Computer Viruses Are "Rampant" on Medical Devices in Hospitals

As if there weren't enough problems with hospitals as computing backwaters, now there's this:

Computer Viruses Are "Rampant" on Medical Devices in Hospitals

A meeting of government officials reveals that medical equipment is becoming riddled with malware.

Technology Review
Published by MIT
David Talbot
Wednesday, October 17, 2012

Computerized hospital equipment is increasingly vulnerable to malware infections, according to participants in a recent government panel. These infections can clog patient-monitoring equipment and other software systems, at times rendering the devices temporarily inoperable.

While no injuries have been reported, the malware problem at hospitals is clearly rising nationwide, says Kevin Fu, a leading expert on medical-device security and a computer scientist at the University of Michigan and the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, who took part in the panel discussion.

I note the seemingly universal refrain "no injuries have been reported" once more (see this query link to similar statements regarding IT malfunctions), which is irrelevant since reporting mechanisms for medical errors are noted to be deficient.

Software-controlled medical equipment has become increasingly interconnected in recent years, and many systems run on variants of Windows, a common target for hackers elsewhere. The devices are usually connected to an internal network that is itself connected to the Internet, and they are also vulnerable to infections from laptops or other device brought into hospitals.  [I note that it should be impermissible to connect "alien" machines to a hospital's network without authorization, and that attaining that level of security protection is not difficult - ed.]  The problem is exacerbated by the fact that manufacturers often will not allow their equipment to be modified, even to add security features.

In a typical example, at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston, 664 pieces of medical equipment are running on older Windows operating systems that manufactures will not modify or allow the hospital to change—even to add antivirus software—because of disagreements over whether modifications could run afoul of U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulatory reviews, Fu says.

In other words, let's run at high risk if it avoids the time and expense of FDA reviews that would ensure the equipment is safe and operates as expected with the software updates.

As a result, these computers are frequently infected with malware, and one or two have to be taken offline each week for cleaning, says Mark Olson, chief information security officer at Beth Israel.

It is unclear how the servers running the hospital information system, electronic health records systems, physician order entry systems etc. are immune to spread of the malware.

"I find this mind-boggling," Fu says. "Conventional malware is rampant in hospitals because of medical devices using unpatched operating systems. There's little recourse for hospitals when a manufacturer refuses to allow OS updates or security patches."

The worries over possible consequences for patients were described last Thursday at a meeting of a medical-device panel at the National Institute of Standards and Technology Information Security and Privacy Advisory Board, of which Fu is a member, in Washington, D.C. At the meeting, Olson described how malware at one point slowed down fetal monitors used on women with high-risk pregnancies being treated in intensive-care wards.

In its face, that is potentially catastrophic depending on the degree of "slowdown" and whether data is lost.

"It's not unusual for those devices, for reasons we don't fully understand, to become compromised to the point where they can't record and track the data," Olson said during the meeting, referring to high-risk pregnancy monitors. "Fortunately, we have a fallback model because they are high-risk [patients]. They are in an IC unit—there's someone physically there to watch. But if they are stepping away to another patient, there is a window of time for things to go in the wrong direction."

The reasons seem obvious to anyone who's had a serious malware infection on their PC.  I've only had one - a computer I bought at a fleamarket for $7 was so severely infected it was unusable for even basic tasks, and was resistant to virus removal.  I solved that problem by installing a fresh copy of the OS, immediately followed by all patches and the latest anti-malware software.

The computer systems at fault in the monitors were replaced several months ago by the manufacturer, Philips; the new systems, based on Windows XP, have better protections and the problem has been solved, Olson said in a subsequent interview.

This implies the older systems were running on Win 98 or earlier or an old version of Win NT.  Amazing.

At the meeting, Olson also said similar problems threatened a wide variety of devices, ranging from compounders, which prepare intravenous drugs and intravenous nutrition, to picture-archiving systems associated with diagnostic equipment, including massive $500,000 magnetic resonance imaging devices.

Olson told the panel that infections have stricken many kinds of equipment, raising fears that someday a patient could be harmed. "We also worry about situations where blood gas analyzers, compounders, radiology equipment, nuclear-medical delivery systems, could become compromised to where they can't be used, or they become compromised to the point where their values are adjusted without the software knowing," he said. He explained that when a machine becomes clogged with malware, it could in theory "miss a couple of readings off of a sensor [and] erroneously report a value, which now can cause harm."

I opine that harm could already have occurred; it just may not been recognized as such nor reported.  Disappearing data and other EHR failure modes known to have caused harm and/or deaths could be related to malware, for example.

... Malware problems on hospital devices are rarely reported to state or federal regulators, both Olson and Fu said. This is partly because hospitals believe they have little recourse. Despite FDA guidance issued in 2009 to hospitals and manufacturers—encouraging them to work together and stressing that eliminating security risks does not always require regulatory review—many manufacturers interpret the fine print in other ways and don't offer updates, Fu says. And such reporting is not required unless a patient is harmed. "Maybe that's a failing on our part, that we aren't trying to raise the visibility of the threat," Olson said. "But I think we all feel the threat gets higher and higher."

I note that health IT related problems are also rarely reported, with only one vendor being the exception (see my post on the FDA MAUDE voluntary reporting database here).  The reasons likely are not because "hospitals believe they have little recourse" - the real reasons may be fear, complacency and/or incompetence.

Speaking at the meeting, Brian Fitzgerald, an FDA deputy director, said that in visiting hospitals around the nation, he has found Beth Israel's problems to be widely shared. "This is a very common profile," he said. The FDA is now reviewing its regulatory stance on software, Fitzgerald told the panel. "This will have to be a gradual process, because it involves changing the culture, changing the technology, bringing in new staff, and making a systematic approach to this," he said.

Changing the culture would be nice, considering we are now entering a national rollout of complex enterprise clinical resource and workflow control systems anachronistically known as "electronic medical records."

In an interview Monday, Tam Woodrum, a software executive at the device maker GE Healthcare, said manufacturers are in a tough spot, and the problems are amplified as hospitals expect more and more interconnectedness. He added that despite the FDA's 2009 guidance, regulations make system changes difficult to accomplish: "In order to go back and update the OS, with updated software to run on the next version, it's an onerous regulatory process."

My comment is, if you can't take the heat of work in the real-world medical setting, if you cannot be part of the medical team, then get out of the clinic.  You're likely to do more harm than good.

John Halamka, Beth Israel's CIO and a Harvard Medical School professor, said he began asking manufacturers for help in isolating their devices from the networks after trouble arose in 2009: the Conficker worm caused problems with a Philips obstetrical care workstation, a GE radiology workstation, and nuclear medical applications that "could not be patched due to [regulatory] restrictions." He said, "No one was harmed, but we had to shut down the systems, clean them, and then isolate them from the Internet/local network."

He added: "Many CTOs [chief technology officers - ed.] are not aware of how to protect their own products with restrictive firewalls. All said they are working to improve security but have not yet produced the necessary enhancements."

Then why are they CTO's?  Is this the phenomenon of generic or underqualified managers rearing its head?

Fu says that medical devices need to stop using insecure, unsupported operating systems. "More hospitals and manufacturers need to speak up about the importance of medical-device security," he said after the meeting. "Executives at a few leading manufacturers are beginning to commit engineering resources to get security right, but there are thousands of software-based medical devices out there."

One can only wonder if others have done a Ford Pinto cost-benefit analysis and decided the costs of settlement from injured and dead patients is less than the cost of remediation.

-- SS

Back to the Future - Another Medical Device Company Accused of Hiding ICD Defects

Suppression of data about defects in and failures of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) was one of the big issues we featured in the early days of Health Care Renewal (2005-06). 

