Those Big Doors Keep Revolving

A few months ago, we discussed the revolving door that seems to connect US government leadership positions and leadership positions of commercial health care firms. There are other such revolving doors, like two recently discovered just north of here.

State Government to For-Profit Hospitals

As reported by the Boston Herald:

David Morales, a longtime trusted adviser to [Massachusetts] Gov. Deval Patrick, became the latest official to leave the administration as he stepped down from a top health-care post for a private sector gig.

Morales resigned abruptly yesterday to take a position with Steward Health Care System.

Furthermore,

Morales worked as a top adviser during the governor’s first term before taking a $128,000-a-year post in 2009 as commissioner of the Division of Health Care Finance and Policy. His resignation was effective yesterday.

Note that we have previously discussed the Steward Health Care System, the new name given to the Caritas Christi system after it was bought out by private equity firm Cerberus Capital Management. Steward's aggressive plan to stamp out "leakage" raised concerns that the new movement to make practicing physicians employees could push them to do what is best for the company's bottom line rather than for patients.

We previously suggested that deals that turn previously non-profit health systems and physicians' practices into for-profit corporations deserve considerable scrutiny. After Caritas became Steward, state government officials promised close oversight. Now Steward has acquired a new executive who has friends in state government.

Non-Profit Health Insurance/ Managed Care by Way of a Political Campaign to Health Care Venture Capital

This story also came from the Boston Herald:

Four months after his failed Massachusetts gubernatorial bid, Charlie Baker has landed a private-sector job at a Cambridge venture capital firm.

The former Harvard Pilgrim Health Care CEO is now an 'executive in residence' for General Catalyst Partners. He’ll focus on working with small and midsize health-care services companies for the VC firm, which has $1.7 billion under management across five funds.

In addition,

Health-related companies already in General Catalyst’s portfolio include iWalk, a Cambridge developer of orthotic and prosthetic devices, and North Carolina-based TearScience, which specializes in diagnostic and treatment devices for evaporative dry eye in addition to several still in stealth mode.

Note that managed care was originally touted as a way to control health care costs, and that the commercial health care insurance companies/ managed care organizations claim to be doing all they can to control costs. Such a focus on cost control would imply that they ought to be able to vigorously negotiate at arms' length with health care providers and drug and device companies.  Now some device companies have acquired a new venture capital overseer who has friends in insurance and managed care.

Summary

Not only are there revolving doors connecting the national government and large commercial health firms, but also connecting state government and regional hospital systems, and non-profit health care insurers/ managed care organizations and device companies.

This is just some more evidence that people in the leadership of large health care organizations have more in common with each other, even if their organizations are supposed to be competing or negotiating at arms length, than they have with patients, clients, customers and the public at large. 

The various revolving doors appear not to align the interests of leaders of health care organizations with their organizations' stated missions, or with promoting the health of patients.  To truly reform health care, we need to expose these doors to more sunlight, and then think about retarding their spin or even locking them in place.

Big Door Keeps On Turning - Bi-Directional Interchanges Among Government and Corporate Health Care Leadership

Recently we noted some complex examples of the health care "revolving door," cases of health care corporate leaders who came from government heading back into government.  The first was reported by Politico:

California Rep. Mary Bono Mack has hired PhRMA’s former chief spokesman as a senior adviser, adding another Republican lawmaker to the list of those who have recruited staff members with K Street ties.

Ken Johnson will serve as a senior policy and communications adviser to Bono Mack, chairwoman of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. Johnson has deep ties to the committee, having worked for former Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin when he headed the Energy and Commerce Committee.

When PhRMA hired Tauzin months after the Louisiana congressman helped pass the industry-supported Medicare drug benefit, Johnson followed. So it was not surprising that Johnson did not stay on with PhRMA last year after Tauzin stepped down.

In 2009, Tauzin made more than $4.5 million and Johnson pulled in more than $500,000, according to tax records.

Note that Mr Johnson went from an influential government position to a position representing the pharmaceutical industry, and then back to government
In the same vein and in the same article was:

House Speaker John Boehner hired the medical device industry’s chief lobbyist as his policy director.

Meanwhile, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune noted:

Minnesota health executive Lois Quam has signed to lead the multibillion dollar Global Health Initiative at the U.S. State Department.

A State Department spokesman confirmed Wednesday that Quam will be executive director of the initiative.

In 2009, President Barack Obama committed $63 billion over six years to the program aimed at helping developing nations fight disease, improve nutrition and provide more aid for prenatal and postnatal care.

Quam, of St. Paul, is a former UnitedHealth Group executive who co-founded a health consulting firm last year. She is married to Matt Entenza, a former state lawmaker who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010.

