Health Care Resources | Health Center

Health Care Resources | Health care financing in America

2010-07-25T14:30:00.001-07:00

The richest country in the world, the best health resources for citizens. Unfortunately, the United States, even in the Top 10 on Health Systems. The truth is that medical facilities in America, usually owned and operated by private firms. In addition, insurance is largely provided by the private sector are available. can not afford to inflation, a significant percentage of Americans are health resources, including primary care and prevention, safety of medicines and medical supplies and equipment, etc.

Currently, there are a lot of controversy on the issue of health care reform, President Barack Obama, who will address the lack of access to medical resources. It focuses on the restructuring of insurance to protect consumers. In general, these reforms are aimed at improving the general state of American health

So far, only low-cost resources, health services are as follows.

Health programs:

* Medicare - an insurance program for people age 65 and older, covers

* Medicaid - a health program of the federal government and state governments to individuals and families with low incomes and resources funding.

* Children's Insurance Program - Program U. S. Department of Health and Human Services, which finances medical services for eligible children under the age of 19 years

* veterans - a program to provide medical assistance from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, where a variety of clinics, hospitals, medical centers and institutions work.

* military system - an integral part of the U. S. Department of Defense, provides health care for active duty and retired U.S. military personnel and their families.

Indian * services - responsible for providing medical assistance to persons recognized tribes and Alaska Natives. IHS is part of the Department of Health and Human Services.

Sanitary:

* State Hospital - a two-thirds of all urban hospitals in a row. It is used by the government (local, regional and federal level), support of poor, the uninsured patients of funding. Other Non-profit hospitals, usually with a religious community or a nonprofit organization linked.

Outpatient surgery centers * - aka surgicenters, ambulatory surgical centers, or centers of everyday surgery, medical facilities to perform this operation as outpatients. The value of transactions conducted in these centers do not require hospitalization, is expensive and less complicated for patients.

* provide social centers - sanitation in municipalities with low income or the uninsured patients, migrant and seasonal farm workers, homeless and people in social housing.

* Hill-Burton Services - consists of hospitals, nursing homes and other health facilities construction / renovation grants and loans in 1946, received in exchange for these structures are responsible for providing services to patients in poor areas. There are currently 200 homes on the national level to health care in patients' rights.

Health information:

* resources on health and management - the information center, which provides publications, resources and referrals for medical care, especially for low-income, uninsured patients and those associated with special health care needs.

* U. S. Public Health - includes all health care and social services and housing contract in order to ensure public health and to promote the prevention and the promotion of health sciences.

Health Care Resources | Medical care focused on health concerns

2010-07-25T14:23:00.001-07:00

You can almost half of the dollar in almost 5000000000000 medicine and healthcare related includes the United States. It 'clear that our country is well educated professional, excellent technology and a wide range of medicines to address public health. But why so expensive medical care and problems of people think so much?

The growth of medical care

The more developed countries of the world in the medical field is one of the largest industries. If you count the money generated by sales of pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, nursing homes, hospitals, doctors and other supporting activities is relatively easy to understand why the medical sector accounts for 10-20% of gross area.

Only the U.S. has nearly 800,000 physicians, hospitals and more than 5,000 million health workers. One of every ten Americans now works in health care and this number is expected to grow. Yet there are not enough workers and facilities for 20 million patients currently receiving treatment every day. It is not shocking from outpatient visits average daily number of patients in hospital four -5000000.

The massive, complex health care in the United States, which attracts people from all over the world. Switzerland and Germany, both major medical industry, these countries run their health care differ from the U.S.. Would it be possible that the health of our nations to a radical form of a rapid phase of change?

The answers are hard to find

Is the answer to the dilemma of current health care as simple as the nationalization of health care for all? This possibility will only worsen the situation? How will the distribution of medical resources among the various segments of our society? These are just some of the questions awaiting an answer.

controversial issue

has become modern health problem of medical litigation for many groups of citizens. There is the restoration of the health system as we know it today. We also heard predictions that the government has tried to restructure the health system in the nation. Although much of this advertising reitric for several years, it seems that people are always polaraithe by changes that can now heads forever.

Their care for the elderly

The elderly population in the United States is closely what is being proposed as a result of drugs and health care concern issues important to them to look. And medical insurance for 65 years and many changes since 1980. Older people are very vocal about their disapproval of the way Medicare is addressing the problems and are worried about what the future holds. The cost of health care and medication needs fíorard for the elderly in their entirety. Every year there is a fear that the benefits of longer cut and now are new concerns for medical care.

Risk groups

Is just a few weeks galvanized many citizens, health governor Sarah Palin and her comments on the panel to predict death and nationalized care. Although many people are around her statements, the mere possibility that a radical concept, initiated by the shock wave country. This was particularly worrying many of the older population. The concern among advocates for the poor and disabled. Parents and carers of people with physical and mental health were still afraid and threatened.

Future health resource allocation?

Would it be possible to professionals, it would perhaps even a medical committee to allocate health resources deemed a more worthy? Here, both terrifying and thought "Orwellian" in perspective. careful review found that no written documentation that in fact these possibilities, but does not reduce anxiety and uncertainty for many citizens. Just the idea that access to hospital or medication restrictions, one day was enough to cause panic on a small scale in many communities across the nation.

Problems, problems, problems

medical concerns are healthcare and affordable medicines planning a major concern for everyone today. Insurance is very expensive. A growing trend among smaller companies to employees and family benefits for cost reduction. In some cases it is difficult for workers to participate in their insurance policies offered by employers. But a growing number of families are short of ATM only pay the premiums for health insurance. This is creating a "catch" type environment with 22 people to pay for the costs of illness and cost to insure.

