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

The Bigger They Come, the Softer They Fall - the Size of Pharma Companies and How Vigorously they are Prosecuted

After we found lessons to be learned from even  relatively small legal cases involving medical device companies, we reviewed some relatively small cases involving pharmaceutical companies made public in 2014.  Again, we had an index case that linked to larger issues

Merck Settled Fraud Allegations for $31 Million

This case got very little coverage in October, 2014.  A very short story by Reuters included these essentials,

A subsidiary of Merck & Co has agreed to pay U.S. states $31 million to settle claims that it overcharged their Medicaid programs for an antidepressant it had sold at a discount to pharmacy companies, attorney generals from three states said on Wednesday.

The officials from Idaho, New York and Florida said Organon USA Inc offered the drug, Remeron, to nursing home pharmacies at a discount to encourage its use over competitors. At the same time, the company reported the full cost of the drug when seeking reimbursements from state Medicaid programs, the states claimed.

New Jersey-based Organon, which did not admit any wrongdoing, also was accused of improperly promoting use of the drug by children and teens.

The agreement, which includes Washington, D.C., and every state besides Arizona, settled whistleblower lawsuits filed in 2007 in federal courts in Massachusetts and Texas.

That was the main content of the article.

Kickbacks to Promote Use of a Dangerous Drug

However, on the PharmaLot blog, Ed Silverman added important nuance,

Organon also allegedly offered kickbacks to nursing home pharmacies to encourage use of the Remeron antidepressant. The drug maker also allegedly promoted the medicine for uses not approved by the FDA. The marketing included targeting children and teenagers, according to a statement from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

So this was not merely financial fraud, but involved kickbacks to encourage excess use of a medicine for patients for whom it may have an enhanced risk of severe adverse effects.  In particular, Remeron (mirtazapine) may lead to higher risks of suicide attempts, including successful ones, by adolescents (look here for its official label).  So this case was not only about a company allegedly over-charging the government, but promoting a medicine that might be dangerous for vulnerable patients taking it. 


Merck's Track Record

Merck in some ways is the poster child for health care companies once renowned, but now troubled.  Merck's own voluminous Values and Standards document starts with this famous quote by founder George W Merck,

We try never to forget that medicine is for the people. It is not for the profits. The profits follow ,and if we have remembered that, they have never failed to appear.

Yet Merck was one of the first big multinational pharmaceutical companies to be tripped up by a big scandal in the 21st century.  As we wrote here, 

In summary, Vioxx (rofecoxib, Merck) a Cox-2 inhibitor non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drug used for pain, and touted for its ostensibly low risk of gastrointestinal side-effects, was withdrawn from the market in 2004 because of its cardiac risks.  The Vioxx case is flush with examples of how the company used deception to market a very profitable drug without regard to its risks to patients. 

A longer summary of the Vioxx scandal is in the Appendix below.

Furthermore, Merck also seems to have a chronic problem with honest discussion of another of its products, Zetia (look here).   Merck was also fined by the French government for a "smear campaign" against generic competitors (look here) and this month got a very poor rating for its global corporate transparency from Transparency International (look here). 

So this relatively small case reminds us that when a very large health care company is accused of misbehavior, including deceptive behavior that could have led to patient harms, not only are no individuals who might have authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior held accountable, but the case is likely resolved in a seeming vacuum, totally uninformed about the company's previous record of similar problems.

Sheffield Pharmaceuticals CEO Pleaded Guilty of Felony for Discharge of Wastewater Without Permit

An interesting contrast is the case of one Mr Thomas Faria, as described by the New London (CT) Day in July, 2014,

Thomas H. Faria, who resigned in March as president and chief executive officer of Sheffield Pharmaceuticals, pleaded guilty in U.S. District Court Tuesday to a felony violation of the Clean Water Act for knowingly discharging untreated industrial wastewater to the New London sewage treatment plant from 1986 to 2011.

His penalty does not yet seem to be public, but could go considerably beyond loss of his job,

Faria pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly violating, or causing to be violated, the Clean Water Act, an offense that carries a maximum penalty of three years of imprisonment and a fine of not less than $5,000 but not more than $50,000 per day of the violation.

Yet the harms produced by the company's actions are not so clear,

The environmental impact of the violation over a 25-year-period is unknown, though Special Assistant U.S. Attorney Peter Kenyon from the Environmental Protection Agency said the EPA is unaware of any fish kills or direct harm suffered by humans.

'The possibility of impact from this type of discharge certainly exists,' Kenyon said during a conference call Tuesday.

So in this case, the offense was environmental, and had nothing directly to do with the over the counter drugs manufactured by the company, or their effects on patients.  The impact of the offense on the environment was unclear.  Nonetheless, the CEO of this small, privately held company lost his job, had a felony on his record, and is liable for large fines or up to three years in jail, pending sentencing.

Jury Found Takeda and Eli Lilly Concealed Cancer Risks of Actos, Company Subject to Punitive Damages of $36.8 Million

The basics of the case were reported by Medscape in April, 2014, and were also covered by Reuters and Bloomberg,

Drugmakers Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. and Eli Lilly and Co. promised to appeal an award of $9 billion in punitive damages — one of the largest in US history — after a federal jury found they had concealed the cancer risks for their type 2 diabetes drug pioglitazone (Actos).

