Why Did the Global Fund Fire its Inspector General?

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria continues to struggle with the issue of health care corruption, an issue we noted here and here in 2011. 

Now as a news story in Nature put it,

It has been a rough couple of years for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, the world’s largest funder of international health programmes. Since its creation in 2002, the organization, based in Geneva, Switzerland, has channelled US$24.7 billion to delivering disease-control measures such as drugs, diagnostics and bed nets, saving millions of lives. But the global financial crisis has hit the fund hard, and its troubles mounted in 2011 when allegations of corruption among its grant recipients tarnished its reputation and alarmed donors.

Last week, the Global Fund tried to move on, announcing a new leader and unveiling major changes to its funding programme.

The Nature news story suggested that the troubles of the Fund all seemed so unfair.  After all,

the fraud allegations, ... [were] largely rehashed audits already made public by the fund itself. A retrospective audit published in July this year suggests that the allegations may have been overblown. It found that, in a sample of grants worth $3.8 billion that were awarded from 2005 to 2012 in 27 countries, just 0.5% of grant funding was lost to outright fraud. Experts say that figure is not exceptional for funding programmes in poor nations that often struggle with corruption.

Yet the Nature story suggested that the Fund's intrepid new later "could signal a fresh start, and has been broadly welcomed," leaving the impression that all things may turn out well.

Firing the Inspector General

However, the Nature story left out one nagging detail.  At the same time the Fund board announced the appointment of Dr Mark Dybul as its new director, it also announced that it had fired the Fund's Inspector General.  A report in the Financial Times only included,

It also dismissed John Parsons, its inspector general. Some directors believed Mr Parsons had been too outspoken in conducting public audits that sparked criticism of relatively small amounts of mismanagement and corruption.

The impression left was that Mr Parson was mainly guilty of rocking the boat.

The New York Times version, which started by recounting the hiring of Dr Dybul, also made it sound that Mr Parsons was generating too much bad publicity,

The fund also dismissed its inspector general, John Parsons, on Thursday, citing unsatisfactory work.


Mr. Parsons and Dr. Kazatchkine had privately clashed. Mr. Parsons’s teams aggressively pursued theft and fraud, and found it in Mali, Mauritania and elsewhere. But the total amount stolen — $10 million to $20 million — was relatively small, and aides to Dr. Kazatchkine said the fund cut off those countries and sought to retrieve the money. The aides claimed that Mr. Parsons, who reported only to the board, went to news outlets and left the impression that the fund was covering up rampant theft.

The fuss scared off some donor countries....

The AP version also cited the Board's accusation that Mr Parson's performance was "unsatisfactory," but included,

The inspector general's office is supposed to function independently. It was created in 2005 at the urging of the fund's biggest donor, the United States, which has contributed $7.3 billion to date.


The board held a contentious closed-door session with Parsons on Wednesday then deliberated into the night after he stormed out.

The board chairman, Simon Bland, and the head of its audit committee, Graham Joscelyne, each said they were unconcerned whether U.S. lawmakers might perceive the firing as an infringement on the office. Joscelyne would not elaborate on what Parsons did wrong but cited several reviews of him that were not disclosed.

In its latest 6-month progress report, Parsons' office said it had a growing caseload of 142 active investigations, up more than 70 percent from just two years ago.

Summary and Comment

We posted about the allegations of corruption at the Global Fund here and here in 2011.  At that time the scope of the problem was  unclear.  Now, at least according to the latest news report, it still is not clear.  On one hand, maybe no more than 0.5% of the budget was compromised.  On the other hand, would that caseload of 142 active investigations reveal more? 

Even less clear is the reason that Investigator General Parsons was fired.  The Board did not clarify what about his performance was unsatisfactory.  The AP report implies that doing too little was not the issue.  Most disturbing is lack of any mention of a possible replacement.

As we mentioned previously, the authoritative 2006 Global Corruption Report from Transparency International stated that corruption is a major global health problem.  Furthermore, Transparency International's IACC (International Anti-Corruption Conference) in Brasilia just wrapped up.  It's final declaration included,

We call on leaders everywhere to embrace not only transparency in public life but a culture of transparency leading to a participatory society in which leaders are accountable.


We call on the anti-corruption movement to support and protect the activists, whistleblowers and journalists who speak out against corruption, often at great risk.

It is up to all of us in government, business and society to embrace transparency so that it ensures full participation of all people, bringing us together to send a clear message: We are watching those who act with impunity and we will not let them get away with it.

Yet, corruption as a global health problem is still mostly ignored. In particular, global health aid programs almost never include pro-active measures to address corruption. In this case, the Global Fund, the world's largest source of such aid, was initially pushed into defensively addressing corruption, but now seems not to be so transparent about the problem. In my humble opinion, unless more transparency soon becomes evident, donors may continue to find reasons not to support the fund.


So the leaders of the Global Fund might want to consider becoming more transparent, and making some assurances that they are not out to get whistleblowers, including their own internal watchdogs.  At this point a more pro-active approach might be too much to ask for. 

Majority of the Public Wants Politicians Who Will Root Out Corporate Corruption

Here is a story that makes me unusually optimistic, at least about the wisdom of the people at large. Reuters reported on a new poll,  

With less than two months to go before the U.S. presidential election, a new survey found 61 percent of Americans say a candidate's commitment to rooting out corporate wrongdoing will be key in deciding who gets their vote.

Along with keen interest in knowing each candidate's plans to fix the struggling economy, voters want government to do more to fight corporate misconduct - which they say helped cause the financial crisis.

'In these difficult economic times, Americans are mad as hell about corporate wrongdoing and are going to do something about it in the November elections and beyond,' said Jordan Thomas, a partner at law firm Labaton Sucharow, which commissioned the survey and which represents corporate whistleblowers.

A telephone poll of 1,015 people conducted from August 16-19 found that 64 percent of Americans said corporate misconduct helped bring about the current economic crisis.

And 81 percent of respondents said the government has not done enough to stop corporate wrongdoing.

Furthermore,

77 percent of respondents saying they believe politicians favor corporate interests over constituent interests.

Some 63 percent of Americans believe government should make more money available to regulators and law enforcement to eliminate corporate wrongdoing.

This is really amazing in its contrast to the usual received wisdom in all its cynicism.

We on Health Care Renewal have been railing about misbehavior and outright criminal behavior by major health care organizations and their leaders for a long time.  In 2008, the global financial collapse shocked us into awareness that the problems in health care actually parallel perhaps worse problems in finance.  Yet while numerous legal settlements documented the continuing epidemic of bad behavior in health care, the relatively small penalties they entailed, generally limited to corporate fines that could be viewed as costs of doing business, and to toothless corporate integrity agreements seemed to do little to deter future bad behavior.  Again, since 2008 there were parallels in the world of finance.   As Oscar winning producer of Inside Job Charles Ferguson complained, no one went to jail for financial misbehavior either.

In health care, the anechoic effect dampened public discussion of bad leadership, including criminally bad leadership as a major cause of health care dysfunction.  While we have been calling for more serious efforts to deter bad behavior at least since 2008 (look here), our position seemed very lonely.  It took until last week for arguably the most prestigious US medical journal to run an article suggesting that leaders of health care corporations that commit fraud ought to go to jail (look here).

Yet it may be that the general public has been paying attention to this issue even if policy makers and political leaders have not.  The brief Rueters article did not make it clear whether these poll results only apply to wrongdoing by financial corporations and their leaders, or to all corporations and their leaders. Even if it were the former, the results were certainly striking, suggesting a majority of Americans now identify corporate corruption, and its influence on politics as a major, maybe the major problem for this country. That might lead to some interesting election outcomes, especially since very few US politicians seem to have taken any sort of stand against corporate corruption, at least to my knowledge.

