response letter seemingly misled The Spine Journal by stating that 'To help eliminate any potential bias, only one of the co-authors was a clinical investigator—the other three were independent reviewers of all the data. Since these data are taken from a clinical IDE study sponsored by a company, only the company would have all the data in its database—data that is reviewed by FDA auditors. We don’t believe any discussion of bias is needed for the text.'  By the end of 2003, 'independent reviewers' Dr. Haid and Dr. Burkus would have received $7,793,000 and $722,000 from Medtronic, respectively. This draft letter, written at least in part by Medtronic on behalf of Dr. Burkus, did not disclose the company’s role in directly editing the paper nor did it disclose the magnitude of financial payments made to the supposed 'independent reviewers.'

Thus, in this case, a marketing employee apparently edited a draft of a scholarly article to exaggerate benefits of the company's product, directly adding text to the article, and when peer-reviewers suggested that the article showed bias towards the company's product, apparently two employees ghost-wrote a response letter that claimed that certain authors were "independent reviewers," obfuscating that they had previously received large payments from the company.

Summary

In 2010, we noted reporting that suggested Medtronic had paid huge amounts, millions of dollars, to spine surgeons for reasons that were not clear.  Later that year, we noted further reporting that surgeons who were getting amounts sometimes exceeding one million dollars from Medtronic were not disclosing these payments in scholarly articles about the company's BMP-2 product.

Now there appears a US Senate committee report alleging that Medtronic marketing employees systematically influenced the writing, editing, and publication of multiple ostensibly scholarly articles, ostensibly written by doctors, to favor the Medtronic In-Fuse BMP-2 product.  This adds to previous case studies suggesting that pharmaceutical, biotechnology, device and probably other kinds of company marketers may try to systematically manipulate the design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination of supposedly scholarly and unbiased clinical research to more effectively market their products and services.  

This is discouraging to a former full-time academic physician who now realizes that the difficulties I encountered getting my manuscripts published, given that they written entirely by academic investigators and uninfluenced by marketers, may have been due to the cacophony of competition from marketing influenced texts professionally promoted to journals to serve vested interests.

This is more discouraging to a proponent of evidence-based medicine who believes that medical decisions ought to be informed by critical review of clinical research obtained by systematic search in order to weigh the benefits and harms of management options,accounting for patients' values.  When that clinical research was being deliberately influenced and biased by people selling goods and services, it is not clear that even rigorous critical review will distill the truth from the injected bias.  Yet if physicians cannot depend on published research to guide their decision making for individual patients, what can they depend on?

I conclude as I did my last post,...   Thus health care professionals, policy makers, researchers, and the interested public need to be even more skeptical about arguments made to promote innovative treatments and other clinical interventions.  However, it is not clear that even rigorous skepticism can defend the integrity of evidence based medicine from marketing disguised as clinical research.

Going forward, we must consider erecting an impregnable barrier between clinical research and those whose primary interest is to make money by selling health care goods and services.  If we do not do that, we will forever need to worry that we really have no idea what "works in medicine," and whether any particular test, treatment, or program provides benefits that outweigh its harms. 

1:32 PM

Polly Want a Million (Plus)

We have frequently posted about attempts to justify financial relationships among physicians and medical academics on one hand, and pharmaceutical, biotechnology, device and other health care corporations, on the other. Some defenders of such relationships now have gone so far as to start their own society, whose meeting was covered and commented on by fellow "pharmascolds," including Dr Daniel Carlat and Dr Howard Brody. The usual justification of these relationships is that they are necessary for "innovation" and the onward progress of medical science, education, and care. I have yet to see any logic or evidence to back up these assertions, nor have I seen anyone defend these relationships who does not also have personal financial relationships of their own with health care corporations. (See examples here, here, and here.)