Collaboration is the answer

It 'hard to know where are the biggest problems in health. Many people find fault with well-paid doctors and medical specialists and others point the finger at the hospital, which seemed to attract the billions of dollars annually, but always complain too small. malpractice lawyers, government regulators and the insurance companies involved have also participated in the health care of the current misery. The answer will not be easy to find, and any group associated with the medical industry must step up the plate and help.

Health Care Resources | Health Resources

2010-07-25T14:17:00.001-07:00

Are you awake after a night of sleep, still tired? Do you prefer that your health and lack of energy to run the performance of daily tasks and activities you hold?

If so, tired.

Fatigue is a lack of energy a day, is not free from sleep. Someone feel exhausted at all times in body and spirit and can result from several factors are, in context. In most common causes are stress and lifestyle choices, as in the adoption of unhealthy diets lose weight. Conditions could only medical reasons for fatigue are diagnosed.

Fatigue strength, because

Someone keep pace with an emphasis on reason or feel like your body into overdrive. constant flood of adrenaline and fatigue in Body Kits released

Stress related to work environment - it's a lot of noise, boredom, or the concentration of repetitive tasks - personally to be tired. Burnout, the concerns about security have of the workplace.

How diet affects energy levels

Meet calories for basic needs

The estimated daily caloric intake big for a person below 55 kg weight of about 2100 calories to maintain weight and energy enough to carry out legitimate activities.

Get enough protein

Protein is important for our bodies to repair damaged and aging body and tissue repair. Humans need about 60 kg weight 63 kg protein per day.

Drink plenty of fluids

preventing About 8 glasses of water per day to increase dehydration another factor to reduce our energy. The classic symptoms of fatigue díhiodráitíodh light.

More About What We Don't Know About the Contaminated Heparin from China

2010-07-23T08:13:00.000-07:00

We last blogged about the case of Baxter International's adulterated heparin here. (For a more detailed summary of the case, look here.)

In summary, Baxter International imported the "active pharmaceutical ingredient" (API) of heparin, that is, in plainer language, the drug itself, from China. That API was then sold, with some minor processing, as a Baxter International product with a Baxter International label. The drug came from a sketchy supply chain that Baxter did not directly supervise, apparently originating in small "workshops" operating under primitive and unsanitary conditions without any meaningful inspection or supervision by the company, the Chinese government, or the FDA. The heparin proved to have been adulterated with over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), and many patients who received got seriously ill or died. While there have been investigations of how the adulteration adversely affected patients, to date, there have been no publicly reported investigations of how the OSCS got into the heparin, and who should have been responsible for overseeing the purity and safety of the product. Despite the facts that clearly patients died from receiving this adulterated drug, no individual has yet suffered any negative consequence for what amounted to poisoning of patients with a brand-name but adulterated pharmaceutical product.

Now, an article in the Wall Street Journal by Alicia Mundy tells us more about what we don't know,

The Chinese government didn't pursue an investigation into contaminated heparin sent to the U.S. in 2007 and 2008, despite repeated requests from the U.S. for help, according to a congressional probe.

Two House Republicans said Food and Drug Administration officials recently told them that the agency has been "severely hampered" by the lack of cooperation from China in finding those responsible.

Furthermore,

'It is shocking to find out two years after Chinese-made heparin was killing Americans, the Chinese government still has done no investigating to find out why,' said Mr. Barton, the top Republican on the House Energy and Commerce Committee. He called on ... [FDA Commissioner Margaret] Hamburg to air the issue with Chinese officials.

Chinese officials denied there is a problem,

Yan Jiangying, spokeswoman for China's State Food and Drug Administration, said the congressmen's accusations are 'not true.'

Ms. Yan said her agency 'did a very thorough investigation, including very detailed inspection and testing, and surveys of enterprises as well. We signed an agreement with the FDA on drug safety in the end of 2007, and strengthened the monitoring of heparin.'

Note that their investigation, such as it was, did not appear to identify any misconduct or wrong-doing by anyone.

So now we know more about what we do not know about the deadly adulterated heparin from China.

But remember this is a case about heparin sold in the USA by Baxter International, an American company as an American product, resulting in the death of Americans. Also, remember that the American company obtained the heparin from another American company, Scientific Protein Laboratories LLC, which in turn obtained it from a factory in China operated by Changzhou SPL, which in turn was owned by Scientific Protein Laboratories and by Changzhou Techpool Pharmaceutical Co.

Since Baxter International sold the heparin under its own label, should not its leaders be responsible for the safety and purity of the product? Since Scientific Protein Laboratories LLC furnished the active pharmaceutical agreement to Baxter, and obtained it from a factory it partially owned in China, should not its leaders also be responsible for the safety and purity of the product?

It would be important to find out ultimately where in China the adulterated heparin entered the supply chain, but the current uncertainty about the initial origin of the contamination does not absolve those in the US who sold the active pharmaceutical ingredient, and then sold that ingredient in bottles with a US company label of responsibility for the safety and purity of the drug.

Why have we heard nothing more from Baxter International's and Scientific Protein Laboratories' leaders about the deadly heparin which they had sold? Why have we heard nothing more about any investigation of these US based participants in this case?

Both US companies doubtless saved money by buying the heparin from the cheapest Chinese sources they could find, by not directly inspecting and supervising its production, and by at best ignoring the lack of regulation of producers of active pharmaceutical ingredients in China. They and their leaders benefited from this out-sourced, off-shore production. (Note that Baxter CEO Robert L Parkinson Jr received total compensation of $14,361,305 according to the company's proxy statement, and six named officers all received more than $2,200,000.) Why aren't they being held accountable for its bad results?

