Academic Medical Leaders as Directors of For-Profit Health Care Corporations: the Prevalence of This "New Species" of Conflict of Interest Documented in the BMJ

The important conflicts of interest generated when academic health care leaders also serve on the boards of directors of for-profit health care corporations is suddenly less anechoic, thanks to some intrepid researchers and the British Journal of Medicine.

Background: Academic Health Care Leaders Also Serving as Directors of For-Profit Health Care Corporations

First Discovered Cases

In 2006, we first noticed that leaders of academic medicine also were serving as board members of large for-profit health care corporations.  The first example we discussed was that of Marye Anne Fox, Chancellor (equivalent to president) of the University of California - San Diego, and hence the person to whom the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and its academic medical center report. The conflict was between this position, and her service as a member of the board of directors of Boston Scientific, a medical device manufacture, and the board of directors of Pharmaceutical Product Development Inc., a contract research organization.

Later that year, we discussed a "new species of conflict of interest."  At that time we wrote:

Medical schools and their academic medical centers and teaching hospitals must deal with all sorts of health care companies, drug and device manufacturers, information technology venders, managed care organizations and health insurers, etc, in the course of fulfilling their patient care, teaching, and research missions. Thus, it seems that service on the board of directors of a such public for-profit health care company would generate a severe conflict for an academic health care leader, because such service entails a fiduciary duty to uphold the interests of the company and its stockholders. Such a duty ought on its face to have a much more important effect on thinking and decision making than receiving a gift, or even being paid for research or consulting services. Furthermore, the financial rewards for service on a company board, which usually include directors' fees and stock options, are comparable to the most highly paid consulting positions. What supports the interests of the company, however, may not always be good for the medical school, academic medical center or teaching hospital.

Since 2006, we continued to find colorful examples of such conflicts of interest, e.g.,

- In 2006, the UnitedHealth board included multiple academic leaders, at least one of whom seemed partly responsible as a member of the board compensation committee for allowing the then UnitedHealth CEO to collect many backdated stock options (look here)
- In 2009, some attributed the problems at George Washington University's medical school that caused it to be put on probation to the conflict of interest of its provost and vice president for health affairs,  who also sat on the board of Universal Health Services, which owned the university hospital (look here)...

Through more recent years,

- In 2014, members of the AMA committee that has an outsize role in how the government fixes the pay of US doctors wer also found to be members of boards of directors of such companies as Kindred Healthcare, Hanger Inc, and Sante. (Look here.)
- In 2015, the academic physician and research unit leader nominated to be the new head of the US Food and Drug was a director of Portola Pharmaceuticals (look here)...

Look here for even more

Our Early Cross-Sectional Study

In 2007, we did a somewhat rough and ready research project based on 2005 data to determine the prevalence of such conflicts.  The results were presented in abstract form,(1) but not published as an article:

In 2005, there were 164 US health care companies in the 2005 S&P 1500, and 125 US medical schools. We identified 198 people who served on the companies' boards of directors who had faculty or leadership positions at these medical schools. Of the 125 medical schools, 65 schools had at least one faculty member and/or leader who also served on a health care corporation's board of directors. 15 schools had more than five, and 4 had more than 10 such individuals. Of the 125 schools, 7 reported to university presidents who were also directors of health care corporations, and 11 schools reported to vice-presidents for health affairs who were also such corporate directors. Four schools were lead by deans who were also health care corporate directors, and 10 schools had academic medical center CEOs who were such directors. 22 schools had at least one top leader who was also a director of a health care corporation. 36 schools reported to university boards of trustees which each included at least one director of a health care corporation, and 12 schools' own boards of trustees included at least one such director.

We concluded:

more than one-half of US medical schools had a leader or faculty member who also was a director of a major US for-profit publicly traded Bpure^ health care corporation, more than one-sixth of schools had a top leader who was also such a director, and more than one-fifth reported to boards of trustees which included such directors.

More Modern and Complete Data

Unfortunately, we never wrote a full paper about this work, although the likelihood we could have gotten it published around 2007 was very small.  It is fortunate that Anderson and colleagues did a more complete and current version of this project, which was published online this week by the British Medical Journal.(2)

Methods

Their methodology was similar to our earlier work, but more sophisticated.  They obtained data on the 2013 board members of 446 public for-profit US companies listed on New York Stock Exchange or NASDAQ and classified as in the healthcare sector, including pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical equipment and supply companies and health care providers from the companies' 2014 proxy statements.

Results

Their results were striking, suggesting even a greater prevalence of conflicted academic leaders than our preliminary results suggested

Directors were affiliated with 85 geographically diverse non-profit academic institutions, including 19 of the top 20 National Institute of Health funded medical schools and all of the 17 US News honor roll hospitals. Overall, these 279 academically affiliated directors included 73 leaders, 121 professors, and 85 trustees. Leaders included 17 chief executive officers and 11 vice presidents or executive officers of health systems and hospitals; 15 university presidents, provosts, and chancellors; and eight medical school deans or presidents.

The new study also described the direct financial relationships among the academic leaders, professors and trustees and the corporations on whose boards they served.

The total annual compensation to academically affiliated directors for their services to companies was $54 995 786 (£35 836 000; €49 185 900) (median individual compensation $193 000) and directors beneficially owned 59 831 477 shares of company stock (median 50 699 shares).

Discussion

As we have suggested, Anderson et al stated that being on the board of directors of a for-profit health care corporation creates conflicts of interest beyond those created by simply having a financial relationship with a health care company, e.g., by participating in a commercially sponsored research project or acting as a consultant to a company.

Similar to individuals engaging in consulting relationships, directors on industry boards enter a formal contract with the company and receive financial payment for services; however, they are subject to two important differences. Firstly, unlike consultants who are compensated to provide expertise on a specific issue, directors are subject to a fiduciary responsibility to company shareholders to advance the general interests of the company and increase profits. Secondly, directors are reimbursed both through larger cash fees than typical consulting contracts and through stock options, the value of which is directly tied to the financial success of the company.

They also added the reminder that,

Though the missions of academia and for profit companies can overlap, they may also diverge, specifically when the for profit mission of industry competes with the non-profit taxpayer funded clinical and research missions of academic medical and research institutions.

So,

previous guidelines have emphasized the relationships of clinicians and researchers with industry, but institutional conflicts of interest, which arise when administrators, including executive officers, trustees, and clinical leaders have a financial relationship with industry, are increasingly recognized and pose a unique set of risks to academic missions. 