Meanwhile, cases of individual physicians and academics whose lucrative relationships with industry seem to generate huge conflicts of interest continue to surface. The latest example ferreted out by investigators working for US Senator Charles Grassley (R - Iowa) is that of Dr David Polly. (Recall that Dr Polly was one of the strongest defenders of Dr Thomas Kuklo, who was accused of falsifying clinical research results in a way that seemed to favor the product of his own corporate benefactor [see post here].)

The main points were reported by David Armstrong and Thomas M Burton in the Wall Street Journal,

In May 2006, University of Minnesota spine surgeon David Polly urged a Senate committee to fund research into the severe arm, leg and spine injuries suffered by soldiers in Iraq and elsewhere.

Dr. Polly told the committee he was testifying on behalf of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons and referenced his prior work caring for soldiers as a surgeon at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center.

What Dr. Polly didn't disclose during his testimony was that his trip to Washington was paid for by Medtronic Inc., the big medical-device maker whose bone growth product, called Infuse, has been used to treat soldiers, according to company records.

Dr. Polly and colleagues in Minnesota subsequently received a $466,644 Department of Defense grant for a two-year study beginning in February 2007 to evaluate Infuse in cases where an injury is also infected, according to the university.

Dr. Polly was paid $1.14 million by Medtronic for consulting services from 2004 to 2007.

Details of Dr. Polly's consultant billing were provided by Medtronic to Sen. Charles Grassley, an Iowa Republican who has been scrutinizing the relationship between academics and industry.

Although there have now been many reported cases of medical academics who collected large payments from health care corporations, the services they provided in exchange for the money have not always been very clear. Defenders of financial relationships among physicians and medical academics and industry have argued that most payments were for valuable research, education, or health care activities. However, Senator Grassley's office provided the details of Dr Polly's invoices, and several of the news articles so far described what he did for the money. Per the Wall Street Journal article,

In total, Dr. Polly billed Medtronic for more than $50,000 in lobbying-related costs. He made trips to Washington in 2005 and 2006 and called on several members of Congress, according to the records.

According to billing records, Dr. Polly's billing rate was $4,750 for an eight-hour day in 2007, and he billed as many as 13,000 minutes a quarter -- or 216 hours over three months. In some months, he conducted at least some Medtronic business on nearly every day.

His consulting log indicates that on one occasion he spent one minute to wake up a Medtronic executive, although he listed 'no charge' for that service. He did bill Medtronic for the 30 minutes he spent in the car with that executive after waking him up.

An accompanying post on the Wall Street Journal Health Blog provided more information:

Did you ever wonder what doctors do to earn big consulting contracts from medical device companies and pharmaceutical concerns?

Records released by Medtronic to Sen. Charles Grassley, a longtime critic of the ties between academics and and health-care companies, provide a rare and detailed glimpse into the daily billings of a consultant — in this case, spine surgeon David Polly of the University of Minnesota.

Polly collected more than $1 million in four years of work for Medtronic, according to the records, which you can take a look at here.

The services he provided were many, but among them, Polly was paid to write articles for medical journals; write a chapter in a book and a book outline; recruit patients for publicity efforts; attend Medtronic national sales meetings; travel to conferences in Japan, Paris and elsewhere; lead training and educational sessions for physicians; and lobby Congress.

Polly also billed for at least two phone calls with Medtronic CEO William Hawkins as well as charging the company $2,000 when Mr. Hawkins visited an operating room. In October, 2003, he billed the company $12,000 for attending a medical meeting of the North American Spine Society, at $4,000 a day.

There are also scores of entries for work billed in five-minute increments, usually to send email or return phone calls. The bill for each five-minute charge? $49.48 a pop.

So did the $1.2 million Medtronic spent on Dr Polly's services inspire any "innovation?" Did it lead to any scientific progress or improved health care? I am not sure.

It is clear, however, that a good chunk of this money went to support marketing, advocacy, and lobbying. The items in bold italics above were clearly in support of marketing, advocacy and lobbying, not science, medical education, or patient care. (To give Dr Polly the benefit of a doubt, some other items listed above could have been related to research, education, or patient care, although this is not indisputable.)

