The "King of Pain" Recants - Pharmaceutical Paid Key Opinion Leader Admits It Was All "Misinformation"

This may be a first.  A Wall Street Journal story announced that the "key opinion leader" who played a pivotal role in the promotion of  aggressive use of narcotics to treat non-malignant chronic pain has had a change of heart.  

Background - Embracing Narcotics

In the long ago time when I was in medical school, the wisdom was then that narcotics (that is, drugs like morphine or heroin, the latter not legal) should only be used in severe acute pain, like that due to bad trauma or occurring post-operatively, or for the pain of terminal illnesses, like cancer.  The reason their use was so restricted was that the drugs were believed to cause frequent adverse effects, from severe constipation, to addiction, to respiratory depression and death.

However, starting in the 1990s, the conventional wisdom changed.  Suddenly, the focus was on the under-treatment of chronic, but not malignant pain, and it became permissible, or even preferable, to use potent narcotics for this purpose.  Physicians like me who were very conservative in their use of narcotics were chastised for under-treating pain.

The Wall Street Journal article explained how this radical change in approach was apparently engineered by a few key opinion leaders, particularly Dr Russell Portenoy.  It opened,

Two decades ago, the prominent New York pain-care specialist drove a movement to help people with chronic pain. He campaigned to rehabilitate a group of painkillers derived from the opium poppy that were long shunned by physicians because of their addictiveness.

Dr. Portenoy's message was wildly successful. Today, drugs containing opioids like Vicodin, OxyContin and Percocet are among the most widely prescribed pharmaceuticals in America. 

The article provided graphics showing that per capita prescription narcotic use has more than tripled since 1999, 

A Change Driven by Wishful Thinking, not Evidence

Unfortunately, as the article made clear, the radical change that seemed so odd to some of us physicians who were trained before the 1990s was not driven by any good evidence from clinical research.

Per the WSJ,

Because doctors feared they were dangerous and addictive, opioids were long reserved mainly for cancer patients. But Dr. Portenoy argued that they could be also safely be taken for months or years by people suffering from chronic pain. Among the assertions he and his followers made in the 1990s: Less than 1% of opioid users became addicted, the drugs were easy to discontinue and overdoses were extremely rare in pain patients. 

However, Dr Portenoy's contention seemed to be based only on a small case-series of patients, lacking any sort of control group, and too small and likely too selective to generalize, particularly to patients with chronic, non-malignant pain.(Portenoy RK, Foley KM.   Chronic use of opioid analgesics in non-malignant pain: report of 38 cases. Pain 1986; 25:171-86.  This article does not seem to be available online.)

In 1986, at the age of 31, he co-wrote a seminal paper arguing that opioids could also be used in the much larger group of people without cancer who suffered chronic pain. The paper was based on just 38 cases and included several caveats. Nevertheless, it opened the door to much broader prescribing of the drugs for more common complaints such as nerve or back pain. 

 Dr Portenoy also cited

the statistic that less than 1% of opioid users became addicted.

Today, even proponents of opioid use say that figure was wrong. 'It's obviously crazy to think that only 1% of the population is at risk for opioid addiction,' said Lynn Webster, president-elect of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, one of the publishers of the 1996 statement. 'It's just not true.'

The figure came from a single-paragraph report in the New England Journal of Medicine in 1980 describing hospitalized patients briefly given opioids.

The reference here appears to be a letter to the New England Journal of Medicine ( Porter J, Jick H. Addiction rate in patients treated with narcotics. New England Journal of Medicine 1980; 302:123.  Link here.)  This was literally one paragraph long, so the methods of the research it reported cannot be rigorously evaluated.  In any event, the letter appears to have retrospectively documented an observation of hospitalized patients who were given at least a single dose of narcotics, and thus appears not relevant to the effects of long-term narcotics on patients with chronic pain. 

Thus, Dr Portenoy's enthusiasm for aggressive use of narcotics in non-malignant chronic pain was never based on any good evidence from well designed and performed randomized controlled trials with long-term followup that showed that narcotics were safe and effective in this setting.  At best, Dr Portenoy's and colleagues' contentions that narcotics should be liberally utilized for such patient were based on wishful thinking, not good evidence.


A Change Driven by Stealth Marketing

The WSJ article documented how Dr Portenoy was a prime mover in what appeared to be deceptive stealth campaigns to market narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain.  Dr Portenoy's 1986 case-series

opened the door to much broader prescribing of the drugs for more common complaints such as nerve or back pain.

Charming and articulate, he became a sought-after public speaker. He argued that opioids are a 'gift from nature' that were being forsaken because of 'opiophobia' among doctors. 'We had to destigmatize these drugs,' said Dr. Portenoy.

He rose to chairman of pain medicine and palliative care at Beth Israel Medical Center in New York. His small office is studded with awards and evidence of his offbeat sense of humor. He prominently displays a magazine mock-up that jokingly dubs him 'The King of Pain.'

At medical conferences, his confident, knowing manner helped smooth the way for his message. Before an audience of government regulators, he once joked that he might tell a patient at low risk of abuse: 'Here, [have] six months of drugs. See you later,' he said, according to a Food and Drug Administration transcript. Amid laughter, he added, 'It's just hyperbole. I don't actually do that.'

Steven Passik, a psychologist who once worked closely with Dr. Portenoy and describes him as his mentor, says their message wasn't based on scientific evidence so much as a zeal to improve patients' lives. 'It had all the makings of a religious movement at the time,' he says. 'It had that kind of a spirit to it.'

So Dr Portenoy became a respected opinion leader.  His influence was demonstrated by how he generated disciples

 Dr. Portenoy's ideas about opioids reached into mainstream medicine and attracted outspoken advocates. In a 1998 talk in Houston, Alan Spanos, a South Carolina pain specialist, said patients with chronic noncancer pain could be trusted to decide themselves how many painkillers to take without risk of overdose. According to a recording, Dr. Spanos said he understood that a patient would simply 'go to sleep' before stopping breathing. While asleep, he said, the patient 'can't take a dangerous dose. It sounds scary, but as far as I know, nobody anywhere is getting burned by doing it this way.'

Dr Portenoy was affiliated with organized efforts that facilitated the marketing of narcotics for chronic malignant pain.  The marketing used clinical practice guidelines to push narcotics

Dr. Portenoy helped write a landmark 1996 consensus statement by two professional pain societies that said there was little risk of addiction or overdose among pain patients. 

The campaign enlisted government regulators, and thus seemed to include an element of regulatory capture,

One of Dr. Portenoy's chief complaints was that doctors were reluctant to prescribe opioids because they feared scrutiny by regulators or law enforcement. In the second half of the 1990s, he and his followers campaigned successfully for policies to change that.

In 1998, the Federation of State Medical Boards released a recommended policy reassuring doctors that they wouldn't face regulatory action for prescribing even large amounts of narcotics, as long as it was in the course of medical treatment. In 2004 the group called on state medical boards to make undertreatment of pain punishable for the first time.

This case demonstrated the direct involvement of pharmaceutical companies who sold narcotics,

That policy was drawn up with the help of several people with links to opioid makers, including David Haddox, a senior Purdue Pharma executive then and now. The federation said it received nearly $2 million from opioid makers since 1997. The federation says it derives the majority of its funding from administering medical licensing exams, credential verification, and data services.

A federation-published book outlining the opioid policy was funded by opioid makers including Purdue Pharma, Endo Health Soluttions Inc, and others, with proceeds totaling $280,000 going to the federation. .

 The campaign also involved an important hospital accrediting organization

In 2001, the Joint Commission, [JCAHO] which accredits U.S. hospitals, issued new standards telling hospitals to regularly ask patients about pain and to make treating it a priority. The now-familiar pain scale was introduced in many hospitals, with patients being asked to rate their pain from one to 10 and circle a smiling or frowning face.

The Joint Commission published a guide sponsored by Purdue Pharma. 'Some clinicians have inaccurate and exaggerated concerns" about addiction, tolerance and risk of death, the guide said. "This attitude prevails despite the fact there is no evidence that addiction is a significant issue when persons are given opioids for pain control.'