In addition, the jury ordered the payment of $1.475 million in compensatory damages.

Pioglitazone is associated with an increased risk for bladder cancer among persons with type 2 diabetes, according to a 2012 study in BMJ, as reported by Medscape Medical News.  The US Food and Drug Administration in 2011 updated the pioglitazone label to warn against starting the drug in patients with active bladder cancer and to use caution if starting it in patients with a prior history of bladder cancer,...

In addition, the judge ruled that the company destroyed relevant documents to prevent their use in court proceedings,

attorney Mark Lanier said Takeda officials intentionally destroyed documents about the drug.

US District Judge Rebecca Doherty agreed and penalized the company, telling jurors they could infer that the files may have supported Allen's claims that the company wrongfully concealed the medication's health risks. 'The breadth of Takeda leadership whose files have been lost, deleted or destroyed is, in and of itself, disturbing,' Doherty wrote in a January ruling.

In late October, 2014, the judge reduced the award for punitive damages, per Reuters,

In her ruling, Doherty said the original $9 billion damages award was 'excessive' and violated the companies' constitutional rights to due process.

She ordered Takeda to pay $27.6 million and Eli Lilly to pay $9.2 million for a total of $36.8 million. Doherty said that, while far smaller than the jury's original award, the reduced punitive damages were still 'large enough to accomplish the jury's clear aim: to send a message to the defendants that their wrongdoing must stop...'>

I should note that apparently the judge found the amount excessive given the size of the compensatory award to the single plaintiff.  However, the judge reiterated her concerns about the companies' deceptive conduct,

The companies also had sought a new trial, arguing that the court had made prejudicial rulings on evidence and jury instructions that tainted the trial's outcome.

Doherty rejected that request Monday, writing that the evidence during the trial showed that the companies 'disregarded, denied, obfuscated and concealed' for more than a decade that Actos could increase patients' risk for bladder cancer.  

Note that in this civil case, a jury found the companies' deceptive conduct reprehensible, and a judge agreed that they "disregarded, denied, obfuscated and concealed" the truth.  No government prosecutors seemed to care to get involved with this particular case.  Because it was a civil case in which the companies were defendants, I am not sure whether any penalties affecting individuals were a possible outcome.  The results seem to suggest, at least in my humble opinion, that both ordinary people, like those sitting on juries, and judges may take greater exception to deceptive conduct that could harm patients than may government law enforcers and regulators.

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Made $27.6 Million Settlement of Charges that it Induced Physicians' Excessive Prescriptions


This was well summarized by ProPublica in March, 2014,

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. has agreed to pay more than $27.6 million to settle state and federal allegations that it induced Chicago psychiatrist Michael Reinstein to overprescribe clozapine, a powerful antipsychotic drug.

Reinstein has twice figured into ProPublica investigations.


Four years ago, ProPublica and the Chicago Tribune spotlighted Reinstein's prescribing pattern, finding that in 2007 he had prescribed more clozapine to patients in Medicaid's Illinois program than all of the doctors in the Medicaid programs of Texas, Florida and North Carolina combined. At least three of Reinstein's patients died of clozapine intoxication. At that time, Reinstein defended his prescription record, arguing that clozapine is effective and underprescribed.

Then, last spring, ProPublica reported that Reinstein prescribed even more of the drug in Medicare's prescription drug program for seniors and the disabled. ProPublica cited Reinstein in an investigation about how Medicare fails to monitor problem prescribers,...

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan and the U.S. Justice Department claimed that IVAX, a Teva Pharmaceuticals subsidiary, paid Reinstein to overprescribe clozapine to Medicare and Medicaid patients. Yesterday Teva agreed to pay almost $15.5 million to the federal government and more than $12.1 million to Illinois to settle those allegations out of court.

Note that the government case seemed to be about how the government had to pay too much, not about harms to patients, despite the patient deaths described above.  Furthermore, the prosecutors, as they usually now do, allowed the case to be settled without any findings of wrongdoing,

Teva spokeswoman Denise Bradley told Reuters that the settlement does not mean that the company has admitted any liability.

It is interesting that the government is apparently pursuing a case against the physician as an individual, but not any cases against corporate managers who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the "inducements" to that physician,

In November 2012, federal prosecutors also filed suit against Reinstein, alleging that IVAX hadpaid him $50,000 a year to work as a consultant, paid his nurse to promote the drug and funded a study at an affiliated research institute. After the payments, Reinstein began overprescribing clozapine. The company also allegedly paid for trips and entertainment for Reinstein and his friends.

Otherwise, this case is typical of many US government and state prosecutors have pursued against big health care corporations.  There was a monetary settlement that might appear big to the public, but was tiny given the size of the company.  (According to Yahoo Finance, Teva's annual revenue is about $20 billion.)  The settlement did not involve any admission of wrongful behavior.  No one in the company who may have been involved with the wrongdoing that was not admitted suffered any negative consequences.  But, as is not usual, the government is pursuing a case against one individual, the physician who allegedly was paid as a "consultant," by maybe actually just to prescribe the company's product.