So the case of Dr Polly corroborates my deep skepticism of the financial relationships among physicians and medical academics on one hand, and corporations that sell health care goods and services on the other. We "pharmascolds," - a preferable term might be health care skeptics - suspect that many of these relationships are really about stealth marketing and advocacy. The companies often pay to market their products and services, or advocate positions to the companies' advantage, but prefer that their salespeople and advocates are cloaked in academic guises, and wreathed in the rarefied aura of respected academic institutions. (Note that some of us are just as skeptical about relationships among academic institutions and other health care not-for-profit organizations on one hand, and such corporations on the other, for analogous reasons.)

While the leadership of our formerly distinguished medical academic institutions remains infiltrated, if not dominated by people earning many thousands of dollars from health care corporations, I must remain skeptical about how much of these institutions supposedly academic output is actually stealth marketing and stealth health policy advocacy.

At the very least, medical academics, medical academic institutions, and other health care not-for-profits or NGOs should reveal in detail what payments they get from companies selling health care products or services, and how these payments could relate to the companies' marketing or lobbying efforts. In the US, some such disclosure would be mandated by the proposed "Sunshine" legislation now being considered by the US Congress. (By the way, note that this problem is hardly confined to the US, and needs global, not just American attention.)

However, physicians (at least physicians in full-time private practice, academic positions, and employed by mission-oriented not for profit organizations) should go further, and consider whether receiving industry money is worth the ongoing damage it does to our professionalism and our professional reputations. Medical schools, universities, health care foundations, disease advocacy groups, and other health care not-for-profits and NGOs should also go further, and consider whether receiving industry money is worth the ongoing damage it does to their missions, and their institutional reputations.

See also comments by Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

10:07 AM

"A Breach of Trust"

This new variation on a now old theme first appeared in the New York Times:

A former surgeon at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, who is a paid consultant for a medical company, published a study that made false claims and overstated the benefits of the company’s product in treating soldiers severely injured in Iraq, the hospital’s commander said Tuesday.

An investigation by Walter Reed found that the study cited higher numbers of patients and injuries than the hospital could account for, said the commander, Col. Norvell V. Coots.

'It’s like a ghost population that were reported in the article as having been treated that we have no record of ever having existed,' Colonel Coots said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. 'So this really was all falsified information.'

The former Army surgeon, Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo, reported that a bone-growth product sold by Medtronic Inc. had much higher success in healing the shattered legs of wounded soldiers at Walter Reed than other doctors there had experienced, according to Colonel Coots and a summary of an Army investigation of the matter.

Dr. Kuklo, 48, now an associate professor at the Washington University medical school in St. Louis, did not respond to numerous e-mail messages and telephone calls to his office and home seeking comment over the last two weeks. Walter Reed officials say he did not respond to their inquiries during their investigation.

Army investigators found that Dr. Kuklo forged the signatures of four Walter Reed doctors on the article before submitting it last year to a British medical journal, falsely claiming them as co-authors. He also did not obtain the Army’s required permission to conduct the study.

In its March edition, at the Army’s request, the journal retracted the article — something that has gone largely unnoticed outside orthopedic circles.

While at Walter Reed and since, Dr. Kuklo has given talks to other doctors around the country about the bone-growth product, a protein called Infuse, according to meeting agendas and published documents.

A Medtronic spokeswoman, Marybeth Thorsgaard, confirmed that Dr. Kuklo was a paid consultant to the company and that the company financially supported some of his research at Walter Reed, through a foundation affiliated with the hospital.

During his time at Walter Reed Dr. Kuklo was extensively involved in research and writing about various Medtronic products, including editing two books published by the company and conducting three studies that were approved by his Army superiors, according to his list of publications and an Army report.