At that time, Guidant, later acquired by Boston Scientific, was accused of hiding data that certain of its defibrillator models failed, possibly leading to preventable patient deaths (see this post and follow links backward).  Boston Scientific, which acquired Guidant, settled a civil lawsuit and was put on probation in 2011 after it pleaded guilty to misdemeanor charges of failing to file required reports with the US Food and Drug Administration (see post here).   Similarly, in 2010, Medtronic settled multiple patients' lawsuits charging that it knowingly marketed a faulty ICD (see post here).

St Jude and the Obscure Riata Data

Now in 2012, A Wall Street Journal article suggested that St Jude Medical Inc hid problems with its Riata implanted cardiac defibrillator (ICD) for years.   

In December, 2010, St Jude Medical Inc issued a warning letter to doctors: Wires inside Riata defibrillator leads—cables that connect the heart to implantable defibrillators—were sometimes breaking through their insulation from the inside out.


The problem, which ultimately led to a recall last year, could cause defibrillators to send unnecessary jolts to the heart or fail to deliver lifesaving shocks to return chaotic heart rhythms back to normal. The company said it had identified dozens of cases with visible signs of the problem, and pulled Riata from the market.

For many doctors, this was the first notice of a problem with Riata.

But before that 2010 warning, physicians including Alan Cheng, director of Johns Hopkins Medicine's arrhythmia service; Samir Saba, chief of electrophysiology at the University of Pittsburgh Medical Center; and Ernest Lau at the Royal Victoria Hospital in Belfast, Ireland, say they had encountered this so-called "inside-out abrasion" in their own practices between 2006 and 2009. When these doctors brought the incidents to the attention of St. Jude they say they were told by company officials and field representatives that the incidents were isolated. The malfunctions described by the doctors didn't result in deaths.

St. Jude had been tracking the problem for several years, according to company documents collected by the Food and Drug Administration and reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. Cases involving the so-called inside-out abrasion date to at least October 2005, the documents show. Inside-out abrasion became a focus of an internal St. Jude audit, which examined multiple cases of the failure before April 2008.

The Journal article noted that more transparency about device failures might allow physicians to spot problems earlier and prevent harm to patients.

more than a dozen physicians and device-safety experts say that if St. Jude had acknowledged the inside-out failure earlier, physicians might have identified the scope of the problem sooner.


In some cases, doctors concede that they, too, believed the failures were isolated and therefore didn't act quickly to report problems to St. Jude or the FDA, which may have made it harder to spot the growing trend of failures. The leads were implanted in more than 13,000 patients since July 2008.

'Every time you have a failed lead, you assume it's an isolated event, but, you start to string together isolated events, and then you have a recall,' said Dr. Saba.

Summary

So, for Health Care Renewal, this is a straightforward case, at least so far.  Yet another health care organization, this time, a medical device company, failed to reveal data that might have reflected unfavorably on one of its products, and hence lead to decreases in short-term revenue.  However, by suppressing the information, the company may have allowed doctors to keep implanting a potentially faulty device, and exposed patients to risk, possibly of fatality. 

We have discussed many at least somewhat parallel cases of suppression of research (here), and many cases of other kinds of deception by health care organizations (here).  Yet these cases continue to occur, physicians and other health care professionals continue to be fooled by secrecy and data suppression, and patients continue to be harmed by drugs, devices, or other interventions made by people who knew, or ought to have known that they were more dangerous than they appeared to be. 

One problem may be that the people with the most influence on medical practice and health policy continue to cheer lead for the veracity of information about drugs, devices, and other health care interventions supplied by the people who most stand to gain from selling same.  A few weeks ago, the editor of the august New England Journal of Medicine, Dr Jeffrey M Drazen MD, scoffed at physicians' skepticism of pharmaceutical industry funded clinical research, claiming that there were only "a few examples of industry misuse of publications...." [Drazen JM. Believe the data. N Engl J Med 2012;  367:1152-1153.  Link here.]  In doing so, Dr Drazen seemed to ignore all the stories about suppression of medical research (some of which we have discussed here), manipulation of medical research (some discussed here), and deception (some discussed here) and secrecy (some discussed here) practiced by large health care organizations, including but not limited to drug, device, biotechnology, and health care information technology companies.

Instead, the possibility that St Jude kept hidden data about the failings of one of its ICD models reminds us how skeptical we ought to be about the information provided, or not provided by those with vested interests in selling health care goods or services.  Physicians, health care professionals, those interested in health policy, and the public at large need to collectively exert pressure on the leaders of health care organizations to promote greater transparency, especially about data reflecting on benefits and harms of health care goods and services.  . 

FDA: Software Failures Responsible for 24% Of All Medical Device Recalls

At "FDA: Software Failures Responsible for 24% Of All Medical Device Recalls" via Kapersky Labs, a software security company, it is observed (emphases mine):

Software failures were behind 24 percent of all the medical device recalls in 2011, according to data from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which said it is gearing up its labs to spend more time analyzing the quality and security of software-based medical instruments and equipment.

The FDA's Office of Science and Engineering Laboratories (OSEL) released the data in its 2011 Annual Report on June 15, amid reports of a compromise of a Web site used to distribute software updates for hospital respirators. The absence of solid architecture and "principled engineering practices" in software development affects a wide range of medical devices, with potentially life-threatening consequences, the Agency said. In response, FDA told Threatpost that it is developing tools to disassemble and test medical device software and locate security problems and weak design.

... "Manufacturers are responsible for identifying risks and hazards associated with medical device software (or) firmware, including risks related to security, and are responsible for putting appropriate mitigations in place to address patient safety," the agency said in an e-mail statement.

Health IT medical devices are the exception, of course.  A health IT virtual medical device is always of rock-solid architecture, always uses "principled engineering practices" in software development, and never has life-threatening consequences, of course.

Hence its special regulatory accommodations over non-virtual (tangible) medical devices.

-- SS

Hospital Executives - What Will They Think of Next?

Health care organizations are now most often run by people with management, not clinical backgrounds.  It seems like business schools have taught managers to sign on to whatever the latest management fashions are.  So what are the latest fashions in hospital management?  Here are a few hot items.

Retreading Pharmaceutical Representatives

My jaundiced reading of the business news suggests that most executives think that marketing is the most important part of their organizations, and that clever marketing can sell any product or service. For example, the pharmaceutical industry spends about twice as much on marketing as it does on research and development (despite pharma executives' protestations that they run research driven businesses) (see this post). So it should be no surprise that now hospitals are using "hospital representatives" to market referrals to their institutions to doctors.

From last week's USA Today:

n northwest Indiana, Carrie Sota visits five or six doctors' offices every workday as part of her new sales job.

But Sota isn't selling the physicians on a prescription drug or a medical device. She's promoting her hospital — the University of Chicago Medical Center.

Sota, 30, is one of four employees the academic medical center has hired in recent months to make 'sales calls' on physicians in the hope that they will send more patients to the hospital. 'We are trying to build meaningful relationships,' said Sota, who was previously a saleswoman for a small medical device company.

The University of Chicago Medical Center is one of a growing number of hospitals nationwide hiring former drug and device sales reps to visit doctors' offices to persuade them to use their services over competing facilities.

Rather than handing out samples of prescription drugs, the sales reps call on doctors armed with the latest information on how their facility is reducing hospital-acquired infections and improving patient-satisfaction scores.

In visits that can last five to 20 minutes, reps try to win doctors' loyalty by helping them get better times on operating room schedules or easier patient referrals to hospital-based specialists. The sales reps can also carry messages back to the hospital, such as a doctor's request for a new medical device to be available in surgery.

The article suggested a few problems with this approach. First, the point of the marketing is not to improve the match between patients' needs and the services the hospital provides. Rather, it is to generate referrals that have the potential to provide the maximum revenue:

While hospitals have always tried to woo doctors to refer patients to them, the institutions are growing more direct in their efforts. The hospitals mine data to see which doctors have the most profitable, well-insured patients, and then they assign those doctors to a sales rep.