Our Summary

We have written again and again on the problem of conflicts of interest affecting health care professionals, academics, and policy makers.  The worst such conflicts may occur when individuals are simultaneously leaders of large mission-oriented health care non-profit organizations, such as teaching hospitals, medical schools, or research institutes, and board members of for-profit health care corporations.  Despite our attempts to raise such issues as important, and probably important causes of health care dysfunction, they have remained anechoic.

Now a broadly based study of this no longer so "new species" of conflict of interest has appeared in one of the biggest and most prestigious medical journals.  Let us hope it will bring this issue to the forefront, and also partially counter those who have been preaching that concerns about conflicts of interest in health care are overblown.

As we have said again and again, the web of conflicts of interest that is pervasive in medicine and health care is now threatening to strangle medicine and health care.  Furthermore, this web is now strong enough to have effectively transformed US health care into an oligarchy or plutocracy.  Health care is effectively run by a relatively small group of people, mainly professional managers plus a few (lapsed?) health care professionals, who simultaneously run or influence multiple corporations and organizations.

For patients and the public to trust health care professionals and health care organizations, they need to know that these individuals and organizations are putting patients' and the public's health ahead of private gain. Health care professionals who care for patients, those who teach about medicine and health care, clinical researchers, and those who make medical and health care policy should do so free from conflicts of interest that might inhibit their abilities to put patients and the public's health first.

Health care professionals ought to make it their highest priority to ensure that the organizations for which they work, or with which they interact also put patients' and the public's health ahead of private gain, especially the private gain of the organizations' leaders and their cronies.

ADDENDUM (16 November, 2015) - Note that an abbreviated version of this post has appeared as an electronic "rapid response" to the article by Anderson et al (link here), although the published form has on it our original submission date.   

References

1. Poses RM, Smith WR, Crausman R, Maulitz R. Selling them the rope: prevalence of for-profit health care corporate dirctors among academic medical leaders. J Gen Intern Med 2007; 22 (Suppl 1): 98.
2.  Anderson TS, Good CB, Gellad WF.  Prevalence and compensation of academic leaders, professors and trustees on publicly trade US healthcare company boards of directors: cross sectional study.  Brit Med J 2015; 351:h4826.  Link here. 

12:39 PM

How Institutional Conflicts of Interest Exacerbate the Anechoic Effect - the Example of ASCO Fearing "Biting the Hand that Feeds You"

As we recently discussed (here, here, here and here), in May, 2015, the New England Journal of Medicine, arguably the world's foremost medical journal, published an editorial and a three-part commentary arguing that current concerns about the effects of financial conflicts of interest (COI) on health care are overblown(1-4).  On June 1, the Wall Street Journal published a report on the 2015 meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) that provided a vivid example of why these concerns should not be dismissed.

Questioning Drug Prices at the ASCO Meeting

The main issue in the article was:

In a sign of growing frustration with rising drug prices, a prominent cancer specialist on Sunday sharply criticized the costs of new cancer treatments in a high-profile speech at one of the largest annual medical meetings in the U.S.

'These drugs cost too much,' Leonard Saltz, chief of gastrointestinal oncology at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, said in a speech heard by thousands of doctors here for the annual meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

The notion that health care prices are high and are rising continuously in the US should hardly be novel for regular Health Care Renewal readers.  We have been writing about it for a while, starting in 2005.

We first posted about high drug prices in July, 2005, with the example of BilDil.  This was a brand-name combination drug that included two compounds that were already cheaply available in generic form, advertised as a uniquely convenient therapy for congestive heart failure.  We were aghast that the price of the combination drug might be $5.40 - $10.80 a day (in 2005 dollars), over three times the cost of the two drugs in generic form.

But only a few days later we noted that three cancer costs had yearly costs in the five figures, and one, Erbitux, cost as much as $100,000.  Most amazingly we noted that Thalidomid was priced at $25,000  a year.  Yet it was just the infamous thalidomide, the drug initially marketed as a tranquilizer that caused severe birth defects after it was initially sold in Europe.  The drug was still available in generic form in South America for about seven cents a pill.

Since then, the ridiculously high prices of many tests and treatments, but most notably new drugs and devices, has been so widely covered our discussion has been limited to special cases.   For example, consider just a few headlines from April to May, 2015.

How Much Would You Pay for an Old Drug? If You Have MS, a Fortune (Bloomberg)

Pharmaceutical Companies Buy Rivals' Drugs, Then Jack Up the Prices (WSJ)

How Marketing Exclusivity Led to Higher Drug Costs and Questionable Benefits (WSJ)

Runaway Drug Prices (NY Times)


Drug Prices as a Taboo Topic

However, despite this wide attention to the problem, the speech at ASCO was notable.  Back to the WSJ...

Dr. Saltz’s speech was unusual because it was made at the meeting’s plenary session, where the field’s most significant scientific research is presented and which all meeting participants are expected to attend. An estimated 25,000 doctors and scientists attended this year’s meeting.

One would think that the high price of drugs, especially cancer drugs, would be a fit subject for discussion at a plenary session of ASCO, however,

It is unprecedented for plenary speeches, which typically address scientific and medical issues, to substantially take on the topic of drug costs, said Alan Venook, a professor of medicine at the University of California San Francisco who planned the meeting’s scientific session and invited Dr. Saltz to speak.

The prominent venue for the speech was also unusual because, like many medical meetings, ASCO is sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and often focuses on highlighting advancements in drug development, said Dr. Venook. He said discussing drug prices there is 'uncomfortable' because it could be seen as 'biting the hand that feeds you.'

Doctors are also reluctant to antagonize the drug industry because they need pharmaceutical firms to invest in developing new medicines for patients, he said.

'It’s a tough balancing act for ASCO where the meeting is largely funded by pharma,' Dr. Venook said in an interview. 'You can’t have a [plenary] talk trashing pharma, but you can have a talk by a respected person questioning it.'

So because pharma gives ASCO a lot of money, at best, only the most distinguished ASCO members can gently question pharma, but cannot criticize, much less "trash" the source of their mammon.


This is thus a succinct example of why financial conflicts of interest in medicine and health care can be bad.  The incredibly high prices of cancer drugs should be a fit topic for discussion at a meeting run by a society of medical oncologists.  But those in charge of the meeting and the society are afraid to initiate such a discussion, and even more afraid of appearing to criticize the companies that charge these prices, because the society has become dependent on money from these very same companies.  So this is further an example of how conflicts of interest can create the anechoic effect - the notion that certain topics in medicine and health care are taboo, because discussing them might trouble the powers that be, and particularly the moneyed interests that now dominate medicine and health care. 