A Change Leading to Personal Enrichment

Meanwhile, Dr Portenoy was personally profiting from his relationships with pharmaceutical companies

Over his career, Dr. Portenoy has disclosed relationships with more than a dozen companies, most of which produce opioid painkillers. 'My viewpoint is that I can have those relationships, they would benefit my educational mission, they benefit in my research mission, and to some extent, they can benefit my own pocketbook, without producing in me any tendency to engage in undue influence or misinformation,' he said.

Dr. Portenoy and Beth Israel declined to provide details of their funding by drug companies. A 2007 fundraising prospectus from Dr. Portenoy's program shows that his program received millions of dollars over the preceding decade in funding from opioid makers including Endo, Abbott Laboratories, Cephalon, Purdue Pharma and  Johnson & Johnson.  

He currently also appears to be on the advisory boards of  Zars Pharma Inc,  Relevare Therapeutics, and Cytogel Pharma.

Thus, it seems that Dr Portenoy fit the usual definition of key opinion leader.  He was regarded as an authority in his area and his opinions were obviously influential.  He was paid by health care corporations with interests in selling their goods or services, in this case, narcotic drugs, and was using his influence to promote individual patient care decisions and policy decisions that facilitated the widespread use of these drugs. 

A Change Leading to Sick and Dead Patients

Since the campaign to "destigmatize" narcotics began, the US has seen what many have called an epidemic of narcotic adverse effects.  The WSJ article provided graphs showing that narcotic related deaths and hospital admissions both increased more than five times since 1999.   As the WSJ put it,

 some specialists now question whether the drugs should be prescribed so freely for months or years to people with chronic pain that isn't related to cancer, as Dr. Portenoy proposed 25 years ago. "People lost sight of the fact that these are dangerous drugs that are highly addictive," said Jane Ballantyne, a pain specialist at the University of Washington. She once agreed with Dr. Portenoy and proponents of broad opioid use but now believes they need to be used more selectively.

Dr Portenoy Recants

What is most remarkable about this case is that it seems to be the first in which a highly influential industry paid key opinion leader has publicly had a change of heart.

Now, Dr. Portenoy and other pain doctors who promoted the drugs say they erred by overstating the drugs' benefits and glossing over risks. 'Did I teach about pain management, specifically about opioid therapy, in a way that reflects misinformation? Well, against the standards of 2012, I guess I did,' Dr. Portenoy said in an interview with The Wall Street Journal. 'We didn't know then what we know now.'

I would note there is some sophistry there.  There was never good evidence for narcotics' effectiveness or safety for patient with chronic, non-malignant pain.

In fact, Dr Portenoy also admitted that, sort of,

'Data about the effectiveness of opioids does not exist,' Dr. Portenoy said in his recent Journal interview. To get a painkiller approved, companies must prove that it is better at reducing pain than a sugar pill during short trials often lasting less than 12 weeks. 'Do they work for five years, 10 years, 20 years?' Dr. Portenoy said in the Journal interview. 'We're at the level of anecdote.'

Again, it is not that the data that supported the use of the drugs has disappeared, or that new data has been developed that contradicts the old data.  There never has been any good data, that is, from well designed and performed randomized controlled trials that demonstrate that the benefits of narcotics outweigh their harms for patients with chronic, non malignant pain.  It does not exist now and it never existed.

Dr Portenoy also admitted,

'I gave innumerable lectures in the late 1980s and '90s about addiction that weren't true,' Dr. Portenoy said in a 2010 videotaped interview with a fellow doctor. The Journal reviewed the conversation, much of which is previously unpublished.

In it, Dr. Portenoy said it was 'quite scary' to think how the growth in opioid prescribing driven by people like him had contributed to soaring rates of addiction and overdose deaths. 'Clearly, if I had an inkling of what I know now then, I wouldn't have spoken in the way that I spoke. It was clearly the wrong thing to do,' Dr. Portenoy said in the recording.

So not only did the Wall Street Journal article describe how the overuse of narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain came from wishful thinking energized by the possibility of corporate and personal profit, it showed how the chief medical cheer leader for these drugs now admits he was wrong.


Summary

In summary, it appears that the huge increase in the use of narcotics to treat chronic, non-malignant pain was never based on clear convincing evidence from well-designed studies.  At best it was based on irrational enthusiasm and wishful thinking by some very vocal and persuasive advocates.  These advocates seemed to become "key opinion leaders," that is, influential people who promoted the use of pharmaceuticals while they were being paid by pharmaceutical companies, and were likely involved in what appears to be systematic stealth marketing campaign by the pharmaceutical companies that make narcotics.  These campaigns included production of clinical practice guidelines promoted as authoritative, and enlistment of accrediting organizations and government regulatory agencies.

One particularly disturbing part of this story was the involvement of numerous people and organizations  entrusted by society to promote good medical care.  It shows how physicians, other health professionals, and the public at large must be very skeptical of vocal advocates of new, aggressive, "innovative" approaches, of clinical practice guidelines even those developed by apparently prestigious professional societies, of accrediting organizations, and of government regulators.  That is discouraging, and could lead to the cynical approach of simply not trusting anyone.

I would note, however, that two ways the headlong rush to over-use of narcotics could have been derailed would have been:
-  employment of extreme skepticism of people paid by narcotics manufacturers advocating increased use of these drugs, no matter how distinguished, scholarly, or influential these people appear to be.  This suggests the need for general skepticism of people with financial relationships with health care corporations pushing the goods or services these corporations provide, or pushing policies that would aid the selling of those goods or services
-  a rigorous evidence-based medicine approach, meaning making clinical and policy decisions based on the best evidence found by systematic search from rigorously evaluated clinical research about the benefits and harms of these decisions, informed by patients' values.  Such an approach would have revealed there was never any good clinical evidence to support long-term use of narcotics for chronic, non-malignant pain, the particular "innovation" being pushed in this case.

So I would argue that the case of the legal narcotics pushers underlines the need for utmost transparency about conflicts of interest affecting people and organizations that advocate for particular approaches to health care, and to the management of individual patients; continuing movement to bar at least the most egregious conflicts, as per the Institute of Medicine report on the topic (look here); and the need for the very skeptical, rigorous application of true evidence-based medicine approaches.  

Finally, I must note that this seems to be the first time that a prominent, highly influential key opinion leader  has recanted.  Maybe he will write an article entitled "Dr Drug Pusher?" - just joking, but at least one former  key opinion leader did write the confessional  "Dr Drug Rep."  Maybe this is the beginning of a movement toward health care based on logic and evidence rather than wishful thinking, irrational enthusiasm, or ideology, or even worse, on deception or personal enrichment.     

Is the Meaningful Use Stage 2 Final Rule invalid?

Here are a few reasonable questions I decided to elevate as a post of its own.

In the face of the discovery of industry influence over comments submitted to ONC regarding Meaningful Use Stage 2, as I documented at my post earlier today "Health IT Vendor EPIC Caught Red-Handed: Ghostwriting And Using Customers as Stealth Lobbyists - Did ONC Ignore This?" (ghost writing, in effect, by those with obvious conflicts of interest):

•  Is the MU Stage 2 Final Rule invalid due to the influence the industry had on the submitted "public" comments and opinions, supposedly by and of the submitters, which are now demonstrably tainted?
•  Should an investigation be opened?

After all, as I pointed out on Aug. 29 in "The Scientific Justification for Meaningul Use, Stage 2: The NWB Methodology", not only is MU2 based on an admitted "nevertheless, we believe" justification (that is, lack of scientific rigor), but now it appears the legislation is based on stealth lobbying and resultant regulatory capture, ONC in essence doing the seller's bidding.

Tens of billions of taxpayer dollars are at issue here.