As we have said until being blue in the face, as long as the leaders of health care organizations are not held accountable for the results of their decisions on health care quality, cost, and access (even in such extreme quality violations as those resulting in multiple patient deaths), we can expect continuing decisions that sacrifice quality, increase costs, and worsen access, but that are in the self-interest of the people making them.

To really reform health care, we must hold health care organizations and their leaders accountable (and not blame all the problems on doctors, other health care professionals, patients, and society at large).

Hat tip to Ed Silverman on the PharmaLot blog.

Open Letter to Dr. Josephine Briggs

2010-07-22T22:33:00.000-07:00

Josephine P. Briggs, M.D.
Director, National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine

Dear Dr. Briggs,

As you know, we've met twice. The first time was at the Yale "Integrative Medicine" Symposium in March. The second was in April, when Drs. Novella, Gorski and I met with you for an hour at the NCCAM in Bethesda. At the time I concluded that you favor science-based medicine, although you are in the awkward position of having to appear 'open-minded' about nonsense.

More about that below, but first let me address the principal reason for this letter: it is disturbing that you will shortly appear at the 25th Anniversary Convention of the American Association of Naturopathic Physicians (AANP). It is disturbing for two reasons: first, it suggests that you know little about the tenets and methods of the group that you'll be addressing; second, your presence will be interpreted as an endorsement of those methods and of that group---whether or not that is your intention. If you read nothing more of this letter or its links, please read the following articles (they're "part of your education," as my 91 y.o. mother used to say to me):

Naturopathy: A Critical Appraisal

Naturopathy, Pseudoscience, and Medicine: Myths and Fallacies vs Truth

The first article is an introduction to the group to which you will be speaking; the second is my response to complaints, from that group and a few of its apologists, about the first article. It was a surprise to me that the editor, George Lundberg, preferred that I make my response a comprehensive one.

Thus the second article inevitably became the crash course---call it CAM for Smarties---that your predecessors never offered you, replete with examples of useless and dangerous pseudoscientific methods, real science being brought to bear in evaluating such methods, proponents' inaccurate or cherry-picked citations of biomedical literature, bits of pertinent but little-known history, the standard logical fallacies, embarrassing socio-political machinations, wasteful and dangerous 'research' (funded---unwittingly, I'm sure---by the NCCAM), bait-and-switch labeling of rational methods as "CAM," vacuous assertions about 'toxins' and "curing the underlying cause, not just suppressing the symptoms," anti-vaccination hysteria, misleading language, the obligatory recycling of psychokinesis claims, and more.

Please excuse me if this sounds preachy; I admit that it does, but understand that I'm writing in good faith. My own views of "CAM" did not dawn on me overnight, but were the result of years of research. My 'internship,' as it were, consisted of sitting on a state commission from the fall of 2000 until the spring of 2002, listening to AANP members (including at least one with whom you will share the podium), reading about 'naturopathic medicine,' and attempting (unsuccessfully) to engage its advocates in rational discussion. I began that task open to forming opinions based on whatever information became available; by its end it had become abundantly clear that the group is best characterized as a pseudoscientific cult, and nothing since has altered that opinion.

Regarding your presence at the convention being tantamount to an endorsement of 'naturopathic medicine,' this is so obviously true that it ought not be necessary to mention it. Previous experience, however, has taught me to expect an air of---please don't take this personally---utter cluelessness whenever I've raised such an issue. If you've read the second naturopathy article linked above, you already know that according to proponents,

The validity of naturopathic medicine is demonstrated by its support in government (including accreditation of its schools and NIH-funded research), on medical school Web sites, and in other parts of the public domain.

An appearance at their annual convention by the most important "CAM" administrator at the NIH surely has the political arm of the AANP licking its chops. NDs, as they call themselves, are currently licensed in 14 or 15 states and a couple of provinces, and aggressively seek licensure throughout the U.S. and Canada. They appear to wield political clout well out of proportion to their numbers, no doubt thanks in part to the legislative language that created the NCCAM's National Advisory Council for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NACCAM):

Of the 18 appointed members...Nine...shall be practitioners licensed in one or more of the major systems with which the Center is involved. Six of the members shall be appointed by the Secretary from the general public and shall include leaders in the fields of public policy, law, health policy, economics, and management. Three of the six shall represent the interests of individual consumers of complementary and alternative medicine.

Thus there have been 1-3 NDs on the NACCAM since its inception in 1999, although their numbers in general are, by any measure, miniscule: I reckoned there were about 2500 in the U.S. in 2003; the AANP now places that number at 6000. By comparison, there are about 800,000 MDs and 50,000 DOs in the U.S.

NDs claim to be well trained to practice what most people think of as family medicine or primary care medicine, although their version of training is chock full of pseudoscientific nonsense and lacks a true residency program. They began by purporting to use only "natural medicines," but in regions where they've become politically connected they've sought, and been granted, the license to prescribe numerous drugs. Predictably, they've recently begun to bump people off with such exotic choices as intravenous colchicine and disodium ethylenediaminetetraacetic acid (that pesky TACT drug), in addition to more folksy nostrums such as acupuncture, vitamin B12, and an "herbal tincture" for a teenage girl who would shortly die of asthma.

I see that your talk is titled "Complementary and Alternative Medicine: Promising Ideas from Outside the Mainstream." I imagine that it will cover some of the material that you covered at the Yale Symposium, where you used the similar phrase, “Quirky Ideas from Outside the Mainstream.” Without reading more into that word substitution than is warranted, let me assure you that there are no promising ideas emanating from naturopathy, even if there are plenty of quirky ones, e.g., inflating balloons in the nasopharynx to effect a “controlled release of the connective tissue tension to unwind the body and return it toward to its original design."

