How the "Revolving Door" and Other Aspects of Corporatism Benefited Amgen Just After its Settlement and Guilty Plea

At least here in these United States, our health care corporatism is bipartisan.  Here we present a sorry story of how a company that should have been shamed by dishonest behavior that likely harmed patients instead apparently was awarded special treatment through its cozy relationships with top government leaders
 
Accusations of Kickbacks and Deceptive Marketing of Aranesp 

Last month, biotechnology giant pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding and settled civil charges with the US government for $762 million (look here).  Soon after, New York Times article described the unethical practices the company was alleged to have performed.  It opened with a vivid anecdote:

'I hope no one is taping this,' the Amgen manager remarked at a company sales meeting in 2005.

The manager then boasted of how she had given a $10,000 unrestricted grant to a pet project of a doctor who was an adviser to the local  Medicare contractor. In turn, she said, the doctor would help persuade the contractor to provide reimbursement for an unapproved use of Amgen’s anemia drug, Aranesp. 

Since that account appeared to be of a quid pro quo, it did sound like some a kickback or bribery.  In addition,

Amgen is also accused of offering kickbacks to doctors and clinics to induce them to use its drugs. These reportedly came as cash, rebates, free samples, educational and research grants, dinners and travel, and other inducements.   

Of course, since this was the usual sort of settlement we see of health care corporate wrongdoing, in which the reason the company is paying what appears to be a large fine remains ambiguous,

Except for those in the criminal count, Amgen denied the other accusations, though it did issue a statement on Wednesday acknowledging the settlement.

'The government raised important concerns in the criminal prosecution,' Cynthia M. Patton, chief compliance officer at Amgen, said in the statement. 'Amgen acknowledges that mistakes were made, and we did not live up to our standards.'

"Mistakes were made," what a handy phrase to avoid acknowledging that a real person or person made those mistakes.  Why government prosecutors did not leverage instances in which the mistakes were made by an identifiable person, for example, the manager in the anecdote above, to find out who ultimately authorized and directed the kickbacks and deceptive marketing, and then seek to indict them is a mystery.  The US Department of Justice now seems to be disinclined to ever pursue top  health care corporate executives who may have done wrong, while they exuberantly pursue fines from the companies they direct, fines which have almost no personal impact on those who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior.
  
The Times article also included a telling allegation that behind this apparent misbehavior was a changed corporate culture that put short-term revenue ahead of all other considerations.  

the corporate culture changed starting around 2000. That was when new management came in and Aranesp was approved, setting up a fierce marketing battle with Johnson & Johnson and its rival anemia drug, Procrit.

'It was more important to make your numbers than to follow the rules,' said [former Amgen sales representative and now whistle-blower Jill] ...Osiecki, who was based in Milwaukee and sold Aranesp. 

We have discussed how the "make your numbers" culture seems to have resulted from an over-generalization of the prevalent belief in business schools that "maximizing shareholder value," which usually seems to mean maximizing short-term revenue and/or doing whatever it takes to boost stock prices in the short-term (look here).  In companies which make potentially beneficial but also potentially hazardous drugs, the risks of "make your numbers" are obvious.

Shameful Consequences for Patients 

These were disconcerting revelations.  They showed that some unidentified employees, probably including top leaders of a major health care corporation seemed to use kickbacks and lies to deceptively market a drug just to "make their numbers," and thus most likely score healthy bonuses.  Yet this drug is clearly dangerous.  The official Aranesp label states (in a black box warning, in capital letters):

 ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE

Thus deceptive and unethical marketing practices likely lead to overuse of the drug, and overuse of the drug likely lead to sick (via myocardial infarction [heart attack], stroke, venous thromboembolism or thrombosis of vascular access [drug clots], or tumor progression) or dead patients.

One would think that the consequences of the particular bad behavior alleged in this case would have lead to more zealous prosecution and to the pursuit of actual people who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior.  However, it did not.


One would also think that the nature and consequences of this bad behavior would harm the reputation of the company and its leadership.  Instead, it appears that soon after the settlement was announced, top US elected leaders were fawning over this company and its leadership, and rushing to legislate special treatment for it.

Special Treatment from Legislators

Yet soon after these disconcerting revelations that should have shamed Amgen and its leadership, it appears that the company benefited from legislation narrowly crafted mainly just for to suit its interests, and with the aid of allies from both parties within the US government.  That story was again just reported by the New York Times.  The basics are:

Just two weeks after pleading guilty in a major federal fraud case, Amgen, the world’s largest biotechnology firm, scored a largely unnoticed coup on Capitol Hill: Lawmakers inserted a paragraph into the "fiscal cliff"  bill that did not mention the company by name but strongly favored one of its drugs. 

 

The language buried in Section 632 of the law delays a set of Medicare price restraints on a class of drugs that includes Sensipar, a lucrative Amgen pill used by kidney dialysis patients.

The provision gives Amgen an additional two years to sell Sensipar without government controls. The news was so welcome that the company’s chief executive quickly relayed it to investment analysts.  But it is projected to cost Medicare up to $500 million over that period.[That would almost make up for the fine the company had to pay for illegal marketing and to settle kickback charges - Ed]

Amgen, which has a small army of 74 lobbyists in the capital, was the only company to argue aggressively for the delay, according to several Congressional aides of both parties. 

But the Times article noted that it was not just the size of its army of lobbyists that did it.  

 Amgen has deep financial and political ties to lawmakers like Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, and Senators Max Baucus, Democrat of Montana, and Orrin G Hatch, Republican of Utah, who hold heavy sway over Medicare payment policy as the leaders of the Finance Committee. 

In particular, Amgen

has a deep bench of Washington lobbyists that includes Jeff Forbes, the former chief of staff to Mr. Baucus; Hunter Bates, the former chief of staff for Mr. McConnell; and Tony Podesta, whose fast-growing lobbying firm has unusually close ties to the White House.

Amgen’s employees and political action committee have distributed nearly $5 million in contributions to political candidates and committees since 2007, including $67,750 to Mr. Baucus, the Finance Committee chairman, and $59,000 to Mr. Hatch, the committee’s ranking Republican. They gave an additional $73,000 to Mr. McConnell, some of it at a fund-raising event for him that it helped sponsor in December while the debate over the fiscal legislation was under way. More than $141,000 has also gone from Amgen employees to President Obama’s campaigns.

What distinguishes the company’s efforts in Washington is the diversity and intensity of its public policy campaigns. Amgen and its foundation have directed hundreds of thousands of dollars in charitable contributions to influential groups like the Congressional Black Caucus and to lesser-known groups like the Utah Families Foundation, which was founded by Mr. Hatch and brings the senator positive coverage in his state’s news media.

Amgen has sent large donations to Glacier PAC, sponsored by Mr. Baucus in Montana, and OrrinPAc, a political action committee controlled by Mr. Hatch in Utah.

And when Mr. Hatch faced a rare primary challenge last year, a nonprofit group calling itself Freedom Path sponsored advertisements in Utah that attacked his opponent, an effort that tax records released in November show was financed in large part by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a trade group that includes Amgen.