-- SS

Old Mystery Solved? Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety

At my Dec. 2005 post "Report: Life Science Manufacturers Adapt to Industry Transition" I wrote:

... The recognition of a gap in formally-trained medical informatics-trained personnel in the pharmaceutical industry [by Gartner Group] is welcome. For example, from my own experience:

I recall an interview I had last year with the head of the Drug Surveillance & Adverse Events department at Merck Research Labs in a rehire situation [after a 2003 layoff]. I came highly recommended by an Executive Director in the department, to whom I had shown my prior work. This included well-accepted, novel human-computer interaction designs I'd developed for use by busy biomedical researchers for a large clinical study in the Middle East, as well as my work modeling invasive cardiology and leading the development and implementation of a comprehensive information system to detect new device and treatment modality risks in a regional center performing more than 6,000 procedures/year. In addition, I'd worked with the wife of the Executive Director in years prior, when she ran the E.R. of the hospital where I was director of occupational medicine.

Despite all this in my favor, the Executive Director's boss, himself a former FDA adverse events official [a former deputy director of CDER’s office of drug safety, who'd recently moved to the pharma industry he once regulated - ed.], dismissed me in five minutes as I was showing him the cardiology project, saying flatly "we don't need a medical informatics person here." I had driven 80 miles to Rahway for this interview to save the executive a trip to Pennsylvania, where I was originally scheduled to come for the interview, since the executive's father was ill in the hospital. In an instance of profound social ineptness, my effort was not even acknowledged. Perhaps he was in a bad frame of mind, but the dismissal under the circumstances was all the more disappointing.

I recall this was one of the most puzzling hiring debacles I'd ever experienced, as all the senior people in his dept. had recommended he hire me - I was really only there for his approval and signoff - and the work I'd shown him had improved care, saved lives, and saved money.

I may not need to be puzzled any longer.  This story just appeared:

Former FDA Reviewer Speaks Out About Intimidation, Retaliation and Marginalizing of Safety
By Martha Rosenberg, Truthout
July 29, 2012

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is often accused of serving industry at the expense of consumers. But even FDA defenders are shocked by reports this week of an institutionalized FDA spying program on its own scientists, lawmakers, reporters and academics that included an enemies list of "actors" and collaborators

... Ronald Kavanagh [FDA drug reviewer from 1998 to 2008]:  ... In the Center for Drugs [Center for Drug Evaluation and Research or CDER], as in the Center for Devices, the honest employee fears the dishonest employee. There is also irrefutable evidence that managers at CDER have placed the nation at risk by corrupting the evaluation of drugs and by interfering with our ability to ensure the safety and efficacy of drug ... While I was at FDA, drug reviewers were clearly told not to question drug companies and that our job was to approve drugs.

Read the entire story at the link.  I won't cover it more here, except to say it's certainly possible to believe certain FDA officials don't want serious people around -- who in addition to being MD's can write serious software to detect drug and device problems -- whose work can get in the way of drug approvals.

-- SS

The Revolving Door's Bearings Overheat - Two Examples of the Health Care Insiders Who Keep it Spinning

Two recent stories illustrate a kind of conflict of interest affecting government health care policy. Note that neither story appeared in any one media outlet, but had to be pieced together from several sources, not all contemporaneous.

The Peripetatic Architect of Health Care Reform Implementation

Here is the story of Steve Larsen's latest career move, per the Wall Street Journal,

A top official in charge of implementing the federal health-care overhaul said Friday he would step down in mid-July, shortly after the Supreme Court is expected to rule on the fate of the law.

The official, Steve Larsen, heads the office at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services that oversees most of the insurance provisions in the 2010 law. Those include setting up exchanges for consumers to shop for plans and obtain subsidies for premiums, establishing rules on how much money insurers must spend on medical benefits, and administering a federal program to provide insurance for consumers with pre-existing conditions.

Mr. Larsen said in an interview that his departure was '100% for personal and family reasons,' and that he hadn't considered the timing of the court decision. He cited his need to pay tuition for his college-bound children,...

The Wall Street Journal coverage made it sound like Mr Larsen was fleeing his post to avoid dealing with how the Supreme Court's decision on the Obama administration's health care reform law might complicate future functions of his office,

Mr. Larsen's departure highlights the challenges the administration will face once the Supreme Court rules. If the court upholds the law, the administration has a 2014 deadline to put it in place, including persuading states to set up the exchanges or establishing them on states' behalf.

If the court strikes down the law's key requirement, that most individuals purchase insurance or pay a fine, federal officials will have to establish whether they can make the remaining insurance elements of the law work, which would face stiff opposition from insurance companies and from Republican lawmakers who have pledged to overturn the law.

If the court voids the law entirely, officials will have to start undoing hundreds of its requirements that are set up to take effect or are, in many cases, already in place.

It only briefly mentioned where Mr Larsen was going, ostensibly in hopes that a better salary would aid in his tuition payments,

[he] said he would be working at a health-services business unit of UnitedHealth Group, an insurer

On the other hand, a report from Bloomberg suggested that UnitedHealth thought he would be well worth his salary,

Larsen will be executive vice president at Optum, a health services and information technology company that is part of UnitedHealth Group Inc., of Minnetonka, Minn., the company confirmed. UnitedHealth Group is the parent company of UnitedHealthcare, the largest health insurer in the United States in terms of policyholders and revenues.

'We are excited to welcome Steve Larsen to Optum,' company spokesman Matthew Stearns told BNA in an email. 'Steve's extensive, broad-based experience in health care will further enhance the support Optum provides to the health system and consumers in a rapidly evolving environment.'

It is funny how that experience seemed to be about crafting the regulations under which Optum, or at least its parent corporation would have to operate.

But wait, there is more. Bloomberg also mentioned that Mr Larsen had previously gone from a state government health policy position to the insurance industry before he wound up at the CCIIO.

Prior to joining the Obama administration to implement PPACA, Larsen served in a number of capacities at Amerigroup Corp., a public managed care company serving Medicaid and Medicare beneficiaries, according to his biography on the CCIIO website. Larsen also was Maryland insurance commissioner for six years, chairman of the Maryland Public Service Commission for Gov. Martin O'Malley (D),...

To clarify, Amerigroup is a publicly-held, Fortune 500 for-profit corporation (look here).
So in summary, and in chronological order, as best as I can establish it, Mr Larsen went from a Maryland state government policy position that affected health (and other insurance) companies, to a health insurance company (Amerigroup), to a US government policy position that affected health insurance, and now to another health insurance company (UnitedHealth).

The Peripatetic Legislative Policy Director

Brett Roper moved in the opposite direction, to government from industry, and to the Republican legislative majority, not the executive branch now controlled by the Democrats. Early in June, on the Republic Report,

In late 2010, as Congressman John Boehner (R-OH) prepared to take the gavel as Speaker, he hired a lobbyist named Brett Loper as his new policy chief. Loper left his job at the Advanced Medical Technology Association, a lobby group for medical device-makers, to join Boehner.

The Association did not seem to sad to see him go,

Republic Report reviewed ethics forms disclosed filed with the House clerk’s office, and noticed that Loper actually received a $100,147 bonus in 2011 for leaving his medical device lobbying group and becoming a public servant.

But wait, there is more. Loper also previously made more than one transition between government and industry. As Politico reported in 2010, before Loper worked for the Advanced Medical Technology Association,

Loper worked in senior positions for then House Majority Leader Tom DeLay and as the House Ways and Means Committee Republican staff director under then-ranking member Rep. Jim McCrery of Louisiana

But wait, there is still more. In 2011, the Atlantic reported,

In December, Boehner hired Brett Loper to be his policy director. At the time, articles focused on Loper's previous job as a lobbyist for the Advanced Medical Technology, where Loper vigorously resisted attempts to reduce the deficit by fighting cuts in fees to his clients proposed by the Obama administration.

That is part of the story.

But missing from the pieces about Loper have been his connection to the Abramoff scandal and knowledge of how to use government money to 'nfluence'legislators.

Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words. Here is a photo of Loper (far right), basking in the tropical sun of the Marianas Islands, with Michael Scanlon (center), Jack Abramoff's partner in crime.

What is Loper doing in the Marianas?

As a staff member for Tom Delay, Loper was part of a mission to deliver money from the "favor factory," otherwise known as the Appropriations Committee of Congress, to two legislators in the Marianas, Norm Palacios and Alejo Mendiola (between Scanlon and Loper, above). In exchange for money for their two pet projects, Palacios and Mendiola agreed to switch their votes and support Abramoff's key ally in the Marianas, Benigno Fitial, in his bid to become Speaker of the House there.