If there is so much public awareness of the problem of bad corporate leadership, corporate misdeeds, and corporate corruption of politics, I can only hope that it will translate into awareness of these problems as they affect health care. As I wrote in 2009, not long after Pfizer's mere $2.3 billion settlement,...   "Until the people responsible for the bad behavior experience negative consequences from that behavior, they will continue to perform, direct, and condone bad behavior. We will not achieve real health care reform in the US until we effectively deter unethical, self-serving behavior by leaders of health care organizations."  We can start realistically anticipating real health care reform once we get some politicians in office who are committed to "rooting out corporate wrongdoing." 

Pfizer's Pforeign Pfiasco

Quelle surprise.  Giant international pharmaceutical company Pfizer managed to go for nearly 10 months without announcing a major legal settlement.  However, this month, as reported by Bloomberg, it was time for Pfizer to settle again.  The basics were:

Pfizer Inc., the world’s biggest drugmaker, agreed to pay $60.2 million to settle foreign bribery cases it brought to U.S. authorities involving alleged payments paid by employees and agents of subsidiaries.

Pfizer entered into two agreements with the Securities and Exchange Commission and the New York-based drugmaker reached a deferred prosecution accord with the Department of Justice, according to filings today in federal court in Washington.

Bribery

This case is worth perusing because of how it documents what the US government called not merely deceptive, but corrupt practices used by Pfizer to sell drugs. The practices were widespread around the world:

The settlements announced today include Pfizer operations in eight countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Kazakhstan, Russia, Italy, China, the Czech Republic and Serbia. The Wyeth settlement, over its nutrition business, was for China, Indonesia, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

The practices involved, not to put too fine a point on it, bribing doctors. Furthermore, as part of the settlement Pfizer apparently admitted to some of the specific practices alleged by the government:

In Bulgaria, local representatives spent $28,000 to invite government doctors on 'incentive trips' to Greece, as a reward for the physicians who were the biggest prescribers of Pfizer’s products, Pfizer admitted according to the Justice Department filing. They also paid $17,000 to send doctors to medical conferences, again in exchange for commitments to prescribe Pfizer drugs.

In Croatia, the unit there had used a consulting agreement with a government doctor to help influence which drugs were allowed to be sold in the country, paying the physician in cash and travel expenses, Pfizer admitted.

Pfizer also admitted to what was called the 'hospital program,' in Russia, where doctors were given a 5 percent kick- back on certain drugs prescribed.

'Pfizer Russia used the Hospital Program to make cash payments to individual government healthcare professionals to corruptly reward past purchases and prescriptions of Pfizer products, and to corruptly induce future purchases and prescriptions,' the Justice Department said in the filing. Pfizer’s Russian unit also used intermediary companies to pay off doctors and government officials, the company admitted.

No Individual Penalties

Despite the shamefulness of these practices, as is now distressingly usual (look here), no individual seems to be obligated to suffer any penalty or negative consequences as a result of this settlement. While the US government alleged criminal behavior, beyond the fines imposed on the company, further prosecution will be deferred:

The Justice Department charged the Pfizer HCP Corp. unit with two criminal counts, conspiracy to violate the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and a violation of the FCPA’s anti-bribery provisions. Prosecutors agreed to defer prosecution and drop the charges after two years if Pfizer continues to cooperate and take remedial steps.

The article contained a curious statement seemingly asserting that the payments were somehow made independent of any actions by individuals at Pfizer:

The SEC said the payoffs were made 'without the knowledge or approval of officers or employees of Pfizer, but the inaccurate books and records of Pfizer subsidiaries were consolidated in the financial reports of Pfizer.'

So were the payments made by machines acting autonomously? or by ghosts? Maybe this was just a typo. However, note that the de rigeur statement by Pfizer's internal counsel was phrased so as to imply the actions somehow occurred outside of the organization:

'The actions which led to this resolution were disappointing, but the openness and speed with which Pfizer voluntarily disclosed and addressed them reflects our true culture and the real value we place on integrity and meeting commitments,' Amy Schulman, Pfizer’s general counsel, said in an e-mailed statement.

Summary

This latest settlement reaffirms the poor ethical culture now prevalent in major health care organizations throughout the world.  It also affirms how deeply unethical the culture has become at some of our largest and most prominent and influential health care organizations.  This settlement is only the latest evidence of ethical missteps by Pfizer's leadership.

In the beginning of the 21st century, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, Pfizer made three major settlements,

October 2002: Pfizer and subsidiaries Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis agreed to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the company fraudulently avoided paying fully rebates owed to the state and federal governments under the national Medicaid Rebate program for the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.

May 2004: Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to settle DOJ claims involving the off-label promotion of the epilepsy drug Neurontin by subsidiary Warner-Lambert. The promotions included flying doctors to lavish resorts and paying them hefty speakers' fees to tout the drug. The company said the activity took place years before it bought Warner-Lambert in 2000.

April 2007: Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million in fines to settle Department of Justice allegations that it improperly promoted the human growth hormone product Genotropin. The drugmaker's Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. subsidiary pleaded guilty to offering a kickback to a pharmacy-benefits manager to sell more of the drug.

Thereafter, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion settlement in 2009 of civil and criminal allegations and a Pfizer subsidiary entered a guilty plea to charges it violated federal law regarding its marketing of Bextra (see post here).  Pfizer was involved in two other major cases from then to early 2010, including one in which a jury found the company guilty of violating the RICO (racketeer-influenced corrupt organization) statute (see post here).  The company was listed as one of the pharmaceutical "big four" companies in terms of defrauding the government (see post here).  Pfizer's Pharmacia subsidiary settled allegations that it inflated drugs costs paid by New York in early 2011 (see post here).   In March, 2011, a settlement was announced in a long-running class action case which involved allegations that another Pfizer subsidiary had exposed many people to asbestos (see this story in Bloomberg).  In October, 2011, Pfizer settled allegations that it illegally marketed bladder control drug Detrol (see this post).

Thus, it appears on 10 separate occasions between 2002 and 2012, Pfizer settled allegations of, pleaded guilty to, or was convicted for actions that represented seriously unethical behavior.  Note that these included a conviction that found the company to be a racketeer-influenced corrupt organization.

Yet the company has not failed or been restructured, and none of its leaders has ever faced any negative consequences.  In fact, last year its CEO made over $18 million, up from over $6 million the year before (see this post).   

So obviously it is not just that one company's culture has become seriously corrupt.  We seem to live in such a corrupt nation, and maybe such a corrupt global society that such corrupt cultures thrive in our major corporations and organizations.  Despite stories like this in health care, just like in finance despite the global financial collapse, as Charles Ferguson said at the Oscar awards last year, " not a single ... executive has gone to jail, and that's wrong."




Unless we hold leaders of health care organizations accountable for bad behavior and corruption, expect bad behavior and corruption to get worse.  Until we have political leaders with the courage to stand up for honesty and the law, expect continued dishonesty and the law to continue to be trampled by the rich and powerful. 

Needed: A Webcast on Disruptive and Criminal Hospital Executives

I received this, unsolicited, via email:

Webcast:  Managing Disruptive Docs in a New Era of Hospital-Physician Relations

If you haven't already purchased this live Webcast, don't miss out! Left unchecked, disruptive physicians do more than just create a negative work environment; they endanger patient care and can lead to million-dollar lawsuits and bad publicity.  Our top experts will show you early intervention techniques and a range of effective resources that can help you reduce behavioral problems, retain star physicians, create a healthier workplace and save millions in potential lawsuits.

The agenda includes:

    Defining and identifying causes of disruptive behavior
    Economic consequences of disruptive behavior
    Overcoming disruptive physician problems

This program will be guided by your questions, so register now and ask away!

Your instructors:

Alan Rosenstein, MD, MBA
Medical Director of Physician Wellness Services

David Danielson, JD, CPA
Senior Vice President, Clinical Risk Management, Sanford Health

Scott Hurst
Former Director of Physician Alignment and Recruitment, CHRISTUS Spohn Health System

Managing Disruptive Docs in a New Era of Hospital-Physician Relations is designed to help CEOs, COOs, CMOs, group practice administrators, HR leaders, and physicians learn strategies and tactics to prevent, reduce, and limit the severity of disruptive physician incidents.