Summary

These cases add to the march of legal settlements about which we have often written.  These settlements and other legal cases suggest how frequently big health care organizations are involved in practices that may be unethical, illegal, and/or harmful to the patients they proclaim to serve.  Yet almost never do cases that involve US state and particularly federal law enforcement ever impose monetary penalties that are more than costs of doing business for the companies involved.  Almost never do they impose any negative consequences on any individuals within the companies who might have authorized, directed or implemented unethical, illegal, or harmful behavior.  

However, as we saw before, when the government asserts its law enforcement power against small organizations, small companies, or individuals, people may lose their livelihoods or go to jail.

The leniency of the government towards big health care corporations is very similar to the leniency shown towards big financial corporations.  A recent review of the book "Too Big to Jail" in the Washington Monthly noted that Mr Eric Holder, the current US Attorney General has urged leniency for big, and hence economically powerful corporations,

a memo written by Holder in 1999, during his stint as deputy U.S. attorney general. The document, 'Bringing Criminal Charges Against Corporations,' urged prosecutors to take into account 'collateral consequences' when pursuing cases against companies, lest they topple and take the economy down with them. Holder also raised the possibility of deferring prosecution against corporations in an effort to spur greater cooperation and reforms—a policy, unsurprisingly, later supported by the Bush administration.

The attorney general angered many last year when he reiterated those concerns at a congressional hearing, admitting 'that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute' because of the potential nasty economic effects of a major company failure.

Furthermore, the book provided some essentially epidemiological evidence that the government in fact has been more lenient towards bigger corporations, at least in the finance sphere,

There’s some compelling evidence that the largest, most established companies are more likely to win leniency with a delayed or canceled prosecution: 58 percent of the companies awarded such deals are public firms listed on a U.S. stock exchange, while publicly traded firms make up just 6 percent of those against whom the Department of Justice obtained convictions.

Yet there seems to be no evidence that this policy produces social good.  In particular, there seems to be no evidence that corporations treated leniently behave any better.

Finally, there is a question of essential fairness, and equal treatment under the laws.  It appears that executives of large finance, and likely health care corporations have virtual impunity.  Yet little people in health care, or finance, who do something wrong may go to jail.

True health care reform would establish a level playing field.  True health care reform would deter unethical behavior, especially when it harms patients.  True health care reform would make leaders of health care organizations accountable for putting patients' and the peoples' health first.   


Appendix- Vioxx Case

There is evidence is that the company knew about the cardiac risks of Vioxx since 2000, but suppressed the clinical research evidence until 2003.(1)  In particular, in 2005, the editors of the New England Journal of Medicine raised concerns that an article published in that journal in 2000 about the results of the VIGOR study of rofecoxib sponsored by Merck failed to report data that would have suggested that the drug caused excess cardiovascular risks.(2) In 2007, the company paid more than $4.9 billion to settle patient lawsuits alleging harm due to Vioxx.(3)  Also in 2008, the company made a $58 million settlement of claims its advertising of Vioxx deceptively minimized its risks.(4) In 2008, it became clear that at least one apparently clinical trial of Vioxx, the ADVANTAGE trial, was merely a "seeding trial,' that is, a marketing exercise.(5)

On Health Care Renewal, we starting writing about Vioxx in 2005, including,
- here about ghost-writing of a Vioxx research publication;
- here, and here about allegations that Merck executives tried to intimidate Vioxx critics;
- here about how advocates of an extreme laissez faire approach to regulation of health care corporations used illogical arguments about the Vioxx case;
- here about the ADVANTAGE "seeding trial," that is, a study really meant to recruit supposed physician-researchers as prescribers; and
- here about how one once prominent Vioxx researcher pleaded guilty to fraud in connection with his research on other drugs.
-  here about how in settling a shareholder lawsuit Merck vowed to improve its scientific and academic integrity, and refrain from manipulating and suppressing clinical research.

In 2010, we summarized the Vioxx case thus, " the Vioxx case provides a good lesson about some of the tactics used to deceptively and unethically promote health care products (pharmaceuticals in this case)." 

In case there are any doubts about the harms patients suffered as a result of using Vioxx as a pain reliever, in 2004, a cumulative meta-analysis of published trials of Vioxx known by then estimated the risk of myocardial infarction (heart attack) due to Vioxx compared with placebo or other non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs was 2.3 times the baseline rate.(6)  That analysis suggested that there was data by 2000 that Vioxx increased the risk of bad cardiovascular events.  A cumulative meta-analysis from 2009 suggested that the risk of death due to Vioxx was 1.7 times the baseline rate.(7)   That analysis suggested there was data by 2001 that Vioxx increased the risk of bad cardiovascular events.  Graham and colleagues' nested case-control study of Vioxx use in a large managed care organization lead them to estimate that "88 000 - 140 000 excess cases of serious coronary heart disease probably occurred in the USA over the market-life of rofecoxib."(8).