So in particular,

Many of the physician liaisons focus on specialists, who bring in patients for services with the highest profit margins, including orthopedics, cardiac care and cancer care, [Duke University Health System physician liaison manager Christine] Perry said.

Second, the hospital reps have incentives based on revenue, not on value to the patient:

About two-thirds of Tenet's liaisons are former drug and device sales reps, and they can make tens of thousands of dollars in bonuses if doctors increase their referrals to the hospitals.

Third, across the system, the revenues generated may be much less than the costs incurred, since most of the marketing will only succeed in moving patients from one hospital to another:

Paul Ginsburg, president of the non-partisan Center for Studying Health System Change, said, 'When you look at the health system, this is a waste of resources. It's a zero-sum game.'

He added: 'The net results of changing physician-referral patterns is that one hospital gains at a cost of others, and all the hospitals burn resources to pay (sales)people who take up the doctor's time.'

Of course, the reps could succeed in persuading doctors to refer patients to specific hospitals for services the doctors originally did not think the patients needed. That would be good were the patients to need those services, but bad if they were not.
Fourth, we have discussed (for example, here and here) how pharmaceutical representatives use sophisticated psychological and emotional manipulation, despite claims that all they do is provide unbiased information and educational, to influence physicians to prescribe drugs. Again, this may result in patients getting drugs whose benefits do not outweigh their harms. It is possible that hospital representatives will do something similar:

'These people are really good and really assertive and very sophisticated,' said Stephen Newman, Tenet's chief operating officer.

Unbundling Payments

The airlines decided a while ago that they could make more money by charging passengers for each checked bag, and even for those little meals on plastic trays. It looks like hospital executives have discovered a new way to unbundle.

As reported last month by the St Louis Post-Dispatch, hospitals have begun charging often hefty "facility fees" for patients seen as outpatients in hospital clinics or hospital owned practices, even for very minor procedures or just office visits, and even for Medicare patients. (Private physicians who see patients in their own offices cannot charge such fees to Medicare patients, and most private insurance companies will not cover such fees.):

A few weeks after Allison Zaromb took her 4-year-old son Meir to see a dermatologist in an outpatient office at the SSM Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center campus, she received separate bills from the doctor and the hospital.

The cost for a 3-minute procedure to treat Meir's warts totaled $538, which included a $220 bill for physician services - and a separate bill for a $318 hospital 'facility fee.'

Zaromb, a periodontist who lives in University City, is now suing SSM Health Care Corp. and Cardinal Glennon Children's Medical Center in a proposed class action lawsuit on behalf of other patients

More generally,

With the proliferation of hospital-owned outpatient centers and hospital-owned physician practices, hospital 'facility fees' have become increasingly common. Such hospital facility fees often involve greater dollar amounts than the fees charged by physicians.

Technically, it all appears to be legal:

Under federal regulations, health systems are permitted to charge a hospital facility fee for an outpatient service if it's done in a clinic that is 'hospital-based' - meaning that the clinic is owned and operated as part of a hospital or health system, regardless of whether the clinic is physically located on the hospital grounds.

This technique does seem to be a way to increase revenue. But one person's revenue is another person's cost, so it also seems to be a great way to further increase the already high cost of US health care. It is not obvious, however, that these increased costs will lead to increased quality of care or value for the patient:

'From a consumer's perspective, when you go see your doctor, you go see your doctor - whether it's in an office inside a larger hospital complex or right across the street,' [Zaromb's lawyer John] Phillips said. 'The doctor's practice remains the same. ... They're making the doctor's office a ‘hospital-based' clinic for one reason: to make money by charging a facility fee, not to improve consumer service.'

Negotiating the Costs of Medical Devices

One of the favorite topics on Health Care Renewal, at least before we found even more outrageous subjects, was the stratospheric cost of medical devices. For example, look at posts from 2005 here, here, here, and here. So last month we found out that hospital executives have come up with a revolutionary idea to combat the high cost of devices. They will actually try to see what prices the device companies charge other hospitals, and then negotiate the prices down, as Reuters reported as big news in late November:

Implantable devices make up a sizable chunk of typical hospital budgets, and administrators are devising new ways to limit that cost as they brace for cuts to government reimbursement and treat more patients who can't pay for care.

That means methodically working through each category of device, from heart valve replacements and stents to spinal products, to see where they can negotiate lower prices. It also means creating databases of shared information on pricing between hospitals.

Imagine that! Of course, the notion that buyers ought to bargain with sellers to get the best price goes back a few years. However, only in 2011 did it apparently occur to hospital executives that they ought to negotiate the prices of one their most expensive purchases. This suggests that there has been something profoundly wrong with the basic assumptions underlying the commonly accepted wisdom that making the health care system more of a market will lead to more financially efficient care. 

Summary

In 1988, Alain Enthoven advocated in Theory and Practice of Managed Competition in Health Care Finance, a book published in the Netherlands, that to decrease health care costs it would be necessary to break up the "physicians' guild" and replace leadership by clinicians with leadership by managers (see 2006 post here). Thus from 1983 to 2000, the number of managers working in the US health care system grew 726%, while the number of physicians grew 39%, so the manager/physician ratio went from roughly one to six to one to one (see 2005 post here). Health care went from being controlled by clinicians to controlled by a growing volume of managers.  Most of these managers were generic, in that they had little if any knowledge of, experience in, or sympathy to the values of health care. These generic managers have used the same techniques advocated for the management of supermarkets or automobile manufacturers to manage health care organizations, despite all the obvious differences in context, goals, values, and people involved.

So these generic managers have brought us such "innovations" as the "hospital (marketing) representative," and the "facility fee" for outpatient visits, but only thought to negotiate device prices in 2011. But that is why we pay them the big bucks.

How many more arguments do we need that health care organizations ought to be lead by people who understand the health care context, share its core values, and are accountable for how these organizations affect patients' and the public's health?

Medtronic Settles, Yet Again

And the march of legal settlements continues... Circling around the block and coming in front of the viewing stand again is device manufacturer Medtronic. 

The Latest Medtronic Settlement

As Bloomberg reported:

Medtronic (MDT) Inc., the world’s biggest maker of heart rhythm devices, agreed to pay $23.5 million to settle claims it paid kickbacks to doctors who implanted its pacemakers and defibrillators in patients, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement.

Medtronic agreed yesterday to settle two lawsuits filed in federal courts in California and Minnesota accusing the company of violating the federal False Claims Act by paying physicians $1,000 to $2,000 for each patient who was implanted with one of the company’s devices, according to the Justice Department.

'Patients who rely on their health-care providers to implant vital medical devices expect that those decisions will be made with the patients’ best interests in mind,' Tony West, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in an e-mailed statement. 'Kickbacks, like those alleged here, distort sound medical judgments with financial incentives paid for by the taxpayers.'

As usual, Medtronic did not admit doing anything wrong:

Medtronic said in an e-mailed statement that it makes no admissions that the studies were 'improper or unlawful.' The company also said it established a reserve for the anticipated payment in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.

'We are happy that the investigation is behind us, so we can continue designing and executing clinical trials that generate evidence to improve patient care, outcomes and cost effectiveness,' Marshall Stanton, vice president of clinical research and reimbursement for the cardiac and vascular group....

Previous Legal Settlements by Medtronic
Note that this is not the first time Medtronic has been accused of paying doctors (kickbacks, this time, which seem to be the ethical equivalent of bribes) to use its products. The Bloomberg report also noted:

In 2006, Medtronic agreed to pay $40 million to settle allegations that its Sofamor Danek unit violated state laws and the False Claims Act by paying sham consulting fees and providing lavish trips to doctors who used its products from 1998 to 2003.