In some cases, the company’s former employees have found important posts inside the Capitol. They include Dan Todd, one of Mr. Hatch’s top Finance Committee staff members on health and Medicare policy, who worked as a health policy analyst for Amgen’s government affairs office from 2005 to 2009. Mr. Todd, who joined Mr. Hatch’s staff in 2011, was directly involved in negotiating the dialysis components of the fiscal bill, and he met with 'all the stakeholders,' Mr. Hatch’s spokeswoman said, not disputing when asked that this included Amgen lobbyists.

In addition, a NY Times editorial today pointed out that Mitch McConnell, the Senate Minority Leader, (Republican - Kentucky) who "exerted great influence over the fiscal negotiations and praised the Medicare provisions" presumably including the specific provision that helped Amgen, also has "political and financial ties to Amgen."  Furthermore, Senator McConnell's willingness to use taxpayer's money to pay Amgen more seemed to contradict his "public statements [which] usually emphasize the need to cut federal spending on entitlement programs, as they did in Lexington Friday," as reported by WEKU (the National Public Radio Station at Eastern Kentucky University ).  

Can We Reform Health Care in the Corporatist States of America?  

 In summary, Amgen seems to have leveraged its use of former legislative aides affiliated with both political parties as lobbyists, and its presumed influence over former employees who are currently legislative aides, that is, to people who have transited revolving doors in both directions, to influence policy in its corporate favor.  It has also leveraged its contributions directly to politicians, to political action committees (PACs), and to non-profit advocacy groups to influence policy in its direction for this purpose.  All this leverage apparently resulted in continuing government favoritism to a company the government had just convicted of a crime, and to a company whose actions likely led to sick and dead patients.  Furthermore, legislators who publicly deplore excess government spending and enlarging government deficits supported spending more taxpayer money to favor a particular company that they ought to have shunned. 


The New York Times editorial deplored this case first as

a disheartening example of how intense lobbying and financial contributions can distort the legislative process in Washington

and second as

a classic example of the power of special interests to shape legislation and shows how hard it may be to carry out the reforms needed to cut health care costs. 

But it was really much worse than that.   This case certainly shows the ongoing coziness between big health care organizations and government (this time, mainly legislative) leaders, facilitated by the apparently very common "revolving door" interchange of influential people between corporate management and government.  Note that this coziness has now become bipartisan.  However, this was not merely expensive favoritism.  It was hypocritical expensive favoritism that benefited a corporation that ought to have been shamed and shunned for behavior that did not merely cost the government money, but likely harmed patients, sometimes even fatally. 

President Theodore Roosevelt condemned malefactors of great wealth.  Our current political leaders in both parties seem to put their ties to corporate insiders who work for executives of great wealth ahead of any consideration of what might be good for patients, public health, or the citizenry at large.  

So the US now seems to be run by a soft, informal version of corporatism, the system in which government and big corporations overlap and jointly rule the people.  Since these days big corporations are run largely without accountability by increasingly rich executives, this ends up meaning government by the oligarchs, for the oligarchs, and of the oligarchs.  President Lincoln and President Theodore Roosevelt might be rolling in their graves.  

To meaningfully reform health care, it seems like we need to meaningfully reform our entire political system, and both make leaders of health care organizations accountable, and make government again of the people, by the people, and for the people. 

US Presidential Candidates' Financial Relationships with Health Care Organizations

As the leadership of the large field of Republican candidates for the US Presidency shifts, different candidates come in for increased media scrutiny.  Recently, reporting about former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum focused on his financial relationships with a health care organization. Senator Santorum, however, is only the candidate with ties to health care organizations to come into the spotlight most recently.  We will review the report on Santorum, and then summarize the publicly known relationships of the other candidates.

Republican Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Universal Health Services

The relationship was first revealed by Bloomberg,

Santorum’s greatest financial gain came from $395,414 in director fees and stock options he listed in a recent financial disclosure.

The fees and options came from King of Prussia-based Universal Health Services Inc., a publicly traded health-care management company....

Senator Santorum started on his board service in 2006. He resigned in June, 2011, when he started his campaign for the presidency.

Note that while Santorum served on the board, the company was accused of ethical missteps:

The Justice Department accused the company in a 2010 lawsuit of submitting fraudulent reimbursement claims under the Medicaid health-care program for the poor. The government said the company falsely claimed to have provided inpatient psychiatric services to children at a detention facility in Marion, Virginia. Pantaleoni said the case has been settled.

The company has also risked losing certification to receive Medicare reimbursement for medical centers that it owns.

According to a release on the UHS website, the Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Riverside County regained their certification in November after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services threatened to terminate their provider agreement in June 2010. The state of California had also threatened to revoke the group’s hospital license.

It wasn’t the first time UHS risked losing certification for one of its facilities. In late September 2008, CMS terminated participation in Medicare for the Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital in Kansas City. It’s a decision that led to a court appeal and settlement requiring Two Rivers to retain an outside monitor for six months.

Thus, Senator Santorum was on the board of a for-profit hospital corporation until just before he became a presidential candidate. While he was on the board, the company allegedly committed unethical actions.

Republican Former Georgia Congressman Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich and the Center for Health Transformation and its Numerous Corporate Sponsors

A few weeks ago, we posted about Congressman Gingrich's operation of a health care consulting firm, the Center for Health Transformation. It had relationships with a long list of major health care organizations, including Allscripts, the American Hospital Association, AstraZeneca, Blue Cross Blue Shield, GE Healthcare, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers' of America, Siemens, and WellPoint. At a minimum, the Center helped some of these organizations try to influence health care policy to favor their vested interests in the guise of promoting health policy solutions.

The juxtaposition of the stories about Senator Santorum's and Congressman Gingrich's financial ties to health care organizations suggested we review whether other current candidates also had such ties. Some quick searching revealed that some others did. We will review the other current major candidates below, starting with the other Republicans, in alphabetical order.

Republican Former Utah Governor Jonathan Huntsman Jr

I could not find any publicly reported relevant relationships.

Republican Texas Congressman Dr Ronald E Paul

Dr Paul is a physician, an obstetrics-gynecology specialist. According to Wikipedia, he apparently practiced until his current stint in the Congress began in 1996. I could not find any publicly reported relevant relationships.

Republican Texas Governor James Richard "Rick" Perry and Merck

In September, 2011, Governor Perry's prominence in the campaign caused a reconsideration of his relationship to Merck. As MSNBC reported,

On the campaign trail, Perry had recently apologized for the executive order-which would have made Texas the first state in the country to mandate that all teenage girls, starting with 12-year-old sixth graders, be vaccinated with Gardasil.

Gardisil is made by Merck. Then candidate Representative Michele Bachmann noted that Governor Perry had received campaign contributions from Merck. As the Los Angeles Times reported,

In fact, Merck PAC — the company’s Washington, D.C.-based political action committee — has given Perry $28,500 since 2001, according to Texas Ethics Commission filings.

The bulk of that money came before 2007, when the governor signed an executive order mandating all sixth-grade girls in the state to receive the Gardasil vaccine against HPV.