References

1. Topol EJ. Failing the public health - rofecoxib, Merck and the FDA. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 1707-1709.  Link here.
2. Curfman GD, Morrisey S, Drazen JM et al.  Expression of concern reaffirmed. N Engl J Med 2006; 354:1193. Link here.
3. Charatan F. Merck to pay $5bn in rofecoxib claims. Brit Med J 2007; 335: 1011. Link here.
4. Charatan F. Merck to pay $58m in settlements over rofecoxib advertising. Brit Med J 2008; 336: 1208-1209. Link here.
5. Hill KP, Ross JS, Egilman DS, Krumholz HM. The ADVANTAGE seeding trial: a review of internal documents. Ann Int Med 2008; 149: 251-258. Link here.
6.  Juni P, Nartey L, Reichenbach S et al. Risk of cardiovascular events and rofecoxib: cumulative meta-analysis.  Lancet 2004; 364: 2021-2029.  Link here.
7.  Ross JS, Madigan D, Hill KP et al.  Pooled analysis of rofecoxib placebo-controlled clinical trial data: lessons for postmarket pharmaceutical safety surveillance.  Arch Intern Med 2009; 169: 1976-1984.  Link here.
8.  Graham DM, Campen D, Hui R et al.  Risk of acute myocardial infarction and sudden cardiac death in patients treated with cyclo-oxygenase 2 selective and non-selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs: nested case-control study.  Lancet 2005; 365: 475-481.  Link here.

9:40 AM

What Big Drug and Biotechnology Companies Will Not Tell Us - Transparency International on Corporate Reporting

Drug companies are entrusted to provide pure, unadulterated medicines.  Increasingly drug companies are now entrusted with doing research, including experimental studies, on human beings, and providing education to doctors and patients.  Ordinarily, trust requires confidence in transparency. However, a new report suggests that large multinational drug and biotechnology companies are not very transparent.

Transparency International just released a report on the transparency, or lack thereof, of the 124 biggest multinational corporations.  The report detailed how well these companies disclosed their internal anti-corruption programs, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint ventures, and their financial data broken down by the countries in which they operate.  In summary, the overall results for disclosing anti-corruption programs were mediocre, and for disclosing organizational structure and country-by-country financial data, they were dismal.

The report is highly relevant to health care.  It included the biggest multinational health care corporations, all drug and/or biotechnology companies: Abbott Laboratories, (based in the US), Amgen (US), AstraZeneca (UK), Gilead Sciences (US), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Johnson and Johnson (US), Merck and Co (US), Novartis (Switzerland), Novo Nordisk (Denmark), Pfizer (US), Roche Holding (Switzerland), Sanofi (France), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Israel).

The report has so far received little media coverage.  In the US, several news services provided brief  summaries.  Somewhat more substantial articles came from Reuters, the Wall Street Journal's Risk and Compliance Journal, and CNBC.  None gave specifics about health care.  Coverage from other countries, e.g., Germany by Deutsche Welle, and the UK by the Guardian, was more detailed but also did not specifically mention health care.

Therefore, I will summarize the rationale and assessment methods used by Transparency International for its three dimensions of transparency, and then show results from the 13 health care corporations.

Disclosure of Anti-Corruption Programs

The rationale for addressing this area was:

Global companies have legal and ethical obligations to conduct their business honestly. This requires
commitment, resources and the ongoing management of a range of risks – legal, political and reputational – including those associated with corruption. The implementation of a comprehensive range of anticorruption policies and management systems is fundamental to efforts to prevent and remediate corruption within organisations.

Transparency International believes that public reporting by companies on their anti-corruption programmes allows for increased monitoring by stakeholders and the public at large, thereby making companies more accountable

Evaluation of disclosure of anti-corruption programs was

based on 13 questions, which are derived from the UN Global Compact and Transparency International Reporting Guidance on the 10th Principle against Corruption. This tool, based on the Business Principles for Countering Bribery, which were developed by Transparency International in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder group, includes recommendations for companies on how to publicly report on their anticorruption programmes.

Note that the project addressed only reporting of anti-corruption programs, not their implementation or effectiveness.

For this and the other two dimensions of transparency, responses were converted into a 0% to 100% scale, with 100% being the best possible result.

Organizational Transparency

The rationale was:

As many of the recent corporate scandals have shown, acts of corruption are very often aided by the use of opaque company structures and secrecy jurisdictions.  But the use of offshore companies and their lack of transparency are posing increasing risks for global companies as well as for their shareholders, employees and local communities.

So,

Companies can mitigate the risks posed by lack of transparency and ownership arrangements by shedding more light on their corporate structures and by making basic financial information public on a country-by-country basis. This allows stakeholders to have a clearer understanding of the extent of a company’s operations and makes the company more accountable for its activities in a given country, including assessing whether it contributes financially in a manner appropriate to its level of activity.

The measurement strategy was,

Transparency International researchers consulted publicly available documents such as annual reports and stock exchange filings for information about company subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures and other holdings. The information sought included corporate names, percentages of ownership by the parent company, countries of incorporation and the countries in which the companies operate.

Country-by-Country Reporting

The rationale included:

The importance of country-by-country reporting was first recognised in the extractive sector as a way to ensure that revenues from natural resources are used to foster economic and social development rather than line the pockets of kleptocratic elites.

So,

country-by-country reporting ... [is] a recognised building block for corporate transparency and as a tool for countering tax avoidance.

In addition, country-by-country reporting provides investors with more comprehensive financial information about companies and helps them address investment risk more effectively.

The items measured were disclosure of revenue/sales, capital expenditures, pre-tax income, income tax, and community contribution in each country in which the company operated.