The gambit worked. Fitial won. Abramoff -- whose lobbying contract to the Marianas had been canceled -- was re-hired by the Marianas. In that capacity, Abramoff resumed lobbying for the continuation of abusive labor practices in the islands. (For more on this, see my film, 'Casino Jack and the United States of Money.') Abramoff also continued to make sure that the grateful garment factory owners flowed campaign cash to key mainland Republican legislators, including Tom Delay.

Note that according to the Washington Post web-page on the Abramoff scandal,

Former Republican lobbyist Jack Abramoff was sentenced to five years and 10 months in prison on March 29, after pleading guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials in a deal that requires him to cooperate in an investigation into his relationshps with members of Congress. Sources familiar with the federal probe have told The Post that half a dozen lawmakers are under scrutiny, along with Hill aides, former business associates and government officials.

The scandal prompted Rep. Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and Rep. Robert Ney (R-Ohio) to give up their leadership posts,...

So Mr Larsen went from Republican senior legislative staff positions, during which time he associated with the now admittedly guilty Abramoff, to an industry trade association, and then back to a Republican senior legislative staff position.

Summary

So here are two recent good examples of a particular type of conflict of interest involving government and health care corporations. Both cases are of people who have made multiple transitions through the "revolving door" between the health care corporate world, and government agencies and organizations that are involved in policies that affect that world.

These transitions' multiplicity appears to represent a conflict of interest because these peoples' frequent revolutions through the door might diminish any sense that they ever have a primary interest on behalf of any immediate employer when another employer on the other side of the supposed arms' length government-industry relationship is always beckoning. Thus the people involved appear to have become members of a peculiar class always in transition, and hence more attuned to self-interest than to promoting the health of patients and the population (which ought to have been the primary concern for government leaders.) As Matt Kelley on the Compliance Week blog wrote in response to the Larsen story,

if you ever wonder why so many Americans feel like their country is slipping away from them, the revolving door—the sense that a private club of success exists in this country, and most Americans don't get to go through it, but merely live with the dictates of those who do—is a big reason why.

As we wrote before health policy in the US, in particular, has become an insiders' game. Unless it is redirected to reflect patients' and the public's health, facilitated by the knowledge of unbiased clinical and policy experts rather than corporate public relations, expect our efforts at health care reform to just increase health care dysfunction.

Physicians, public health advocates, whatever unbiased health policy experts remain must educate the public about how health policy has been turned into a corporate sandbox. We must try to somehow activate the public to call for health care policy of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Head of Lobbying Firm with Health Care Clients Walks Through Revolving Door into Executive Branch

A Washington Post op-ed described the latest case of a revolving door frequent flier, or perhaps frequent revolver, with health care connections. I will try to piece it together chronologically.

The story revolves around one Steven Ricchetti. His earlier career trajectory was:

Blue Cross Blue Shield, then the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, then the Clinton White House, then lobbying, then back to the Clinton White House, then more lobbying, this time starting Ricchetti Inc. with his brother, Jeff. (A call seeking comment from Ricchetti Inc. wasn’t returned.)

Most recently, he "was tapped to be counselor to Vice President [Joseph] Biden."

His recent clients were"Fannie Mae, General Motors, the American Hospital Association, and Eli Lilly," obviously includeingtwo prominent health care organizations.

Previously he had represented

AT&T, Reed Elsevier, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Siemens, Sirius XM, Amgen, Boston Scientific, America’s Health Insurance Plans, eBay, Dow Chemical, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, among others, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. Cumulatively, they paid Ricchetti and his firms millions.

Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Sanofi-Aventis, Amgen, and Boston Scientific are obviously "pure" health care corporations. Reed Elsevier has a publishing subsidiary with important medical titles. Siemens Healthcare is an important part of that company. The links above are to our relevant posts about these firms, some of which describe various ethically questionable behavior.

Note that Mr Ricchetti's appointment apparently circumvented the President's previous statement that "lobbyists 'will not run my White House.'" He

achieved this feat — getting around the ban on lobbyists serving in the administration — by using one of Washington’s most-honored traditions: the loophole. Just as Obama won the presidency, Ricchetti de-registered as a lobbyist for his various clients. But he remained president of the lobbying firm that continued to work for many of those same clients, as well as a few more, such as the American Bankers Association.

While Mr Ricchetti is no doubt an intelligent and hard-working man, could not someone who was not so strongly financially tied to the leadership of some of the US' most ppowerful health care corporations be found who was well-qualified for this position?

Pending the answer to that question, which I do not expect to receive, this story becomes our latest example of the coziness between political and government leadership on one hand, and the leadership of large health care organizations, and those they choose as representatives.

We have seen all sorts of permutations of revolving door stories involving people with strong ties to the largest health care organizations. The implication is that both health care's private sector and the government functions meant to provide or regulate health care do not operate at arms' length, and in fact seem to be run by a group of insiders who overlap both, and may be more attuned to their self-interest and patients' and the public's health.

Health policy in the US has become an insiders' game. Unless it is redirected to reflect patients' and the public's health, facilitated by the knowledge of unbiased clinical and policy experts rather than corporate public relations, expect our efforts at health care reform to just increase health care dysfunction.

Physicians, public health advocates, whatever unbiased health policy experts remain must educate the public about how health policy has been turned into a corporate sandbox. We must try to somehow activate the public to call for health care policy of the people, by the people, and for the people.

Unequal Justice Under Law - Comparing Cases of Alleged Misbehavior by Large Health Care Organizations and Individuals

How the wealthy and powerful have become able to play by a different set of rules than those affecting ordinary people may be the defining issue of our time.  Yesterday, President Obama's State of the Union message asked for an economy in which "everyone plays by the same set of rule."  We posted about how this issue, which got national attention due to the Occupy movement, affects health care here.

We have previously posted again and again about how the penalties for misbehavior by large US health care organizations seem to be so minimal as to be incapable of deterring future bad behavior (e.g., see posts about legal settlements).  At most, corporations often pay fines that are no more than a cost of doing business.  They rarely have to admit guilt, and when they do, it is usually to a relatively trivial charge.  The people who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior almost never suffer any negative consequences.  Thus, the leaders of large US health care organizations seem to have impunity.

Similar complaints have been made about the lack of accountability of the leaders of the finance firms that lead us into the global financial crisis, or great recession. 

However, while I have reviewed now hundreds of stories about such minimal organizational punishments, I have also seen hundreds of stories discovered by my automatic news searches of much more severe penalties paid by individuals who have been accused of similar misbehavior.  I have never previously made an explicit comparison of how health care corporate and individual misbehavior are handled.

A recent set of examples of organizational misbehavior invites such a comparison.  Here they are, in chronological order.

KV Pharmaceutical

On December 6, 2011, the St Louis Post Dispatch reported:

KV Pharmaceutical Co. has agreed to pay $17 million to federal and state authorities to settle Justice Department allegations that it defrauded federal health care programs.

The settlement resolves allegations that KV, as the Bridgeton-based parent company of now-defunct Ethex Corp., misrepresented the regulatory status of two of its drugs that did not qualify for coverage under federal health care programs, the Justice Department said today.

The Justice Department alleges that Ethex submitted false quarterly reports to the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services related to the two drugs: nitroglycerin extended release capsules and hyoscyamine sulfate extended release capsules.

Company leadership made the usual sort of comment. CEO Greg Divis said:

The closure of this matter is another step forward as KV moves ahead as a women's healthcare focused branded specialty pharmaceutical company.

Corporate leaders seem to love putting such unpleasantness in the past and moving on, especially when they personally are not held accountable for the previous misbehvior.

Note that this is just the latest settlement for KV Pharmaceutical:

KV shut down Ethex after the subsidiary pleaded guilty in March 2010 to two felony counts of criminal fraud for failing to report to the Food and Drug Administration that it was making oversize drugs - and drew $27.6 million in fines and restitution.

Catholic Healthcare West, Sutter Health

On December 8, the Sacramento Bee reported:

Two of Sacramento's biggest health care players paid a combined $2.3 million to the federal government to settle allegations that 61 of their hospitals double-billed Medicare for therapies and services, U.S. Department of Justice officials announced Wednesday.