Perusing the Medtronic file on Health Care Renewal also showed that Medtronic has had to settle other lawsuits alleging misconduct:

- In 2008, Medtronic subsidiary Kyphon settled a suit for $75 million and signed a corporate integrity agreement for allegations that it defrauded Medicare through a scheme that lead to excessive hospitalization for patients who received the company's spine surgery device (link here)
- In 2010, Medtronic settled multiple civil lawsuits for $268 million for allegations that it marketed an implantable cardiac defibrillator with faulty leads whose failures lead to 13 deaths (link here)

Cases of Apparent Conflicts of Interest Generated by Medtronics' Payments
In fact, paging through the Medtronic file on Health Care Renewal, we also found these cases of apparent conflicts of interest that Medtronic caused by making payments to or otherwise creating financial relationships with:

- FDA advisory board members (2007 link here),
- health care professionals who appeared on public television programs about heart disease and treatments of it (2007 link here),
- members of a non-profit organization which was supposed to guide the FDA regarding drug development  (2007 link here),
- prominent academic orthopedic surgeons who were in positions to influence other physicians' choices of orthopedic devices (2008 link here and 2009 links here, here and here),
- a military surgeon who wrote questionable articles about the supposed virtues of a Medtronic bone growth product (2009 link here),
- a top leader of US Veterans Affairs Department who objected to the appointment of an industry critic as US Surgeon General (2010 link here),
- spine surgeons apparently who could promote Medtronics' spine surgery products in (2010 link here) and who did not disclose all such payments when writing ostensibly scholarly articles on the subject (2010 link here)

So prior to the current settlement for "alleged" kickbacks, Medtronic had a long history of allegations that it had financial relationships with physicians who were in a position to promote the use of its products or its policy interests.

Why the Bad Behavior Continues

The latest settlement by Medtronic illustrates why the anemic approach by US government agencies to health care corporate misbehavior does not deter bad behavior.

- The punishment was a fine not large enough to have any effect on the finances of the corporation.. Such a relatively small financial penalty might just be seen as a cost of doing business by company executives.  (See these comments on the current case by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.)
-  The punishment was not a result of any specific bad behavior.  In this case, like many others, the corporation did not have to admit to anything.  This leads to the paradox of a punishment meted out for apparently nothing other than "alleged" actions, making it appear that the actual punishment was just a payment by the company to allow it to continue the sorts of actions that were alleged with impunity.  (Such punishments without clear crimes happen all the time in cases affecting the finance sector.  See a federal judge's condemnation of this practice here.) 
-  The punishment seems unrelated to the corporation's historic behavior.  In this case, there was no reference to the company's previous settlements, or the other allegations of questionable payments to physicians and health care decision makers in other circumstances listed above.  (Keep in mind that Health Care Renewal strives to present interesting cases, but does not have the resources to report on every single case of bad behavior by health care organizations.  Hence the list above of apparent bad behavior may not be complete.)
-  The punishment applied to the corporation as a whole, and hence may disadvantage many people, stockholders and corporate employees in particular, who had nothing to do with the alleged bad behavior.  On the other hand, those who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior were not subject to any negative consequences. 

So why on earth would corporate leaders cease bad behavior which could increase revenues short-term and hence increase their compensation (e.g., in 2011, the Medtronic CEO received $9,624,709 according to the 2011 proxy statement), when the likelihood of any negative consequences for them appears to be near zero? 

This would be bad enough if the bad behavior only causes financial disadvantage for stockholders or corporate employees.

However, the bad behavior in question seems to repeatedly involve paying physicians and other health care decision makers in ways likely to influence their decisions in favor of Medtronics' products and corporate well-being.  Making decisions this way, however, is unlikely to be good for patients' and the public's health, as it is likely to lead to excess use of expensive tests and treatments that may have adverse effects, sometimes severe.  Thus patients may suffer unnecessary morbidity and mortality, and the public at large may pay far too much for medical care.

So will we see in our lifetimes honest, tough policing of health care corporate behavior?  Will the punishments start to fit the crime, and will they be significant enough to deter future misbehavior?  Why do we continue to accept government actions that seem more solicitous of the executives of big corporations than the public for whose benefit government is supposed to be run?  Where is the outrage?   

So, once more, with feeling.... in my humble opinion, 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.

ADDENDUM (15 December, 2011) - On the GoozNews blog, Merrill Goozner called Medtronic's actions "a crime against science."

Why Would Directors of Health Care Corporations Push for Bigger Pensions for Academic Administrators?

We recently posted about 36 well-paid top executives in the University of California system, including leaders of medical schools, academic medical centers, and public health, who threatened a lawsuit if their pensions were not increased according to what they claim was a promise made to them in 1999.

Riddle me this: why would a group of directors of for-profit corporations that provide health care goods and services. plus a director of a leading biotechnology trade group, and the director of a leading mutual fund family band together to support this demand, thus to push for bigger pensions for these top managers of the University of California system?

Here is a list of the directors, and their corporations:

-  Mark R Laret, director of Varian Medical Systems and Nuance Communications Inc, which provides numerous health care products 
- Dr David Feinberg, director of OSI Systems, whose Spacelabs Healthcare subsidiary manufactures medical devices
- Steven C Currall, director of Leadership in Medicine Inc, which claims to be a leading provider of intelligence about key opinion leaders (KOLs) in medicine and health care.  Its web-site asserts, "IF YOU NEED TO KNOW who are the most prominent, admired, and influential actors in healthcare, how they are interconnected, and why, you need our expertise.  Given how vastly complex are the relationships among providers, researchers, and other significant actors in healthcare, it is vital to focus on key opinion leaders (KOLs) at local, regional, and global levels, and to understand the ties among them."  (Note that we have often discussed how KOLs function as stealth marketers for pharmaceuticals and devices.)

They joined:
-  Robert S Sullivan, PhD - director of BIOCOM, whose web-site asserts it is the" largest regional life science association in the world, representing more than 550 member companies in Southern California."
-  Richard K Lyons, director of iShares, a leading provider of mutual funds.

The answer is simple.  All the corporate directors listed above are also members of the group of 36 litigious executives.  See their name on the list of 36 here in the San Francisco Chronicle.

- Mark R Laret, director of Varian Medical Systems and Nuance Communications Inc, which provides numerous health care products, is also CEO of UCSF Medical Center.
- Dr David Feinberg, director of OSI Systems, whose Spacelabs Healthcare subsidiary manufactures medical devices, is also CEO of the UCLA Hospital System
- Steven C Currall, director of Leadership in Medicine Inc, which claims to be a leading provider of intelligence about key opinion leaders (KOLs) in medicine and health care, is also Dean, and Professor of Management of the University of California - Davis Graduate School of Management.
Robert S Sullivan, PhD - director of BIOCOM, whose web-site asserts it is the" largest regional life science association in the world, representing more than 550 member companies in Southern California, is also Dean of the University of California - San Diego Rady School of Management.

- Richard K Lyons, director of iShares, a leading provider of mutual funds, is also Bank of America Dean and Professor of Business, University of California - Berkeley Haas School of Business.

Their inclusion within the larger group seems ironic, at best.  As corporate directors, they have outside income and have accumulated assets that will likely keep them out of poverty in their old age.  For example, Mr Laret had accumulated the equivalent of 37,168 shares of Varian, and was paid $267,300 a year for his services according to the company's 2010 proxy statement.

Furthermore, for those who directly lead health care institutions, Mr Laret and Dr Feinberg, their memberships on the boards of health care corporations, which imply fiduciary responsibilities to the companies and their stock-holders, conflict with their duties as leaders of academic health care to uphold teaching, research and patient care.  Dean Currall's responsibilities to an organization which seems entirely dedicated to helping drug, device, and biotechnology companies turn health care professionals and academics into stealth marketers at least seems unseemly given that his school is part of a university which also includes a medical school and academic medical center. 

Since our earlier post, it appears that the University of California president will not accede to the demands of the 36, as noted in the San Francisco Chronicle.  Their demands have continued to provoke outrage.  A recent discussion in Inside Higher Ed interviewed Emeritus Professor Helen Henry, a member of the University's Academic Senate, who posited:

the debate as part of a fundamental philosophical disagreement within the university. The signatories to the letter, many of whom are based in medicine or management, have a different view of the university than faculty from other disciplines, she said.