Results for Health Care Corporations

Company                      Total  Anti-Corruption P  Org Structure  by-Country

Abbott Laboratories    40             81                           38                3
Amgen                          37             85                           25                0
AstraZeneca                37             88                           19                3
Gilead Sciences           26             54                           25                0
GlaxoSmithKline          52            96                           50               11
Johnson and Johnson  26           65                           13                0
Merck and Co               42           77                            50                0
Novartis                        38            77                           38                1
Novo Nordisk               39            81                           38                0
Pfizer                             35            92                           13                0
Roche Holding              33            62                           38                1
Sanofi                            38            77                           38                0
Teva Pharmaceutical  35            85                            19                0

Again, only one company, GlaxoSmithKline, achieved an overall score of barely better than 50%.  All the others had lower scores.  Only two companies achieved a 50% score on disclosure of organizational structure, and only one achieved a score of better than 10% for disclosing country-by-country results.  The Transparency International report noted that the health care companies got particularly bad scores for disclosing organizational structure, averaging 31%, the third worst performance by economic sector.


Summary

 The drug and biotechnology companies generally did a fairly good job disclosing what their anti-corruption programs were supposed to do.  However, note that the Transparency International report did not assess how well these programs were implemented or enforced.  That this concern is not academic is underscored by some of these companies disreputable track records.  Some have long histories of legal actions, including billion dollar plus legal settlements, some of which were of allegations of fraud or kickbacks, and some have been convicted of crimes.  See the records of, for example: Abbott Laboratories (look here and here), Amgen (here), AstraZeneca (here), GlaxoSmithKline (here), Johnson and Johnson (here), Merck (here), Novartis (here), Novo Nordisk (here), Pfizer (here), Roche (here), Sanofi (here), and Teva (here).

Moreover, the companies did not do a good job disclosing their organizational structures, and hardly any bothered to report any financial results broken down by country.

We have frequently discussed health care corporations' deceptive marketing, induction of conflicts of interest, including those of supposed "key opinion leaders" who often are marketers in academic or professional clothing, and manipulation and suppression of clinical research.  There has been an ongoing procession of legal settlements involving health care corporations, often involving allegations of, and sometimes convictions for fraud, kickbacks, bribery, or other crimes.  There have even been some cases in which drug companies have failed to assure that their products are pure and unadulterated, their most basic mission.  Thus many are distrustful of drug and biotechnology companies, and large health care organizations in general.

So, as Transparency International's report noted, to rebuild trust,

integrity must be central to these efforts. Those efforts, in turn, can only become fully credible if they are undertaken with a sustained commitment to ethical behaviour and transparency across companies’ operations.

In my humble opinion, a basic premise of true health care reform would be that health care organizations become sufficiently transparent to restore basic trust in them. 

11:44 AM

The Spoils of a "Scorched-Earth Defense" - Merck CEO Got $13.3 Million in 2011

Last week, Bloomberg reminded us of the legal baggage that pharmaceutical giant Merck is carrying. The company had announced yet another settlement of legal actions pertaining to its ill-starred but very profitable sales of now withdrawn Vioxx (rofecoxib) in 2011 (see post here). Now the settlement, including a guilty plea was accepted by a judge.

A unit of Merck & Co. (MRK), the second- largest U.S. drugmaker, pleaded guilty to a criminal misdemeanor charge as part of a $950 million settlement of a U.S. government probe of its illegal marketing of the painkiller Vioxx.

An official of Merck Sharp & Dohme said today that the company agreed to plead guilty to one count of misbranding Vioxx. U.S. District Judge Patti Saris in Boston accepted the plea as part of the drugmaker’s agreement to pay a $321.6 million criminal fine and $628.3 million to resolve civil claims that it sold Vioxx for unapproved uses and improperly touted its safety.

'I’m certainly going to accept this agreement because I think it’s in the public interest,' Saris said from the bench. 'I hope the size of this settlement and the fact that all these cases are being pressed by the federal and state governments -- the 44 states’ attorneys general -- will be a signal that this isn’t acceptable conduct.'

But unacceptable conduct can lead to a great deal of revenue. As Bloomberg noted,

Approved by the Food and Drug Administration in 1999, Vioxx became Merck’s third-largest-selling drug by 2003, generating $2.5 billion in annual sales. The company pulled Vioxx off the market in 2004 after a study found it posed an increased risk of heart attacks and strokes.

It can also lead to a great deal of personal profit for those at the company tasked with defending such "unacceptable conduct," and what has now been found to be criminal behavior. Writing in Slate, Snigdha Prakash, who wrote All the Justice Money Can Buy about the legal aftermath of Vioxx, identified the current Merck CEO and board chairman as the architect of the defense of Vioxx, as

best known for his phenomenal success in defending a sordid chapter in Merck’s recent past—its years-long silence about the safety problems of the popular painkiller Vioxx.

Furthermore, she wrote,

As he showed with the Vioxx litigation, Frazier is adept at mounting a scorched-earth defense that minimizes payouts to potential plaintiffs.

Tens of thousands of former Vioxx users sued Merck after it withdrew the drug, alleging Vioxx had caused them to suffer heart attacks and strokes. Frazier, then the company’s general counsel, declared Merck had done nothing wrong and refused to settle. 'We’ll fight every case,' he declared, and hired top-flight law firms in several East Coast cities, in the South, in Chicago, and Los Angeles, as well as a prominent New York firm to coordinate the overall strategy. It took three years and $2 billion in legal expenses for Frazier’s hard-nosed tactics to pay off. Merck settled in late 2007 for a relative pittance, resolving some 50,000 Vioxx cases for just under $5 billion. It was a far cry from the $25 billion to $50 billion in liability that analysts had predicted when Merck withdrew the drug.