However, Governor Perry had another tie to Merck, as noted by MSNBC,

Perry's order came after the drug company that manufactured the vaccine hired Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff, as one of the firm's top lobbyists in Austin.

Toomey, who is now running the main 'super pac' backing Perry's candidacy, was retained by pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., maker of the Gardasil vaccine, which is designed to prevent the human papillomavirus, or HPV, an infection linked to cervical cancer in women.

His hiring was part of an aggressive lobbying push in Texas by the drug company, which also donated $16,000 to Perry's gubernatorial campaigns in the two and a half years prior to the executive order. Merck paid Toomey between $260,000 and $535,000 in lobbying fees between 2005 and 2010, according to state lobbying records.

Although Perry's GOP foes never brought up the connection during the debate, Democratic political operatives and a public watchdog group said Thursday his association with Merck is likely to be emerge as a prime example of Perry's 'crony capitalism,' should he win the GOP nomination.

Although there were no reports that Governor Perry personally financially benefited from a relationship with Merck, the company paid substantial amounts to his campaign and to an organization he ran, and to his former chief of staff. There seems to be at least a reason to think that these relationships had something to do with a decision he made that lead to increased sales of a Merck product, and which he now regrets.

Republican Former Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney and Bain Capital and Numerous Health Care Corporations

Today's Wall Street Journal summarized the investments made by Bain Capital, a venture capital and private equity firm lead by Governor Romney,

The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.

Of the 10 firms that produced the biggest returns for Bain, four were involved in health care, PhysioControl, Waters, Dade, and Wesley Jessen VisionCare. Dade, a medical diagnostics company, went bankrupt in 2002.

Furthermore, in 2007, the Boston Globe (via the Deseret News) reported on Governor Romney's private equity career, including his involvement with a company that had its ethical challenge,

Bain Capital's 1989 purchase of Damon Corp., a Needham medical testing firm that later pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government of $25 million and paid a record $119 million fine.

Romney sat on Damon's board. During Romney's tenure, Damon executives submitted bills to the government for millions of unnecessary blood tests. Romney and other board members were never implicated.

More than a decade later, when Romney was in pursuit of the Massachusetts governorship, his Democratic opponent Shannon O'Brien accused him of lax oversight at Damon and failing to report the fraud.

Romney replied that he had helped uncover the illegal activity at Damon, asking the board's lawyers to investigate. As a result, he said, the board took 'corrective action' before selling the company in 1993 to Corning Inc.

But court records suggest that the Damon executives' scheme continued throughout Bain's ownership, and prosecutors credited Corning, not Romney, with cleaning up the situation. Bain, meanwhile, tripled its investment.

Romney personally reaped $473,000.

Thus, Governor Romney was on the board of a device company, albeit many years prior to when he became a presidential candidate. While he was on the board, the company allegedly committed unethical actions.

Democratic President Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and the University of Chicago Medical Center

The issue of then Democratic Senator Barack Obama's wife's role at the Medical Center was first discussed in 2008, with some follow up in 2009. As the Washington Post reported in 2008,

Shortly after Barack Obama joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, the medical center promoted Michelle Obama to vice president of community and external relations, and more than doubled her salary. She is now on leave from the $317,000-a-year post, in which she sought to bridge the gap between the wealthy institution and its poorer neighbors. The hospital declined to discuss the budget for her program or her input into budgetary decisions.

She was particularly involved in one program that became controversial,

A few years ago, executives at the prestigious University of Chicago Medical Center were concerned that an increasing number of patients were arriving at their emergency room with what the executives considered to be non-urgent complaints. The visits were costly to the hospital, and many of the patients, coming from the surrounding South Side neighborhood, were poor and uninsured.

Michelle Obama, an executive at the medical center, launched an innovative program to steer the patients to existing neighborhood clinics to deal with their health needs.

That effort, in time, inspired a broader program the hospital now calls its Urban Health Initiative.

The Post noted,

The medical center markets its initiative as an effort to improve patient health for the poor and at the same time free its resources for emergencies and complicated procedures. The Urban Health Initiative also could save the hospital substantial amounts of money, by removing the nonpaying poor patients from its emergency room.

However, after Senator Obama became President, his wife became the First Lady and quit her job at the medical center, the program became even more controversial. In March, 2009, the Chicago Weekly reported on the extensions of the Urban Health Initiative

or UHI, which has garnered a lot of criticism recently, such as accusations that it comes 'dangerously close' to the illegal practice of 'patient dumping.' Additionally, the emergency room structure that it will leave in its wake will likely result in a decline in the quality of care provided to Medicaid, Medicare, and uninsured patients.

Ultimately, the Wall Street Journal reported that:

More than 190 doctors at the University of Chicago Medical Center signed a letter to trustees protesting plans to reduce the number of beds available to emergency patients as 'unnecessarily risky' and a threat to patient safety.

At that time, this admission appeared,

Dr. Madara, the hospital's chief executive, said in an interview last week that the hospital is seeking to admit more patients to its 'programs of distinction' such as oncology and advanced surgery, and treat fewer in the ER, and that these moves will mean more privately insured patients at the hospital.

Note that "programs of distinction" may also mean programs that provide the most revenue. Ultimately, the Chicago Tribune reported that the plan was halted by the university president, and a few months later, Dr Madara, the CEO resigned (again per the Tribune).

Thus, while he was a Senator, current President Obama's wife earned a substantial salary from a non-profit academic medical center and hospital system. A program she ran was then and later alleged to have compromised patient safety and perhaps acted unethically.

Summary

We have frequently discussed how large health care organizations seek to influence discussions of health policy to further their vested interests. At times, they have organized stealth health policy advocacy initiatives to comprehensively push their aims. For example, we discussed how commercial health insurance companies have tried, often succesfully, to influence health policy as recounted by former CIGNA public relations leader Wendell Potter in his book Deadly Spin.

It appears that the more one looks, the more one finds evidence of the web of influence of large health care organizations. Pulling together a variety of journalistic efforts over more than three years, it now appears that the majority of the current credible contenders for the presidency of the US have or had financial relationships with health care organizations.

Often these relationships appear significant enough to be called conflicts of interest were the people who had them communicating about health policy in a venue that requires conflict of interest disclosure, like a major medical journal. One candidate until very recently was on the board of directors of a for-profit hospital corporation, and hence had a fiduciary duty to that company and its stock-holders. One candidate until very recently ran a health care consulting company whose clients included major drug, device, and insurance companies. One candidate previously was on the board of a medical device company. One candidate's spouse previously was a top executive of a academic medical center and hospital system.

While the current candidates may now now be writing articles for medical or health care policy journals, by virtue of their candidacies they now receive enormous attention. Anything they say about health care policy is likely to be influential. Yet there is reason to be concerned that many of their views on health policy were influenced by their financial relationships. In particular, would a candidate who at one time got a major part of his or his family's livelihood from a big health care organization be likely to strongly challenge the status quo that allowed that organization to prosper?