The appointment reunites Quam with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Quam was a senior adviser to Clinton's health care task force in the 1990s.

Note that Ms Quam went from government leadership (in the Clinton administration's abortive attempt at health care reform via an elaborate version of managed care), to corporate leadership (in one of the largest commercial managed care organizations, some of whose exploits are discussed here), then back to government (now leading global health.  As an aside, UnitedHealth has been developing its global presence for years, e.g., see this post about its forays into the UK.)

We last discussed the "revolving door," that is, the easy interchange among leadership in government and health care corporations here.  The brief news items above shows how the door spins continuously, resulting not only in former government leaders ending up in influential, and well-recompensed positions in the health care industry, but also in industry leaders ending up in influential government positions.  In two cases above, people who started out in influential government positions transitioned to health care corporate positions, and then back to government. 

As we noted earlier, the continually revolving door is a sign of the increasingly corporatist nature of the US.  Government and the biggest corporations now seem to see themselves as natural allies, partially because their leadership increasingly forms a cozy combined group.  The big problem, of course, is such an alliance leaves out everybody else, from small business, to individual professionals, to the people at large. 

As I noted earlier, if we want health care to put the needs of individual patients first, we ought to consider ways to make both government and corporate health care leaders more responsive to the people rather than to their combined self-interest. 

New CMS Chief Donald Berwick: a Trojan Horse for Quackery?

On July 7, President Obama appointed Dr. Donald Berwick as Administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS). Dr. Berwick, a pediatrician, is well known as the CEO of the non-profit Institute for Healthcare Improvement (IHI), which "exists to close the enormous gap between the health care we have and the health care we should have — a gap so large in the US that the Institute of Medicine (IOM) in 2001 called it a 'quality chasm'.” Dr. Berwick was one of the authors of that IOM report. His IHI has been a major player in the patient safety movement, most notably with its "100,000 Lives Campaign" and, more recently, its "5 Million Lives Campaign."

Berwick's CMS gig is a "recess appointment": it was made during the Senate's July 4th recess period, without a formal confirmation hearing---although such a hearing must take place before the end of this Senate term, if he is to remain in the position. A recent story suggested that Obama made the recess appointment in order to avoid a reprise of "last year's divisive health care debate." The president had originally nominated Berwick for the position in April, and Republicans have opposed "Berwick's views on rationing of care," claiming that he "would deny needed care based on cost."

A "Patient-Centered Extremist"

If there is a problem with the appointment, it is likely to be roughly the opposite of what Republicans might suppose: Dr. Berwick is a self-described "Patient-Centered Extremist." He favors letting patients have the last word in decisions about their care even if that means, for example, choosing to have unnecessary and expensive hi-tech studies. In an article for Health Affairs published about a year ago, he explicitly argued against the "professionally dominant view of quality of health care":

I think it wrong for the profession of medicine—or any other health care profession, for that matter—to “reserve to itself the authority to judge the quality of its work.” I eschew compromise words like “partnership.” For better or worse, I have come to believe that we—patients, families, clinicians, and the health care system as a whole—would all be far better off if we professionals recalibrated our work such that we behaved with patients and families not as hosts in the care system, but as guests in their lives. I suggest that we should without equivocation make patient-centeredness a primary quality dimension all its own, even when it does not contribute to the technical safety and effectiveness of care.

A new definition. My proposed definition of “patient-centered care” is this: The experience (to the extent the informed, individual patient desires it) of transparency, individualization, recognition, respect, dignity, and choice in all matters, without exception, related to one’s person, circumstances, and relationships in health care.

Does this mean that Dr. Berwick would also eschew professional, i.e., expert, judgment in favor of patients' wishes? In a word, yes:

Evidence-based medicine sometimes must take a back seat. First, leaving choice ultimately up to the patient and family means that evidence-based medicine may sometimes take a back seat. One e-mail correspondent asked me, “Should patient ‘wants’ override professional judgment about whether an MRI is needed?” My answer is, basically, “Yes.” On the whole, I prefer that we take the risk of overuse along with the burden of giving real meaning to the phrase “a fully informed patient.”

Dr. Berwick is not so naive as this opinion might suggest. He envisions a "mature dialogue" in such a case, and argues that "if, over time, a pattern emerges of scientifically unwise or unsubstantiated choices...then we should seek to improve our messages..." He also admits that there might be an occasional patient whose demands are so unreasonable that "it is time to say, 'No'." That exception, he argues, should not dictate the rule.