So it appears that Mr Frazier is now reaping his rewards. The Dow Jones News Service reported earlier in April,

Merck & Co.'s (MRK) leader received compensation valued at $13.3 million for 2011, up 41% from the year before, reflecting his ascension to the drug maker's top post and Merck's ability to exceed certain internal performance targets.

Kenneth Frazier, 57, became Merck's chief executive at the beginning of 2011 and chairman of the board in December. He was previously head of Merck's human health business.

In a proxy statement filed Thursday with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, Merck said certain elements of Frazier's compensation reflected growth in Merck's sales and adjusted earnings for 2011.

In addition, Merck's board considered 'his performance, leadership, planning and oversight during a time of continued economic, regulatory and political challenges for the healthcare industry.'

Earlier this year, Frazier acknowledged that Merck had a tough 2011. The company endured setbacks including negative clinical data for a once-promising heart drug, vorapaxar. Merck's full-year stock price performance lagged behind most of its large-pharmaceutical peers.

But Merck of Whitehouse Station, N.J., continued to cut costs and was able to raise its dividend for the first time in seven years in 2011. Frazier said in January he was optimistic about 2012.

Frazier's total compensation included: $1.5 million in salary, $3.1 million in stock awards, $3 million in option awards, $3.1 million in non-equity incentive plan compensation, and $2.6 million change in pension value and non-qualified deferred compensation earnings.

So somehow a "tough 2011" for Merck's stockholders (Merck's stock price rose a mere 3.9%, from 36.29 to 37.70 through 2011) resulted in a cornucopia of riches for Mr Frazier. So rather than being rewarded for "maximizing shareholder value," (see post here) maybe Mr Frazier was rewarded for, as Ms Prakash put it, "burying monumental corporate failures at Merck."

Here is the latest version of how top health care organizational insiders manage to make even more money no matter what, in this case, no matter what happens to the fortunes of the nominal owners of the company, no matter what happens to the company's once proud reputation, and particularly no matter what happened to the patients unfortunate enough to suffer adverse effects from its drug.

We will not be able to truly reform health care, to really improve outcomes, improve access, and control costs, until we hold the leaders of health care organizations accountable.

2:25 PM

Bloggers Can Spread the Word, Just Not About the Sponsors' Competitors

The internet, social media, web 2.0 etc have changed how important health care issues are discussed. So, it is not surprising that big health care organizations are trying to use these new media to promote their messages. New media, however, are no more immune from the effects of conflicts of interest than are old media.

An article from corporate communications company Ragan.com about how the American Heart Association (AHA) is using bloggers to get people interested in a heart-healthy diet and exercise program illustrates how even "civilian" bloggers can get caught up in the web of conflicts of interest that pervades health care. The background is:

Keeping track of the conversations on the array of social media networks can gobble up your workday. So why not find someone else to do it for you?

The American Heart Association did just that, approaching four established bloggers with a proposal: Write about our new campaign, Go Red For Women: BetterU, and we’ll link to your blog from our site. BetterU is a 12-week online nutrition and fitness program to improve heart health among women.

The blogs appear to be working. They’ve helped drive traffic to Go Red/BetterU since the program’s June 1 launch.

It did seem that the AHA went to considerable effort to make sure they had recruited just the right bloggers.

The AHA researched potential candidates with the help of agencies Edelman PR and Edelman Digital. After a month-and-a-half, they settled on four bloggers: Joshilyn, Nyasha, Stacey, and Nadia.

The criteria: The bloggers had to be female, have an enthusiastic following, be diverse in age and ethnicity, and have a high Technorati rating. Most important, their content and advertising had to align with the association’s values, says Director of Marketing Anu Gandhi.

'You’re really ultimately picking a spokesperson for Go Red for Women and the larger American Heart Association,' [senior manager for cause communications Megan] Lozito says. 'That’s a really important process for us — that it be correct and that it be the right people. So we spent a lot of time getting to know those ladies and making sure our mission would be aligned.'

More interesting was the values with which the bloggers were supposed to align, particularly those relating to the program's corporate sponsors (see the logos at the bottom right of the BetterU web-site).

From there, the association brought the bloggers to the Dallas headquarters for a full health screening at The Cooper Institute, a photo session, a preview of the BetterU program, and some message training.

Although the BetterU bloggers got some message training in Dallas, Gandhi says AHA has been hands off when it comes to what they can and can’t say about the program.

The bloggers are asked to post once a week about BetterU and follow basic guidelines—no profanity, no defamation, no writing about nor condoning any medications or treatments. She says they also ask bloggers not to talk about competitors of AHA’s two national sponsors: Macy’s and Merck Pharmaceuticals.

I would suspect that the explicit instruction not to favor Merck's competitors would also remind the bloggers not not do say anything that might make the giant pharmaceutical company unhappy.

Eight weeks into the program, they haven’t had any problems.