In my humble opinion, there needs to be complete reconsideration of how health care policy is made. In particular, we must define how much of the discussion is driven by vested economic interests, and make sure such interests and their relationship to those in the discussion becomes clear. It is just as important for health policy analysts, pundits, and decision-makers to disclose in detail their conflicts of interest as it is for clinical researchers and educators. Maybe the Institute of Medicine would be willing to take up this issue as they took up conflicts of interest affecting research and education.

Health Care Policy of the Insiders, by the Insiders, for the Insiders - the Newt Gingrich Case Files

Newt Gingrich's rise to the top of the pack of Republican contenders for the US presidency has earned him increased scrutiny.  The resulting investigative reporting has provided a revealing set of case studies showing how insiders have come to dominate US health care policy.

Below I have reorganized the information presented in a series of news articles from mid-November to mid-December, 2011.

Mr Gingrich's Consulting Empire

A general description of Mr Gingrich's health care "think tank" appeared in the Washington Post.(1)

A think tank founded by GOP presidential candidate Newt Gingrich collected at least $37 million over the past eight years from major health-care companies and industry groups, offering special access to the former House speaker and other perks, according to records and interviews.

The Center for Health Transformation, which opened in 2003, brought in dues of as much as $200,000 per year from insurers and other health-care firms, offering some of them 'access to Newt Gingrich' and 'direct Newt interaction,' according to promotional materials.

Despite its name, the CHT was for-profit. Much of its actual workings are confidential, per the Post,(1)

Susan Meyers, a center spokeswoman, declined to comment on the think tank’s income or staffing levels because it is a private-sector organization.

Despite its pretentious name, the CHT was apparently a vehicle for its wealthy corporate clients to influence health policy to favor their business interests.  A NY Times article(2) reported that:

His consultancy practice was centered around his ability to help big corporate interests speak the language of Republicans and navigate the corridors of Capitol Hill on issues vital to their businesses.

According to a Bloomberg article(3), the work was quite lucrative:

Two companies founded by Newt Gingrich announced yesterday that they had grossed $55 million between 2001 and 2010, part of an effort to quiet questions about how the former U.S. House speaker earned millions since he resigned from Congress in 1999.

That revenue supports the Center for Health Transformation and The Gingrich Group LLC, which have a staff of as many as 30 people, stage health-care policy events, and provide advice to clients, Nancy Desmond, the chairman and chief executive officer of the firms, said in a written statement.

The CHT was linked to a small corporate empire, as described by the Washington Post,(4)

Former House speaker Newt Gingrich transfigured himself from a political flameout into a thriving business conglomerate. The power of the Gingrich brand fueled a for-profit collection of enterprises that generated close to $100 million in revenue over the past decade, said his longtime attorney Randy Evans.

Among Gingrich’s moneymaking ventures: a health-care think tank financed by six-figure dues from corporations; a consulting business; a communications firm that handled his speeches of up to $60,000 a pop, media appearances and books; a historical documentary production company; a separate operation to administer the royalties for the historical fiction that Gingrich writes with two co-authors; even an in-house literary agency that has counted among its clients a presidential campaign rival, former senator Rick Santorum (R-Pa.).

Separate from all of that was his nonprofit political operation, American Solutions for Winning the Future.

Relationships with Big Health Care Corporations

The Center for Health Transformation was largely funded by big health care corporations. The Post first noted,(1)

The biggest funders, ... [included] firms such as AstraZeneca, Blue Cross Blue Shield and Novo Nordisk,...

Also,(1)

The center has listed scores of firms and industry groups as members over the years, amounting to a Who’s Who of the medical field, from GE Healthcare to the American Hospital Association to Wellpoint, the nation’s largest health insurer.

Other clients were listed in a Bloomberg article,(5)

Among the member companies were drugmaker Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) and health insurer Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association....

Also,(5)

Pfizer Inc. (PFE), the world’s largest drugmaker, had consulting contracts with Gingrich, according to two people familiar with the arrangements. Pfizer spokesman Ray Kerins didn’t respond to requests for comment.

The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the industry’s trade group, was also a client. His firm 'was retained by the PhRMA general counsel’s office at one time to provide advice on a positioning project,' the group said.

In addition, as noted below, clients included important firms in the health care information technology (IT) sector, including GE, IBM, Microsoft, Allscripts, and Siemens.

Below, we present several cases in which Mr Gingrich apparently intervened on behalf of his clients to promote their business interests in the guise of promoting his views on health policy solutions.  In some cases, the views he promoted did not fit with what is generally regarded as his political philosophy, suggesting that the interests of his paying clients overrode his political views.

Case: End of Life Care

The New York Times reported,(2)

Writing on the Web site of the Washington Post, Mr Gingrich praised Gundersen Lutheran Health System of LaCrosse, Wis., for its successful efforts to persuade most patients to have 'advance directives,' saying if Medicare had followed Gundersen's lead on end-of-life care and other practices, it would 'save more than $33 billion a year.'

Note that

Gundersen was one of the paying clients of Mr. Gingrich's Center for Health Transformation....

However,

within weeks, Mr. Gingrich would find himself on the wrong end of what some Republicans labeled the 'death panel' issue.

At that point, Mr Gingrich abruptly changed his tune,

As it happens, shortly after Mr. Gingrich wrote his article praising Gundersen, he joined the conservative critics of the provision. 'You are asking us to trust turning power over to the government,' Mr Gingrich told George Stephanopoulos of ABC News that August 'when there are clearly people in America who believe in establishing euthanasia, including selective standards.'

This suggested that Mr Gingrich took up the cause of end-of-life decision making not be cause he deeply believed in it, but because it was expeditious given the wishes of his clients, despite the assertion made by his spokesperson,(2)

Mr. Hammond said that Mr. Gingrich did not take policy positions for pay; rather, he said, clients sought him out because of the views he already held and his expertise in communicating ideas.

Case: Medicare Prescription Coverage Sans Negotiations about Drug Prices

As reported by Bloomberg,(5)

When U.S. House Republican leaders in 2003 were short of votes to pass a $395 billion Medicare prescription drug benefit, they recruited former House Speaker Newt Gingrich for help.

In a hushed room on Capitol Hill, Gingrich told his former Republican colleagues that if he could endorse the measure, they should be comfortable with it, too, said two former senior House aides who attended the closed-door session.

Two days later, after a vote was held open for three hours as leaders corralled the final ayes, the measure passed and was eventually signed into law by President George W. Bush.

What Gingrich didn’t mention during the Republican caucus meeting was that he was also building a for-profit, health-care research company and seeking financing from drugmakers, which were investing $128.6 million in lobbying for passage of the new benefit for seniors.

Note that the legislation that provided Medicare drug coverage forbade the government from negotiating prices with drugmakers.  This was unprecedented, because drug coverage from the US Veterans Administration and Medicaid did not come with the obligation to pay whatever the drug-makers charged.  The inability of Medicare to negotiate the prices it paid for drugs certainly helped the companies' revenues while driving up the costs of Medicare, the federal deficit and the costs of health care in general.