In a succinct response to the NEJM series (1-4) soft pedaling concerns about conflicts of interest, the British Medical Journal ran a commentary by a former NEJM national correspondent, and two former NEJM editors.(5)  It stated,

The NEJM has now sought to reinterpret and downplay the importance of conflicts of interest in medicine by publishing articles that show little understanding of the meaning of the term. The concern is not whether physicians and researchers who receive industry money have been bought by the drug companies, as Drazen writes, or whether members of guideline panels or advisory committees to the US Food and Drug Administration with ties to industry make recommendations that are motivated by a desire for financial gain, as Rosenbaum writes. The essential issue is that it is impossible for editors and readers to know one way or the other.

In this case, we seem not to be talking about the possibility that health care professionals "have been bought by the drug companies,"  but how drug companies essentially "buying" a professional organization has apparently heretofore prevented medical professionals from discussing a vital issue that could have major effects on patients.

Following the Money

In case there is any question about the money involved and its sources, one only needs to go to some publicly available in formation supplied by ASCO (mostly because of reporting requirements imposed on all US non-profit organizations of a certain size).  

The latest (2014) annual report from ASCO reveals that the organization only gets 16.1% of its revenue from member dues.  Thus a ostensible membership organization gets only about a sixth of its funding from members' dues.

Yet the organization has become quite wealthy.  Its most recent (2013) US Internal Revenue Service 990 Form reveals that it owns over $55 million in real estate, and has over $104 million in investments (presumably as an endowment.)  The organizations' leaders are also doing very well. Its CEO, Allen Lichter MD, got $804,775 in total compensation in 2012.  Eleven other managers, of which three are health care professionals (one MD, one RN, one PharmD), got at least $220,000 in total compensation.  Five of them got more than $300,000. 

The source of all that money seems mainly to be pharmaceutical and other health care corporations that sell goods and services for cancer care.  US non-profit organizations are not forced by law to reveal the details of their financial support.  However, the ASCO annual report does list 23 pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, and one for-profit cancer hospital chain as contributing at least $1 million each in total to the non-profit over time.  The report lists 37 pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and medical device companies as current corporate donors, and also 10 other for-profit health care related corporations as current corporate donors.

In addition to these apparently marked institutional conflicts of interest, ASCO leaders may have their own individual conflicts of interest.  I do not have the resources to search all relationships affecting meeting organizers and ASCO officers and trustees, and the organization does not post conflicts of interest affecting its leadership and governance in a prominent place. However, Dr Alan Venook, who confessed to his discomfort about inviting a talk that might be perceived as biting the hand that feeds the finances of ASCO, is or has been on advisory boards for Thershold Pharmaceuticals,  Mirna Therapeutics, and GlobeImmune.  For a 2014 presentation, he gave the following disclosures: "Research support from Genentech/Roche, BMS, Lilly, Novartis; H. Lenz: Consulting, advisory boards and research support from Genentech/Roche, BMS and Merck."  Furthermore, the current chair of the ASCO Board of Directors, Julie M Vose, MD, is also on the Medical Advisory Board of EmergingMed Inc, and the Clinical Advisory Board of Bullet Biotechnology.

Summary

The New England Journal of Medicine recently launched a counter-attack against the "pharmascolds" who are allegedly slowing the pace of medical progress by their excessive and puritanical concerns about financial conflicts of interest.  Yet the arguments that COIs could be bad for health care are logical, and based on at least some reasonably good evidence.  (See the article by Steinbrook et al in the BMJ mentioned above[4], the accompanying BMJ editorial[5] just to start and then the 2009 Institute of Medicine report.)

Moreover, we have encountered a lot of vivid cases suggesting that conflicts of interest can have adverse influences on health care.  In this most recent one, we see at least one prominent if conflicted organizational insider admitting that institutional, and perhaps individual conflicts of interest have made discussion of at least one big health care and health care policy topic taboo.  This seems to corroborate our previous discussion that the anechoic effect - that certain topics in health care are taboo - may be generated by conflicts of interest of the people who ought to discuss them, or of those to whom those people may have to answer.

True health care reform requires full disclosure of conflicts of interest for honesty's sake, and marked reduction of conflicts affecting those who make health care decisions on behalf of individual patients, and health care policy decisions that affect patients' and the public's health.  If we allow conflicts of interest to continue, we will have difficulty even discussing the most severe problems affecting health care, because those generating the topics are benefiting from the circumstances that enable such problems.

ADDENDUM (1 July, 2015) - This post was republished on 28 June, 2015, on the Naked Capitalism blog. 

ADDENDUM (20 July, 2015 ) - This post was republished on July 12, 2015 in OpenHealth News.

References

  1.Drazen JM.  Revisiting the commercial-academic interface.  N Eng J Med 2015; ; 372:1853-1854. Link here.
2. Rosenbaum L.  Reconnecting the dots - reinterpreting industry-physician relations.  N Eng J Med 2015; 372:1860-1864.  Link here.
3. Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias - the case for careful study.  N Engl J Med 2015;  372:1959-1963.  Link here.
4.  Rosenbaum L.  Beyond moral outrage - weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2064-2068.  Link here.
5. Steinbrook R, Kassirer JP, Angell M.  Justifying conflicts of interest in medical journals: a very bad idea.  Brit Med J 2015; 350: h2942.  Link here. 
6. Loder E. Revisiting the commercial-academic interface in medical journals.  Brit Med J 2015; 350: h2957.  Link here.

12:42 PM

Why is the New England Journal of Medicine Scolding "Pharmascolds"?

I, a normally quiet blogger on this site, was disquieted by what may be a backlash aimed at quashing the anti-conflict-of-interest movement.

Lisa Rosenbaum just published her second of three treatises in the highly prestigious New England Journal of Medine, scolding "pharmascolds" (see Conflicts of Interest: Understanding Bias — The Case for Careful Study). "Pharmascolds" is the term Rosenbaum and others use for those of us at Health Care Renewal, the Institute of Medicine, and countless medical journals and institutions.  Why?  Because we dare assert there is great danger when providers practice though saddled by (potential) conflicts of interests in medicine.  Such conflicts are created when physicians (up to 94% of us, according to Rosenbaum's research), other health care providers in practice, and health care organizations accept, not only gifts and trinkets, but also large, sometimes clandestine consulting fees and other arrangements from pharma and device companies, all the while providing direct patient care using the companies' products.

Rosenbaum and others say we pharmascolds are essentially self-righteous and obstructionist, holding back the progress of medical science.  In this article, she seems to claim that not proving direct patient harm from a specific questionable financial arrangement with a company whose product we may therefore more likely prescribe, speak well of, or publish (pseudo)evidence supporting the use of, is enough of a reason to justify the arrangement. 