Regarding the implicit requirement of your office that you appear open-minded even to medical absurdities, you made that clear in your own account of our NCCAM meeting and of another that you'd had a few weeks earlier, involving a group of homeopaths and associated crackpots who called themselves "the leading scientists in the field":

Recently, I hosted two meetings with groups that represent disparate views of CAM research. These meetings have given me a renewed appreciation for the value of listening to differing voices and perspectives about the work we do.

My NCCAM colleagues and I know there are differing views of the value of doing CAM research. On one side, we have stakeholders who are staunch CAM advocates, and on the other side, we have CAM skeptics.

Each group has its own beliefs and opinions on the direction, importance, and value of the work that NCCAM funds. The advocates would like to see more research dollars
supporting various CAM approaches while the skeptics see our research investment as giving undue credibility to unfeasible CAM modalities and want less research funding.

As I've stated before, our position is that science must remain neutral, and we should be strictly objective. There are compelling reasons to explore many CAM modalities, and the science should speak for itself. (emphasis yours)

Certainly science must remain neutral in the face of not-yet-seen data from rigorous studies, but that is different from what you, in your dual roles as "CAM" Explicator-in-Chief and Steward of Public Funds, must remain. You typically face questions that are, for all purposes relevant to the NIH, to modern medicine, and to the American citizenry, already settled---whether by basic science, clinical studies, rational thinking, or all three. I've offered several examples in the two naturopathy articles linked above.

Consider homeopathy, a core claim of "naturopathic medicine" and the subject of your meeting with the "staunch CAM advocates." It makes no more sense for you to remain neutral on that topic than it would for the NIMH Director to remain neutral on exorcisms, or for the NCI Director to remain neutral on Krebiozen. Edzard Ernst, a one-time homeopath whose own portfolio of "CAM" investigations dwarfs the entire output of the NCCAM, puts it this way:

Should we keep an open mind about astrology, perpetual motion, alchemy, alien abduction, and sightings of Elvis Presley? No, and we are happy to confess that our minds have closed down on homeopathy in the same way.

Science and skepticism, moreover, are not distinct. Good science involves, first and foremost, skepticism. This is true for the design of any experiment, in which the primary goal is to attempt to falsify the hypothesis, and also for scientific thinking in general. Bruce Alberts, the editor of Science, discussed this in a 2008 editorial titled "Considering Science Education":

...society may less appreciate the advantage of having everyone acquire, as part of their formal education, the ways of thinking and behaving that are central to the practice of successful science: scientific habits of mind. These habits include a skeptical attitude toward dogmatic claims and a strong desire for logic and evidence. As famed astronomer Carl Sagan put it, science is our best "bunk" detector. Individuals and societies clearly need a means to logically test the onslaught of constant clever attempts to manipulate our purchasing and political decisions. (emphasis added)

I believe that you know all this at some level, but that your current job demands that you bend over backward to frame skeptics as extreme---distinguishing them from "neutral" scientists. Thus you, like many reporters, have placed skeptics of homeopathy or naturopathy at one end of a contrived belief spectrum, and "staunch CAM advocates" at the other. Please indulge me while I compare this version of 'neutrality' with others that exist in the popular domain:

Some people feel strongly that the moon landings were a collective hoax. Others feel just as strongly that they really happened.
Some people believe that the Holocaust didn't happen. Others believe that it did.
Some people believe that the variety of species on earth is a product of Intelligent Design (ID). Others believe in the theory of evolution by variation and natural selection.

This could go on and on, but you probably get the point. The last bullet is more pertinent to your tacit endorsement of the AANP than you might imagine. What follows is a representative view of herbalism offered by Thomas Kruzel, with whom you will also share the podium at the convention (he will discuss "Emunctorology"; don't ask). Kruzel is Past President of the AANP and the former Vice President of Clinical Affairs and Chief Medical Officer at the Southwest College of Naturopathic Medicine. He was selected Physician of the Year by the AANP in 2000, and Physician of the Year by the Arizona Naturopathic Medical Association in 2003:

Herbal Medicine: Naturopathic physicians have been trained in the art and science of prescribing medications derived from plant sources. The majority of prescription drugs are derived as well from plants but are often altered and used as single constituents. What makes herbal medicine unique is that plants have evolved along with human beings and have been used as non-toxic medications for centuries.
If there is any problem with herbal medicines it is that unless one knows how to prescribe them, they may not be effective. Herbal medications should be prescribed based on the symptoms that the person presents rather than for the name of the disease. Herbal medications are much more effective at relieving the patients symptoms when prescribed in this manner. When prescribed the medicines act with the body’s own innate healing mechanism to restore balance and ultimately allows healing to occur.
What’s nice about plant or herbal medicines is that because they are derived from the whole plant they are considerably less toxic to the body. The plant medicine has evolved to work in harmony with the normal body processes rather than taking over its function as many drug therapies do. Because of this herbal medicines may be taken for longer periods of time without the side effects so often experienced with drugs.

You are particularly impressed, I hope, by the magical, ID-like claim that "plant medicine has evolved to work in harmony with the normal body processes." Other curious assertions include the conflation of herbal medicine with the core claims of either homeopathy or the non-existent 'allopathy' (we can't tell which)---"...should be prescribed based on the symptoms..."---demonstrating that the author doesn't know much about even the fanciful methods for which he claims expertise; and the dangerously false statement that medicines "derived from the whole plant are considerably less toxic" (than are well-researched and precisely dosed "prescription drugs").