Case: Promoting Expensive Diabetes Care

The Washington Post reported,(4)

Novo Nordisk, a Denmark-based drug firm that specializes in diabetes treatments.... paid a total of $1.2 million to Gingrich’s foundation over six years as a 'founding charter member.'

'It was strictly a business, nonpolitical relationship,' Novo Nordisk spokesman Ken Inchausti said. 'We admired his leadership on issues related to health-care delivery systems. We thought the CHT brought something to the table to us in terms of finding ways to help people prevent diabetes.'

Gingrich loaned his celebrity to causes that, whatever their other merits, could also be good for Novo Nordisk’s bottom line. For instance, he was the keynote speaker at Novo Nordisk’s 'diabetes summit' in 2005 and joined the company in issuing a 'call to action' to fight diabetes in Texas and Georgia.

One wonders how many of the widely promoted "summits" and other star-studded conferences on health care featuring corporate  and political leaders as speakers are just stealth health policy advocacy or stealth marketing.

Case: Irrational Exuberance for Electronic Health Records

My fellow Health Care Renewal blogger has often discussed the "irrational exuberance" for electronic health records (EHRs) despite scant information about their benefits, and increasing data suggesting their harms.  It now appears that Mr Gingrich, sponsored by copious funds from the health care IT sector, has been a major source of such exuberance. 

Mr Gingrich had a complex relationship with the health care information technology (IT) industry. It began to come out first in a NY Times story,(6)

When the center [for Health Transformation] sponsored a 'health transformation summit' at the Florida State Capitol in March 2006, lawmakers who attended Mr. Gingrich's keynote speech inside the House chamber received a booklet promoting not just ideas but also the specific services of two dozen of his clients. Executives from some of those companies sat on panels for discussions that lawmakers were encouraged to attend after Mr. Gingrich's address.

Gerard White, president of Clearwave, which paid about $50,000 to become a center member, used the occasion to pitch his company's system for managing patient data.

This had all began earlier,

Two years before the Florida 'summit,' Mr. Gingrich made a presentation to Republican lawmakers in Georgia, promoting the work of his member companies by citing specific benefits if they were hired. For example, 'VitalSpring could save the State Employee Program over $20 million a year.'

Minutes of the members-only conference call from March 2004 said the center had 'arranged joint meetings' for members to present their work on electronic health records to top federal officials, noting that Mr. Gingrich 'reported very positive feedback overall from these meetings.'

He also pressed for passage of a federal bill to increase the use of electronic health records, collaborating with one of its co-sponsors, Representative Patrick J. Kennedy of Rhode Island, and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, both Democrats.

Furthermore,

Many of the ideas he has pushed involve the increased use of information technology, and companies specializing in that are well represented in the center's roster. They also figured prominently in an early center initiative, teaming up in 2003 with the conservative Georgia Public Policy Foundation to promote changes in health care in Mr. Gingrich's home state.

At his discussion with Georgia House Republicans in 2004, Mr. Gingrich gave examples of companies whose services could 'both improve health and start saving money,' according to the center's summary of his presentation.

And there is more,

In Washington, Mr. Gingrich's push for electronic health records illustrated how his own policy advocacy and ties to former Congressional colleagues made him a sought-out consultant for companies like Astra Zeneca and Siemens. Mr. Gingrich hailed HealthTrio, one of the center's 'founding charter members,' during a hearing held in 2003 by Senator Larry Craig, Republican of Ohio. Telling the senator that HealthTrio's chief executive had helped design the electronic records program in the United Kingdon, Mr. Gingrich said the company 'estimates we could have an electronic health record for American for about 10 cents per month, per person.'

The center later arranged for HealthTrio and I.B.M to meet with senior federal health officials and congressional leaders 'to review the U.K. approach and how it might be applied in the U.S.,' according to center records.

Some of the ideas promoted by the center found their way into the electronic health records legislation proposed by Mr. Kennedy, which was prepared with input from Mr. Gingrich.

This is especially ironic, given that the UK NHS electronic health record initiative has become a crashing failure (for example, see this post).

Even more involvement with the push for electronic health records (EHRs) appeared in a Boston Globe article,(7)

Newt Gingrich seized the TV airwaves in 2009 to bash President Obama’s stimulus package, calling it 'entirely a pork-barrel bill' that would do little to solve the recession.

Later, in a separate web video, the former House speaker stepped back from his blanket criticism. He explained that he strongly supported spending $27 billion of stimulus funds to encourage doctors and hospitals to create electronic medical records for their patients. Left unsaid was that the Gingrich Group, his consulting business in Washington, received large payments from medical technology companies that stand to profit from the federal money.

In particular,

The stimulus infusion Gingrich supported is expected to benefit health care technology companies, including those who have been clients such as GE Healthcare and Allscripts.

GE Healthcare said it pays Gingrich’s center to act as a 'collaborator and facilitator' among a diverse group of health care interests.

'We work with the Center for Health Transformation in an effort to improve the effectiveness of the health system through the use of information technology,' said GE Healthcare spokesman Corey Miller.

Allscripts spokeswoman Ariana Nikitas said the company ended its relationship with Gingrich’s center two years ago but considered the venture 'a think-tank to advance health care efforts.'

It does not stop there. Per the NY Times,(8)

Mr. Gingrich was cheering a $19 billion part of the [Obama stimulus] package that promoted the use of electronic health records, something that benefited clients of his consulting business. 'I am delighted that President Obama has picked this as a key part of the stimulus package,' he told health care executives in a January 2009 conference call.

After the bill was passed a month later, Mr. Gingrich's consultancy, the Center for Health Transformation, joined two of his clients, Allscripts and Microsoft, in an 'Electronic Health Records Stimulus Tour' that traveled the country, encouraging doctors and hospitals to buy their products with billions in federal subsidies.

We, particularly InformaticsMD, have frequently commented on how health care information technology has been promoted not just by enthusiasts in the field, and by companies that manufacture such devices, but by the government.  The bandwagon has gone down the road despite little clinical evidence that such technology is beneficial, and increasing evidence of its harms.  Now it appears that an important reason for this ruch to promote expensive, but unproven devices comes from the sort of stealth health care policy advocacy on behalf of corporate vested interests described above.
Summary

So Newt Gingrich parlayed his political track record into a lucrative "consultancy" which enthusiastically promoted the health policy objectives of its clients, who included some of the biggest US health care corporations.  Some of the policy positions the consultancy promoted seemed to run counter to Mr Gingrich's political record.  Worse, some of the initiative he successfully promoted seem to have contributed to US health care dysfunction.

These stories, some of which are many years old, only came out after Mr Gingrich became the front runner for the Republican nomination for US President.  Had he not chosen to re-enter politics, it is not clear when reporters would have had time to due the required investigations.  One wonders how many similar stories have not been made public because they do not involve prominent presidential candidates.

The bottom line seems to be that there are myriad ways corporate and political insiders push health policy agendas because of self-interest, regardless of their effects on 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.