'There are things we don’t want them to write, like profanity, but that’s also part of the vetting in the beginning,' Lozito says. 'We wanted to find people who believe in our mission, who speak to the same type of audience, but at the same time we want them to have their own flavor and own tone, because it’s a blog.'

So the bloggers recruited by the AHA may be happy, since they now have a big organization's web-site driving traffic to their blogs. The AHA may be happy, since the bloggers can spread the word about their BetterU program. I imagine the marketers at Merck may be happy too, since the bloggers have been warned about the need to keep the corporate sponsors happy. However, what may be good for all the parties in this transaction may not be so good for the general public, as another opportunity for uninhibited, honest discussion of health care issues has been lost.

This is an explicit example of the adverse effects of commercial funding of not-for-profit disease advocacy groups. Corporate sponsors may not expect anything as gross as advertising in return for their money. However, they may expect something more subtle, a generally favorable attitude toward the sponsor, at least the disinclination to say anything that might put the sponsor in a negative light. After all, politeness requires that we be nice to the people who are nice to us. But being nice to sponsors may not be so nice for the people that a health care not-for-profit organization is supposed to serve.

PS - for those who like science fiction, see the preview of the new version of "V," in which Anna, the leader of the Visitors, an invasion force disguised as human-appearing, benign aliens, warns her television interviewer,

Just be sure not to ask anything that would put us in a negative light.

12:56 PM

BLOGSCAN - Merck Hired Elsevier to Create Fake Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal

You just can't make this stuff up. On the Respectful Insolence blog, Orac recounted how pharmaceutical giant Merck hired medical publishing giant Elsevier to create what appeared to be a peer-reviewed journal, but theAustralasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine really was just a marketing outlet. The goal was to market Fosamax and Vioxx. This is another bizarre variant on the stealth marketing theme, taken to quite an extreme. And the pharmaceutical companies wonder why people don't trust them?

ADDENDUM (4 May, 2009) - Dr Aubrey Blumsohn is back online on his Scientific Misconduct Blog, and noted the academic luminaries who were willing to serve on the editorial board of this fake peer-reviewed journal.

ADDENDUM (11 May, 2009) - See also comments on Laika's MedLibBlog.

9:38 AM

Harvard Medical Students Against Marketing in the Guise of Medical Education

An article by Duff Wilson in the New York Times this week provided a new look at the pervasiveness of financial relationships among academic medicine and health care corporations, and the beginnings of resistance to them.

The Scope of the Relationships

Many individual Harvard Medical faculty members receive tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars a year through industry consulting and speaking fees. Under the school’s disclosure rules, about 1,600 of 8,900 professors and lecturers have reported to the dean that they or a family member had a financial interest in a business related to their teaching, research or clinical care. The reports show 149 with financial ties to Pfizer and 130 with Merck.

The rules, though, do not require them to report specific amounts received for speaking or consulting, other than broad indications like 'more than $30,000.' Some faculty who conduct research have limits of $30,000 in stock and $20,000 a year in fees. But there are no limits on companies’ making outright gifts to faculty — free meals, tickets, trips or the like.

Other blandishments include industry-endowed chairs like the three Harvard created with $8 million from sleep research companies; faculty prizes like the $50,000 award named after Bristol-Myers Squibb, and sponsorships like Pfizer’s $1 million annual subsidy for 20 new M.D.’s in a two-year program to learn clinical investigation and pursue Harvard Master of Medical Science degrees, including classes taught by Pfizer scientists.

Academic Medical Leaders' Defense of Their Relationships with Industry

Dr. Flier, who became dean 17 months ago, previously received a $500,000 research grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb. He also consulted for three Cambridge biotechnology companies, but says that those relationships have ended and that he has accepted no new industry affiliations.

So maybe it is not surprising that:

Dr. Flier says that the Harvard Medical faculty may lead the nation in receiving money from industry, as well as government and charities, and he does not want to tighten the spigot. 'One entirely appropriate source, if done properly, is industrial funds,' Dr. Flier said in an interview.

But,

That is in contrast to his predecessor as dean, Dr. Joseph B. Martin. Harvard’s rules allowed Dr. Martin to sit on the board of the medical products company Baxter International for 5 of the 10 years he led the medical school, supplementing his university salary with up to $197,000 a year from Baxter, according to company filings.

Dr. Martin is still on the medical faculty and is founder and co-chairman of the Harvard NeuroDiscovery Center, which researches degenerative diseases, and actively solicits industry money to do so. Dr. Martin declined any comment.

Note that we discussed Dr Martin's directorship of Baxter on Health Care Renewal here in 2006, and that we also found that he was on the board of biotechnology company Cytyc. Note also that we have discussed how serving on the board of a health care corporation can produce particularly intense conflicts of interest for academic medical leaders, since such board service implies not just warm and fuzzy feelings for the company, but "unyielding loyalty" to the financial interests of the company and its stockholders (e.g., see this post).

Unsurprisingly, faculty who have their own lucrative relationships with industry are all for more of the same:

Encouraging them is Dr. Thomas P. Stossel, a Harvard Medical professor who has served on advisory boards for Merck, Biogen Idec and Dyax, and has written widely on academic-industry ties. 'I think if you look at it with intellectual honesty, you see industry interaction has produced far more good than harm,' Dr. Stossel said. 'Harvard absolutely could get more from industry but I think they’re very skittish. There’s a huge opportunity we ought to mine.'