'I don’t think there’s any question but that there are these two different mindsets that are fighting for what the university should be. It’s transparent in this letter,' said Henry, a professor emeritus of biochemistry at the Riverside campus. 'They are running businesses. But there are those of us that don’t feel this is what the university should be.'

'This is absolutely a manifestation of that clash between the people who see UC as their business … and the people who see UC’s mission as teaching, and research and service to the state. That’s a dual personality that the university always has to live with.'

Five of the university leaders demanding higher pensions for themselves have responsibilities as directors of corporations that may conflict with their academic institutions' missions, while these corporate positions ought to insulate them from financial concerns about their retirement. This corroborates Prof Henry's notion that they see themselves as businesspeople whose role is separate from, and not necessarily supportive of the university mission.

I disagree, however, with Prof Henry's implication that the University has to live with such a split among its leadership. People who lead academic institutions have a primary responsibility to support the academic mission. Their goals should not be to maximize profits, much less to enrich themselves. Letting academia, and academic medicine be lead by leaders out to make money and line their own pockets will lead to just that, but hardly better teaching, research, and patient care.

Exactech Settles, Its Regional Sales Director Pleads Guilty

The march of legal settlements by health care organizations continues.  Here is a curious story in two parts.  The first part was reported in the most detail by the Gainesville (FL) Sun:

Gainesville-based Exactech must pay $3 million and submit to a year of federal monitoring under a settlement to avoid prosecution on charges that resulted from an investigation into whether orthopedic implant manufacturers were paying kickbacks to surgeons to use their products.

The company announced the deferred prosecution agreement Tuesday after three years of an expanded federal probe.

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey agrees not to prosecute charges of conspiracy to violate federal anti-kickback laws if the company avoids any violations for a year.

What did Exactech do to wind up in this pickle? It is not really clear. The article noted:

What the U.S. Attorney calls kickbacks Exactech calls consulting fees to surgeons to help develop better products — a common practice in the medical product field.

One can get a little better idea of what was going on by seeing what changes the company agreed to make:

Exactech will continue using surgeons as consultants, but under a more rigorous process that verifies that the work is needed, tracks the surgeons' work and pays them fairly.

The article went out of its way to say:

In accepting the agreement, Exactech does not admit to any wrongdoing and the U.S. Attorney acknowledges that the company's conduct did not hurt patient health or patient care.

Meanwhile, however, a short article appeared in the Parsipanny (NJ) Daily Record:

A salesman from Chester pleaded guilty to conspiring to violate a federal anti-kickback statute by entering into illegal financial deals to get surgeons to use his company's products, the US Attorney's Office said Tuesday.

Douglass Donofrio, 45, director of sales for Exactech Inc.'s northeast region, entered his guilty plea Tuesday before District Judge Garrett E. Brown in Trenton.

Exactech, a publicly traded, Gainesville, Fla.-based national manufacturer and distributor of orthopedic implant devices and supplies, simultaneously agreed to 12-month deal with the justice department to federal monitoring.

'This is a reasonable resolution, giving Exactech credit for positive steps it has taken while requiring continued reform and compliance to avoid more serious consequences,' acting U.S. Attorney Gilmore Childers said in a statement released by his office. 'The agreement does not erase the past, but supports a future corporate culture that will not tolerate kickbacks as business as usual. Unlawful consulting relationships compromise the integrity of our healthcare system, and we will continue to hold institutions and individuals accountable who are willing to put profits over patients.'

Exactech is charged in a criminal court complaint with conspiring to violate the federal anti-kickback statute.

The complaint alleges that from 2002 through late 2008, Exactech entered into consulting agreements with certain orthopedic surgeons — deals which were designed and implemented, in part, to induce the surgeons to use, and cause the purchase of, Exactech's hip and knee reconstruction and replacement products, according to Childers' office.

Note that probably because this case was small in monetary terms, reporting about it was fragmented and brief, making it very difficult to get a sense of what really was going on. 

So, while Exactech did not admit to any wrong-doing, one of its mid-level managers admitted to apparently just the sort of wrong-doing of which the company was accused. If that manager was only a lone loose cannon, why would the company have been pushed to change how it uses surgeon consultants, and why would it need "support" for "a corporate culture that will not tolerate kickbacks as business as usual?"

Nonetheless, only that one mid-level manager admits he did anything wrong.  If anyone else did anything wrong, who they were, and what they did remains unclear, hidden within a swirl of legalese.  Maybe unethical practices occurred, and maybe the new deferred prosecution agreement will prevent further unethical practices, but who can tell? 

If anything unethical did happen, there seems to no longer be any mechanism in health care to find out and  do something about it. 

This case appears to be a good example of how language can be tortured by legalistic parsing that avoids the fundamental ethical problems that now plague health care. As Dr Bernard Carroll posted recently, "legalistic charges and defenses are not the right way to go in exposing and ejecting bad actors from our field," because this approach "favors the bad actors, who flaunt their constitutional protections with the taunt, prove it."  Instead, as Dr Carroll implied, the standard in health care should require more than just avoiding felony convictions.

Even though the current case is small in monetary terms, it is a marker of unethical behavior.  The ongoing parade of legal settlements and criminal pleadings and convictions involving health care organizations, when viewed in its entirety, should convince professionals and policy-makers that health care is undergoing an ethical meltdown. 

The fines imposed by the settlements have never been large enough to be more than costs of doing business, and hence are unlikely to change behavior.  The legalistic approach has not resulted in more than a few people who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior that lead to the settlements paying any personal penalties.  If we want the bad behavior to stop, we clearly need some other way to deter it.  Until we come up with one, expect it to continue, and to continue driving up costs, driving down access, and making patients' outcomes worse.

BLOGSCAN - Medtronic's Multi-Million Dollar Payments to Spine Surgeons

Starting in 2007, we discussed the huge payments made by four medical device companies to orthopedic surgeons and medical organizations related to the use of hip and knee prostheses.  (See post here with links backward.)  Payments, in the millions of dollars per year range, went to surgeons including noted academics, and leaders of the main orthopedic physicians' society.  Payments went to medical schools, teaching hospitals, and professional societies.  Many of these financial relationships were not disclosed, and the disclosures that were made rarely indicated the amounts involved.

Now the Wall Street Journal reports millions being paid to spine surgeons by Medtronic in connection with devices used in spinal fusion.  See Dr Howard Brody's discussion here on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine, and Pharma blog, and also Felix Salmon's discussion here on the Felix Salmon blog.

What seems lacking is a clear rationale for any payments, much less for payments of the sizes listed.  The WSJ article cited a Medtronic spokesperson, "surgeons' device-development work goes beyond mere consulting when the company deems that they are contributing valuable intellectual property to a product. But that intellectual property doesn't necessarily have to be patented."  The reporters found, "search of spine-device patents awarded to the Norton surgeons turned up about a dozen total for Drs. Puno, Johnson, Campbell and Dimar, most owned by companies other than Medtronic. The search turned up no patents for Dr. Glassman."  So what intellectual property that was not or could not be patented could be worth millions a year?

The Boards Who Ought to be Accountable for the Misbehavior of Health Care Corporations

I recently posted about the multiple conflicts of interest affecting a university health sciences leader.  While he was supposed to be running a medical school and an academic medical center, he was also responsible for the stewardship, as a board member, of three health major health care corporations, and a food and beverage corporation (whose products have bearing on nutrition and public health.)  .