References


1.  Eggen D. Gingrich think tank collected millions from health-care industry.  Washington Post.  November 17, 2011.  Link here.
2. Rutenberg J. Gingrich faces more scrutiny over corporate clients. NY Times, November, 17, 2011. Link here.
3. Benson C, Lerer L. Gingrich health center and group paid $55M. Bloomberg, November 22, 2011. Link here.
4. Tumulty K, Eggen D. Newt Gingrich Inc.: how the GOP hopeful went from political flameout to fortune. Washington Post, November 26, 2011. Link here.
5. Davis JH, Jensen K. Gingrich campaigning as change agent profited as an insider. Bloomberg, November 18, 2011. Link here.
6. McIntire M, Rutenberg J. Gingrich gave push to clients, not just ideas. NY Times, November 29, 2011. Link here.
7. Rowland C. Newt Gingrich supported $27 billion of President Obama's stimulus for electronic medical records, helping his consulting clients. Boston Globe, December 16, 2011. Link here.
8. Rutenberg J, McIntire M. Gingrich push on health care appears at odds with G.O.P. NY Times, December 16, 2011. Link here.

Once More with Feeling: Another Defense of Conflicts of Interest Based on Logical Fallacies

Despite increasing recognition of the adverse effects of health care professionals' and health care institutions' conflicts of interest on health care, such financial relationships continue to have their prominent defenders.  The latest example was an article in Medscape General Surgery by Frank J Veith MD, entitled "Physicians and Industry: Fix the Relationships, but Keep Them Going."  Dr Veith is a prominent vascular surgeon who "received numerous awards and honors as a leader, outstanding teacher, and innovator in vascular surgery," according to New York University

We have noted before how defenders of conflicted professionals and professional societies often employ logical fallacies to support their arguments.  Some recent examples were discussed here, by a prominent ostensibly libertarian attorney and law professor; here, published in a well-known medical journal by the former director of "medical communications" for a large pharmaceutical firm; and here, by the president of a large medical society, published again in a well-known medical journal.

Dr Veith seems to be continuing that tradition. His approach emphasized frequent repetition of the same fallacious argument.

Straw Man: "Totally Interrupt All Doctor-Industry Relationships"

Dr Veith's main argument seemed to be with attempts to prevent physicians from having any relationships with industry, presumably including not just financial relationships, but professional collaborations or even personal friendships.  For example, he wrote about

a recent initiative to completely sever the relationship between industry and doctors has gained traction. This initiative has been supported by several states, including Massachusetts and Vermont, and universities, such as Harvard, Stanford, the University of Massachusetts, and the University of Michigan, which have enacted draconian laws or policies designed to separate doctors and industry and to interrupt any relationship between them.

Furthermore,

Even many individual physicians have sanctimoniously jumped on the bandwagon and written articles or opinion pieces attacking the evils of any relationship between industry and doctors, suggesting the severance of any such relationships.

Then later, Dr Veith wrote,

We should establish rules to prevent or minimize the abuses, but we should not totally interrupt all doctor-industry relationships. To do so is wrong-headed and would eliminate the many beneficial effects that accrue to medical care and society from these relationships. It would be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Finally, he concluded thus,

These will be far better solutions than completely eliminating all industry-doctor relationships.... Such safeguards will be better than the present trend for institutions and governments to enact strict measures to separate physicians from industry.

Despite making this argument at least four times, the problem is that Dr Veith provided no citations, much less evidence that such "draconian" policies have been enacted or even advocated.

There have been new policies on conflicts of interest suggested or adopted by some organizations. None, to my knowledge have been exactly "draconian."

For example, Harvard University does have a new policy on conflicts of interest. Maybe Dr Veith was referring to it above when he mentioned Harvard. However, in an interview about the new policy involving university leaders published in the Harvard Gazette, the Vice Provost of the University said,

The University is not designed to be an ivory tower isolated from the world. So the trick is to be able to have a robust system for affording faculty opportunities to engage with the commercial world and at the same time not threaten in any way their own fundamental integrity or that of Harvard.

That hardly sounds like a policy that completely severs all relationships between faculty and industry.
So Dr Veith's main premise seems to be based on a multiply repeated straw-man argument. He argued again and again against a policy that no one seems to be advocating. (And even I, as a hard-liner about conflicts of interest, have never advocated a complete interruption of all relationships of any kind between all physicians and all of industry.)

Appeal to Fear: You Will be "Blighted"

Perhaps just to spice things up, Dr Veith warned of the dire consequences of the "draconian" policies that no one was advocating:

Those institutions that choose such inquisitional approaches will be blighted and suffer competitive disadvantages.

Dr Veith had asserted multiple benefits of continuing relationships among physicians, health care institutions, and commercial firm. He presented no evidence to support his assertions, most of which can be questioned (see below). His warning that institutions will be "blighted" was based on his assertion that the stringent policy no one advocated would eliminate these unproven benefits, hence his warning of  something so severe as "blight" seemed to be an appeal to fear.

Ad Hominem: "Sanctimonious" Physicians Leading a "Witch Hunt"

As noted above, Dr Veith referred to anonymous physicians who "sanctimoniously jumped on the bandwagon," thus leading to

The initiative to separate industry from physicians and surgeons [which] has taken on the trappings of a witch hunt.

And again,

Their leaders should recognize this and resist the temptation to join the separation witch hunt....

My interpretation is that this was an implied set of ad hominems. Those who supposedly advocated the "draconian" policy were made out to be "sanctimonious" witch hunters. After just having seen "The Crucible," I could also argue that the use of the term "witch hunt," with its current extreme emotional references (apparently to a case in which presumably innocent people were hanged), amounted to an appeal to emotion and an appeal to fear.

Summary

I must admit Dr Veith's entire set of arguments was not completely based on logical fallacies.  However, the rest of his arguments hardly appeared even-handed.  He presented a series of assertions about the benefits of such relationships, including that they "foster innovation and development," that "industry-sponsored medical education helps to keep physicians informed about new developments," that industry sponsored education about devices prevents "difficult and dangerous" practices, and helps physicians use devices "better and more safely."  He provided no evidence in favor of these claims, and seemed to ignore arguments about the hazards of payments to physicians biasing their clinical practice, teaching and research.

I should also note that these arguments were made by a physician who appears to have his own personal financial relationships with industry.  In the Medscape article, Dr Veith "disclosed no relevant financial relationships."   However, as a member of the editorial board of Medscape General Surgery, Dr Veith "disclosed the following relevant financial relationships: Owns stock, stock options, or bonds from: Vascular Innovations, Inc."  Furthermore, the disclosure summary for the iCON2011 conference includes the following for Dr Veith, "Honorarium/Expenses: Cook Medical, Cordis, WL Gore, Medtronic." Finally, Dr Veith apparently runs the Veith Symposium, which in 2010 acknowledged the following commercial sponsors: Aastrom, Abbott Vascular, Aptus Endosystems Inc, Atrium, Bard Peripheral Vascular, Boston Scientific, Cook Medical, Cordis Cardiac and Vascular Institute, Delcath Systems Inc, Gore, Hansen Medical, Lombard Medical Technologies, Maquet, Medtronic, Organogenesis Inc, Sanofi-Aventis, St. Jude Medical, Tenaxis Medical, Triavascular, Vascutek Terumo.