"Disruptive physician" is a vague term subject to enormous abuse, leading to sham peer review among other totalitarian tactics.   It reminds me of the old Soviet Union's politics.

You have been deemed a Disruptive Physician, Comrade.  You will be given a fair trial, then shot

In particular, this label can be used to suppress clinician concerns about care quality in an era of cost cutting and care manipulation through electronic workflow control systems (e.g., EHR's CPOE, CDS etc.)

The potential of being labelled as "disruptive" may be one reason why physician outcry against the very low quality of healthcare IT systems and dangers posed by them is relatively uncommon.

Patients - you - ultimately suffer when your physicians fear being your outspoken advocates.

As the many stories of healthcare executive malfeasance and profiteering at the expense of patients on this blog indicate, what is really needed for true healthcare reform are webcasts on:

MANAGING DISRUPTIVE AND CRIMINAL HOSPITAL EXECUTIVES IN AN ERA OF RAMPANT CORPORATIZATION OF MEDICINE.

-- SS

Addendum:  here are additional resources on the “Disruptive Physician”:

Abuse of the “Disruptive Physician” Clause, http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/huntoon.pdf

The Insulting Physician “Code of Conduct”, http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/huntoon.pdf

In the latter article, Lawrence Huntoon MD PhD, and expert on abuses of this label, notes:

... The typical physician code of conduct is initiated by a hospital administration. Its wording is curiously similar from one hospital to the next, suggesting that a template is being circulated.

... The physician code of conduct is intentionally insulting, demeaning, and degrading to physicians, and reduces physicians to being treated like juvenile delinquents at a reform school. It assumes that all physicians, like juvenile delinquents, need to be subjected to a long list of prohibited behaviors because, in the hospital administration’s view, physicians are predisposed to such things as theft, destruction of property, and physical and sexual assault. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of “disruptive” or “abusive” hospital administrators, or any similar code of conduct applicable to a hospital administration.

Dr. Huntoon then goes on to make a recommendation, a "hospital administration’s code of conduct":

... The term “disruptive hospital administrator” and/or “abusive hospital administrator” should be incorporated into the hospital administration’s code of conduct and should be defined as anyone in the hospital administration who, in the view of the medical staff (as determined by majority vote), interferes with the ability of physicians to provide safe and high-quality care to patients in the hospital.

His detailed criteria for “disruptive hospital administrator” in the latter article are worth reading in their entirety.

-- SS

Quantitating the Corruption of Finance Leadership (Who May Overlap with Health Care Leadership)

The bad leadership in health care that we frequently discuss now appears to exist in a context of an increasingly corrupt society.  In particular, we have discussed how the leadership of major health care organizations, such as teaching hospitals, and the universities within which medical schools operate, now frequently interlocks with the leadership of finance.  The ongoing global financial problems have been blamed on bad leadership in finance.

A Survey of Finance Leaders

Now, a survey by a law firm that supports corporate whistleblowers offers some quantitation of the corruption within finance.  The press release for the survey is here, and a summary of results is here.  The survey respondents were 250 US based, and 250 UK based "senior individuals within the financial services industry."

Key results were:

- 24% of those surveyed believed that the rules may have to be broken in order to be successful.

- 25% of UK respondents believed financial services professionals may need to engage in unethical or illegal activity to get ahead; US respondents were only slightly less inclined to engage in wrongdoing at 22%.

- 12% of total respondents believed that it was likely that staff in their company have engaged in unethical or illegal activity in order to be successful.

Perhaps exhibiting ego bias, the senior professionals thought that there competitors were even worse:

39% of total respondents believed it was likely that their competitors have engaged in illegal or unethical activity in order to be successful.

A substantial number of respondents admitted that they would be willing to engage in illegal activity were the circumstances favorable:

16% of total respondents were at least fairly likely to engage in insider trading if they could get away with it. Perhaps more troubling, only 55% of all respondents could say definitively that they would not engage in insider trading if they could make $10 million with no risk of getting arrested.

An important fraction thought that the worked within organizations that encouraged unethical and illegal behavior:

- 30% of all financial services professionals reported feeling pressure to compromise ethical standards or violate the law as a result of their compensation or bonus plan.

- In assessing other pressures that may lead to unethical or illegal conduct, 23% of all respondents also reported feeling other pressures to compromise ethical standards or violate the law.

Note that due to social desirability bias, the survey likely understates these problems.

Comment

Also note that at least so far, this survey is not much less anechoic than much of the evidence of corruption in health care that we have discussed. Although it has been briefly noted in the financial blogs and press, like Reuters, BusinessWeek, and also in the New York Daily News and Los Angeles Times, no other main-stream media has commented yet.

One post on a Forbes blog by Peter Cohan made the weary observation:

Business corruption follows a well-worn path. The boss tells you to bend the rules, and knowing that ignoring that request will cost you your job, you do what you’re told. At the end of the year you get a big bonus and promotion.

Then a disgruntled customer or employee leaks the shady activity to the press or a regulator and your company pays a fine and gets a few weeks of bad headlines. Time passes and the cycle restarts.

He concluded in part:

The conditions that make business corruption pay off have not changed despite numerous scandals — recent ones include Enron, WorldCom, Madoff, and Lehman Brothers – all of which reflect the same conditions that prompted me to write Value Leadership a decade ago: Let executives write their own report cards, base bonuses on those numbers and you will get corruption every time.

The solution is as clear to me as it is impossible to implement. First, all corporate financial reporting must be conducted by highly paid government auditors –rather than by auditing firms that are paid by the companies they audit. Second, performance-linked bonuses must be set aside in escrow accounts for a decade until it’s clear whether the true benefits of business strategies exceed their costs.

As long as there is no limit to how much money companies can put into politicians’ pockets, this fix will never be implemented. That’s because money puts big business in control of politicians who — if they were responding to the interests of the majority of Americans — would eliminate the conditions that make the benefits of business corruption exceed its costs.

But business corruption pays for those who finance Washington campaigns so the soil in which it flourishes remains fertile.

The same is likely to be true of unethical practices by and corruption of health care leadership. After all, health care leaders now mainly come from business management backgrounds, and so have been trained in the same way as financial professionals, and exposed to the same culture that they have experienced. As we have noted, the leadership of health care and finance often overlap. For example, see ours posts on the finance influence on the board of Dartmouth College; the role of the former CEO of bankrupt Lehman Brothers on the board of New York-Presbyterian hospital; the role of finance leaders who derided the Occupy Wall Street as "imbeciles," among other things on the boards of miscellaneous health care organizations; the role of finance leaders on the board of Pfizer, etc, etc, etc.

True health care reform may require larger reform in the greater society.  In any case, we need to reform the culture of health care organizations so that leaders put patients' and the public's health first, and self-interest last.  Furthermore, health care organizations should not provide positive incentives merely for exceeding financial or volume benchmarks, and should provide strong negative incentives for unethical behavior.

"More Marketing Than Science" - An Anonymous Confession About Deceptive Marketing Published in the British Medical Journal

The British Medical Journal just published an anonymous article by a pharmaceutical company insider that explained once again how pharmaceutical companies turn research studies, apparently scholarly articles, and medical education into stealth marketing efforts.  (See Anonymous.  Post-marketing observational studies: my experience in the drug industry.  Brit Med J 2012; 344: 28.  Link here.)

We have previously discussed examples of health care corporate insiders confessing their individual efforts to turn medical research and education into marketing.  For example, peruse this.  We have also discussed how documents made public through litigation have revealed marketing plans for specific drugs that used apparently academic, educational, or scholarly publications and venues to market without revealing this transformation.  For example, see the Neurontin marketing plan (see post here), and the Lexapro marketing plan (see post here).  We have also discussed numerous examples of manipulation of particular research studies by those with vested interests, and outright suppression of studies whose results did not favor such vested interests.