Wouldn't that be the same as saying, "Until you actually crash into another car while texting, it's ok to text while driving, even if it's distracting."?

Rosenbaum uses mainly anecdote to prove her point, and appeals to a little-quoted, but still important, heuristic/bias called "moral liscensing."  Rosenbaum describes the phenomenon correctly: "once disclosure [of a conflict of interest] gets the weight [of guilt] off your chest, you feel liberated and may feel licensed to behave immorally."  True.  But then Rosenbaum seems to support non-disclosure of acts that create conflicts of interest, because disclosure doesn't decrease the acts themselves.

Rosenbaum goes further. At the same time as she supports non-disclosure of conflicts, she attempts to paint those who accept conflict-generating arrangements and keep them clandestine as victims--afraid to "come out of the closet" because doing so is socially taboo, though the activity is not wrong. 

I beg to differ.  For certain acts, potential conflicts, and actual conflicts, it seems to me that mere disclosure of the act or conflict shouldn't relieve one of the guilt associated with the act or conflict.  It also seems disclosure of a conflict should not make a speaker seem more credible to his/her audience because of its disclosure, though some research Rosenbaum quotes seems to show that disclosure improves credibility. 

Perhaps the stronger argument for disclosure is to disqualify people from activities that should be prohibited for people in conflict, as well as to warn people away from engaging in questionable activities that would result in conflicts. 

In an unbelievable twist of logic, Rosenbaum seems to be arguing in this article for more, not less of these questionable activities, in the interest of advancing science, until we prove patients are directly hurt by them, i.e., we have a "wreck."  Heck, let's get rid of traffic lights too, while we're at it.  People have eyes. We should trust them. They should be able to avoid accidents voluntarily, on their own.

In short, how could Dr. Rosenbaum not see that the best solution for the "problem" of conflicts of interests is avoidance when possible?  One can't help but wonder if she and the Journal aren't blinded by the shimmer and pull of powerful, influential organizations, ones so shiny, so strong, and so ubiquitous that resistance is just too hard for her, the Journal, and for 94% of us.

Conflicts of interest should be avoided.  Society has accepted that improved health will result not just from secondary prevention (e.g., not texting while driving after one has had an accident from the activity), but also from primary prevention (not texting while driving, even before an accident occurs). 

Wally R. Smith, MD

1:59 PM

Again, Logical Fallacies in Defense of Conflicts of Interest: a Rebuttal to Rothman et al Appears in JACC

Earlier this year, a remarkable commentary in JAMA suggested major reconsideration of the relationships among professional medical associations (PMAs) and health care corporations.(1) Because of the influence of PMAs on clinical care, education, research, and policy, Rothman et al suggested that these organizations sever most of their financial ties to corporations such as pharmaceutical, device, and biotechnology companies. The authors suggested that the only acceptable payments to PMAs from these companies are those for advertising in publications that is clearly labeled as such, and advertising exhibits in meetings, again that is clearly labeled. Furthermore, the authors suggested that people with current or recent (within the last two years) relationships with such corporations ought not to serve as officers or trustees of PMAs, and ought not to serve on program or practice guideline committees. Rothman et al thus suggested that professional medical associations return to their roots, to be advocates for their physician members, and those members’ core values, not marketers of drugs and devices, and promoters of the interests of health care corporations.

The Journal of the American College of Cardiology (JACC) just published the first rebuttal of Rothman et al to appear in a peer-reviewed journal, written by Dr Alfred A Bove, President of the American College of Cardiology (ACC), one of the more influential PMAs.(2) Dr Bove contended that there is nothing wrong with the current relationships among corporations and PMAs, and PMAs should be free to relate to health care corporations any way they want. Dr Bove also asserted that “the assumptions that lead to ... [Rothman and colleagues’] conclusions can be challenged on many fronts.” However, in my humble opinion, Dr Bove supported these contentions with logical fallacies, rather than evidence and logic.

Appeals to Authority, Fear, and Pity

Early on, Dr Bove used a striking set of appeals to authority. (Note that his relevant quotes below appear in italics.)

“There is no comment about trust or virtue as a characteristic of the medical profession.”

“We are not to be bribed by a cheap pen or a free lunch.”

“The authors' assumptions imply that physicians as a group are not responsible people, yet physicians are among the most responsible professionals.”

These appear to be appeals to the traditional authority of the medical profession. Dr Bove simply asserts that physicians are inherently virtuous and deserving of trust, and thus no one could question the virtue of the profession.

He then compounded these appeals to authority with a veiled appeal to fear.

“The authors' assumption that the worst behavior is the average behavior of all physicians insults the profession.”

As noted below, Rothman et al did not make this assumption, so the appeal in turn rests on a straw man argument. This appears to be an appeal to fear in that an “insulted” profession might be expected to take action, legal or otherwise, to avenge the insult. It also could be a form of an appeal to pity, in that the reader might be inclined to pity the poor “insulted” physicians.

Straw Man Arguments

The bulk of the editorial consisted of a string of straw man arguments. A straw man argument propounds a distorted, exaggerated, or misrepresented version of his opponent’s argument, and then attacks it, rather than his opponent’s actual argument.

“The sole source for support of PMAs could only come from government or foundation grants....”

Actually, Rothman et al included membership dues, and by implication, meeting registration fees, journal subscription fees etc as acceptable sources of support.

“The article implies that all physicians who receive support from industry will forever be biased to support the products of the related pharmaceutical or device company.”

Actually, Rothman et al seemed to assume that conflicts of interest might affect someone for up to two years, but not forever. Thus, they suggested that board members should be “conflict free for a 2-year period before assuming the position.”

[The Rothman article] “also implies that industry does not work for the best interests of patients or the better [sic] public good, but only for profit.”

Actually, Rothman et al stated “the pharmaceutical and medical device industries make important contributions to medical progress. Their role in the development and testing of new compounds and instruments is essential for the diagnosis and treatment of disease and disability.”

“First, to assume that physicians would not be responsible for providing the best care for their patients after being associated with an industry study or consultation is inappropriate. The authors cited isolated examples of errant physicians who received large sums of money from industry and then promoted their products. They presume that all physicians are represented by these few—that we all have a price.”

Actually, Rothman et al did not discuss any particular cases of “errant physicians.” What Rothman suggested was that gifts, even of “modest value,” can bias decision making, and that the receipt itself of the gift may itself be influential. However, if even modest gifts have some influence, it is logical that large financial transactions might have major influence.