Catholic Healthcare West paid more than $875,000 and Sutter Health nearly twice that – more than $1.43 million – for alleged duplicate charges for infusion therapies and treatments to break up kidney and bladder stones, in what Lauren Horwood, a spokeswoman in the Sacramento U.S. attorney's office, called 'a significant settlement.'

As usual,

Officials at the two health networks admitted no wrongdoing in agreeing to the settlement, Horwood said. No charges will be filed.

Again, however, this was not the first such issue to affect these large non-profit organizations:

In 2006, Sutter Health agreed to grant discounts and refunds to uninsured patients the network was accused of overcharging, stemming from a 2004 class-action lawsuit.

Blue Shield (California)

On December 29, 2011, the Los Angeles Times reported:

More than a year after the healthcare reform law sought to prevent sick patients from losing medical coverage, insurers are still paying for their alleged abuses.

Blue Shield has agreed to pay $2 million to resolve accusations that the company improperly dropped policyholders after they got sick and needed expensive treatment.

The settlement, announced Wednesday by Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, ends an investigation into more than 1,000 so-called rescissions by Blue Shield, a San Francisco-based not-for-profit company.

As usual, there was no admission of guilt, and a company spokesperson claimed that while the company decided to pay out the money in response to the allegations, it, of course, was blameless:

Blue Shield spokesman Steve Shivinsky said the firm settled to avoid litigation.

'Our process meets or exceeds all legal and regulatory requirements,' Shivinsky said in a statement. 'In every instance, we provide immediate notice, ensure multiple layers of review, involve a medical director in the decision, give members an opportunity to provide additional information before we take any action, and follow the guidance of an independent third party review.'

Note that rescission is now against US federal law:

President Obama made rescission a central theme in his push for a healthcare overhaul. In September 2010, a ban on rescissions for unintentional application errors became one of the first pieces of the healthcare law to take effect.

GE Healthcare

On December 29, 2011, the Detroit Free Press reported (via USA Today):

Pharmaceutical giant GE Healthcare will pay $30 million to the U.S. Department of Justice to settle claims in a case filed by a Michigan salesman, alleging one of its companies marketed a diagnostic drug used in cardiology tests as one that could be diluted and stretched to more patients than intended.

Not surprisingly,

GE admitted no wrongdoing in the settlement.

This was despite the fact that the actions alleged may have harmed patients as well as defrauding the government:

For patients, the diluted product resulted in more false positives during cardiology tests and exposed them to additional and unnecessary testing....

We have posted previously about some previous questionable behavior by GE in the health care sphere.
Actavis

On January 3, 2012, Bloomberg reported:

Two units of Actavis Group Hf will pay $84 million to settle a lawsuit over drug pricing, Texas officials said, less than half the amount an Austin jury said the company should pay.

The state accused Actavis Mid-Atlantic LLC and Actavis Elizabeth LLC, subsidiaries of the Iceland-based company’s U.S. division, of inflating billings to the Texas Medicaid program by falsely reporting drug prices. The state court jury in February ordered the units to pay the state $170 million.

The settlement resolves that litigation, Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott said today in a statement.

Note that Medicaid is a joint federal-state insurance program for the poor.

The company's statement had a familiar ring to it:

'Actavis denies any and all wrongdoing, and denies that it has any liability relating to the Texas judgment,' the company and the state said in the settlement agreement. The parties reached a settlement 'to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience and expense of continuing the litigation.'

Nothing to see here, just move along.

Denver Health Medical Center

On January 5, 2012, the Denver Post reported:

Denver Health Medical Center will pay $6.3 million to federal and state officials for overbilling Medicare and Medicaid, state and U.S. attorneys said.

After investigating a whistleblower's lawsuit, government officials said Denver Health was classifying patients with an "inpatient" status when it should have been listing them as 'outpatient' or under 'observation' status, which paid less under government rules.

Oops, missing from this story was the pro forma denial of blame, wrongdoing, misconduct by organizational leadership. However, the Denver Business Journal was able to add that:

Denver Health, in a statement, said it and the government agreed to the settlement to avoid 'protracted litigation' over the allegations. It did not admit guilt in agreeing to the settlement.

Of course, again despite having to pay millions, the organization asserted that it is fine and upstanding:

'Denver Health has, and will continue to, strive to ensure that its billing systems are accurate,' the hospital said in a statement, adding that the hospital has implemented a system to correct and improve billing accuracy.

Whoever wrote the statement seemed to overlook the implication that flowed from the need to "correct" the system.

CVS Caremark

On January 12, 2012, the Baltimore Sun reported:

The Federal Trade Commission announced that CVS Caremark Corp. agreed to pay $5 million to settle a complaint that it misinformed seniors about the price of certain Medicare Part D prescription drugs sold through CVS and Walgreens pharmacies.

The action by the company, according to the FTC, caused seniors and consumers with disabilities to pay significantly more for drugs. It also pushed them more quickly into the so-called 'doughnut hole,' in which drug costs aren’t covered by the federal program.

Despite its multimillion dollar payment, the company admitted no guilt, of course, and asserted its exemplary corporate citizenship:

CVS Caremark released a statement:

'During the course of this two year investigation, our company cooperated fully with the FTC and provided to the government millions of documents as well as access to numerous members of our management team who participated in voluntary interviews and depositions,' said Douglas A. Sgarro, Executive Vice President and Chief Legal Officer of CVS Caremark.

He also took comfort from the fact that there were not even more charges:

It is important to note that, at the conclusion of this comprehensive investigation, the FTC made no allegations of antitrust law violations or anti-competitive behavior associated with any of our business practices, products or service offerings.

Stryker Corp

On January 18, 2012, Bloomberg reported:

A Stryker Corp. (SYK) unit agreed to plead guilty and pay a $15 million fine while the medical-device maker was on trial on charges it marketed an unapproved mixture of products for strengthening human bone growth.

The unit, Stryker Biotech, and three Stryker sales representatives were on trial in federal court in Boston on a 13-count criminal indictment claiming conspiracy and wire fraud. The trial began Jan. 9 with jury selection.

Stryker Biotech agreed to plead to one misdemeanor count of misbranding a medical device, according to a letter dated yesterday from the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Boston and filed with the federal court.

This did involve an admission of guilt, but to what amounts to a financial violation when there were allegations that patients may have been harmed:

The U.S. had charged Stryker Biotech with misbranding and its sales force with conspiring to defraud surgeons into combining the company’s OP-1 and OP-1 Putty with the bone filler Calstrux. Some patients suffered adverse side effects and required more surgery, the U.S. said.

'That mixture was never studied clinically,' Assistant U.S. Attorney Susan Winkler told the jury in her opening statement on Jan. 12. 'They did not know if it worked. They did not know if it was safe, and they marketed it to doctors anyway.'

Interval Summary

We have presented eight cases in which  major US health care organizations settled cases involving allegations of financial gain under false pretenses. Nearly all involved US federal charges, and the others included alleged misbehavior that affected a federal program or that now would be illegal under federal law. All the cases were resolved with fines over $1 million. However, while these fines may seem big to most people, they were trivial compared to the revenues of the organizations. None of the settlements involved any penalties to actual people who authorized, directed, or implemented the misbehavior. No individuals at any of the involved organizations admitted any mistakes, much less wrong doing.

While the volume of such settlements indicates the prevalence of misbehavior by large health care organizations, it is not clear that their results, which amount to slaps on corporate wrists, have any deterrent effect.

In comparison, see what happens when little people obtain money from the government under false pretenses. I found a convenience sample of such cases reported in the last month through a Google search.

Vasquez

On January 9, the San Francisco Chronicle reported:

A Los Angeles woman who pleaded guilty to committing $6.2 million in Medicare fraud has been sentenced to 5 years in prison.

Federal Health and Human Services officials say 47-year-old Carolyn Ann Vasquez has also been ordered to pay $6.2 million in restitution.

Vasquez admitted to conspiring with others to use a series of fraudulent Los Angeles-area medical clinics to defraud the federal health care insurance program for people over age 65 and the disabled.