Yet I suspect majorities of health care academics and professionals, health care policy makers, and the public at large do not realize, or would not admit that the evidence base for making health care decisions, and the general academic and professional discourse has been so corrupted.  So it is worthwhile to review once again how an insider summarized this corruption.

Research Studies Designed Primarily as Marketing Vehicles

In general, the anonymous author suggested that at least some studies were done for marketing, not scientific purposes:

some of the studies I worked on were not designed to determine the overall risk:benefit balance of the drug in the general population. They were designed to support and disseminate a marketing message.

Whether it was to highlight a questionable advantage over a 'me-too' competitor drug or to increase disease awareness among the medical community (particularly in so called invented diseases) and in turn increase product penetration in the market, the truth is that these studies had more marketing than science behind them.

Furthermore, the studies were supervised not by physicians or scientists, but by marketers in the marketing department,

Although the medical department developed the publication plans, designed the study, performed the statistical analysis, and wrote the final paper (which when published was passed on to marketing and sales to be used as marketing material), the marketing team responsible for that product were directly involved in all stages. They also closely supervised the content of other educational 'scientific' materials produced in the medical department and intended for potential prescribers. Instructions from marketing to the medical staff involved were clear: to ensure that the benefits of the drug were emphasised and the disadvantages were minimised where possible.

Manipulation of Research Design, Implementation, or Analysis

The author described how the marketers manipulated research studies so they would produce the results desired from a marketing perspective, regardless of their underlying truth,

Since marketing claims needed to be backed-up scientifically, we occasionally resorted to 'playing' with the data that had originally failed to show the expected result. This was done by altering the statistical method until any statistical significance was found. Such a result might not have supported the marketing claim, but it was always worth giving it a go to see what results you could produce. And it was possible because the protocols of post-marketing studies were lax, and it was not a requirement to specify any statistical methodology in detail. On the other hand, the studies were hypothesis testing (such as cohort studies, case-control studies) rather than hypothesis generating (such as case reports or adverse events reports), so playing with the data felt uncomfortable.

Other practices to ensure the marketing message was clear in the final publication included omission of negative results, usually in secondary outcome measures that had not been specified in the protocol, or inflating the importance of secondary outcome measures if they were positive when the primary measure was not.

So to summarize, the marketers would control the statistical analyses, promoting multiple analyses to attempt to come up with the "right" result that would support the marketing message (although the more kinds of analyses one tries, the more likely one is likely to come up with false results by chance alone). Presumably the marketers did not care whether or not the results were really true, which is perhaps why even they felt "uncomfortable" in some circumstances.

They would also foster the suppression of negative results, and the dredging of data for extra outcome measures when analysis showed no advantage in terms of the real primary outcomes. Suppression of negative results could be viewed as plain lying. Deliberate analysis of multiple end-points again risks identifying random error as true results.

The Role of Key Opinion Leaders

The author described how key opinion leaders, that is, health care professionals thought to be especially influential on practice or policy, were hired to become marketers presumably without revealing this intention.

Every big international observational study had a large advisory board. This was critical since the success of a newly launched drug in the market would depend on how many key opinion leaders were part of the study. Not only would they add credibility to the results, but they would also be key in influencing decision makers and other prescribers. In regional studies with thousands of patients, the study’s advisory board was formed by at least one key opinion leader from each country in that region, ensuring that areas important in terms of possible sales were covered. The contributions of the key opinion leaders to the study were always positive, but in my experience more directed towards designing new studies to answer their specific clinical questions rather than critically appraising our results and conclusions. In general, the relationship was amicable. We took them to the best hotels and restaurants during our advisory board meetings, and they appeared as authors in our research. Later, they would act as the company’s 'ambassadors,' giving conferences, teaching doctors, or talking to the media about the benefits of the drug.

Note that even the anonymous author could not bring him or herself to call the key opinion leaders salespeople, or marketers, but used the ambiguous wterm "ambassadors." Nonetheless, the role of key opinion leaders described would clearly be that of marketers or salespeople. However, it is extremely doubtful that any of these KOLs felt they had to declare that they were paid salespeople when presenting at conferences, teaching doctors, or talking about the media.

I would suggest that their actions would therefore fit Transparency International's definition of ethical corruption, "abuse of entrusted power for private gain." The KOLs are entrusted to be professional, and in many cases, scholarly. Using a professional or scholarly guise to act as a salesperson appears to be abuse of that entrusted power, in my humble opinion. In nearly every case, KOLs are paid, often handsomely, by the companies whose products they are selling. Thus, key opinion leaders acting as described by the anonymous author appear to be ethically corrupt.

Summary

The evidence of unethical marketing practices by commercial health care firms is mounting. Although I am most familiar with evidence from the US, there is mounting evidence that these practices are global, often done by companies that are not US based, and meant to influence practice and policy world-wide.

As the evidence mounts, it becomes increasingly clear that many such marketing practices are corrupt, at least in an ethical sense. Whether they may break laws in particular countries is a question for someone else.

The latest BMJ article is a reminder how skeptical the shrinking group of health care professionals who do not have conflicts of interest, are not biased in favor of particular products, and who put patients' interests first must be about ALL published research, scholarly publications, and apparently educational activities. Advocates of true evidence-based medicine must be extremely careful to try to use the least biased and manipulated parts of the evidence-base.

The mounting evidence suggests that at a minimum, all research reports, scholarly articles, media reports, conferences, and educational programs should provide full, detailed disclosure of all conflicts of interest. Perhaps having to make a declaration like "I am paid 50,000 Euros a year by the marketing department of company X to help market drug Y" before a supposedly educational talk would make some health care professionals think twice about such relationships.

However, even such detailed disclosure may not be sufficient to hamper marketing practices that now appear overtly corrupt. In my humble opinion, it is time to consider a global ban on the funding or influencing of human research by companies and other organizations which stand to gain financially according to the results of the research, or whose products and services are subject of such research. It is also time to consider a global ban on the funding or influencing of health care education by such organizations.

However, so many people are making so much money from the current practices that I doubt such proposals would get much support, or even public notice beyond this humble blog.

Dartmouth's Governance and Wall Street

While the money spent on health care in the US continues to increase, care becomes less accessible and its quality becomes more dubious.  Most public health care discourse seems at a loss to explain how we can keep spending more to get less.

Of many possible explanations, one that has become more credible is continuing erosion of health care stewardship.  The boards of trustees of health care organizations, those charged with their stewardship, seem increasingly preoccupied with self-interest rather than the health care mission.  As more information about how such boards currently operate sneaks into public view, the problems appear more serious and salient.

New information about the governance of Dartmouth College, an issue we have followed since 2007, is illustrative.

The Case So Far

The problems at Dartmouth were notable because in many ways its governance was superior to that of many US higher educational and health care institutions.  At the time we first stumbled on these problems, Dartmouth was unusual in that nearly half of its board of trustees were elected by alumni, rather than being self-appointed.  That made its governance both more representative  and more accountable. 

In 2007, however, a dispute was ongoing about the extent that the institution's board of trustees ought to represent the alumni at large, or instead, ought to be a self-elected body not clearly accountable to anyone else.  The unelected, or "charter" board members were pushing to increases their numbers.  In 2007, what really got our attention was the stated rationale for this push towards less representative and accountable governance. Mr Charles Haldeman, then the chairman of the board of trustees, announced a smaller proportion of elected trustees would ensure that the board "has the broad range of backgrounds, skills, expertise, and fundraising capabilities needed," and that the board members would possess "even more diverse backgrounds."  However, despite his appeal to diversity, Mr Haldeman seemed most intent on reducing "divisiveness," especially dissent that challenged his own authority.  At the time, we thought his argument for more diversity to reduce dissent and increase his own authority seemed Orwellian.