Note that Dr Stossel defended academic-industry "interaction," but did not explain why such interaction seems always to generate large money flows from industry to academic institutions and their individual faculty members. People can surely interact without paying each other.

Note further that Dr Stossel may have even more financial relationships with industry than appeared in the NY Times article. When we analyzed some of the logical fallacies Dr Stossel employed in favor of industry payments to physicians in 2007, we cited Stossel's attck on the rigorous conflicts of interest rules re-imposed on the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in which Stossel had to disclose "having received consulting fees from ZymeQuest, owning stock options in ZymeQuest and Biogen, and having pending and issued patents, owned by Brigham and Women's Hospital, some of which are licensed to ZymeQuest." [Stossel TP. Regulating academic-industrial research relationships - solving problems or stifling progress? N Engl J Med 2005; 353: 1060-1065.] In this paean to a laissez-faire approach to conflicts of interest, Stossel also disclosed that he "is a member of the Board of Directors of Zymequest Inc, and the Scientific Leadership Advisory Board of Merck & Co. The author is a founding scientist of Critical Biologics Corporation and a consultant to Boston Scientific, Inc., and Gerson-Lehrman, Inc." [Stossel TP. Regulation of financial conflicts of interest in medical practice and medical research. Perspect Biol Med 2007; 50: 54-71. ]

Another defender of the status quo also has her own major relationships with industry:

Merck built a corporate research center in 2004 across the street from Harvard’s own big new medical research and class building. And Merck underwrites plenty of work on the Harvard campus, including the immunology lab run by Dr. Laurie H. Glimcher — a professor who also sits on the board of the drug maker Bristol-Myers Squibb, which paid her nearly $270,000 in 2007.

Dr. Glimcher says industry money is not only appropriate but necessary. 'Without the support of the private sector, we would not have been able to develop what I call our ‘bone team’ in our lab,' she said at a recent student and faculty forum to discuss industry relationships. Merck is counting on her team to help come up with a successor to Fosamax, the formerly $3 billion-a-year bone drug that went generic last year.

Note that Dr Glimcher now seems to view her role not as someone seeking to discover and disseminate the truth, but as someone seeking to develop commercial products. Again, maybe that is not surprising, since she is supposed to have an "unyielding loyalty" to the prominent pharmaceutical company on whose board she sits.

The NY Times article did not quote anybody in favor of financial relationships between academic medicine and industry who did not themselves have such relationships. I don't believe I have ever seen a defense of these relationships not authored by someone who was not already personally profiting from such relationships.

The Revolt of the Medical Students

While he documented how Harvard faculty who also lead huge pharmaceutical firms have no qualms about industry pouring money into medical academics, Mr Wilson found that medical students seem to have figured out the downside of being taught by pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device company employees:

In a first-year pharmacology class at Harvard Medical School, Matt Zerden grew wary as the professor promoted the benefits of cholesterol drugs and seemed to belittle a student who asked about side effects.

Mr. Zerden later discovered something by searching online that he began sharing with his classmates. The professor was not only a full-time member of the Harvard Medical faculty, but a paid consultant to 10 drug companies, including five makers of cholesterol treatments.

'I felt really violated,' Mr. Zerden, now a fourth-year student, recently recalled. 'Here we have 160 open minds trying to learn the basics in a protected space, and the information he was giving wasn’t as pure as I think it should be.'

Mr. Zerden’s minor stir four years ago has lately grown into a full-blown movement by more than 200 Harvard Medical School students and sympathetic faculty, intent on exposing and curtailing the industry influence in their classrooms and laboratories, as well as in Harvard’s 17 affiliated teaching hospitals and institutes.

They say they are concerned that the same money that helped build the school’s world-class status may in fact be hurting its reputation and affecting its teaching.

Note that the example, while anecdotal, shows how financial relationships could lead to biased education. The students have made surprising progress:

The Harvard students have already secured a requirement that all professors and lecturers disclose their industry ties in class — a blanket policy that has been adopted by no other leading medical school. (One Harvard professor’s disclosure in class listed 47 company affiliations.)

'Harvard needs to live up to its name,' said Kirsten Austad, 24, a first-year Harvard Medical student who is one of the movement’s leaders. 'We are really being indoctrinated into a field of medicine that is becoming more and more commercialized.'

David Tian, 24, a first-year Harvard Medical student, said: 'Before coming here, I had no idea how much influence companies had on medical education. And it’s something that’s purposely meant to be under the table, providing information under the guise of education when that information is also presented for marketing purposes.'

The students say they worry that pharmaceutical industry scandals in recent years — including some criminal convictions, billions of dollars in fines, proof of bias in research and publishing and false marketing claims — have cast a bad light on the medical profession. And they criticize Harvard as being less vigilant than other leading medical schools in monitoring potential financial conflicts by faculty members.

Unfortunately, many academics of my generation have become so used to making some extra dollars by working part-time for companies selling health care goods or services that they cannot see how these relationships have distracted them from the academic mission and their professional ideals. Maybe the rising generation of students, now living in a time when the consequences of arrogance, greed, and corruption among our leaders has become so apparent, will put professionalism ahead of personal enrichment.

10:17 AM