Between 2007 and 2008, Vasquez obtained a physician's personal information and Medicare provider number and used it to print prescription pads.

She then had a physician's assistant, David Garrison, write fraudulent prescriptions for pricey medical equipment.

Curtis

On January 7, 2012, the [Jacksonville] Florida Times-Union reported:

A federal judge sentenced the would-be owner of a Brunswick prosthetic business to three years and six months in prison for his organization and leadership of a scheme that defrauded Medicare of more than $250,000.

Also,

In addition to prison, Wood sentenced Curtis to repay $254,750.94 to Health and Human Services and serve three years’ probation. She dismissed eight other counts as part of his plea agreement.

In stark contrast to the stories above about cases of fraud involving large health care organizations:

Samuel Curtis III, who had submitted false claims from Preferred Prosthetics and Orthotics in Brunswick and Team Orthotics and Prosthetics of Houston, had pleaded guilty in July to conspiring to commit health care fraud.

Curtis, 38, apologized and asked U.S. District Judge Lisa Godbey Wood for leniency during his sentencing hearing Friday.

Popov

On January 12, 2012, the Sacramento Bee reported:

A Los Angeles physician who assumed the role as co-owner of a Sacramento medical clinic has been sentenced to federal prison for his participation in a Medicare fraud scam.

Alexander Popov, 47, was sentenced today by U.S. District Judge Morrison C.England Jr. to eight years and one month in prison for committing health care fraud and conspiring to commit health care fraud, according to a federal Department of Justice news release. He was found guilty by a jury in July.

In sentencing, Judge England found that Popov was responsible for more than a million dollars in fraudulent billings submitted to Medicare and more than $600,000 in payments made on false claims.

Evidence at trial showed that Popov gave false testimony and manufactured evidence at trial, amounting to an obstruction of justice, officials said.

Also,

Vardges Egiazarian previously pleaded guilty in the case and is serving 78 months in prison.

Applebaum

On January 20, 2012, Medscape reported:

A former Idaho psychiatrist was ordered to pay nearly $95,000 in a legal judgment this week, adding to a prison sentence of up to 5 years, which he received in November for obstruction and falsifying records relating to Medicaid fraud.

The judgment, obtained by the US Attorney's Office against Michael Applebaum, MD, of Nampa, Idaho, involved a civil lawsuit in which he was accused of submitting false Medicare and Medicaid claims for undocumented and ineligible services from 2004 through 2009.

Prosecutors claimed Dr. Applebaum failed to properly document services for approximately 502 claims, including falsifying service dates on 49 claims to make them appear eligible for reimbursement under Medicaid's rule of submitting claims within 12 months of the date of service.

Summary

As we noted above, if a large organization, such as a hospital system, pharmaceutical company, or health insurance company is accused of fraud against the government, the outcome is likely to be a large fine that is nonetheless small compared with the organization's revenue, no admission of guilt or responsibility, and no penalties for any individuals who authorized, directed or implemented the misbehavior. However, if an individual or small business is accused of such fraud, the results are likely to include fines sufficient to bankrupt either, admissions of guilt, and years of jail time.

Yet such actions by large organizations are likely to be more harmful to individuals and society than those of individuals or small businesses.

This seems like a glaring, stark example of unequal justice in health care. If an individual does something bad in a health care context, the punishment is likely to be severe and life altering. If an individual who is a leader of a large health care organization does something equally bad, he or she is likely to receive no punishment at all.

This is an example that ought to unite the left and the right, liberals and libertarians in outrage. Liberals are supposed to believe in the rights of the individual and economic justice. Libertarians are supposed to believe in economic freedom and the economic rights of the individual. In this example, the government and large corporations seem to have gotten together to let corporate leaders play by different rules than individuals. Corporate leaders seem to be above the law, the same law that can ruin individuals who violate it.

If we really want to reform health care, we need to make sure that its rules apply equally to all individuals, whether humble or rich, whether they are individual professionals of corporate CEOs. As long as the rich and powerful can play by different rules, we only fuel cynicism and anger. Down that road lies disaster.

The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services' Quiet Coziness with Wall Street

An article from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) reveals a new aspect of the growing coziness between the US government and big corporations with obvious relevance to health care.

CMS' Coziness with Leaders of the "Capital Markets"

Here is the introduction and the example most relevant to health care:

Nearly a dozen senior staff at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), the giant agency that administers hundreds of billions in federal health care dollars, had been called to a meeting. After a discussion with five Wall Street professionals that lasted nearly two hours, one senior CMS analyst filed an ethics complaint that later went to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

His beef: that a handful of deep-pocketed investors had won a private hearing to probe whether the agency would allow Medicare reimbursement for specific medical devices manufactured by companies in which they already held a stake or might put new money. The market for one device, already approved for Medicare, was rapidly heading toward $1 billion annually; the agency’s impending decision to reimburse competing devices could have major market impact, a shift potentially worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

'This meeting forced agency staff to redirect their attention toward a select group from Wall Street, when neither competing investors nor patient-oriented stakeholders were present,' the whistleblower told the Project On Government Oversight (POGO). 'They got to probe us for hours in private about what we planned to do and how we approached procedures for reimbursing medical devices, the mechanics and psychology of CMS decision-making, in general and with respect to these specific devices.'

The meeting was set up by a former CMS employee working for the Marwood Group, an asset manager that counsels big health-care industry investors, the whistleblower says. The firm’s president is Edward 'Ted' Kennedy Jr., son of the late Massachusetts senator and a major supporter of President Obama’s health care reforms, and includes Kennedy cousins Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Stephen E. Smith, Jr., as senior advisors. The firm’s website highlights its staff recruitment among Congressional aides, the Executive Office of the President and CMS. One CMS veteran who joined Marwood after the 2009 meeting with Wall Streeters is Barry Straub, the agency's former Chief Medical Officer, who is also an expert on Medicare reimbursement, the website says. A company spokesman had no comment.

A supervisor at CMS’s Coverage Advisory Group, which decides which services the agency will pay for, also helped organize the session with investors. The whistleblower says he was told by a supervisor that such get-togethers are 'a routine practice at CMS.' At the time, in 2009, CMS’s top administrator had an aide with the title, 'capital markets advisor,' tasked with tracking investment community activity in Washington and elsewhere.

At the investor meeting, Wall Streeters asked a range of questions 'about confidential CMS information.' The whistle blower says he does not believe they received illegal disclosures, though they peppered CMS analysts with queries about the agency’s decision-making process and other sensitive matters which, if answered, could have violated the law or related regulations that bar the sharing of internal deliberations and decisions.

The whistleblower first filed his complaint in April 2009. He was terminated in 2011 for being disloyal to the agency mission after he made a series of internal protests, including the objection to what he calls a pattern and practice of unfettered access to CMS staff by Wall Street investors. He says he is currently fighting his dismissal through all available legal and administrative channels.

Implications and Summary

As the POGO article put it,

CMS does have a set of 'Open Door' policies and affords a variety of avenues for public access. The disclosure of payments to physicians and teaching hospitals by pharmaceutical companies and other interests are required under President Obama’s health reform. In practice, however, the public, not to mention competing investors and stakeholders, rarely get the kind of information and insight available in meetings like the whistleblower described.

In general,

A balance is necessary between the danger of too much insider access, and imposing excessive limitations. Indeed, the biggest problem with special access for Wall Street insiders is not just that they seem to get meetings and acquire information that may be privileged and non-public, but that others, including other investors, do not get a crack at the same material.

The activities above have all the usual elements of excess corporate - government coziness.  These include enhanced access for corporate leaders beyond what any ordinary members of the public might achieve; the revolving door between government service and corporate leadership; the participation of well-connected inside the beltway types, etc, etc. 

It also includes the apparent formalization of representation of corporate interests, e.g., the "Capital Markets Advisor," with no parallel formalization of the public's or patients' interests.  Even more worrisome is that an effort to make this all less anechoic resulted in alleged intimidation of a whistle-blower.