Yet when we examined the backgrounds of the self-appointed trustees, we found that they exhibited little diversity. Furthermore, rather than resembling followers of Ingsoc, they resembled more the group that the radical left traditionally reviled.  Remarkably, three-quarters (6/8) were leaders of the finance sector, of what is popularly called "Wall Street." In 2007, they seemed not very diverse, but why the majority should be in the financial sector, and what implications that had, was then obscure.

After the fall of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the global financial collapse/ great recession, the implications of this Wall Street majority on the board of an institution of higher education became more troubling.  Since 2008, growing concerns about the extent that finance is driven by a "greed is good" culture increasingly suggest that domination of university, medical school, or hospital boards by leaders in the finance sector may increasingly divorce boards from the missions which they are supposed to uphold.

Yet in 2008, the unelected "charter" members of the Dartmouth board succeeded in increasing their numbers, and hence their proportion of total board seats.  The new board was no more diverse.  Of its 13 charter members, 9 were from finance, and one more was the CEO of a corporation with a major finance subsidiary.  (Look here.)  By 2009, the charter board members had succeeded in ousting a dissident alumni-elected member, labeling him a member of a "radical cabal," and rewriting a board loyalty oath apparently to discourage further dissent.  (Look here.)

All this spoke to the increasing power of the culture of finance among members of the board.  Perhaps, though, there were reasons that the financial majority on the board wanted to suppress dissent other than to make themselves more comfortable with their own dominant culture,  In 2010, as the global financial crisis continued, "Educational Endowments and the Financial Crisis: Social Costs and Systemic Risks in the Shadow Banking System," published by the Center for Social Philanthropy, Tellus Institute, focused on how prominent educational institutions, including Dartmouth College, came to invest much of their endowments in risky, illiquid "alternative" investments, the sort provided by the "shadow banking system."  (See this post.)  The report noted extensive conflicts of interest on the Dartmouth board involving trustees who were also leaders of finance.  Their firms, it turned out, were managing a substantial fraction of the money in the college's endowment.  Half of the charter trustees were also being paid to manage the finances of the institution for whose stewardship they were responsible. 

Trustees of non-profit organizations are supposed to exhibit a duty of loyalty, that is, they "must give undivided allegiance when making decisions affecting the organization."  (For a summary of their duties, look here.)   In 2010, I noted, "letting a board member's firm manage millions of dollars worth of the institution's endowment portfolio seems an obvious violation of the duty of loyalty."  So, "these sorts of conflicts of interest may be another 'missing link' explaining why the leadership and governance of health care organizations has gone so far astray."  I then posited, "as disclosure continues, maybe enough outrage will ensue so that improved leadership and governance will become possible.

The Friends of Eleazar Wheelock Charge Corruption

Now there seems to be more outrage.  Last month, the dissident Dartblog broke the story of a letter sent in February, 2012 to the New Hampshire Attorney General by an anonymous group called the "Friends of Eleazar Wheelock."  (Wheelock was the founder of the college.)  To the the letter was appended a report that included an even more extensive list of conflicts of interest affecting Dartmouth trustees, the college's Finance Committee and Investment Committees, and their friends and relatives. 

The letter also added

The mismanagement extends beyond the investments and endowment. 1) Over a period of seven years The College engaged Lehman Brothers in six 'interest rate swaps' totaling $550 million dollars. The current value of these 'swaps' is now in excess of two hundred million dollars. That is what Dartmouth owes on these bets. These losses are not reported in the College’s financial statements. 2) The College’s 'cash' was invested in six hedge funds. Up to 40% of it was lost. Again, this was not reported. This comprises grant money for research, advances to faculty, and other working capital which should have been invested in the safest of money market instruments. 3) over 50% of the endowment is invested with Trustees, Investment Committee members, or their friends.

The report summary stated,

The pattern that the Dartmouth trustees and members of the Endowment/Investment committee have engaged in for decades is clear. That pattern is that a donor/investment manager’s pledge to support Dartmouth is reciprocated with an investment of ever increasing proportions in the donor’s firm, lending the credibility of an Ivy League institution to the firm. The investment returns are of little import; most of these alum/donor/investment manager returns are average to poor.

It rhetorically asked how the college came into

the grip of a club of investment manager alums who have invested almost six hundred million dollars in their very own funds and directed over one billion dollars to their friends? And who have taken almost one hundred million dollars in fees to manage the endowment, often with poor results culminating in the twenty three per cent loss in 2008 and the worst performance of all the Ivies in 2011?

The letter charged that there has been a

quiet takeover of this great College by a cabal of external, wealthy alumni/ae of the college. They have mortgaged the College’s future through borrowing heavily in the tax exempt marketplace under NH HEFA (Health and Education Facilities Authority). They have simultaneously directed the College’s three billion dollar endowment to themselves, their firms, and their friends. They have furthered their own self-interest at the expense of the College and the Upper Valley. They have abused the non-profit status of Dartmouth College. They have enriched themselves through managing and directing Dartmouth’s three billion dollar endowment. In all cases they have taken gargantuan fund management fees through 'Private Equity', 'Venture Capital', and 'Hedge Funds' investments which they, themselves, manage and are the owners of.

Summary

A post on the American Thinker blog noted that the letter alleged "corruption." It is impossible to tell whether these expanded allegations will result in any charges, much less convictions. The state Attorney General is currently looking into this (see Reuters). Certainly, the allegations are at least of ethical corruption as it is defined by Transparency International, "abuse of entrusted power for private gain."

The revelations since 2007 (and I could argue beginning with my finding that the majority of the supposedly "diverse" charter trustees were leaders of finance) first raised questions whether Dartmouth governance's was attentive to the mission, then, whether it was conflicted, and now, whether it is corrupt.

That these questions can be credibly raised about one of our most prestigious institutions of higher education and health care demonstrates the depth of our health care crisis. It also demonstrates how the health care crisis seems inextricably linked to the financial crisis, and to a fundamental crisis about our society and its commitment to democracy and fairness.

A fair and thorough enquiry about the mess at Dartmouth, resulting in clear actions to uphold the institution's mission and ethics, and, if applicable, the law, would start us down the path of true health care reform.

However, if this just gets swept under the rug, we will not have reached the bottom of our descent.

ADDENDUM (2 June, 2012) - Note that Dartmouth's most recent President, Jim Yong Kim, who was appointed by and served under the Trustees in question above, is now President of the World Bank (see this LA Times article.)

See also comments in the University Diaries blog.

Conflicts of Interest or Bribes? - Biomet, Smith & Nephew Settle

More justifications of physicians' and other health care professionals' financial arrangements with industry have been appearing in the media and the medical literature (for recent examples, look here and here). Most commonly, the relationships they defended could be characterized as health care professionals consulting or sitting on advisory boards for industry, or receiving royalties from industry for their intellectual property.

In the last two months, two device manufacturers, Biomet and Smith & Nephew, accepted penalties for less defensible financial relationships with physicians. They entered into deferred prosecution agreement and settled charges that they bribed doctors employed by foreign governments. Some of these relationships, especially those involving Biomet, would have been prospectively indistinguishable from the sorts of conflicts of interest that have been so fervently defended.

Background

Starting in 2007, we posted (here, here, here, here and here) about the payments, often huge, that five manufacturers of prosthetic joints, Biomet, DePuy Orthopaedics,a unit of Johnson & Johnson, Stryker Orthopedics,a unit of Stryker Inc, Zimmer Holdings, and Smith & Nephew, revealed they made to orthopedic surgeons and various academic and other organizations in the US. All companies except Stryker were charged with "criminal conspiracy to violate anti-kickback laws," and all were subject to deferred prosecution agreements.  (Stryker entered into a voluntary compliance agreement.)  According to a US Department of Justice news release, the agreements required:

• A federal monitor will be in place at each company to review compliance with the DPAs and NPA and all new and existing consulting relationships with the companies;
• Each company is required to conduct a needs assessment to determine the reasonable needs for educational consulting services, and new product-development consultants.
• All new consulting agreements shall require physicians to disclose their financial engagements with any company to their patients and require the companies to disclose the name of each consultant and what they have been paid on the company website.