“Society understands that reward drives innovation, so expecting a financial gain from a commercial medical enterprise is not wrong. In fact, it is the only way that new ideas will move from the laboratory to the public good. Using public funds for manufacture and distribution would add an enormous burden to government costs and, based on past experience, would be unproductive.”

Rothman et al were not remotely suggesting nationalizing the drug and device industries.

“If one of us has an idea for a new device and needs industry to help refine its design, fund its development and manufacture, and establish its value by animal and clinical studies, this process should be honored, not condemned. Will the government fund the development of the next new drug? Would the government have funded the development and manufacture of an implantable pacemaker?”

At the most, Rothman et al recommended not allowing physicians who are paid by companies in conjunction with their development work to serve as top leaders, and on certain committees of PMAs. They never broadly “condemned” physicians who work with industry to develop devices.

“Governments have not shown an interest in funding the development of new drugs and devices. Industry raises the funds, takes the risks, and should reap the rewards for its role in creating a better life for our patients.”

Actually, governments have helped development considerably by funding much of the underlying basic science research. Again, Rothman et were not remotely suggesting nationalization of drug development.

Summarizing the Arguments

So Dr Bove ended up by warning that the suggestions Rothman et al made about reducing institutional conflicts of interest affecting professional medical societies, and individual conflicts of interest affecting their leaders would “destroy the best of what we have in our science and industry,” that is, destroy biomedical and clinical science, and lead to nationalization of important forms of medical production. None of that was suggested or implied by Rothman et al. After positing this dire future, Dr Bove then asserted that professional societies ought to be entitled to money from industry limited only by their “professionalism.” Thus, “industry should be able to support unbiased programs aimed at educating physicians and other health care providers about the therapies available for the care of their patients. Professional societies should be able to receive unconditional educational grants to provide up-to-date information to their members on medical therapies.” Furthermore, “the proper relationships should allow us to work with industry and allow our professional societies to receive undesignated funds from industry to foster better patient care.” So, Dr Bove wound up where he started, asserting that doctors and professional societies are inherently virtuous, and thus should be trusted to do whatever they think is right, without any external scrutiny or accountability. Yet he never demonstrated the virtue of the ACC under his leadership, or of PMAs in general, or showed why they should be trusted.

Why did the president of one of the nation’s most important medical associations publicly make such poor arguments to support his organization's current financial relationships with health care corporations? I can only speculate, but there may be some clues found by looking at what is publicly known about the current relationships of the ACC and its leaders to health care corporations.

Publicly Disclosed Relationships Among the ACC and Its Leaders and Health Care Corporations

My sources for these clues were a report on the ACC web-site on its relationships with health care corporations (through 2007), and the form 990s that the ACC is and the highly related ACC Foundation are required to file with the US Internal Revenue Service. (The form 990s are publicly available from GuideStar with a free membership. The ACC form is here, the ACCF, here.)

Perhaps unsurprisingly, it turns out that the ACC gets a large proportion of its income from industry. In 2007, it acknowledged receiving $35,882,095.15 from industry. The largest categories of industry support were "promotional/quality program support," $12,664,650; "charitable contributions," $7,603,639; and "exhibits" at meetings, $7,318,807; and "educational grants," $5,084,600. The total revenues of the ACC (which include the ACC Foundation), were $94,560,000, so that industry support accounted for 38% of total revenue. These figures should be compared to the revenue the society received from membership dues (found on its 990 form), $11,995,056, and the income it claimed from its annual scientific session, $8,400,632. So to put it another way, the ACC got about three times as much money from industry as it got from its members' dues, and almost twice as much money from industry as it got from dues and its annual meeting combined.

So were the suggestions made by Rothman et al to be implemented by the ACC, it would stand to lose at least $28 million a year (given that in 2007, about $1 million of its industry revenue was from advertising , and about $ 7.3 million was from exhibits at meetings.)

The organization's lavish revenues have allowed it to pay its full-time managers very well. In 2007, its CEO received $534,452 in total compensation; its general counsel, about $394,000; and its CFO, about $336,000. It seems obvious that were the organization to foreswear industry revenue, the organization's top full-time managers would be unable to continue to live in the style to which they are now accustomed to.

In addition, the organization's form 990 reveals that it pays its supposedly voluntary officers and some of its trustees substantial amounts as well. In 2007, it paid its president $147,750; its president-elect, $80,000; its two immediate past presidents, $79,500 and $70,000; its vice president (at that time, Dr Bove), $63,751; its treasurer, $32,500; its secretary for the board of governors, $52,500; its board of governors chair-elect, $25,000; its immediate past board of governors chair, $25,000; and some trustees amounts from $1000 to $20,520.

To my knowledge, it is unusual for a professional society to pay salaries to its voluntary officers (as opposed to full-time, hired managers.) However, given that the ACC does, it seems that were the organization to foreswear industry revenue, its officers' personal income might be threatened to some extent.

Finally, Dr Bove has his own personal financial relationships with industry. Some were disclosed because of his role on ACCs Cardiosource editorial board, including "Consultant Fees/Honoraria: Insight Telehealth Inc,""Research/Research Grants: Astella Pharma, INC," and "Royalty Income: Elsevier." In addition, in a 2008 article(3), he disclosed receiving speakers fees from Medical Seminars, Inc, and serving as a consultant to Vasocom Inc. For a 2009 conference, he also disclosed "modest" equity interests in Cardiovascular Therapeutics, and Merck.

So, in summary, it seems that the ACC gets a very substantial portion of its revenue from health care corporations, and that were it to carry out the suggestions of Rothman et al, it would lose much of that revenue. Thus, it is not surprising that ACC leadership would take exception to Rothman and colleagues' point of view. This is not the first time that an ACC president has defeneded the organization's dependence on industry funding (see post here). However, as I said in that post,

My questions are how could a society which requires such a substantial proportion, 38% of funding from commercial sponsors ignore the preferences of the sponsors for particular topics and content areas? How could such a society dare to allow criticism of the sponsors, their products, or their activities? Knowing that the society is dependent on this level of support, could society leaders really hold industry representatives at arms' length? Knowing that industry supplies more than one-third of their salaries, would society staff really keep industry outside of some bureaucratic, but not concrete 'firewall?'