Dr. Briggs, please consider the possibility that you no longer must hide your considerable scientific prowess in order to be a good NCCAM Director. Your 'stakeholders' include not only very small numbers of naturopaths, homeopaths, and other fringe practitioners, but also far larger numbers of citizens who wonder about the validity of what those practitioners are peddling. It is to those citizens that you should be directing your efforts, which ought to begin with sober, objective, skeptical, scientific considerations of the various claims, the vast majority of which can, like balloons in the nasopharynx, be deflated in milliseconds by anyone with even a modest understanding of nature. They don't require clinical trials.

Things are changing elsewhere. My colleague Steve Novella has just written about substantial efforts to deny insurance coverage for homeopathy in the land of its birth, Germany. In the UK, homeopathy has been far more popular than it is here, even to the point of its being funded by the National Health Service. One of the "staunch CAM advocates" who reportedly attended your meeting by teleconference was Peter Fisher, Homeopath to the Queen. Yet both the British Medical Association and the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee have seen through the ruse of pseudoscience that is homeopathy, the former declaring it "witchcraft" and latter making this statement:

The Committee concurred with the Government that the evidence base shows that homeopathy is not efficacious (that is, it does not work beyond the placebo effect) and that explanations for why homeopathy would work are scientifically implausible.

American citizens want and deserve, for their tax money, exactly that sort of definitive evaluation of such claims. Your first responsibility, Dr. Briggs, is to them---it is not to the AANP, other "CAM stakeholders," Tom Harkin, Orrin Hatch, or Dan Burton, and certainly not to the members of the NACCAM. Yes, we "skeptics see [the NCCAM] research investment as giving undue credibility to unfeasible CAM modalities," because the evidence is overwhelming that this is the case. We also see your appearing at conventions of pseudomedical pseudoprofessional organizations as giving undue credibility to unfeasible and dangerous claims.

Sincerely yours,

Kimball C. Atwood, M.D.
Skeptic

This letter has been cross-posted on Science-Based Medicine.

Duke Scientist Bringing Millions from NIH and Pharma Suspended Over Rhodes Scholar Claims

2010-07-22T06:21:00.000-07:00

The New York Times reports that a medical researcher faked claims to being a Rhodes Scholar, and that a major scandal that has erupted.

The scenario is very familiar to readers of Healthcare Renewal, with universities collecting millions from public sources and the pharmaceutical industry, turning a blind eye to credentials discrepancies of faculty "taxpayers", and the public possibly put at risk through faulty research and suspect "reviews":

Duke Scientist Suspended Over Rhodes Scholar Claims
New York Times
July 20, 2010

Duke University School of Medicine has suspended a researcher and stopped patient enrollment in three cancer studies upon learning of reports that the researcher had overstated his academic credentials.

One of the lead investigators on the cancer studies, Dr. Anil Potti, was placed on administrative leave, said Douglas J. Stokke, a spokesman for Duke, while the university investigates allegations that Dr. Potti had falsely claimed that he was a Rhodes scholar.

The controversy erupted late last week after an article published in The Cancer Letter (PDF), a weekly publication for cancer specialists, reported that Dr. Potti, an assistant professor of medicine, had on occasion exaggerated his credentials. (A spokeswoman at Rhodes House at Oxford confirmed on Tuesday that Dr. Potti had not received the scholarship.)

The scientist, Anil Potti, was engaged in cancer clinical trials using questionable and possbily erroneous analytical methods (prediction models).

In addition, several dozen biostatisticians and cancer researchers at Harvard, Princeton, Johns Hopkins and other academic institutions are now questioning the methodology behind the three clinical trials, urging a halt to the Duke studies — two on lung cancer and one on breast cancer — in a letter sent to the director of the National Cancer Institute.

He'd used the fake credentials to get American Cancer Society money:

When questions about Dr. Potti’s credentials became public, the American Cancer Society suspended payments of a five-year, $729,000 grant awarded to Dr. Potti to study the genetics of lung cancer. The society awarded the grant based in part on a résumé from the doctor that included the Rhodes honor, said Dr. Otis W. Brawley, the chief medical officer of the cancer society.

According to The Cancer Letter's exposé linked above:

A high-profile cancer genomics researcher at Duke University claimed in multiple grant applications that he had been a Rhodes scholar, when, in fact, the Rhodes Trust states flatly that he was not.

Documents obtained by The Cancer Letter show that in biographies submitted to NIH, Duke oncologist and genomics researcher Anil Potti claimed variously to have won the prestigious scholarship in 1995 or 1996, depending on the version of the biography.

Potti also made the Rhodes claim in an application that resulted in a $729,000 grant from the American Cancer Society. “We don’t have any record that Anil Potti was a Rhodes scholar,” spokesman for the Rhodes Trust said to The Cancer Letter.

Assuming the fabrications are proven, a number of questions arise:

How can a Duke scientist have gotten away with exaggerated credentials on a CV used in a grant applicationa to NIH, the American Cancer Society, and perhaps other organizations, claiming to be a Rhodes Scholar?
Did he make similar exaggerations in his application to Duke itself?
Do the exaggerations made in NIH and/or other federal grant applications constitute a crime, e.g., under Title 18 of U.S. Code, Section 1001 which makes it a federal crime to make a false statement to the government, according to one contributor to The Cancer Letter article?
Will Duke act on fabrications as criminal matters?
What were the Duke grants office and/or credentials-checking staff doing during their working hours?
Why did this exaggeration come out in The Cancer Letter?

Patients may be at risk:

[MD Anderson Cancer Center biostatisticians] Keith Baggerly and Kevin Coombes said they devoted about 1,500 hours to checking Potti’s and Nevins’s work. These efforts—dubbed “forensic bioinformatics”—resulted in a paper in the November 2009, issue of the Annals of Applied Statistics.