These agreements ended in 2009.

The Latest Settlements

As we noted, in 2011, Johnson and Johnson admitted its subsidiaries, including DePuy, had been bribing doctors in Europe through 2007, and agreed to yet another deferred prosecution agreement.

Smith & Nephew

Last month, Bloomberg reported:

Smith & Nephew Plc, Europe’s biggest maker of artificial hips and knees, agreed to pay $22.2 million to settle allegations by the U.S. Justice Department and Securities and Exchange Commission that it engaged in a scheme to pay bribes in Greece.

Smith & Nephew admitted in filings today in federal court in Washington that two of its units were involved in a scheme for more than a decade to make 'illicit payments' to doctors employed by government hospitals or agencies in Greece in violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act.

The London-based company, which entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the U.S., agreed to pay a $16.8 million fine to settle the criminal allegations and another $5.4 million to settle a civil suit filed by the SEC.

The colorful specifics were:

Smith & Nephew admitted that from 1997 until June 2008, its U.S. and German units bribed public doctors in Greece to win business. The bribes were paid through a person described in court documents as a 'Greek distributor.' This person used shell companies that masked bribes as 'marketing services,' according to the statement of facts filed in the criminal case.

The document cites a March 2002 e-mail from the Greek distributor to a Smith & Nephew vice president in Memphis, Tennessee, complaining that the 'marketing services' payments weren’t enough, noting that competitors were paying 30 percent to 40 percent more.

'I absolutely need this fund to promote my sales with surgeons,' the distributor said in the e-mail, according to prosecutors.

Reforming a corrupt and dysfunctional public health system was one of the conditions of Greece’s acceptance of a European Union and International Monetary Fund bailout package in 2010. Doctors also supplement their income with payments from patients, called 'fakelaki,' small envelopes with cash for prompt treatment.

In the SEC complaint, the payments made to the physicians were described as "commissions."
Note that the company made the usual sort of statement,

'We have what I believe to be a world-class compliance program, having enhanced it significantly since this investigation began in 2007,' Olivier Bohuon, Smith & Nephew’s chief executive officer, said in a statement. 'These legacy issues do not reflect Smith & Nephew today.'

He did not mention why the payments were continuing at a time when the company was already supposedly operating under the previous deferred prosecution agreement that arose out of the charges in the US discussed above.

Biomet

This week, the Indianapolis Star reported,

To sell its products abroad, medical device maker Biomet at times bribed doctors with cash, travel and meals, the federal government says.

The Warsaw, Ind.-based company agreed Monday to pay nearly $23 million to settle allegations that its payments to doctors violated the federal Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The Securities and Exchange Commission alleges that Biomet, acting through four subsidiaries and its distributors, paid bribes from 2000 to 2008 to doctors in Argentina, Brazil and China in order to win business.

The settlement includes a $17.3 million criminal fine and $5.6 million to the SEC, the government and company said in separate news releases.

The details were,

he SEC accused Biomet of writing phony invoices to cover kickbacks as high as 20 percent of sales to push its products.

In other instances, Biomet provided doctors with money and travel in exchange for implanting artificial joints and other Biomet products in their patients, says the SEC complaint, which was filed in federal court in Washington. In China, Biomet vendors gave doctors cash upon completion of surgeries using Biomet implants, the lawsuit says.

'I've got to send him to Switzerland to visit his daughter,' a Biomet distributor wrote in a 2001 email to the company, describing a trip given as a reward to a Chinese doctor who implanted 10 Biomet hips and knees a month in patients.

The SEC said Biomet's compliance and internal audit functions failed to stop the practices even after determining they were illegal.

Note how Biomet accounted for the payments,

The payments were falsely recorded on company books as 'commissions,' 'royalties' and 'scientific incentives,' the Justice Department said.

Furthermore, the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette added,

With the settlement announced Monday, the Justice Department found that Biomet and its subsidiaries covered up bribery payments by officially recording them as 'consulting fees' or 'commissions.'

Note that Biomet's official response was similar to Smith & Nephew's, as reported in another article from the Fort Wayne Journal-Gazette,

Jeffrey Binder, Biomet’s president and CEO, didn’t address the company’s guilt or innocence in a written statement released Monday.

Biomet has 'significantly enhanced' its procedures worldwide in recent years to ensure employees’ conduct is legal and ethical, he said.

'Moving forward, we intend to continue to adhere to our enhanced global compliance procedures, and to promote the company’s commitment to the highest ethical standards in all the markets that we serve,' Binder said.

Again, he did not explain why this time the enhanced compliance procedures are likely to work, given that the questionable conduct was still going on after the company had already entered into the 2007 deferred prosecution agreement.

Summary

Some Apparent Conflicts of Interest are Actually Bribes

In these cases, two medical device corporations paid doctors in several countries for implanting their products into patients. The resulting legal proceedings allow us to characterize these actions as bribes. Clearly both the companies' and the physicians' actions were unethical, since they lead to decisions that put the enrichment of the decision makers and those bribing them ahead of the patients' interests.

Some of the most common financial arrangements between health care professionals and industry that are thought of as conflicts of interest are paid consulting and payment of royalties for intellectual property. As we have discussed, e.g. here, conflicts of interest in medicine and health care are generally thought to raise the likelihood of corruption, but not necessarily to indicate corruption in specific instances. In the cases above, bribes were sometimes called "consulting payments or royalties." This suggests that some consulting payments and royalties which may commonly be thought of as conflicts of interest are outright bribes, that is, outright health care corruption.

Those who fervently defend conflicts of interest as inevitable, and necessary for collaboration and hence innovation (e.g., look here), often minimize the adverse effects of these conflicts (e.g., look here). In fact, any putative benefits of such conflicts ought to be contrasted with their possible harms. These cases make it clear that these harms include outright corruption which may be disguised as mere conflicts of interest.

This adds strength to arguments that conflicts of interest ought to be minimized or eliminated, not tolerated and "managed."

Current Measures to Enforce Laws Against Bribes and Kickbacks are More Theatre than Deterrent

The current cases are just the latest members in the march of legal settlements. We have noted that misbehavior in large health care organizations rarely leads to any negative consequences for the people who authorized, directed or implemented the offending actions. Instead, the penalties are, at most, fines paid by the organizations, not the people involved, and variants of deferred prosecution and/or corporate integrity agreements. We and others have previously argued without negative consequences affecting the people who authorize, direct or implement unethical actions, such actions will continue.

The current cases corroborate this. Corporations that had already paid fines and accepted deferred prosecution agreements for bribes to physicians continued to bribe other physicians. The failure of the offending corporations to admit any wrongdoing, or the need for specific changes of behavior in the future, suggests that the current fines and deferred prosecution agreements will not be any more effective than the previous ones. The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Courses and Conferences on Health Care Ethics, Corruption, Marketing

Two courses and two conferences of interest to Health Care Renewal readers are coming soon.

Short Course: Why Do Physicians Not Make Rational, Evidence Based Decisions?


A full-day course at the 14th Biennial European Meeting of the Society for Medical Decision Making on Sunday, 10 June, 2012 in Oslo, Norway. Taught by bloggers Dr Roy Poses and Dr Wally Smith, the course will address both the effects of cognitive psychological limitations and of external influences by vested interests leading to less than optimal decisions.

A full description of the course is here.
 
Online Course: Corruption in the Health Sector

A 30 hour online course given by the U4 Anti-Corruption Resource Center, offered in collaboration with the Boston University School of Public Health.  The course is "on causes and consequences of corruption in the health sector; vulnerabilities in drug supply systems, informal payments, and strategies to minimise the problems." 

A full description is here. 