There are situations in which most civilized people would agree with Dr. Berwick's view of 'patient-centeredness'. In both the Health Affairs article and in his recent address to the 2010 graduating class of the Yale School of Medicine, he offered real examples of petty, arbitrary hospital rules causing unnecessary sorrow for patients and their loved ones. It is in such contexts that he makes a convincing case that health professionals ought to behave "as guests in their lives." In an interview for the New York Times, he argued:

We don’t have a standard of services or processes that are comfortable for patients. We have built a technocratic castle, and when people come into it, they are intimidated.

Nothing to disagree with there. To create that standard, moreover, would not undermine settled medical practice ethics---it would celebrate them, even as it rightly embarrasses the profession for having taken so long to do so.


Enter the Woo

Eschewing the scientific basis for modern medical practice, however, is another matter. In February of 2009, Dr. Berwick gave a 'keynote' address at the IOM and Bravewell Collaborative-sponsored Summit on Integrative Medicine and the Health of the Public. He shared the podium with Mehmet Oz, Dean Ornish, Senator Tom Harkin, and other advocates of pseudoscientific health claims. I wrote about the conference at the time, mainly to call attention to its misleading use of the term "integrative medicine": literature emanating from the Summit characterized it as "preventive" and "patient-centered," whereas the only characteristic that distinguishes it from modern medicine is an inclusion of various forms of pseudomedicine.


I noticed that Dr. Berwick was on the speaker roster, which I found disappointing: I imagined that he had either gone over to the Dark Side or, perhaps, was sufficiently naive about the topic to have been duped; or, more likely, that he had cynically accepted the offer to further his ambitions. I didn't bother to listen to his speech until the CMS appointment was announced a few days ago.

It is troubling, to say the least. Dr. Berwick did not argue, as he had in the NYT piece, that "If we doctors feel a person is going to make unwise choices, we have to take on the responsibility of being teachers, educators and informers." Rather, he praised his fellow speakers, most of whom were spouting nonsense, for their "reach" and "eloquence." He praised the IOM for its "glorious record...in pursuit of better designs in health care...traditional, allopathic curative care and now migrating into this distinguished and important new arena." He mentioned homeopathy and acupuncture, not to wonder why they should be promoted as effective, but merely to warn that they will fail---presumably in some economic sense---if they try to compete with each other for reimbursement.

Such language, and Dr. Berwick's very presence at the Summit, were a far cry from advocating "patient-centeredness." What they amounted to was a generous endorsement of pseudoscientific practices and of the socio-political movement that promotes them. Even granting some naivete on his part (he called himself "an amateur at this topic"), he must have known this. Such an endorsement, unlike tearing down the "technocratic castle," has ethical implications at least as profound as those that Dr. Berwick tacitly or explicitly relies upon to support his arguments for patient-centeredness.

"Physicians have no Immunity to Moral or Ethical Constraints"

The relevant medical ethics treatises (reviewed here) are in substantial agreement that it is unethical for physicians to prescribe scientifically implausible methods or to refer patients to other practitioners for the same purpose. They are also in agreement that it is unethical to prescribe a placebo to a patient while claiming that the treatment has specific biologic activity---a point that has been vigorously argued in the UK this year, with regard to homeopathy. These ethical tenets are not mere odes to nerdy, sciency thinking; they are matters of honesty and integrity---fundamental bases for ethical interactions between physicians and patients.

In 1983, philosophers Clark Glymour and Douglas Stalker published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine titled “Engineers, cranks, physicians, magicians.” They framed modern medicine as follows, comparing it to what was then called "holistic medicine" (the article is quoted extensively here):

Medicine in industrialized nations is scientific medicine. The claim tacitly made by American or European physicians, and tacitly relied on by their patients, is that their palliatives and procedures have been shown by science to be effective. Although the physician’s medical practice is not itself science, it is based on science and on training that is supposed to teach physicians to apply scientific knowledge to people in a rational way.

The practice of medicine in the United States and in other industrialized nations is a form of consultant engineering...

That statement is just as accurate now---even more so, in this era of Evidence-Based Medicine---as it was nearly 30 years ago, even if some might find the likening of medicine to engineering displeasing. Nor is it at odds with almost any definition of "patient-centeredness," other than one that presumes that the patient's desires trump the physician's ethics:

A physician engineer can act as consoler; nothing in either logic or social psychology forbids it. But certain combinations are impossible or extraordinarily unlikely. A physician engineer cannot honestly claim powers of magic or occult knowledge. The principles governing scientific reasoning and belief are negative as well as positive, and they imply that occult doctrines are not worthy of belief. Moreover, physician engineers have no immunity to moral or ethical constraints. On the contrary, they are by training and by culture enmeshed in a tradition of rational thought about
the obligations and responsibilities of their profession.