This one case suggested how pervasive are conflicts of interest affecting the people at the top of health care leadership in the US, and also how such conflicts may be associated with problems for all the organizations involved.  The story originally came to my attention because students were demonstrating against the lavish compensation given the health sciences leader at a time of university cutbacks, suggesting that university leaders were paying more attention to their own enrichment than to the mission of the university.  At the same time, one of the corporations which he was stewarding (Genzyme) had to shut down a factory because the extremely expensive drug it was producing was found to be impure and adulterated, while its CEO continued to be compensated lavishly.  The other corporation (Medtronic) had to settle litigation accusing it of manufacturing defective products for hundreds of millions of dollars, while its CEO again continued to be compensated lavishly. 

So I thought it might be interesting to see who are the other stewards of these troubled corporations.  I consulted the official biographies of their board members from their 2010 proxy statements (Genzyme here, Medtronic here).  I looked for board members who also held leadership positions in other health care organizations whose interests may not be aligned with the two corporations of interest.  I also looked for those who held leadership positions in the discredited financial services corporation who helped usher in the global financial collapse.

The specifics of what I found follow.

Genzyme

Genzyme had 10 directors in 2010.  The following directors had relationships of interest:

-  Douglas A Berthiaume is "Chairman of the Children's Hospital (Boston) Trust Board, a member of the Children's Hospital board of trustees, and a Trustee of the University of Massachusetts Amherst Foundation."  Children's Hospital is a teaching hospital.  The University of Massachusetts includes a medical school. 
-  Robert J Bertolini "retired from Schering-Plough Corp following its merger with Merck & Co in November, 2009."  Schering-Plough was a large pharmaceutical company now combined with Merck to form an even larger company.
-  Gail K Boudreaux "has served since May 2008 as an Executive Vice President of United Health Group Incorporated."  Also, "she serves on the board of directors of America's Health Insurance Plans...."  UnitedHealth is one of the US' largest health insurance/ managed care corporations.  Incidentally,it has frequently misbehaved, as can be seen in this set of posts.  AHIP is the health insurance corporations' trade associations.
-  Robert J Carpenter "is Chairman of Hydra Biosciences Inc... He is also a trustee of the Immune Disease Institute, a non-profit institute affiliated with Children's Hospital in Boston...." 
-  Charles L Cooney "is a director of India-based Biocon Limited, a biotechnology healthcare company."
-  Victor J Dzau MD (discussed in the earlier post) is "Chancellor for Health Affairs and President and Chief Executive Officer of Duke University Health System...."  He "sits on the board of directors of Pepsico Inc, Anylam Inc, Medtronic Inc, and the Duke University Health System."
-  Senator Connie Mack III is "Chairman Emeritus of the parent board of the H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute...."  He also is director of "EXACT Sciences Corporation and Moody's Corp."  EXACT Sciences is a biotechnology company that develops diagnostic test technology.  Moody's Corp is a financial ratings agency whose lax ratings of financial derivatives, perhaps arising from conflicts of interest produced by payments from the producers of the derivatives, have been implicated as a major cause of the global financial collapse.
-  Richard E Syron was from "January 2004 to September 8, 2008 ... Chairman and Chief Executive Officer of the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, commonly referred to as Freddie Mac...."    Freddie Mac as bailed out and taken over by the US government when he departed, or was forced out.  Freddie Mac, was a "government-sponsored enterprise," (GSE) one of another group of companies whose enthusiastic participation in securitizing dubious mortgages was implicated as a major cause of the global financial collapse.
- Henri A Termeer (CEO of Genzyme) is a "director of Massachusetts General Hospital, a board member of Partners HealthCare, and a member of the board of fellows of Harvard Medical School." 

So the box score for Genzyme's 10 directors: six have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities (some such institutions are lead by more than one Genzyme director).  Seven have leadership positions in other drug, device or biotechnology corporations.  One have leadership positions in health insurance/ managed care corporations.  Two had or have leadership positions in discredited financial services corporations that were implicated in the global financial collapse.

Medtronic

Medtronic had 11 directors in 2010.  The following directors had relationships of interest:

- Richard H Anderson "was Executive Vice President of UnitedHealth Group Incorporated."  As above, UnitedHealth is a health insurance/ managed care corporation.
- Victor J Dzau (see above) is "Chancellor for Health Affairs at Duke University and President and Chief Executive Officer of the Duke University Health System."  He is "a director of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals Inc, ... PepsiCo Inc, and Genzyme Corporation." (See discussion above.)
- James T Lenahan "served as President of Johnson & Johnson from 2002 until June 2004...."  He is "director of Telecris Biotherapeutics Inc, Alton Pharma Inc and Imacor Inc."  Johnson & Johnson is a large drug, device, and biotechnology company.  Telecris, and Alton Pharma are biotechnology pharmaceutical companies.  Imacor is a medical device company.
- Denise M O'Leary "is a director of Lucille Packard Children's Hospital and Stanford Hospitals and Clinics."  Also, "she was a member of the Stanford University Board of Trustees from 1996 through 2006, where she chaired the Committee of the Medical Center...."
-  Robert C Pozen is "an advisor to Gelesis Inc."  Gelesis is a biotechnology company.
-  Jack W Schuler "has been a director of Stericycle Inc since March 1990...."  He is a "director of Quidel Corporation and Elan Corporation plc...."    Stericycle company disposes of medical waste, including that produced by medical devices.  Quidel is a biotechnology and (medical diagnostic) device company.  Elan is an multinational biotechnology and pharmaceutical company.

So the box score for Genzyme's 11 directors is: Two have leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities (some such institutions are lead by more than one Genzyme director). Ten have leadership positions in other drug, device or biotechnology corporations. One has a leadership position in health insurance/ managed care corporations. None had or have leadership positions in discredited financial services corporations that were implicated in the global financial collapse.

Summary

Just to summarize the sorts of conflicting interests these relationships suggest. 

Teaching hospitals and medical schools are supposed to provide unbiased teaching, including about issues relevant to drug and device corporations, such as choice of diagnostic strategies and treatments, and relevant health policy.  They are supposed to perform unbiased research, including research that evaluates drugs and devices.  They are supposed to provide the best possible patient care at a reasonable cost, which relates to choices of and prices paid for drugs and devices. 

Other drug, device, and biotechnology corporations may be producing, or developing products that compete with those of the index corporations.

Health insurance companies ostensibly try to control costs and improve quality in part by reducing excess utilization and bargaining down prices of drugs and devices. 

So this limited case study of the boards of directors, that is, the ostensible stewards of two health care corporations, selected because they have a common member who is the leader of a large medical school and academic medical center, and which both have histories of poor management or ethical missteps showed  - that the leadership of health care organizations is incredibly interrelated, interlocked, incestuous. 

This gave an example of how pervasive are the conflicts of interest that affect all kinds of health care organizations.  Companies that ought to be competing have interlocked directors.  Companies that ought to be negotiating at arms length have interlocked directors.  Not-for-profit academic medical institutions have leaders who are also directors of companies whose drugs their patients may take, whose devices their patients may receive, whose insurance their patients may buy, and whose products and services they may teach about and evaluate through clinical research and policy research. 

This also gives an example of how the failed culture of finance may be linked to the culture of medicine and health care.  Some of the stewards of health care organizations were also the stewards of financial services corporations whose reckless, if not arrogant, greedy and amoral leadership is widely believed to have caused the global financial collapse and our ongoing economic problems. 

Finally, this suggests how top leaders of various health care organizations may be more familiar with and identify more with each other than with their organizations, their organizations' missions, and their organizations' professionals, staff, students, clients, and patients. 

What is to be done?

I strongly believe that there needs to be much more investigation, academic, journalistic, and perhaps legal, of the identity, nature, and culture of the leaders of health care, and their relationships.  A few bloggers cannot do it all.  Obviously, the anechoic effect mitigates against medical and health care academics looking into their own leaders.  However, failing to understand who is leading our march to the brink of health care failure ought not to be something such academics would want on their conscience.

Finally, and obviously, health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment.  Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. 

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.   