So, let's see, CMS, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) branch which controls the Medicare and Medicaid programs, the government run single-payer programs for the elderly, the disabled, and the poor, does not seem to be able to afford to figure out in-house how to pay physicians for specific services.  Instead, it has effectively farmed out this task to a private committee, the American Medical Association's RBRVS Update Committee (RUC).  As we have discussed many times, this obscure and secretive committee likely had a major role in structuring the financial incentives that favor procedures and disfavor primary care. leading to excess costs, declining access, and degrading quality.  However, CMS can afford to have a "Capital Markets Adviser" and to use up staff time briefing wealthy investors and hedge fund types.  What is wrong with this picture?

In my humble opinion, government health care agencies ought to put the public's and patient's health first. They should not give special consideration to the rich, the powerful, the well-connected, whom some now call the one percent. Yet in the US we seem to have an increasingly corporatist state in which government and the plutocrats work together for their mutual interests, regulatory capture writ large.

We need to restore government, and our health care agencies to being of the people, by the people, and for the people.  Obviously, true health care reform would start with the government and its officials putting patients' and the public's health first, way ahead of the financial comfort of corporate leaders.

"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.

RUC Off - the New England Journal Once Again Fails to Mention the Unmentionable

Last week, the influential New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Bruce Vladek entitled "Fixing Medicare's Physician Payment System."(1)  Although only identified as working for Nexara, a health consulting business, Mr Vladek was a former administrator of what was then called the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the part of the department that then ran the US Medicare program.  Vladek thus can reasonably be viewed as an expert on Medicare. 

Vladek identified two main problems with the current way physicians are paid by Medicare.  First,

Medicare is captive to an arbitrary, if elegantly conceived, formula for total payments to physicians — the sustainable growth rate (SGR). In the alternate reality of the Congressional budget process, the SGR will reduce Medicare's physician payments, which already trail those from private insurers, as far into the future as the eye can see.

Second,

there is widespread consensus that the relative fees in the current system are a significant cause of the growing imbalance in supply and utilization between primary care and specialty services in the U.S. health care system. That imbalance, in turn, is widely perceived as a major cause of both excessive costs and inadequate quality of care. This is not just a Medicare problem: the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale is used by most private insurers to set relative prices for physicians.

Vladek expanded on the second point as follows

the basic mechanics of the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which was supposed to change physician payment to increase rewards for primary care services at the expense of procedural and interventional services, appears to have gone totally off track. For various reasons, the fee schedule, which originally did increase the prices of evaluation and management services relative to those of surgery or invasive procedures, turned in the other direction through the process of annual updating of relative value units. Surgeons, radiologists, and some medical specialists are now paid two to three times as much per hour as providers of cognitive services, which is about where we began 20 years ago; this was the situation that the fee schedule was supposed to fix.

The question of the relative virtues of primary versus specialty care can be debated ad nauseam, but in other wealthy countries that serve their populations at least as well as we do, the ratio of primary care physicians to specialists is much higher than in the United States, and the gap in compensation is much smaller or the poles even reversed. Young physicians, burdened by increasing educational debts, may well choose a career path on the basis of a major difference in compensation, especially when the better-compensated positions require less ongoing responsibility for patients and offer better working hours.

This is about all that Vladek wrote about how the imbalance between how Medicare pays for primary care and other "cognitive services," and for procedures came about. Vladek, and many others have argued that this imbalance has lead to strong financial incentives that have been slowly destroying primary care, and strong incentives that have lead to the use of too many procedures, both strong drivers of rising costs in the most expensive health care system in the world.

Vladek noted vaguely that "through various reasons," the incentives were imbalanced by "the process of annual updating of relative value units."

However, as we have discussed in several blog posts, a lot more is known about how this process got "totally off track."

In fact, in 2007, an article by Bodenheimer et al in the Annals of Internal Medicine explained the problems in considerably more detail.(2)  As we wrote then, Its main points included

• Proceduralists are often able to learn how to do their procedures more quickly, and thus increase the volume of procedures done, while office and hospital visits can only be sped up so much.
• The process used to update the RBRVS system is biased towards procedures for three main reasons: 1. "specialty society influence in proposing RVU [relative value unit] increases," 2. the specialist-heavy RUC [Relative Value Scale Update Committee] membership," and 3. "the desire of RUC specialists to avoid increases in evaluation and management [that is, cognitive, or non-procedural] RVUs."
• Medicare now uses a formula to limit increases in overall spending. The use of this formula leads to across the board cuts in all reimbursements. Since cognitive services reimbursements were never high to begin with, and have rarely been individually increased, these cuts tend to have disproportionate decreases.
• Private insurers and managed care organizations tend to follow Medicare's lead in their reimbursement procedures, but tend to tilt the playing field even more in favor of procedures versus cognitive services. Several studies showed that such payers paid more for procedures than did Medicare, but about the same for office and hospital visits.

The role of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC) is complex and in many ways mysterious.  As we wrote before, to update the system, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee. The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments. However, the identities of RUC members are opaque, and the proceedings of the group are secret.

To expand on the penultimate point, the current page on the AMA web-site that describes the RUC only lists its members in terms of their specialties and organizational affiliation.  Their names do not appear.  A response to a previous post by me on the subject by the then Chair and Chair-Elect of the RUC suggested that the RUC membership is not quite secret. They stated that "a list of the individual members of the RUC is published in the AMA publication, Medicare RBRVS 2009: The Physicians Guide." This publication is available from the AMA here for a mere $71.95. However, the book is not on the web, or in my local or university library, and I have no other way to easily access it.  Thus, the RUC membership as at best relatively opaque.

To expand on the ultimate point, as Goodson(3) noted, RUC "meetings are closed to outside observers except by invitation of the chair." Furthermore, he stated, "proceedings are proprietary and therefore not publicly available for review."

The fog surrounding the operations of the RUC seems to have affected many who write about.  We have posted (here, here, and here) about how previous publications about problems with incentives provided to physicians seemed to have avoided even mentioning the RUC.  In 2010, post the US recent attempt at health care reform, the RUC seems to remain the great unmentionable.  Even the leading US medical journal seems reluctant to even print its name. 

Thus, as we noted before, however, the mysteries about it remain:

• How did the government come to fix the payments physicians receive? Government price-fixing has not been popular in the US, yet this has caused no outcry.
• Why is the process by which they are fixed allowed to be so opaque and unaccountable? Why are there no public hearings on the updates, and why is there no input from practicing physicians or organizations other than those related to the RUC?
• How did the RUC become de facto in charge of this process?
• Why does the AMA keep the membership on the RUC so opaque, and give no input into the RUC process to its general membership?
• Why is the RUC membership so dominated by procedural specialists? Why were primary care physicians, who made up at least a sizable minority of physicians when the update process was started, not represented according to their numbers?
• Why has there been so little discussion of the RUC and its responsibility for an extremely expensive health care system dominated by high-technology, expensive, risky and invasive procedures?

Without discussing how the incentives for physicians became so unbalanced, do we really expect we can fix them?  In this case, the persistence of the anechoic effect seems to be doing real damage to the discussion of the critical issues we in the US face today.
References


1. Vladek B. Fixing Medicare's physician payment system. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1955-1957. (Link here.)
2. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. (Link here.)
3. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310.  (Link here.)

Corporate Proxies Suggest CEOs Rewarded for Influencing Health Care Reform

We have frequently discussed the often outsized, if not outrageous compensation awarded to top leaders of health care organizations.  Such compensation may seem disproportionate to the leaders' real-world achievements, and may contrast with organizational actions that seem inept, mission-hostile, or unethical.

In perusing this year's crop of proxy statements from some of the biggest US health care corporations, I noted that some provide some narrative, qualitative justification for their top leaders pay.  I was struck by three similar statements:

Johnson and Johnson

We recently discussed the contrast between Johnson and Johnson CEO William Weldon's gargantuan compensation and his detached response to the findings of an inspection of one of his company's factories that lead to its shutdown and the recall of its products.   According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, Mr Weldon's total compensation approved  in 2010 was $19,847,026.   The proxy statement included this overview of his performance:

The Board believes that Mr. Weldon generally exceeded expectations despite substantial economic, political, regulatory and competitive challenges as well as significant patent expirations. As referenced in the table above, the Company delivered solid financial results and positioned itself for future growth.