Dr. Berwick---if he really believes what his presence and words at the "Integrative Medicine" Summit imply---is playing with ethical fire. (If, as I hope, he doesn't really believe those things, he's playing with ethics of another kind). Will we begin to see pseudomedicine "integrated" into Medicare and Medicaid? That is certainly the expectation of those who observed Dr. Berwick's performance at the Summit, and who appear intent to hold him to his word.

KA

Two other blogs that have addressed this issue are:

Dr. RW: Not only evidence based medicine but science based medicine may take a back seat in Donald Berwick's vision for patient centered care

Dr. David Gorski: Dr. Donald Berwick and “patient-centered” medicine: Letting the woo into the new health care law?

A Source of the Anechoic Effect Discovered: the Public Relations Person in the Room

A series of posts in journalism blogs last month revealed a mechanism used by health care organizational leaders to shape discussion of the issues that affect their interests, but one that is probably unfamiliar to most health care professionals and the public at large.  Let me provide the key quotes in chronological order.

First, from the Covering Health blog of the Association for Health Care Journalism (10 June, 2010):

Have you recently tried to get information from the federal government or arrange an interview with a federal official?

AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee is calling on journalists to report their experiences, as part of a continuing effort to pry open the doors of the federal government. We’re looking for recent anecdotes about journalists’ experiences with public information officers, especially at the Department of Health and Human Services and any of the agencies that are part of it (e.g., CDC, FDA, CMS etc.).

Please write to Felice J. Freyer, Right-to-Know Committee chair, at felice.freyer@cox.net, about problems you have encountered, including mandates to clear interviews with the press office, slow responses, refused interviews, burdensome requirements (such as written questions and answers only), extreme time limitations on interviews, PIOs listening in on your conversations, or anything else that made it hard for you to get the information and quotes that you needed in time.

The implication here, of course, is that the committee was concerned that journalists attempting to interview employees and officials of US government health agencies may encounter a variety of problems, including public information officers "listening in on your conversation."

Of course, just because the committee was concerned about a possible problem does not mean the problem exists, or is if it exists, is important.

However, a week later this post appeared in the Covering Health blog (17 June, 2010):

MedPage Today, an online breaking-news service for physicians, today instituted a rule requiring reporters to inform readers whenever a press officer has listened in on an interview.

'If a source’s comments are monitored by a press officer, then the person may not have been speaking freely,' said Peggy Peck, vice president and executive editor. 'That’s information readers should have.'

Peck instructed her staff to use phrases like 'said in a telephone interview that was monitored by a public information officer' whenever using quotes from such an interview.

Peck emphasized that a reporter’s goal should be to avoid having a press officer listening to calls or attending face-to-face interviews. 'But if that is the only way a researcher will talk, we need to let our readers know that,' said Peck’s memo to eight reporters.

Peck is a member of AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee, and the rule sprang from the committee’s work to end interference by public information officers in newsgathering, especially in the federal government.

'I applaud MedPage Today for taking this step and encourage reporters and editors everywhere to follow suit,' said Felice J. Freyer, chair of the Right-to-Know Committee and a member of AHCJ’s Board of Directors.

'Reporters have come to accept the presence of public relations people at interviews, but it’s really not acceptable. We all know that such eavesdropping hinders the free flow of information – and we need to let our readers know that this is happening.'

Now this is much more clear. Apparently some, maybe most of the information obtained by journalists from interviews of officials and employees of government health care agencies was monitored by public relations people, presumably to keep the interviewees "on message," and remind them not to say anything that did not fit the party line.  Furthermore, such monitoring was not often disclosed by the reports when they wrote about the interview. 

In addition, Paul Raeburn posted this on the Knight Science Journalism Tracker blog:

I’ve long been troubled by the insistence of some 'public' information officers (they are paid to work for their institutions, not the public, although the interests of the two can sometimes coincide) to listen in or sit in on interviews. Even if they don’t say a word, their presence inevitably changes the interview.

Imagine telling colleagues about the last story you wrote, and what you had to do to get it. Now imagine the same conversation with your colleagues while your editor–on whom your livelihood depends–listens in. I don’t imagine myself dissembling in either set of circumstances, but I can certainly imagine myself telling the story a little differently in each case.

The point is not that information officers are always trying to limit or shape the interview, although that clearly happens. The point is not to challenge the integrity of information officers, although, like reporters, some are better at what they do than are others. The point is that the presence of an institutional representative changes the interview. And we owe it to out readers to conduct interviews without that presence whenever possible.