“Unfortunately, poor documentation can shift from an inconvenience to an active danger when it obscures not just methods but errors,” the paper stated. “Patients in clinical trials are currently being allocated to treatment arms on the basis of these results.”

The two raised questions about Duke’s randomized phase II single-institution trials that used the Nevins and Potti technology to assign patients to treatment (NCT00545948, NCT00509366, and NCT00636441). Baggerly and Coombes argued that these trials “may be putting patients at risk.”

Duke initially suspended but then restarted the trials after an "investigation" by outside scientists. However:

Experts asked by The Cancer Letter to review these [investigation] documents [obtained under the FOIA] noted that Duke deans Cuffe and Kornbluth were inaccurate in their description of the document’s substance and conclusions when they announced completion of the investigation and resumption of the clinical trials earlier this year.

“Having read the committee’s report, we must disagree with Duke’s representation of the committee’s findings,” Baggerly and Coombes said in an email after reviewing the documents released under FOIA. The committee stated that “In our review of the methods … we were unable to identify a place where the statistical methods were described in sufficient detail to independently replicate the findings of the papers,” and further noted that the Duke investigators “really need” to work on “clearly explaining the specific statistical steps used in developing the predictors and the prospective sample assignments."

Duke has apparently now decided to stonewall:

... The Cancer Letter sent an email with questions to Potti, his collaborator Joseph Nevins, and Duke administration officials. The questions focused on the Rhodes claim, but also touched on other apparent discrepancies.

Responding to everyone on the email CC list, including this reporter, Potti wrote: “Sounds like I need to call him to clarify ...... and probably also talk with you all to clarify. I was a nominee..... and several of the others can also be explained. –Anil.”

After that email, Potti and Duke officials didn’t respond to questions seeking details that could substantiate this response. Multiple calls and emails from The Cancer Letter were not acknowledged.

One reason is that this escapade appears to have many twists and turns regarding credentials claimed by their researcher in the past. See the full article published in The Cancer Letter (PDF). The tale is stunning.

Another reason appears to be this:

Genomic research led by the two scientists [Potti and senior collaborator Joseph Nevins] has brought millions of public and private dollars to Duke. The duo’s connections with the industry are considerable. According to a recent disclosure, Potti is a member of the scientific advisory boards of Eli Lilly and Co., GlaxoSmith-Kline, and CancerGuideDx.

This also raises the questions:

Did Potti misrepresent his credentials to these pharmas?

Was Nevins aware of these exaggerations himself?

Of course this author is familiar with laxity in Duke's management and academics, and their not replying to pointed questions on their failures.

Perhaps at the time of this grant application, Duke personnel were busy checking the credentials of the Duke Lacrosse team, or of academics such as myself, maligned by Duke professors for having a strong sense of ethics. I then found myself "stonewalled" by Duke's President Richard H. Brodhead on the issues.

(See my Jan. 2008 post "A Truly Appalling Lawsuit Against Duke University" for more on that affair.)

-- SS

The National Program for Healthcare IT in the U.S., and the Elephant in the Living Room

2010-07-21T07:14:00.000-07:00

The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) has begun to address deficient clinical IT usability. A PDF with presentations on the topic from the recent NIST conference on HIT usability is here (warning: very large, 26 MB).

There is a critical "meta-issue" that's being ignored regarding usability, though, yet it is the elephant in the living room.

First, I will detail the elephant, then ask the simple, logical question that arises (the "inconvenient" question that nobody seems to be able to give a straight, non-marketing-spin answer to).

Here are the details of the elephant.

First, poor usability ---> increased risk to patients.

This is a first principle; it is not open to debate.

Now:

If NIST is just now getting involved in "improving HIT usability" (the improvement of which should have occurred at least two decades ago);

While HIMSS's former Chairman of the Board admits the technology remains experimental:

... We’re still learning, in healthcare, about that user interface. We’re still learning about how to put the applications together in a clinical workflow that’s going to be valuable to the patients and to the people who are providing care. Let’s be patient. Let’s give them a chance to figure out the right way to do this. Let’s give the application providers an opportunity to make this better;

While HIMSS itself admits in this 2009 PDF that

"Electronic medical record (EMR)!adoption rates have been slower than expected in the United States, especially in comparison to other industry sectors and other developed countries. A key reason, aside from initial costs and lost productivity during EMR implementation, is lack of efficiency and usability of EMRs currently available";

While the National Research Council (the highest scientific authority in the U.S.) last year reported that :

"Current Approaches to U.S. Health Care Information Technology are Insufficient" and that the technology "does not support clinicians' cognitive needs." The study was chaired by Medical Informatics pioneers Octo Barnett (Harvard/MGH) and William Stead (Vanderbilt);

While it's not just the user experience that's the problem, either...

Insurers are starting to recognize this, e.g., "NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company: "Electronic Health Records: Recognizing and Managing the Risks" ;

While hospitals and vendors cannot yet manage the technology reliably - how many medical mistakes have/will occur as a result of screw ups like this one, now confirmed to have occurred at a religious-denomination hospital chain headquartered in the Great Lakes region of the U.S.?

This patient won't get a second chance, either.

The above issues are the elephant in the living room. Or, shall I say, in the Boardrooms and meeting rooms where health IT is planned and discussed?

Health IT is great stuff, guys; it might actually work well one day!
Let's roll it out nationally and penalize those Luddite doctors
who refuse to "use it meaningfully" because it's not very usable.
Oh, just ignore that strange creature over there in the corner ...

Considering the size and weight of the elephant, here is my question:

Why are we rolling out this technology nationally under penalty of Medicare garnishment?

I cannot get a straight, unspun answer to that question.

Perhaps we need Bill O'Reilly to ask these questions of health IT officials on his FOX News program, The O'Reilly Factor, where spin is attacked relentlessly (the "No Spin Zone.")