So Dr Veith's article continues the tradition of defenses of physicians' and health care institutions' conflicts of interest based on logical fallacies and unbalanced and unsupported assertions.  Also, note that all the examples of such defenses we have discussed were made by people with their own financial relationships with drug, device, and/or biotechnology companies, although some of them disclosed these relationships.  I have yet to see a defense of such conflicts based on logic and evidence, or a defense of such conflicts made by someone who has absolutely no conflicts of his or her own. 

The currently prevalent relationships with health care corporations among academic physicians, researchers, and other decision makers and influencers in health care have been lucrative for them.  I have yet to see a coherent, logical argument that these relationships are good for patients, medical education, biomedical or clinical science, or public health made by anyone, much less someone who does not have such relationships.

I will note that the defenses of conflicts of interest begin to seem drearily similar.  Not only do they often use the same logical fallacies, but they repeat the same stale and unsupported arguments about the benefits of financial relationships with industry: that they foster "innovation," and that they provide better educational opportunities than unconflicted programs and educators.  We now know that the managed care industry has engineered stealth health policy advocacy campaigns that furnish talking points to "third parties" which may get caught up in the larger policy discourse (see posts here and here).  I wonder whether some such stealth health policy advocacy campaign by pharmaceutical, device and/or biotechnology companies seeded the discourse about conflicts of interest with some of the logical fallacies and unproven assertions that have become so familiar. 

We need to elevate our discourse about health care policy.  People involved in health policy discussions should at least disclose their conflicts of interest when making their points.  We should be very skeptical of  arguments and look carefully for the evidence and logic that supports them.  When we find that evidence and logic is lacking, be even more skeptical about who benefits from them. 

Wendell Potter's "Deadly Spin"

We recently discussed how Wendell Potter, author of Deadly Spin, has provided a chilling picture of health care corporate disinformation campaigns and the tactics used therein.  I finally had a chance to read the whole book, which should be read by anyone interested in concentration and abuse of power in health care.

Let me summarize some of its main points.

The Unholy History of Public Relations

Mr Potter set "PR" in its historical context, and noted parallels among the modern deceptions he recounts and how the father of PR white-washed tobacco companies, and with the propaganda and disinformation used by 20th century totalitarian states to cement their rule.

How Deceptive PR Changed the Course of Health Care

As noted earlier, Mr Potter recounted how deceptive PR campaigns subverted the health care reform plans of US President Bill Clinton, reduced the impact of Michael Moore's movie, "Sicko," and helped to remodel the recent health care reform bill to reduce its threat to commercial health insurers.  He further noted how PR distracted public attention from the growing faults of a health care system based on commercial health insurance, and how practical and legal safeguards against abuses by insurance companies were eroded. 

Making More by Providing Less Care

Mr Potter catalogued the tactics insurance companies use to reduce care and increase revenue, such as rescision, elimination of coverage for groups with high costs, the use of high deductibles disguised as "consumer choice," etc.

The Tactics of Stealth Health Policy Advocacy

As noted in our earlier post, Mr Potter described "charm offensives;" the deliberate creation of distractions, including the planting of memes for short-term goals that went on to have long-term adverse effects; fear mongering; the use of front groups, including "astroturf," (faux disease advocacy and/or grass roots organizations), public policy advocacy groups, and tame (and conflicted) scientific/professional groups; and intelligence gathering.  He provided some practical advice for detecting such tactics. For example, be very suspicious of policy advocacy by groups with no apparent address or an address identical to that of a PR firm, or with anonymous leaders and/or anonymous financial backing.

Why Good People Do Bad Things

Mr Potter provides some insight into the rationalization and compartmentalization that allow apparently upstanding people to peddle deceptive PR.

Memes Metastasizing

Mr Potter noted how memes are created to fit short term goals.  My observation is that these memes may then acquire lives of their own that then may have long term adverse effects.  Think about "the best health care system in the world," fears of "government bureaucrats," but not corporate bureaucrats running health care, to what the label "junk science" may be applied, and where fears of the "nanny state" came from.

Summary

Mr Potter seems to be the only known example of a defector from the ranks of the leadership of modern corporate health care prompted by conscience.  Anyone who finds this blog useful should find his book at least equally useful.  (To those from outside the US:  although most of Mr Potter's experience was with the US system, the role of PR in society here is likely not that different from its role in other developed countries.)

I hope to return to some of the issues he raises in more detail from time to time.

Bravo, Wendell Potter, for returning from the "dark side."

 Note that I have added Mr Potter's blog to our blog-roll.

Mainstream Media "Discovers" Conflicts of Interest of Prominent Health Policy Pundit

The main-stream media, in this case the San Francisco Chronicle, just "discovered" an important case of a conflicted health policy pundit,

Uwe Reinhardt, a Princeton economic professor who often writes about health care for the New York Times' Economix blog, earns more than $500,000 a year working for a number of health care companies. He also holds more than $5 million worth of related stock.

Reinhardt's NYT bio does not mention these financial relationships.

As the NYTPicker points out, Reinhardt's various incomes break the New York Times rules, which ban anyone who writes for the paper from having any financial interest 'in a company, enterprise or industry that figures or is likely to figure in coverage that he or she provides, edits, packages or supervises regularly.'

We asked the New York Times for comment. They sent us this email:

'Professor Reinhardt is a leading expert on the economics of health care, and has provided valuable and independent insights in his blog posts. He has mentioned his service on corporate boards in the blog, but we are reviewing how to more fully describe his activities for readers of Economix.'

We also asked Reinhardt for comment. He is working on one for us and we will post it here as soon as possible.

Here's the breakdown of what he owns, according to NYTPicker:

* Reinhardt either earns an income or stock options from the five different private health care companies for which he sits on the board of directors/serves as a trustee.
* He has sat on the board of health care company, Amerigroup, since 2003. This tenure has resulted in Reinhardt's accumulation of 144,558 shares in the company and $226,531 in cash-and-stock compensation. These shares are currently valued around $4.8 million.
* Reinhardt also holds 75,625 shares of Boston Scientific (worth more than $500,000 in value) and earned $213,132 from the company in 2009. He has sat on the board of this medical device manufacturing company since 2005.
* Reinhardt serves as a trustee for H&Q Healthcare Investors and H&Q Life Science Investors. His 2008 income from the companies included $43,000 in income and between $1 and $10,000 worth of securities.
* He also made $2.3 million from the 2007, $5.1 billion sale of Triad Hospitals to Community Health Systems.

It only took four years for this to get into the main-stream media. The reason "discovered" is in quotes is that we have been writing about Reinhardt's conflicts of interests vis a vis his prominent opinions on health policy since 2006 on Health Care Renewal.

As I wrote in a comment on the original NYTPicker post, in 2006, we first wrote about a letter to the editor of the NY Times by Reinhardt dismissing a physician op-ed writer's concerns about what has gone wrong with health care.  Reinhardt's letter failed to disclose the board memberships he held at that time. In 2009, we wrote about how Reinhardt left out some crucial facts in his discussion in the Economix blog of how physicians are paid. That year we also wrote about how Reinhardt defended Ms Karen Ignagni, CEO of America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP) in an interview quoted in a Washington Post article.