Mr Raeburn seemed to make an effort to be exquisitely polite, but still managed to affirm that the public relations person in the room is a real and important phenomenon in reporting about health care.
This reinforces the notion that monitoring of interviews with journalists by public relations people is common practice, but one heretofore not discussed publicly.  It seems obvious that the point of this practice was to keep the interviewee on message, and to restrain any discussion that might not fit with the public relations persons' bosses interests.

If we did not know about the practice of keeping a public relations person in the room for interviews with people working for the government, it seems likely that we also did not know about similar practices affecting interviews with people in other kinds of health care organizations, e.g., for-profit corporations, and not-for-profit organizations.

We have frequently discussed the "anechoic effect," how important cases, stories, and data about the negative effects of concentration and abuse of power in health care, and about ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt leadership of health care organizations, and the unaccountable, unrepresentative, opaque, and often unethical governance that enables it are often just not discussed, and when discussed, produce few echoes.  Now we see another mechanism that maintains this effect.  Large health care organizations deploy substantial money and personnel to market their products and massage their messages.  These people apparently use a variety of tactics to control the flow of information to journalists.  While journalists seem to be provide much more information about the problems in health care we discuss on Health Care Renewal than professional and academic publications and meetings, we now see one more mechanism that has impeded them from doing so openly and fully.

In my humble opinion, disclosing that interviews were monitored by public relations personnel is one small, but important step in beginning free enquiry into what has gone wrong with health care.  Bravo to the people who have stood up for it. 

Aetna Government Contract Discredited

Last week, the Sacramento Business Journal reported on irregularities in how health insurance/ managed care giant Aetna obtained a contract with the US military health plan Tricare:

Aetna Inc. hired a former high-level Tricare employee with access to proprietary information about Health Net Inc.’s performance that could have given Aetna a competitive edge in its bid for a lucrative military health care contract, the U.S. Government Accountability Office has concluded.

The GAO details six flaws in the procurement process in new documents posted online Tuesday and recommends that Aetna should be excluded from the competition, leaving Health Net 'as the only viable awardee.'

The agency recommends Tricare officials perform a thorough review of what sensitive information the former Tricare employee had access to and decide what action to take to address the problem. The GAO also recommends that Health Net be reimbursed the cost of filing the protest, including attorneys fees.

The Business Journal described the details of the irregularities:

The GAO decision pointed to six flaws in the in the bid evaluation process, including:

* The agency credited Aetna with past performance of its parent and corporate affiliates but did not record which entities were involved or establish the roles they would play in the contract
* The evaluation gave Aetna the highest past performance rating without considering that its past performance was small compared with the size of the Tricare contract
* The price evaluation did not consider whether Aetna’s proposed staffing reflected a lack of understanding of the technical requirements of the contract — or showed a willingness to take a risk on the business
* The agency failed to consider the risk involved with Aetna’s proposed plan to hire large percentages of Health Net’s work force at lower pay rates
* The agency did not consider Health Net’s network provider discounts when assessing its pricing information for the program and
* The agency failed to protest Aetna’s hiring a former Tricare official with inside knowledge of Health Net’s performance on the previous contract.

'The contracting officer never considered the matter — because the awardee did not bring it to his attention— and the record shows that the individual had access to non-public proprietary information,' the decision states.

The Montgomery Advertiser added:

Though it doesn’t allege that procurement integrity law was broken, the GAO said contracting agencies like TMA have an obligation 'to avoid even the appearance of impropriety' in government procurement. This time it failed.

It's been only about nine months since we discussed legal or regulatory issues for Aetna.  In February, 2009 we discussed its settlement of accusations it underpaid claims in part through its use of a now discredited database marketed by Ingenix, a subsidiary of its supposed competitor, UnitedHealth Group.

Aetna boasts that it is

Helping to manage health care, one of the most important things in life

We believe we can help create a better health care system. This belief drives our daily decisions as one of the nation's leading health care benefits companies. We work hard to provide our members with information and resources to help them make informed decisions about their health.

Furthemore, it boasts of its mission

We help people achieve health and financial security by providing easy access to cost-effective, high-quality health care. And we continue to be a leader in building a stronger, more effective health care system by working with doctors, hospitals, employers, patients, public officials and others.

It seems one way in which Aetna works with public officials is to hire those that might have some inside knowledge of specific government contracting processes, and then take advantage of that to boost their chances of obtaining lucrative contracts, if I am reading the summary of the GAO findings correctly. 

Maybe most people have grown cynical about health care organizations', especially commercial health care insurance companies' mission statements, and may dismiss them as marketing fluff, if not complete balderdash.  However, to improve health care quality while controlling costs, facilitating access, and restoring professionalism, would be health care reformers need to make health care organizational leaders live up to their noble-sounding proclamations of corporate social responsibility.