Colonel Coots said Tuesday that the total number of patients Dr. Kuklo reported as having been treated for extensive lower leg wounds at Walter Reed during the study period — 138 soldiers — was greater than the number for which the hospital could find records.

'It is a significant breach of academic protocol,' Colonel Coots said. 'It’s a breach of trust.'

This story has several familiar elements, but combines them in some interesting ways.

We have discussed how health care corporations, particularly pharmaceutical manufacturers, cultivate "key opinion leaders," and use them to market their products. This may amount to stealth marketing, since KOLs rarely disclose in detail their relationships with corporate sponsors, and instead further their marketing objectives cloaked as academics.

We have also discussed how health care corporations, particularly pharmaceutical manufacturers, may sponsor clinical research on their own products. However, such sponsors often manipulate the research projects' design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination so as to favor their products. While the sponsorship may be disclosed, the extent of the sponsors' control over the project may not be. Furthermore, scientific investigators running such projects may have their own personal financial relationships with the sponsors.

This case apparently shows how a medical academic can both be a paid "key opinion leader," and manipulative clinical researcher. While many examples of key opinion leaders as stealth marketers, and manipulated research involved pharmaceutical companies, this one involves a medical device company. In addition, this research project was not just manipulated, but allegedly falsified.

This variation has at least one other interesting element. Again, from the New York Times,

A former Walter Reed colleague, Dr. David W. Polly Jr., who is also a Medtronic consultant, said he believed that Dr. Kuklo’s data was “strong” and the episode had been overblown.

According to the Center for Public Integrity Paper Trail blog,

A former colleague of Kuklo’s at Walter Reed Army Medical Center, Dr. David W. Polly Jr., took even more expensive trips than Kuklo. Polly went on at least 12 Medtronic-sponsored trips costing about $30,000, including a $10,000 trip to Switzerland.

Furthermore, the New York Times reported,

[Senator Charles] Grassley, the ranking Republican [from Iowa] on the Senate Finance Committee, has been investigating since last year whether Medtronic illegally promoted unapproved uses for Infuse. Medtronic, which has denied that accusation, provided him last year with a list of Infuse consultants.

After Dr. Kuklo’s links to Medtronic and Infuse came to light last week in a New York Times article, Mr. Grassley’s staff checked the consultants list and noted that Dr. Kuklo’s name was not on it. In reaction, he wrote a letter to Medtronic’s president and chief executive, William A. Hawkins III, asking why Dr. Kuklo had been omitted. Mr. Grassley entered that letter and the list he had received into The Congressional Record.

'In the future, I hope that instead of not providing me with the name of the physician involved in Infuse, or any other matter that I am looking into, that Medtronic contact me to avoid the situation in which we find ourselves,' Mr. Grassley wrote to Mr. Hawkins.

So, as soon as this case came to light, the spinning of public discussion to favor Medtronic and its key opinion leaders began. Thus, this case also involved stealth policy advocacy. Stealth marketing, clinical research manipulation, and stealth advocacy all in one case, we seem to have hit the jackpot.

The most recent development, again according to the NY Times, is

Dr. Timothy R. Kuklo, a former Army physician accused of falsifying research involving injured soldiers, has taken a leave of absence from the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis and its affiliated hospitals, the medical school said Friday.

Dr. Kuklo, an associate professor of orthopedic surgery, will not be performing operations, conducting research or teaching students, said a medical school spokeswoman, Joni Westerhouse. The university granted the leave, she said, so that Dr. Kuklo 'can focus on responding to queries about his research and consulting.'

At least his absence was not ascribed to the need to spend more time with his family or pursue other opportunities.

Finally, note that we posted last year that Medtronic had submitted to a corporate integrity agreement after the US Department of Justice accused it of defrauding Medicare in connection with activities by its Kyphon subsidiary. So this case additionally suggests that such agreements have little effect on the actual integrity of corporate leaders.

Hat tip to and see further commentary by Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

ADDENDUM (24 May, 2009) - see further comments by Prof Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

11:55 AM