Ela Medical (Now the Sorin Group) Settles

And we return to the parade of legal settlements, which is still marching along.  The next entrant to the parade was described by the Miami Herald:

In a four-year-old case with nationwide implications, Ela Medical has agreed to pay $9.2 million to settle a whistle-blower case brought by a former Miami technician who charged the company used several schemes to pay kickbacks to South Florida doctors.

The details of the allegations were:

In the Miami case, brought by May and Ben Kuehne, Lee alleged that Ela gave money to doctors for questionable studies, had Ela techs do work on patients that doctors later billed Medicare for, gave doctors free trips and helped doctors get monitoring equipment that to led to more Medicare billing.

The moves were made by the company to boost sales in the multibillion-dollar field of cardiac devices, where pacemakers can cost up to $7,000 and defibrillators up to $18,000.

These devices have batteries that run down in about three years, the lawsuit said, and patients need to be monitored to see how much battery life their devices have left. An Ela tech performed the tests in doctors' office.

'Although Medicare required a physician to be present during the battery test, physicians never attended these battery check appointments,' the lawsuit alleged. Doctors then billed Medicare for the techs' work.

Other times, doctors were paid $2,500 to $4,000 for each Ela patient enrolled in a study, even though patients were never informed and never gave the required permission, the lawsuit said. 'The physicians had no role and in fact did nothing in furtherance of the study,' the lawsuit stated. 'However, Medicare was billed each time the study was conducted, as if the physician had participated.'

Of course, the company's statement had all the expected elements:

Closure of this investigation places this legacy issue firmly behind us and clearly enhances our ability to execute on our plans for CRM [cardiac rhythm management] in the United States. Our commitment to provide patients and healthcare providers with life-saving and life-enhancing innovation, and to conduct our business in a highly ethical manner is stronger than ever.

I leave it to my dear readers to decide on how ethically the company's previous business operations were, based on the above.

I would note that not only did the company want to put this case behind it, it seemed to want to put its old name behind it too. Ela Medical is now apparently known only by the name of its Italian parent company, the Sorin Group.

To add a final disturbing note, this case illustrates why people who see what appears to be unethical, or even illegal behavior are not rushing to report it:

On Monday, May, the attorney, said Lee 'is not talking to anybody. This has been a difficult experience.' She quit Ela when, after complaining about the company's questionable practices, she was told to transfer to California. She took a job with a competitor, but was dropped when the industry learned she had filed the lawsuit.

'She was blackballed,' May said. 'She's basically gone from $100,000 a year to minimum wage.'

One would hardly have expected Ms Lee to have kept her job at Ela once she reported what was going on there. However, it was worse than that. Being known as a whistle-blower may make one radioactive enough to preclude any employment in a segment of health care that is at all related to the one in which one blew the whistle.

The Herald article did note that Ms Lee stands to get part of the settlement. Yet this will come at least four years after the case began, as her lawyer said:

the 'money will allow her basically to start over.' If she had kept her mouth shut, 'she would have made far more money in her lifetime than she will get as a percentage of the settlement.'

As we just noted, in health care, the incentives are strongly tilted to favor financial productivity , or "making the numbers," and to disfavor ethical conduct, especially when it requires dissenting with top managers. If we really want accessible, affordable, high-quality health care, we will have to get rid of these sorts of perverse incentives.

So the march of legal settlements continues.  As in many previous cases, note that the monetary cost of the above settlement, while it seems large to normal humans, would be just slightly more than round-up error for a large multi-national company.  As I have said repeatedly,  penalties that only appear to be (relatively small) costs of doing business are unlikely to deter future bad behavior. Until the people who actually authorized, directed and implemented the bad behavior have to suffer some negative consequences, expect the bad behavior to continue. 

"Toxic and Dangerous?" - The Watchdog vs Medtronic's Man at the VA

An odd story that appeared earlier this month linked several people we have discussed on Health Care Renewal.

On one hand, we posted about how Dr David Polly, a spine surgeon at the University of Minnesota, testified before the US Congress in support of research on treatments of bone injuries afflicting US soldiers.  He did not then reveal that he had been paid more than one million dollars for consulting by Medtronic, the manufacturer of a bone growth product used to treat such injuries, also the source of payments of his expenses for the trip to Washington.  At the time, we suggested this case was a reminder to be skeptical about academics who are really stealth health policy advocates for industry.

On the other hand, in a post about renewed payments by makers of artificial joints to orthopedic surgeons after the US government advocated a series of deferred prosecution agreements as a cure for such apparent conflicts of interest, we quoted Dr Charles Rosen, "Nothing will change until someone goes to jail. It’s a big game."

The link between them appeared in two related articles.  First, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune reported on the appointment of another Medtronic consultant to a top leadership post in the US Department of Veterans Affairs:

In a Sept. 28 letter to Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki, Sen. Charles Grassley asks whether Dr. Stephen Ondra's 'policy advice and decisions at the VA are vulnerable to potential conflicts of financial interest' given his prior relationship with the Fridley-based medical technology giant.

Ondra and Medtronic mutually severed their financial relationship in July 2008. But just prior to that, Medtronic paid him $3.6 million in royalties related to spine-surgery instruments, according to financial disclosure forms he submitted to the VA.

It appears that Medtronic lobbied hard for the appointment of its former consultant:

While noting that Ondra is not a Medtronic employee, Grassley characterized the surgeon's relationship with the company as 'unambiguous and substantial.' Further, Grassley notes that Ondra 'was able to penetrate the political establishment at its highest level to obtain a senior position at the VA' because of his previous ties to the company.

The details are:

Ondra's candidacy for his current post was supported by Medtronic Chief Executive William Hawkins III, who wrote a letter of recommendation to Secretary of Defense Robert Gates on his behalf. This was at the suggestion of Dr. S. Ward Casscells III, who was then assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, according to a series of internal e-mails obtained by the Star Tribune.

'I have known Dr. Casscells for many years and was comfortable in approaching him on this topic,' Hawkins wrote in a Jan. 16, 2009 e-mail to the then-head of Medtronic's $3.5 billion spine device business, Steve La Neve. (La Neve left that position earlier this year in a corporate reorganization.)

La Neve replied a day later that Ondra wanted to meet with him or with Hawkins before a reference letter was sent, 'so that it can capture his work on appropriate industry-physician relationships and transparency.'

(It is not clear whether the last sentence above is meant to be an ironic pun about regulatory capture.)

A post on Pharmalot explains what Dr Ondra's first priority was once he got his government job:

Within a few days, however, Ondra objected to the proposed nomination of another spine surgeon, Charles Rosen, as US Surgeon General. Why? As founder of the Association of Medical Ethics, Rosen publicly questioned consulting ties between doctors and device makers and, for his trouble, allegedly suffered retaliation by members of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (see this). In a January 21, 2009 email exchange with Davd Polly, a University of Minnesota professor who was another Medtronic consultant, Ondra acknowledged never having heard of Rosen, but reacts viscerally to a recent story in The Orange County Register that details Rosen’s self-appointed role as a watchdog.

'Since this individual is toxic and dangerous I would leave nothing to chance,' he responds to Polly, who had forwarded the newspaper story to Ondra. Polly, by the way, is a nationally known spine surgeon who came under congressional scrutiny for his work several years ago for the device maker, something that Rosen had criticized (look here). 'This moment in history is too important to our country to let such a disreputable and dangerous person continue his self-promotion crusade,' Ondra continues. 'I would encourage you and any other physicians and citizens to weigh in on this to HHS and public health.'

Got that?  Medtronic pays Dr Ondra millions.  Medtronic pushes for Dr Ondra's appointment to a top VA leadership position.  Once in that position, Dr Ondra confers with another million dollar Medtronic consultant, and then works to block the appointment as Surgeon General of a known foe of the cozy web of conflicts of interest that afflicts medicine.  Thus do conflicts of interest work to promote the capture of government by special interests. 