Under "strategic results" was this statement:

Mr. Weldon played an effective role in helping shape health care policy around the world and has been very involved with efforts on U.S. Health Care Reform. Mr. Weldon’s personal involvement with key leaders and organizations has ensured the interests of the Company are well represented.

Pfizer

We recently discussed the contrast between Pfizer Inc CEO Jeffrey Kindler's sizable compensation and the number and size of lawsuits alleging unethical conduct that the organization has settled, and its criminal conviction as a "racketeering influenced and corrupt organization" (RICO). According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, Mr Kindler's total compensation in 2009 was $14,898,038. The proxy statement included an Executive Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Its summary of Mr Kindler's performance was:

The committee believes that Mr Kindler's leadership was a significant factor in the continued progress made by Pfizer in 2009 in strengthening the foundation for future growth and long-term success.

It also specifically addressed Mr Kindler's "industry leadership":

During 2009, Mr Kindler was actively involved, through both Pfizer and external organizations, in developing and advancing US and global public policies that serve the overall interest of our Company and our shareholders, as well as doctors and patients. These efforts included constructive participation in the US legislative process to advance Pfizer's goals of achieving a more rational operating environment....

UnitedHealth Group

We recently discussed the contrast between UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J Helmsley's large total compensation and the profit he recently made from the sale of stock options and various questions raised about his company's ethical performance.  According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, his 2009 total compensation was $8,901,916. The company's 2010 proxy statement stated his compensation was based upon a variety of factors, including:

Positive participation and leadership of the Company in the health care reform and modernization debate

Summary

We have noted how health care organization may be gripped by "compensation madness," caused by "insiders hijacking established organizations for their personal benefit."  One could view the statements above as just one form of post-hoc justification for compensation madness.  It is possible that timid, if not crony boards are simply getting more inventive in their rationalizing CEOs' imperial pay scales.  On the other hand, those justifying the compensation of three extremely well-compensated health care corporate CEOs may really believe what they wrote about their CEOs roles in health care reform. 

We have posted little about the US health care reform effort because so much of it seemed irrelevant to the concerns mentioned on Health Care Renewal.  Health care reform legislation did little to address problems with health care leadership, governance and ethics, and how they challenge health care professionals' values and lead to higher costs, declining access, poor health care quality and disgruntled health care professionals (see this summary).  Maybe one reason this was so was that the top leaders of health care organizations did a good job pushing their personal and organizational priorities into the reform legislation, meanwhile discouraging any provisions that might threaten the way they were leading their organizations, and how much they were making while doing so. 

There a many reasons for the popular dissatisfaction with the recently enacted US health care reform legislation.  The influence of the leadership of top health care corporations in promoting their, rather than the populace's goals, ought to be a topic of further inquiry.  Meanwhile, it may be that the "superclass" has struck again. 

No Free Speech for Comparative Effectiveness Researchers?

We have repeatedly argued why comparative effectiveness research, under ideal circumstances, would be a good idea.  As I said before:

Physicians spend a lot of time trying to figure out the best treatments for particular patients' problems. Doing so is often hard. In many situations, there are many plausible treatments, but the trick is picking the one most likely to do the most good and least harm for a particular patient. Ideally, this is where evidence based medicine comes in. But the biggest problem with using the EBM approach is that often the best available evidence does not help much. In particular, for many clinical problems, and for many sorts of patients, no one has ever done a good quality study that compares the plausible treatments for those problems and those patients. When the only studies done compared individual treatments to placebos, and when even those were restricted to narrow patient populations unlike those patient usually seen in daily practice, physicians are left juggling oranges, tomatoes, and carburetors.

Comparative effectiveness studies are simply studies that compare plausible treatments that could be used for patients with particular problems, and which are designed to be generalizable to the sorts of patients usually seen in practice. As a physician, I welcome such studies, because they may provide very useful information that could help me select the optimal treatments for individual patients.

Because I believe that comparative effectiveness studies could be very useful to improve patient care, it upsets me to see this particular kind of clinical study get caught in political, ideological, and economic battles.

However, when comparative effectiveness research was proposed as an element of US health care reform, it was attacked as a vehicle for the dreaded rationing of health care (even though in the US health care is already rationed, especially to those without generous insurance or the means to pay for expensive tests and treatments), using arguments based more on emotions, or outright fallacies than on logic and evidence. For example, see our blog posts here, here, here, and here.

Those opposed to the sort of comparative effectiveness research I described above then seemingly decided, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em."  Thus, a provision appeared in a recent version of health care reform legislation proposed in the US Senate for comparative effectiveness research to be sponsored by an "independent" institute whose board of directors would have to include a substantial minority of representatives of industry (that is, drug, biotechnology, device, health insurance corporations, and other corporations as "payers.")  This would seems to be a fairly shameless form of "regulatory capture," that is, an instance in which a government agency whose mission seems to be to improve health care is "captured" by those with vested interests in promoting certain health care products and services.  (See post here.)

My concern has now seemingly gone mainstream, in that it was addressed in a commentary published on-line in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine.  [Selker HP, Wood AJJ.  Industry influence on comparative-effectiveness research funded through health care reform.  N Engl J Med 2009.  Link here.]

Selker and Wood addressed the issue of regulatory capture thus.

Although most observers agree on the value of funding CER, many are unaware that embedded in the legislation are provisions ceding substantial influence to the medical products industries that have a major interest in the outcomes of such research.

The Senate Finance Committee bill mandates the creation of an entirely new private–public research entity and, owing to industry lobbying, guarantees industry three seats on this entity’s 15-member governing board, as well as representation on its methodology committee

Note that the situation is worse considering that the insurance industry and other "payers" also have seats on the board.

However, Selker and Wood discovered an even more outrageous provision:

The Finance Committee bill also includes language requested by industry lobbyists (pages 1138–1139) that threatens to withdraw federal funding for 5 years from any investigator who publishes a report on research funded by the proposed institute that is not within the bounds of and entirely consistent with the evidence.' Determinations regarding such consistency would be made by the newly created research entity, which would have industry involvement both in its governance and in study design. To allow scientists — and their institutions, which receive the support for the conduct of research — to be punished for the publication of work that is not approved by this entity is essentially to cede authority over the dissemination of government-funded research to a body that is at least partially controlled by persons with a potential commercial interest in its outcome.

As Selker and Wood noted, it is unprecedented for a US government agency that is meant to sponsor science to be empowered to punish researchers for conclusions or opinions with which the agency disagrees. This suggests that the new agency would be meant to produce only results that support the vested interests of its leadership, that is, that favor the latest, and most expensive drugs and devices. The research sponsored by such an agency would not only be biased, it would likely be of poor quality, because researchers of integrity would likely avoid sponsorship by an agency that would be so threatening to their scientific independence.

This part of the bill does not promote health reform, but blatantly attempts to serve health care corporations while sacrificing the interests of patients and doctors.

As Selker and Wood politely put it:

If health care reform legislation does not promote CER that is free of the potential taint of commercial and political meddling, the public will have little confidence in the results of such research. This outcome would be extremely unfortunate, since such research has the potential to improve patients’ lives by leading to more effective medical care. The U.S. biomedical research enterprise has a long and storied history that has made it a model for other countries. It would be a tragedy if we were to squander its achievements for political expediency, in the service of short-term commercial interests. The current proposals for controlling CER in a manner unlike anything we have seen in federally sponsored biomedical research therefore should be rejected.

It seems to be almost gilding the lilly to note that the provision cited above seems to violate the free speech and free press provisions of the 1st amendment of the US Constitution, since they threaten government punishment of private citizens (e.g., by withdrawal of existing funding) purely for speech that the government does not like.

So I ask the anonymous Senate aide who drafted this provision, and the anonymous lobbyist(s) who influenced him or her, have they no shame? 

Finally, I have yet to see coverage of the Selker and Wood article in the mainstream media.  I hope they will eventually conclude that this attempt to co-opt clinical science and mock the 1st amendment is actually news and comment worthy.