Conference: Deception, Incentives and Behavior

A two-day conference given by the Rady School of Management, University of California - San Diego, on 20-21 April, 2012 in San Diego, California, USA.  This will be a multidisciplinary meeting to facilitate "research of deception and related unethical behavior in the fields of economics and psychology/judgment and decision making (JDM)."

The conference web-site is here. 

Conference: Third Annual PharmedOut Conference on How Patient Harms May Result from Industry Promotion

A two-day conference given by PharmedOut at Georgetown University in Washington, DC on
14-15 June, 2012.  The conference will focus on the how industry promotion may lead to under-use, over-use, or mis-use of drugs and devices.

The conference web-site is here.

Two Steps Back: International Council on Human Rights Policy Closes, Dutch Healthy Skepticism Ends Domestic Focus

We have noted the paucity of organized efforts to combat health care corruption and related phenomena.  What efforts exist tend to focus on corruption elsewhere, as if no one is willing to admit it can occur in their back yard.  Now one organization that has made some efforts in this sphere is closing, and another will explicitly focus its efforts on problems elsewhere.

International Council on Human Rights Policy Closes

The ICHRP was located in Geneva.  It had a wide focus, but was willing to consider how corruption could affect human rights.  Its publication, Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection, explicitly noted the threat of corruption to the right to health.  (Note that in international policy, this right is not considered to be to unlimited health care, but to "attainment of the highest available standard of physical and mental health.")  It went on to list a variety of ways in which government corruption, or corruption of health care leaders or organizations outside of government could harm health.  (Full disclosure: I participated in a meeting the IHCRP convened to review a draft of this publication.)

Now, as announced in the IHCRP blog, the IHCRP will close at the end of this month:

The decision to close was taken by the Executive Board primarily due to continued financial difficulties, largely a result of the difficult funding climate, especially for human rights and even more so for human rights policy research. It is especially regrettable because for more than a decade the ICHRP stimulated co-operation and exchange across the non-governmental, governmental and inter-governmental sectors, and strove to mediate between competing perspectives.

Healthy Skepticism in the Netherland to Only Focus on Problems "Abroad"

Today I got a press release (as of 21 February available here) from the Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine (IVM), that stated:

The Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine (IVM) is changing the course of its renowned Healthy Skepticism programme, which has critically monitored the pharmaceutical industry’s impact on the use of medication over the past ten years. Healthy Skepticism will be shifting attention away from its activities in the Netherlands, choosing to focus instead on supporting initiatives abroad.

The immediate reason seemed to be lack of funding, like the reason advanced for the closing of the ICHRP:

The change is prompted by the fact that the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport has eliminated funding for the programme....

The announcement first suggested that the change of focus came about because the initiative had attained its original goals:

another factor is the radical change that has occurred in the pharmaceutical industry’s attitude and conduct over the past decade.

Commenting on the change, IVM director Ruud Coolen van Brakel stated: 'Although there are still some problem areas, overall the industry has become more mature and more responsible’.

However, later in the announcement the implication was stronger that this lack of funding may have resulted from how the program challenged the powers that be, perhaps those who were personally profiting the most from the status quo:

The impact of Healthy Skepticism’s initiatives has not been unequivocally positive. IVM met with considerable resistance, which at times even became personal, and, because of its critical attitude, often became the target of aggressive attacks that also compromised its funders, the Ministry of Health, Education and Sport and the Healthcare Inspectorate.

Summary

We noted most recently (here, December, 2011) most of the organizations one might have expected would have provided some response to health care corruption instead have largely treated it as at best a nuisance. Specifically, there is almost no teaching or research on corruption in health care academics (including medical and public health schools, and programs in health care research and policy.)  There is almost no mention of corruption by health care professional associations.  There are almost no initiatives to fight corruption on the part of health care charities and donors.  There is almost no interest in corruption among patient advocacy organizations.  (See previous discussion here.)

Furthermore, I also postulated that at least in the US context, this lack of interest in corruption may partially be explained by these organizations' institutional conflicts of interest and the individual conflicts of interest affecting their leaders. It may be further explained by the exposure of some leaders to the irresponsible, if not amoral culture that now currently pervades finance, which may have in turn been one cause of the great recession, or global financial collapse.

The ICHRP and the Dutch Healthy Skepticism program seemed to be happy exceptions.  However, both of them depended on outside government or non-profit organizations for funding.  In both cases, these outside funders seem to have lost enthusiasm, maybe for reasons discussed above.

At least the ICHRP archives remain available, and Dutch Healthy Skepticism may be able to make some useful contribution outside the Netherlands.

There is increasing evidence that health care corruption may end up killing people.   I still hope that the courage of those who have tried to increase awareness of health care corruption, the conflicts of interest that can increase its likelihood, and surrounding phenomena, will not be in vain.  I still hope that some academic health care institutions, professional societies, health care charities and donors, and patient advocacy groups will gain enough fortitude to stand up for accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty in health care.

Finally, Some Upcoming Events to Announce: PharmedOut Conference, Transparency International Summer Course

In our side-bar to the right we have a section for "Upcoming Meetings and Events."  Sadly, it is often empty.  Perhaps as a result of the anechoic effect, there seem to be few talks, workshops, much less symposia, conferences, and courses on the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal. 

However, I am happy to now note two upcoming events of interest.

First, and most directly related, is the 2011 PharmedOut.org conference, entitled, "Pharma Knows Best? -Managing Medical Knowledge," on 16-17 June, 2011 at Georgetown University in Washington, DC, USA.  PharmedOut.org is dedicated to addressing how pharmaceutical companies seek to influence medical decision making. 
 
My editorial comment is that pharmaceutical companies, and also biotechnology, device, health care information technology, and health insurance companies spend billions on marketing to try to influence health care professionals and patients to use their products just here in the US, and probably hundreds of millions on public relations to try to influence policy-makers in favor of their interests.  The amounts spent to educate health care professionals and the public about these efforts, and particularly about deceptive marketing and PR, stealth marketing and stealth advocacy campaigns, etc, is minuscule by comparison.  PharmedOut.org is one of the few organizations trying to address the hype and spin.
 
Second is the Transparency International Summer School on Integrity, to be held in Vilnius, Lithuania, on 11-15 July, to provide "intensive anti-corruption training for future leaders."  Unfortunately for the rest of us, enrollment appears to be restricted to "students, graduates, and young professionals" from the post-communist countries. 
 
My editorial comment is that despite the prevalence and importance of health care corruption, as documented by the 2006 Transparency International Global Corruption report which focused on health care, and of the importance of conflicts of interest as risk factors for corruption, there are very few opportunities to teach and learn about these issues anywhere in the world.  (As I once noted, I could only find a single course on health care corruption and related issues in any US university.)  Transparency International has a record of efforts made to directly fight corruption, and to teach about related issues.  Would that such courses be available all over the world.

After Publicity About Losses from Corruption, Now Will Any Health Charities Start Anti-Corruption Initiatives?

Over the last few weeks a series of stories appeared about how corruption siphons off money from worthy global health initiatives. 

Corruption Depletes Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

The story that first got attention was from AP:

A $21.7 billion development fund backed by celebrities and hailed as an alternative to the bureaucracy of the United Nations sees as much as two-thirds of some grants eaten up by corruption, The Associated Press has learned.

Much of the money is accounted for with forged documents or improper bookkeeping, indicating it was pocketed, investigators for the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria say. Donated prescription drugs wind up being sold on the black market.

The fund's newly reinforced inspector general's office, which uncovered the corruption, can't give an overall accounting because it has examined only a tiny fraction of the $10 billion that the fund has spent since its creation in 2002. But the levels of corruption in the grants they have audited so far are astonishing.

A full 67 percent of money spent on an anti-AIDS program in Mauritania was misspent, the investigators told the fund's board of directors. So did 36 percent of the money spent on a program in Mali to fight tuberculosis and malaria, and 30 percent of grants to Djibouti.