The Pharmalot post concluded with this opinion:

'It’s obvious that Dr. Ondra benefited from his relationship with Medtronic. And since he worked to kill off the nomination of Chuck Rosen, Medtronic’s main critic, I can see how Medtronic benefited from Dr. Ondra,' says Paul Thacker, a former Grassley staff investigator and US Army specialist. 'What I don’t understand is how I and other veterans have benefited from all this back-door dealing. What’s in it for us?'

That is a good question. It appears that nothing was in it for veterans, or the US public. But everything was in it for Medtronic and the doctors it pays so well.  I would submit that it is the readiness of big health care corporations to create conflicts of interest that seduce physicians to put their loyalties to their corporate sponsors ahead of the public interest that is toxic and dangerous.

This convoluted story suggests the urgent need for full disclosure of all relationships between physicians and others who make decisions and wield influence in health care on one hand, and health care organizations on the other hand.  If physicians want their health policy efforts to be met with anything other than guffaws and cynical eye rolls, they need to seriously consider swearing off the sorts of cushy corporate relationships that Dr Ondra and Dr Polly embraced.

Synthes and its Subsidiary Plead Guilty, Boss Remains Billionaire.

In December, 2009, we updated the story of Swiss-based medical device company Synthes and the marketing by its Norian division of a bone cement.  At that time, US authorities charged the company with use of an unapproved product in about 200 patients, three of whom suffered untimely deaths.  At that point, four US based Synthes executives had pleaded guilty to charges related to this affair. 

Last week, another shoe dropped.  As reported by the Associated Press,

A medical devices company will admit criminality and pay the maximum $23 million fine for illegally testing bone cement on about 200 spinal patients, three of whom died in surgery, U.S. prosecutors said Monday.

Norian Corp. trained surgeons to conduct unapproved clinical tests of its bone cement from 2002 to 2004, subverting U.S. Food and Drug Administration safeguards, prosecutors said. The trials were stopped after the third patient death, they said.

The cement, which is used to fill in bone defects, is approved for use in the arm but not the load-bearing spine, authorities said. The surgeries often involved older patients with compression fractures, they said.

The results are:

Norian will plead guilty to conspiracy to impede FDA functions, a felony, and 110 misdemeanor counts of interstate shipping of misbranded Norian XR. Synthes will plead guilty to the same misdemeanor shipping count.

As part of the agreement, Norian will be sold to an outside buyer, the parent company said.

Imposing divestiture of the offending subsidiary was unusual, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Forcing a divestiture of a business unit in a plea agreement was precedent-setting for the U.S. Attorney General's Office in the Philadelphia area, spokeswoman Patricia Hartman said Monday.

Officials with the Office of the Inspector General in DHHS said the divestiture should send a message to other health-care companies that Synthes' behavior had grave consequences.

'Criminal conduct can result in a company getting rid of part of their business,' Greg Demske, a top official with the Inspector General, said Monday. 'This is an egregious case, and it made us firm in our belief that we should draw a line here,' he said.

If it remained a subsidiary of Synthes, Norian would be excluded from participating in Medicare and other government-funded health care programs, which would be potentially devastating to its business. According to a divestiture agreement released Monday by the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia, Synthes has to sell Norian by May 24.

The assets of Norian would not be allowed to be transferred to another part of the Synthes 'corporate family' as part of the divestiture, Demske said.

Synthes will update the government monthly on its plans to divest Norian, and if it fails to sell the company by the May deadline, it can be fined $10,000 a day.

So does this case signal a new toughness by US authorities in cases of bad behavior by health care corporations?

According to the Wall Street Journal, Synthes officials were not exactly quaking in their boots because of these penalties, as their spokesperson said Synthes "does not expect this settlement to have any significant financial impact." Synthes would only be liable for fines of "about $24.3 million in total." That pales in comparison to the "company['s] posted total sales of $3.4 billion last year." As for the divestiture of Norian, the WSJ reported, "a spokesman said Monday that the Norian unit is mostly active in product development and isn't actively selling products. That business has fewer than 100 employees,...."

In fact, company leadership did not seem to realize that they did anything wrong, despite the company and four executives pleading guilty to crimes, actions involving the death of three patients,

'Synthes remains committed to operating in accordance with the highest legal and ethical standards, and bringing closure to this matter will permit the company to focus on its mission to improve patient care,' the company said.

Furthermore, while this is one of the few cases in which some company executives actually may have to pay penalties (after pleading guilty to at least misdemeanors), the big fish appeared to get away. As we discussed last year, an unindicted "person no. 7" was alleged to have set up the scheme to "test" the bone cement in a clinical series. Person No. 7 was at that time identified as the company CEO. That CEO, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer last year, was one Mr Hansjorg Wyss, noted to have a fortune estimated at $5.7 billion, making him the richest man in Philadelphia, and the 83rd richest man in the world, according to Forbes magazine.  (See this post.)   The settlement of this case would apparently have no impact on his immense wealth.

So although this case has some unusual wrinkles, and may yet yield some negative consequences for some of the people involved in the direction and implementation of the wrong-doing, it would appear to leave unscathed the person who has personally profited the most from the company, and its actions, including its less savory actions.  There is progress here, but only a little.

Once again, it appears that in the eyes of the law, top corporate leaders are different from you and me.  They appear immune from the penalties that lesser individuals may suffer.  They have impunity to continue to amass wealth even wealth that results from actions that were deemed illegal.   Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

Wright Medical Settles, ... But Wait, There is Less

Everyone loves a parade, and so the parade of legal settlements by prominent health care organizations continues.  The latest to march into view is Wright Medical Group, as reported by Bloomberg:

Wright Medical Technology Inc. agreed to pay $7.9 million to resolve U.S. criminal and civil investigations into whether it paid kickbacks to induce doctors to use its hip and knee devices.

Prosecutors in Newark, New Jersey, today charged Wright with conspiring to violate a federal anti-kickback statue through consulting contracts with orthopedic surgeons. The U.S. agreed to drop the case in 12 months if a monitor agrees that Wright has reformed the way it hires consultants.

Wright, based in Arlington, Tennessee, also agreed to a $7.9 million civil settlement with the Justice Department and inspector general of the Health and Human Services Department to resolve fraudulent-marketing claims. The company entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement.

Here we go again. A company is accused of giving kickbacks, aka bribes, to individual doctors, in this case orthopedic surgeons, to get them to use the company's products. Such payments clearly violate medical ethics (especially doctors' obligations to put the interests of patients ahead of their personal financial interests), leading to decision making not in the best interests of the patients. However, the penalty to the company itself is minuscule, only a fraction of the company's revenue, according to Google Finance, in 2009, just under $500 million. As we have noted endlessly before, financial penalties to corporations are diffused among all shareholders and employees, and possibly customers and patients.

Do we really expect that this penalty will change anything, or deter future bad behavior by this or any other company?

But our government continues to treat the corporate employees who authorize, direct, or implement bad behavior like this as essentially above the law. In this case, like in many others we have discussed previously, no one who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior will have to pay any sort of penalty or suffer any sort of negative consequences.  Does anyone in their right mind believe that Wright Medical really is

pleased to announce these agreements and look[ing] forward to working with the independent monitor as we continue our commitment to the highest standards of ethical and legal conduct

That was a quote from Wright Medical CEO Gary D Henley. He may be pleased to announce the agreements, since they really amount to such a tiny pinprick of a penalty. After all, Mr Henley will be able to to continue to use Wright Medical's revenues, virtually unaffected by this penalty, to justify his compensation (per the 2009 proxy statement, $2,036,517 in 2009, and his continuing accumulation of wealth, e.g., 436,601 shares of stock, currently valued at $13.86/ share according to Google Financial.)

I leave an assessment of what the company's previous commitment to "the highest standard of ethical and legal conduct" was to our dear readers.

We will not have true health care reform until we end the unholy alliance between big government and big health care organizations, that is, health care corporatism. Then, maybe, we can make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.