In addition, it now seems the ostensibly voluntary officers of the ACC may have a personal stake in the ACCs receipt of health care corporate funding, since it is the apparent policy of the organization to pay these officers five- and six-figure salaries. Dr Bove did not disclose this apparent conflict of interest, nor did he disclose his other personal financial relationships with industry. As we have noted before, people with conflicts of interest tend to have trouble making coherent, logical and evidence-based arguments for positions related to their conflicts. As Joe Collier wrote in the BMJ, "people who have conflicts of interest often find giving clear advice (or opinions) particularly difficult. "(4)

In any case, a previous ACC president wrote about the importance of "disclosure" and "transparency" in dealing with conflicts of interest. Whether disclosure of conflicts is sufficient to manage them, at least Dr Bove could have done the courtesy of disclosing that he is actually a salaried employee of the ACC, and disclosing his personal financial relationships with industry so that readers could try to evaluate how these financial entanglements might have affected what he wrote.

Summary

In conclusion, the first published rebuttal of Rothman and colleagues' suggestions for ensuring the independence of professional medical associations from outside vested interests was not based on evidence, but on logical fallacies rather than clear reasoning, and failed to disclose its authors' relevant financial relationships. We will see if anyone can make a better attempt.

ADDENDUM (17 July, 2009) - see additional comments by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

ADDENDUM (22 July, 2009) - see this post on the Cardiobrief blog, which alludes to the post above, but also discusses an interesting response by the CEO of the ACC to the Rothman paper, and adds original commentary on larger issues.


References

1. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367-1372. (Link here.)
2. Bove AA. President's page: relations with industry: thoughts on claims of a broken system. J Am Coll Cardiol 2009; 54: 177-179. (Link here.)
3. Somers VK, White DP, Amin R et al. Sleep apnea and cardiovascular disease: an American Heart Association/ American College of Cardiology Foundation scientific statement from the American Heart Association Council for High Blood Pressure Research Professional Education Committee, Council on Clinical Cardiology, Stroke Council, and Council on Cardiovascular Nursing. Circulation 2008; 118: 1080-1111. (Link here.)
4. Collier J. The price of independence. Br Med J 2006; 332: 1447-9. (Link here.)

10:12 AM

Pharmacy Benefit Managers as Pharmaceutical Marketers

We posted a number of times about questionable practices Eli Lilly used to market its atypical anti-psychotic drug Zyprexa (olanzapine). A post from 2007, with links backward, is here, and our most recent post is here. The company remains entangled in litigation over its marketing of this drug. That litigation has lead to the release of numerous internal documents that provide quite a view of Lilly's marketing practices. Bloomberg continued its reporting on these documents, with its latest effort here via the Boston Globe, describing yet another surprising way this drug was sold:

A unit of CVS Caremark Corp. used its access to doctors to market Eli Lilly & Co.'s Zyprexa antipsychotic while it was under contract to bargain with the drug maker on behalf of health insurers, internal Lilly files disclosed in a multibillion-dollar lawsuit by insurers show.

The subsidiary of CVS, the largest US drugstore chain, touted Zyprexa starting in 2003, according to e-mails made public by lawyers suing Lilly for overpayment. CVS's AdvancePCS, a pharmacy benefit manager, or PBM, offered to send 120,000 letters to doctors promoting the drug, Lilly's top-seller with $4.7 billion in sales last year, according to a confidential 2004 proposal. The CVS unit said it would charge $5 per letter.

AdvancePCS, acquired by Woonsocket, R.I.-based CVS in 2007, said in the documents that the direct-mail campaign was 'designed to influence key prescribers' as part of a 'tactical plan for Zyprexa.'

Furthermore,

In AdvancePCS's 2004 pitch to Lilly offering to send out letters promoting Zyprexa, Kevin Aholt, the company's assistant vice president in charge of strategic alliances, said he could target physicians based 'on the most recent AdvancePCS claims data,' according to the unsealed documents.

Aholt also said that one of the 'key issues' in the market for antipsychotic drugs was finding ways to 'accelerate the growth of new patient starts,' according to the proposal.

Also,

Steven Fuchs, an official at the PBM, asked Lilly officials in an April 2004 e-mail whether he should include information about Zyprexa's ability to calm agitated patients in the next round of letters to doctors.

'Would a discussion of that be something you would want to include?' Fuchs asked, according to the document.

Lilly marketing executive Scott Dell responded in an e-mail that officials at the drug maker had discussed asking AdvancePCS to include material highlighting 'the new bipolar maintenance indication for Zyprexa.'

AdvancePCS was not the only pharmacy benefits manager (PBM) that offered to help sell Zyprexa.

CVS rival Express Scripts Inc. also sent out Zyprexa marketing letters, according to the unsealed documents and also isn't named as a defendant in the suits.

So here we have at least two pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) offering to help market a particular drug, for money, of course. What is the problem here?

CVS's contracts with insurers and pensions meanwhile place it in an adversarial posture with Lilly, requiring it to use its buying power as leverage in drug-price negotiations.

'The problem is that PBMs are negotiating these hidden deals while at the same time telling employers that they represent them at the negotiating table,' said Gerry Purcell, a former PBM executive who advises companies on their drug plans. 'These documents will add fuel to the perception that the companies and the PBMs are in cahoots with each other.'

Also,

While PBMs negotiate on behalf of insurers, most states don't designate them as agents of the benefit plans, said Robert Garis, a pharmacy professor at Creighton University in Omaha who studies the industry. As a result, they aren't legally required to act only in the best interest of their clients, he said. Maine is one of a few states that have specified PBMs as fiduciaries, or agents, he noted.

'The companies have gotten around that by adding language to their contracts that exclude them from having to meet those fiduciary duties,' Garis said.

Apparently, in this case, one PBM said it disclosed its relationship to the drug company to physicians, but it is not clear whether it was disclosed to the health care insurers and managed care organizations which paid the PBM to reduce the costs of drugs:

CVS, which isn't a defendant in the Lilly suit, said that it tells doctors when it has 'financial relationships' with drug makers and that they are free to opt out of mailings.

'To engage in a point/counterpoint in a media outlet rather than in court would not be productive,' said Lilly spokeswoman Marni Lemons.

Lemons declined to answer specific queries about the CVS or Express Scripts letters, whether Lilly paid for the practice, or other questions raised by the unsealed documents....

CVS said in its e-mailed statement that it has 'no active educational programs' related to Zyprexa.

'CVS Caremark discloses to its PBM clients that it may have financial relationships with pharmaceutical manufacturers in connection with these educational programs,' said Christine Cramer, a spokeswoman for the chain. 'CVS Caremark's PBM clients are aware of these programs and have the opportunity to opt out.'

Maria Palumbo, a spokeswoman for Express Scripts, didn't respond to eight telephone and e-mail requests seeking comment.