-- SS

Barry Chaiken, MD, MPH: "Let's be patient" with experimental devices that harm patients

2010-07-20T07:33:00.000-07:00

At an interview of Barry Chaiken, MD, MPH, FHIMSS, former Chairman of the Board of health IT trade group HIMSS and chief medical officer of Imprivata, a company specializing in healthcare IT security, Chaiken pleads for the following special accommodations for Health IT relative to other medical sectors:

... We’re still learning, in healthcare, about that user interface. We’re still learning about how to put the applications together in a clinical workflow that’s going to be valuable to the patients and to the people who are providing care. Let’s be patient. Let’s give them a chance to figure out the right way to do this. Let’s give the application providers an opportunity to make this better.

[Why are the health IT applications bad to begin with, I ask? - ed.]

I note the following.

If 'we're' still learning (and I don't include people with genuine clinical computing expertise in that subgroup, but it does include the plethora of amateurs in the commercial health IT industry), then the technology is experimental.
Worse, it's unregulated - a major special accommodation in and of itself.
These sentiments about "being patient" would be appropriate - if the subjects of this experimental technology that vendors need to be "given a chance" to make better were experimental lab rats.

Instead, the subjects of the experimental technology are unwitting, unconsenting human beings, who are being used as experimental test subjects for software development, and being put at risk, injured and indeed killed by the disruptions these experimental technologies cause.

Under these realities, the position presented by Chaiken is, in my opinion, ethically perverse.

That such sentiments come from someone who holds the MD degree and who I assume took the Hippocratic oath in some form is stunning.

In the health IT industry, "Primum non nocere" seems to have been replaced with "Kybernetik über alle."

Further, the commercial health IT vendors have had the good part of five decades to "get it right." How long is long enough?

Their software is unavailable for detailed evaluation and open critique of the user experience by impartial experts, unlike open source EHR's like VistA CPRS, demo version available at this link where anyone can:

Download the latest version of CPRS today and get access to new features including graphing functionality
Use the software as if you were a provider by entering orders, entering documentation, retrieving reports (and graphs) and viewing alerts and notifications that help with decision support
Learn first hand how VA’s electronic health record system works

Personally, I've had to use stealth simply to obtain and post graphical representations of some simply inexcusable commercial HIT interface sins (link). Why should a secretive industry be given additional special accommodation?

Dr. Chaiken goes on to state:

Let’s hold them accountable if they don’t [make the applications better]. Absolutely, hold them accountable if they don’t; and the marketplace, I hope, will be able to make those choices and hold them accountable when they don’t. But, we’re still learning.

Again, I'm not sure who the "we're" refers to, but "holding companies accountable" will not really help victims of the experiments who are seriously injured or killed.

A better solution, as I have written on this blog (such as at my Nov. 2008 post "Should The U.S. Call A Moratorium On Ambitious National Electronic Health Records Plans?" and at other sites as well:

Protect patients. Constrain the health IT experiment temporally and geographically, and apply the laws, customs and regulations of medical experimentation until this industry "has learned" whatever lessons Chaiken thinks they need to learn, e.g., from decades of Medical Informatics, Social Informatics, Computer Science, HCI and other research. None of these fields - last time I looked - are classified or protected intellectual property. Share information on patient adverse outcomes and near misses, instead of concealing them and contractually gagging users from openly speaking about problems.

That would be the ethical approach.

Further, how many more decades should we wait for the health IT industry to figure out how to look for better leaders beyond the "school of hard knocks" bias that's existed for at least the past decade? How many substandard health IT leaders were placed in hospitals the past few decades as a result of outrageous attitudes like these below from the major recrutiers, centered on spreading the wealth?

I don't think a degree gets you anything," says healthcare recruiter Lion Goodman, president of the Goodman Group in San Rafael, California about CIO's and other healthcare MIS staffers. Healthcare MIS recruiter Betsy Hersher of Hersher Associates, Northbrook, Illinois, agreed, stating "There's nothing like the school of hard knocks." In seeking out CIO talent, recruiter Lion Goodman "doesn't think clinical experience yields [hospital] IT people who have broad enough perspective. Physicians in particular make poor choices for CIOs. They don't think of the business issues at hand because they're consumed with patient care issues," according to Goodman. Healthcare Informatics, "Who's Growing CIO's."

[No, that line about 'being consumed with patient care issues' as a strike against health IT leadership didn't come from a Scott Adams business-idiot parody cartoon - ed.]

As in clinical medicine itself, if you're going to be anywhere near patient care and making decisions affecting its delivery, a degree damn well "gets you something."

At about the same time the above appeared in Healthcare Informatics, a generalist IT recruiter wrote me this:

... What is happening to MDs trying to change careers is providing a window into broader issues about professionals in society today - narrow training, pigeonholing in the marketplace, difficulty making lateral and cross-industry transition, what a handicap it is to be creative, entrepreneurial, or cross-disciplinary in the current marketplace, and the wasted intellectual capital represented by the high caliber of individuals who can't find ways to fruitfully plug themselves into the marketplace.

I continue to be amazed at this general phenomenon...the remarkable quality of a number of candidates I've met, and the lack of recruiters' ability to get them in the door of good companies. The interesting part of the story is that when I am able to get access to high level execs in some of these companies (not just IT, but devices, pharmaceuticals, etc. also) they are dismayed at the quality of those that they hire. They know that something is wrong in how the recruitment process is working. (eg, one of the major device cos. just devoted the time of 1 FTE in Human Resources to 'finding innovative ways of identifying and recruiting good talent into the company.')