In Zambia, where $3.5 million in spending was undocumented and one accountant pilfered $104,130, the fund decided the nation's health ministry simply couldn't manage the grants and put the United Nations in charge of them. The fund is trying to recover $7 million in 'unsupported and ineligible costs' from the ministry.

The fund is pulling or suspending grants from nations where corruption is found, and demanding recipients return millions of dollars of misspent money.

'The messenger is being shot to some extent,' fund spokesman Jon Liden said. 'We would contend that we do not have any corruption problems that are significantly different in scale or nature to any other international financing institution.'

To date, the United States, the European Union and other major donors have pledged $21.7 to the fund, the dominant financier of efforts to fight the three diseases. The fund has been a darling of the power set that will hold the World Economic Forum in the Swiss mountain village of Davos this week.

It was on the sidelines of Davos that rock star Bono launched a new global brand, (Product) Red, which donates a large share of profits to the Global Fund. Other prominent backers include former U.N. secretary-general Kofi Annan, French first lady Carla Bruni-Sarkozy and Microsoft founder Bill Gates, whose Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation gives $150 million a year.

Corruption Depletes Health Alliance International

At about the same time, the Seattle Times reported fraud losses at another global health project:

Health Alliance International (HAI), which was begun in 1987 by North American doctors and nurses to support the fledgling government in Mozambique, has played a leading role in HIV treatment.

Focused on strengthening health systems of impoverished and fragile nations, it was awarded the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Africa Health Initiative grant, a seven-year $10 million program to help government-run health facilities use data to improve services. The UW departments of Global Health and Industrial Engineering are partners in that project.

All but 7 percent of its funding came from the U.S. government, and more than 90 percent of its work was in Mozambique, according to HAI's 2009 annual report. Gloyd said the alliance increased the number of people receiving antiretroviral drugs from about a couple dozen in 2003 to more than 50,000 this year.

In late 2009, the alliance applied for what would have been its biggest grant ever — $100 million in funding from USAID over the next five years.

Early last year, its application was selected as the best technical proposal. But in the midst of the administrative review in June, a tipster reported problems in an organization employed by HAI.

One such program hired local community organizations in Mozambique for home-based nursing care and delivery of basic medical kits. The alliance did an internal audit and discovered irregularities.

'Their own accounting for those kits was quite inadequate, and that came back to bite us,' Gloyd said.

HAI shared the findings with USAID and put forth a plan to resolve the issues. But at the end of August, USAID rejected the group's grant application.

How Big Is Corruption?
There was actually considerable dispute about the significance of the fraud discovered at the Global Fund. On one hand, the losses were a very large proportion of the grants investigated. On the other hand, the total amounts were a very tiny proportion of the total of the fund's outlays. As summarized by William Savedoff in the Center for Global Development's Global Health Policy blog:

While readers might finish the AP article mistakenly thinking that $14 billion has been stolen (that is, two-thirds of $21.7 billion), it would also be a mistake to read the Global Fund press release and believe that only $34 million is gone.

What we’re missing is a way to assess how representative these cases may be. If the Global Fund’s detection system is 100% effective, then these cases are isolated and it is a tiny problem. If the detection system only picks up 50% of cases, then instead of a tiny problem, we’ve got a small one. But if the detection system only finds 5% of cases then—despite the mistaken deduction from the AP article—we really would have a massive billion-dollar corruption problem.

The Global Fund should be praised, not slammed, for its investigations and for its openness. But, it also needs to be challenged to find a way to estimate how representative these cases may be.

At any case, the Global Fund has promised "new anti-corruption measures," per the AP again.

A $21.7 billion global health fund and the U.N.'s main development arm launched new anti-corruption measures Friday in the wake of intense scrutiny from donors and stories by The Associated Press detailing fraud in their grants.

Chief among The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria's new measures are plans to create a high-profile panel of experts to examine the fund's ability to prevent and detect fraud in its grants.

'Programs supported by the fund have saved seven million lives and are turning back the three disease pandemics around the world,' said the fund's executive director, Dr. Michel Kazatchkine. He said the fund has 'zero tolerance' for fraud and corruption and was 'responding aggressively when instances of fraud or misappropriation are detected.'

That is nice, but I submit these stories are a reminder of how anechoic health care corruption is, and how few and ad hoc are the few efforts made to fight it. Much of the coverage of the corruption affecting the Global Fund had a breathless quality as if the authors were shocked, shocked that there could be corruption in health care.

In fact, many people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, in 2006, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report, asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries."  It also noted how diverse is health care corruption:

In the health sphere corruption encompasses bribery of regulators and medical professionals, manipulation of information on drug trials, the diversion of medicines and supplies, corruption in procurement, and overbilling of insurance companies. It is not limited to abuse by public officials, because society frequently entrusts private actors in health care with important public roles. When hospital administrators, insurers, physicians or pharmaceutical company executives dishonestly enrich themselves, they are not formally abusing a public office, but they are abusing entrusted power and stealing precious resources needed to improve health.

It further stated how serious the consequences of corruption may be:

Corruption deprives people of access to health care and can lead to the wrong treatments being administered. Corruption in the pharmaceutical chain can prove deadly....


The poor are disproportionately affected by corruption in the health sector, as they are less able to afford small bribes for health services that are supposed to be free, or to pay for private alternatives where corruption has depleted public health services.


Corruption affects health policy and spending priorities.

On this blog, our limited resources make us focus mainly on the US, and sometimes other English-speaking countries. Yet we now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of corruption, including numerous allegations of corporate misbehavior ending in legal settlements, outright fraud, and other crime. Also, as we have noted before, the US Institute of Medicine has defined conflicts of interest

Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest.

Given that Transparency International's definition of corruption is

abuse of entrusted power for private gain

One can easily argue that in health care, conflicts of interest defined as above create risks of abuse of power by health care professionals influenced by the private gains provided by their secondary interests. On Health Care Renewal, we have provided a massive set of examples of individual and institutional conflicts of interest. There is evidence that about two-thirds of medical academics(1) and academic leaders(2) have significant conflicts of interest. The huge prevalence of conflicts suggests the risk of major corruption.

Corruption and Conflicts of Interest as Anechoic

So what we all should be shocked, shocked about is how little has been done to fight health care corruption, whether in Mozambique or the US.

Note that the Gates Foundation is a major donor to the Global Fund. It has a number of disease or condition specific initiatives, and a global health policy and advocacy initiative. But it has no initiative to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or, to put it in positive terms, to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics.

The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation funds Health Alliance International.  It funds medical research, and has a specific focus on African health care research.  However, it also has no initiatives to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, or improve accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care.

In fact, one could look in vain for any initiatives about or funding for anti-corruption, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by any major US charity with health care interests.

One can  find very few significant efforts to discuss, teach about, or research ways to fight corruption, or to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics by academic health care institutions.  (See this post for how difficult it was to find academic institutions' initiatives to resist conflicts of interest.)  One can count the conferences, meetings, symposia, and courses on such topics on one's fingers. When I last looked, I could count only a single course on fighting corruption at any US medical or public health school ( at Boston University, by Prof Taryn Vian).

Given the scope of corruption, we should be shocked, shocked at how anechoic it is, and how our respected health care institutions, particularly academic institutions and health care charities have ignored the problem.

So will the Global Fund's losses to corruption inspire the Gates Foundation or any of its major donors to start an anti-corruption initiative? Or even have an anti-corruption symposium? So will the Health Alliance International's losses so inspire the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation?  Will these cases inspire any foundation, or academic health care organization to do anything to fight corruption and conflicts of interest, and to promote accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics in health care?

I am not holding my breath, but I live in hope.

Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.

PS - If anyone in our vast audience does know about any additional anti-corruption or conflict of interest, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics initiatives, courses, meetings relevant to health care, please let me know and I will do my best to disseminate the information.

References

1. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. (link here)

2. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786. (link here)