CVS covers 82 million people, with a market share of 12 percent, and is the largest pharmacy benefit manager, according to Atlantic Information Services. Express Scripts, which covers 55 million people, is the fifth largest. PBMs process about 75 percent of the retail prescriptions written annually in the United States, according to the insurance plans.

The insurance plans sued the drug maker in 2005, contending it used researchers, pharmacy benefit managers, advocacy groups, and public agencies to promote Zyprexa.

Whether or not the PBMs disclosed their relationships to the pharmaceutical company to everyone who might be interested, it does seem that having PBMs who are supposed to help insurers and managed care organizations control drug costs be paid by pharmaceutical companies to market drugs is yet another new species of institutional conflict of interest. Like the many other conflicts of interest, individual and institutional, we have discussed, this one appears to be mutually advantageous to the parties involved. However, it could have adverse consequences for physicians, patients, and the health care system. If the organizations that are supposed to be controlling drug costs are also promoting expensive drugs, the likely result would be excess prescription of expensive drugs to patients who may not derive benefits from the drugs outweighing their harms.

This is another reminder how much we need more sunshine shone on the multitudinous conflicts of interest affecting just about every type of actor within the current US health care system.

6:00 PM

A Letter from the RUC, and My Reply

The vast amounts spent in the US on health care have not translated into access for many patients, consistently excellent quality of care, and signiticantly improved outcomes. While we spend all this money, the primary care and generalist practitioners on the front lines are increasingly embattled and disgruntled, and their numbers are rapidly thinning. One problem may be the pattern of fees paid to physicians. Fees paid to physicians not only influence costs directly, but provide incentives for physician decision making about what tests and treatments patients receive. We have posted several times, most recently in February, 2009, here, about how the US Medicare system sets fees paid to physicians.

Since health care reform is now a hot topic in the US, there has been increasing discussion of the plight of primary care and generalist practitioners, but little consideration of how it arose. What we wrote in February was (with updated links):

As we have discussed, the US Medicare system determines what it pays physicians using the Resource Based Relative Value System (RBRVS). This system determines the pay for every kind of medical encounter according to a complex formula that is supposed to account for physicians' time and effort, physicians' practice expense, and the cost of malpractice insurance. The components of physicians' effort assessed are, in turn, technical skill and physical effort; the required mental effort and judgment; and stress due to the potential risk to the patient.

To keep the system, which was started in 1990, current, requires addition of new kinds of encounters, which means encounters involving new kinds of procedures, and updating of the estimates of various components, including physicians' time and effort. To do so, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC). The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments. However, the identities of RUC members are secret, as are the proceedings of the group.

This opaque and unaccountable process has resulted in increases outstripping inflation in fees paid for procedures, while fees paid for "cognitive" medicine, i.e., for primary care, and for services that involve diagnosis, management of acute and chronic disease, counseling, coordination of care, etc, but not procedures, have lagged inflation. The effects of the RUC have been amplified by the unexplained tendency of commercial managed care and health insurance to track the RBRVS system when making their own payments to physicians.

For further details about the RUC, see these posts on Health Care Renewal (here, here, here, here, and here) and important articles by Bodenheimer et al,(1) and Goodson.(2) By the way, why the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies de facto exclusively on the RUC to control the RBRVS system, and why the AMA made the RUC into a secret organization apparently beholden only to the organization's proceduralist members are unanswered questions.

The next month, Dr William L Rich III, and Dr Barbary Levy, the Chair and Chair-Elect of the RUC, wrote me a letter to "point out several blatant inaccuracies within your blog entry that severely misrepresent the nature and work of the AMA / Specialty Society RVS Update Committee (RUC)." They then asked me to "retract or correct the inaccurate statements within the aforementioned blog immediately." However, the letter did not specify the supposedly inaccurate statements within the blog post. So, my email response noted that "the letter contains no detail about the alleged 'inaccurate statements.' If you define them, we will certainly consider your views." I never got a reply to this message, therefore thinking the matter to be closed, and I saw at that time no reason to make the exchange public.

Apparently, the matter was not closed. A few days ago, two anonymous comments were appended to the post. They stated that my letter had appeared on the AMA web-site, here. So it is now public. The comments did not say, and I have so far not been able to find out when the letter was posted, and what its context is within the AMA web-site, including any indication that I had already replied to it in private.

Despite these irregularities, however, given that the AMA apparently has chosen to make the letter public, I believe I ought to respond publicly.

"Blatant Inaccuracies?"

Dr Rich and Dr Levy wrote:

We would like to take this opportunity to point out several blatant inaccuracies within your blog entry that severely misrepresent the nature and work of the AMA / Specialty Society RBRVS Update Committee (RUC). We request you retract or correct the inaccurate statements within the aforementioned blog immediately.

First, as I noted above, the letter never specified which of my statements the letter writers considered "blatant inaccuracies." If there are any specific statements of fact in the post above (or any other post I write) that can be shown to be inaccurate, I will correct or retract them. However, I do not believe the letter by Dr Rich and Dr Levy demonstrated any particular statements of mine to be blatantly inaccurate.

The Obscurity of the RUC Membership

The letter stated:

The RUC does not operate in the shadows.

One of my major criticisms of the RUC was that it is opaque. Before I wrote my first post on the RUC, I tried to determine its membership by searching the AMA web-site, easily available AMA publications, and the web. I could find lists of past members, but no current list. In addition, I asked RUC staff by email whether they could provide me the list, or an easy way to access it. They would or could not do so, and the highest ranking staffer I contacted wrote, "we do not give out the RUC members' contact information. We attempt to shield the RUC from lobbying by industry or others." Only after these inquiries did I dub the RUC membership "secret."

Dr Rich and Dr Levy suggested that it is not quite secret. It stated that "a list of the individual members of the RUC is published in the AMA publication, Medicare RBRVS 2009: The Physicians Guide." This publication is available from the AMA here for a mere $71.95. However, the book is not on the web, or in my local or university library, and I have no other way to easily access it.

Additionally, although the letter stated, "any individual may solicit AMA staff directly or a specialty society to learn the names of the members of the RUC," the letter was not accompanied by any communication from AMA staff containing this information.

Thus, to date, I still do not know who the members of the RUC are. If the letter authors had wanted to show that the membership of the RUC was not meant to be obscure, they could easily have sent me the list with their letter, appended a copy of the pages of the book which contained the list, or asked their staff to provide this information. They chose not to do so. So, while the RUC membership may not be exactly secret, it remains obscure, only barely public, and relatively inaccessible.