In neither case above did Reinhardt or the newspaper reveal his conflicts.

Note that Reinhardt is not the only case of a prominent health policy expert with undisclosed conflicts of interest. See this post for some examples we had found in 2006.

In fact, in my humble opinion, the public discourse about health care policy in general, and health care reform in particular has been seriously distorted by various commentators, pundits, and experts who have major conflicts of interest, usually in the form of important financial relationships with large health care organizations.  In many cases, these conflicts are not disclosed.  A related problem is the influence of various non-profit organizations that are heavily funded by those with vested interests, usually in selling particular health care products or services.  Such funding is also rarely disclosed. 

I further submit that this distortion has overwhelmingly been in favor of various aspects of the status quo that have been so profitable for the discussants, and their commercial sponsors.  This distortion has meant that certain important problems, especially those that we discuss on Health Care Renewal, are rarely even mentioned in the mainstream media, in journals on health care and services research and health policy, and in political discussion.  Try, for example, to find any discussion of the impact of ill-informed, self-interested, conflicted or corrupt leadership of prominent health care organizations on costs, access and quality, or on patient outcomes.  It is simply not done to discuss the shortcomings of leadership, maybe because it is this leadership who subsidizes many of the pundits, commentators and experts. 

At a minimum, participants in the health policy discussion, starting with the most prominent, should fully disclose all financial relationships that could constitute conflicts of interest. 

Meanwhile, those listening to the discussion should be extremely skeptical about the opinions expressed. 

An Alliance on Mental Illness or for Pharmaceutical Companies?

A recent article by Gardner Harris in the New York Times focused on the financial links among health care corporations and not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy groups.

A majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers in recent years, according to Congressional investigators.

The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been criticized for coordinating some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and for pushing legislation that also benefits industry.

Last spring, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent letters to the alliance and about a dozen other influential disease and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug and device makers. The request was part of his investigation into the drug industry’s influence on the practice of medicine.

The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the details were private.

But according to investigators in Mr. Grassley’s office and documents obtained by The New York Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008 contributed nearly $23 million to the alliance, about three-quarters of its donations.

Even the group’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, said in an interview that the drug companies’ donations were excessive and that things would change.

However, he tried to downplay the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the Alliance.

'I understand that NAMI gets painted as being in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, and somehow that all we care about is pharmaceuticals,' Mr. Fitzpatrick said. 'It’s simply not true.'

Note the careful wording of this denial, though. He did not deny that most of what NAMI cares about is pharmaceuticals.

Moreover, the article suggested how cozy pharmaceutical companies and the Alliance's leadership have become.

The close ties between the alliance and drug makers were on stark display last week, when the organization held its annual gala at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue in Washington. Tickets were $300 each. Before a dinner of roasted red bell pepper soup, beef tenderloin and tilapia, Dr. Stephen H. Feinstein, president of the alliance’s board, thanked Bristol-Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical company.

'For the past five years, Bristol-Myers has sponsored this dinner at the highest level,' Dr. Feinstein said.

He then introduced Dr. Fred Grossman, chief of neuroscience research at Bristol-Myers, who told the audience that 'now, more than ever, our enduring relationship with NAMI must remain strong.'

Documents obtained by The New York Times show that drug makers have over the years given the mental health alliance — along with millions of dollars in donations — direct advice about how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits.

In a letter today to the NY Times, NAMI Executive Director Fitzpatrick tried again to correct "misimpressions."

First, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, has always disclosed corporate and foundation sources of revenue. Until this year, specific amounts remained private for competitive fund-raising reasons.

Second, your estimate that pharmaceutical companies account for three-quarters of “donations” has been misinterpreted as a share of NAMI’s total annual budget — which is actually about 50 percent.

Perusal of the 2008 NAMI Annual Report does include this impressive list of "Corporate Partners":

Abbott
Alexza Pharmaceuticals
Amazon
AstraZeneca
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Bristol-Myers Squibb
College of Psychiatric and Neurologic
Pharmacists
Corcept Therapeutics
Cyberonics
Delivery Agent, Inc.
Forest Laboratories
GEO Care
GoodSearch.com
The Health Central Network
Janssen Pharmaceutica
Eli Lilly and Company
Magellan Health Services
McNeil Pediatrics
Neuronetics
Novartis
Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer
PhRMA
RF Binder
Sanofi-Aventis
Shire
Solvay
Validus Pharmaceuticals
WellPoint
Wyeth
YTB Travel Network

The NAMI web-site now includes lists of specific corporate donations that individually exceeded $5000 since the beginning of 2009. So far this year, the biggest pharmaceutical corporate donors appear to be AstraZeneca ($350,000), Bristol-Myers-Squibb ($506,205), and Eli Lilly ($675,500). 

Looking at the latest Form 990 filed on behalf of NAMI with the US Internal Revenue Service (available from GuideStar here)  provides more interesting detail. (Keep in mind that the 2008 form covers July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008.)   This form listed the organization's total revenue as $13,788,288, and expenses as $12,796,205.  These expenses included $1,785,060 (13.9%) for management and $1,520,637 (11.9% ) for fund-raising.  The form listed eight NAMI executives who made more than $100,00 a year, including Mr Fitzpatrick ($210,685 total compensation).

So, in summary, it appears that corporate donations, mainly from a few large pharmaceutical companies, supply a substantial portion, (maybe half, if I read the letter by Mr Fitzpatrick correctly) of the annual budget of NAMI. About one-quarter of that budget is spent on administration and fund-raising, including six-figure salaries for at least eight executives.  So who do you expect would more easily get access to the $200K+/year NAMI Executive Director, an executive of a pharmaceutical firm that supplies more than $500,000 a year, or a NAMI member who pays $35 dues?

Here we have another example of a respected patient advocacy organization which gets a substantial portion of its revenue from (presumably the marketing departments of) a few large pharmaceutical companies.  (See another example here.)  Its well-paid executive director can at best bring himself to deny that the only purpose of the organization is to support pharmaceutical marketing and lobbying.  It seems reasonable that for supplying half the budget, the pharmaceutical companies expect considerable help not only with marketing but also with advocacy of policies that favor their corporate goals. 

As I have said before, I do not have a problem with pharmaceutical and other health care corporations marketing their products, and expressing their views on policy. I do have a problem with corporate marketing or policy advocacy is disguised as grass-roots, not-for-profit education and advocacy.  If ostensibly not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy organizations like NAMI want to continue to accept corporate money, they should make it clear that they speak for their corporate donors as well as, and probably with priority over their members and patients with the diseases of interest.  Well-intentioned people who pay their dues, and/or make small contributions to NAMI to help the mentally ill might want to consider whether they are likely to have any influence compared to the individual pharmaceutical executives who oversee $500,000+ a year corporate donations.

ADDENDUM (2 November, 2009) - See also comments on the Furious Seasons blog.