The Secrecy of RUC Proceedings

Furthermore, to support its contention that "the RUC does not operate in the shadows," the letter stated that

any individual may attend a RUC meeting upon: (1) the invitation of and notification by a relevant specialty society; (2) an express invitation by the chair of the RUC; or (3) the approval of a written request to attend; and a review of conflicts and potential conflicts of interest.

This does not mean that RUC meetings are open, or that their proceedings are public. Instead, as Goodson(2) noted, RUC "meetings are closed to outside observers except by invitation of the chair." Furthermore, he stated, "proceedings are proprietary and therefore not publicly available for review."

The letter also personally invited me to attend "the next meeting of the RUC, which will take place April 23-26, 2009 in Chicago." In retrospect, this invitation did not appear serious, since it was never repeated or expanded after my email reply to the March letter.

Nor did the invitation include any assurance that I could make anything about this meeting public. I had learned from a previous RUC attendee who will remain anonymous that attendees are obligated to sign non-disclosure agreements. Signing such an agreement might jeopardize my further ability to write anything of substance about the RUC. Furthermore, making all meeting attendees sign non-disclosure agreements effectively makes the meeting secret.

The RUC and Primary Care

Dr Rich and Dr Levy asserted that:

Your publication irrationally and unreasonably paints the RUC as the perpetrator of all physician payment policies that have negatively affected primary care.

Furthermore, they argued that the RUC has been good for primary care and cognitive practice:

The RUC has made several recommendations that positively benefit cognitive and non-procedural physician specialties.

My opinions about the RUC's influence on payments to physicians, and the decline of primary care and generalist and cognitive practice are hardly original. My previous posts were clearly based on evidence and discussion from references 1-4. Let me summarize these arguments, using direct quotes from these references, which perusal of the original articles would reveal are not taken out of context.

Primary and generalist practice is threatened by the current payment system.

From Bodenheimer et al(1):

Incomes of primary care physicians are well below those of many specialists, and the primary care–specialty income gap is widening.

... the lower income of primary care physicians is a major factor leading U.S. medical students to reject primary care careers.

Primary care practice is not viable without a substantial increase in the resources available to primary care physicians.

From Goodson(2):

Medicine's generalist base is disappearing as a consequence of the reimbursement system crafted to save it—the resource-based relative value scale.

Current reimbursement incentives substantially favor procedures and technical interventions and offer financial advantages for expensive care, thereby encouraging specialty services.

The continued and sustained incentives for medical graduates to choose higher-paying specialty careers and for those physicians in specialty careers to increase income through highly compensated professional activities have been associated with the dwindling of the generalist workforce. The lack of incentives for medical graduates to choose generalist careers in internal medicine, family medicine, and pediatrics has had a profound effect on the workforce mix and, ultimately, US health care expenditures.

The RUC has been the major influence on the physician payment system leading to these problems.

From Bodenheimer et al(1):

In summary, the RUC process favors increases in procedural and imaging reimbursement for 3 reasons: specialty society influence in proposing RVU increases, the specialist-heavy RUC membership, and the desire of RUC specialists to avoid increases in evaluation and management RVUs. With their ability to create new codes and influence RVU updates, many procedural specialists can influence fees in a way that observers find to substantially overvalue procedural and imaging services. Moreover, high fees may encourage physicians to increase the volume of profitable services, leading to even higher income gains and greater spending growth.

From Goodson(2):

The RUC has powerfully influenced CMS decision making and, as a result, is a powerful force in the US medical economy. Furthermore, by creating and maintaining incentives for more and more specialty care and by failing to accurately and continuously assess the practice expense RVUs, the decisions of CMS have fueled health care inflation. Doing so has affected the competitiveness of US corporations in the global market by contributing to years of double-digit health care inflation that have consistently increased the costs of manufacturing and business in the United States over the last decades.

The current mechanism fails to provide sufficient checks and balances and is skewed and dysfunctional.

The resource-based relative value scale system originally developed to achieve full value for cognitive services currently threatens the sustainability of the generalist base. As a result, a large portion of the population will lose access to the continuous and personalized care provided by generalist physicians whose repertoire of clinical skills and interventions coupled with access to specialty and diagnostic services are essential for ensuring efficient and effective health care delivery.

Dr Rich and Dr Levy are entitled to their opinions, but I would argue that there is considerable evidence and opinion suggesting that the current dysfunctional physician payment system is a major cause of the decline of primary care and cognitive practice, and simultaneous rise in health care costs and decline in health care access in the US. Furthermore, there is also considerable evidence and opinion suggesting that the RUC has singular responsbility for the dysfunctionality of the payment system and how it is skewed in favor of procedures as opposed to cognitive services and primary care.

Summarizing: the Opacity of the RUC, and its Negative Effects on Primary Care and Cognitive Services

So, I stand by my statement that the RUC process is opaque. Instead of saying "the identities of RUC members are secret, as are the proceedings of the group," I would be willing to now say, "the identities of the RUC members are obscure and difficult to ascertain, and the proceedings of the group are secret." That is not much of an improvement.

If the RUC leadership wants to make its membership transparent, all it needs to do is post it on the web. If it wishes to make its proceedings transparent, all it needs to do is publish them as well. If it makes such changes, I would happily and publicly applaud them.

If the RUC leadership wants to show that their members are not influenced by individual conflicts of interest, transparency about the committee's membership would inspire more trust than making the information as obscure as possible.

Furthermore, there may be more reason to be concerned about the effects of institutional rather than individual conflicts of interest on the RUC. Most RUC members appear to represent specialty societies. Rothman et al claimed that industry funding of professional medical societies is "pervasive."(5) If the RUC leadership wants to show that their committee as a whole is not affected by institutional conflicts of interest of its specialty societies, it ought at least to disclose the relationships of those societies and their leaders with companies that stand to profit from increasing utilization of the specific services whose use is influenced by the incentives which the RUC largely determines.

Finally, if there is a "wedge between cognitive and procedural specialties" it was driven a long time ago, particularly by a payment system that progressively favored the latter over the former, and by a bureaucratic burden that fell disproportionately on the former. But blaming the messenger is a time-honored, if not necessarily honorable tactic.

References

1. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. Link here.
2. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310. Link here.
3. Ginsburg PB, Berenson RA. Revising Medicare's physician fee schedule - much activity, little change. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1201-1203.
4. Newhouse JP. Medicare spending on physicians - no easy fix in sight. N Engl J Med 2007; 356: 1883-1884.
5. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry: a proposal for controlling conflict of interest. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367-1372. Link here.

11:35 AM