Whose fault were the outrageous, deleterious hiring practices prevalent in this industry that contributed materially to its production of substandard products, hiring practices that persist to this day? (See example here.)

Why should we be "patient", and "give them [yet more chances] to figure out the right way to do this", and why should patients permit themselves to continue to be guinea pigs to such a sloppy, cavalier industry?

I note that Chaiken's credentials appear to fit the template, as colleague Roy Poses describes at various posts including here, of an "executive isolated from the real world of health care" and member of the superclass. From the interview linked above:

... According to your LinkedIn profile, you’re CMO for Imprivata, CMIO for Symphony Corporation, and CMO of DocsNetwork. You’re on a couple of advisory boards, you own a vineyard, and you just finished your term as chair of the HIMSS board.

Perhaps that helps explain the mantra of "computers [and profit] first, patients second."

Finally, in answer to my own question above "Why are the health IT applications bad to begin with", I suggest complacency, incompetence, willful ignorance, and negligence (including criminal negligence) as possible answers.

-- SS

Addendum:

The following in today's WSJ caught my eye ("What we've learned from the Gulf spill", Michio Kaku, July 20, 2010):

The nagging question is: Why did it take so long? Why couldn't they have capped the leak months ago? For three agonizing months, BP's engineers and executives were essentially making things up as they went along, conducting a billion dollar science project with the American people as guinea pigs. The basic science of stopping oil leaks at 5,000 feet below sea level should have been done years ago.

Concepts are similar. With just a few edits, we have this:

The nagging question is: Why is it taking so long? Why couldn't they have learned to create useful health IT decades ago? For at least thirty agonizing years, Health IT vendors' engineers and executives were essentially making things up as they went along, conducting a multibillion dollar science project with the American people as guinea pigs. The basic science of producing safe, effective, usable health IT should have been done years ago.

-- SS

Not Your Average Joe's Health Plan

2010-07-19T13:37:00.000-07:00

A Denver Post article offered a brief glimpse into the health benefits of corporate leaders, on the unusual occasion of a former CEO now in legal fight for the health benefits in the style to which he had become accustomed:

Poor Joe. He's not getting the health-care benefits he was promised.

His former employer merged with another company, and then another, and then another. And, you know how it goes after a slew of mergers. Suddenly the new, conglomerated monster just doesn't care about retirees any more.

Joe isn't going to sit back and take it like an average Joe. He's suing his former employer in U.S. District Court in Manhattan for breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of fiduciary duty and even promissory estoppel.

The Joe in question was really:

Lord & Taylor's CEO.

Joseph E. Brooks of Greenwich, Conn., lorded over a fourfold increase in sales at Lord & Taylor, expanding to 46 from 19 locations.

His career and Lord and Taylor's course after that were checkered, perhaps contributing to the current dispute:

But that was a long time ago. And Macy's Inc., the current parent company, is resisting some of his medical claims.

Brooks didn't get a deal like this from Filene's, where he served as president before joining Lord & Taylor. Or Ann Taylor, where he went on to generate shareholder lawsuits and shopper hate mail after demanding lower prices from suppliers and higher prices from customers, destroying both quality and value at the same time.

Brooks also made his son president of Ann Taylor, sparking cries of nepotism. And then his son got snagged trying to slip by U.S. Customs without paying duties on pricey watches and was forced to resign. The senior Brooks subsequently resigned as well. A 1992 Newsday article called him 'as egotistical and extravagant as he was brilliant.'

What Health Care Benefits Do CEOs Get?

What had Brooks been promised as CEO of Lord and Taylor?

In 1983, Lord & Taylor's corporate parent told Brooks it sought to provide 'great comfort to executives knowing that their medical costs are fully reimbursed by the Corporation.' The company told Joe it was a lifetime guarantee.

CEOs should never, ever, have to worry about health care.

Here are some details about his benefits:

And for nearly 27 years, substantially all medical costs have been fully covered, even premiums.

We're not just talking doctors' visits, hospitals, medications and tests. We're talking all travel and ancillary expenses associated with care, too.

We're talking first-class transportation, accommodations and meals while being treated at the Mayo Clinic and the Duke Diet and Fitness Center. We're talking expenses for a companion or personal aide, too.

We're also talking 'cosmetic services (surgery, medications, injections, creams and the like)' dental care, gym memberships, personal trainers, vitamins, massages — all paid by Joe's former employer for the rest of Joe's life.

Oh, and if any of these benefits have tax consequences, we're talking gross-up payments to cover that, too.

Why should we be concerned about the extravagant health plans given to top corporate executives?

The Implications

We noted in 2009 that the Goldman Sachs 2009 proxy statement indicated that top executives of that now controversial company received health plans worth about $40,000 each.

My concern then were not how much the costs of the plans contribute to top corporate leaders' compensation packages. Such packages are generally already so outrageously huge that providing $40,000 rather than $13,000 worth of health insurance is a trivial increase. My concern was not that plan recipients' demands for health care will collectively increase health care costs, because they likely include only a tiny portion of the population.

My main concern, instead, was how much these plans further insulate already cocooned top executives from the vicissitudes of daily life, particularly related to coping with our current dysfunctional health care system. What benefits executive health care plans provided were not clear from the 2009 story about Goldman Sachs. However, this year's case of Joe Brooks does suggest that the plans paid for every expense that could be conceivably health related.

As I worried then, it now does appear that such plans could completely insulate executives from having to deal with the managed care/ health insurance bureaucracy which frustrates patients seeking particular services, but not necessarily the most expensive, or least beneficial services. Furthermore, such plans may completely insulate executives from the various other vicissitudes of managing our currently dysfunctional health care system. (By the way, that is why it seemed amazing that the CEO of Pfizer had to put up with some of the common vicissitudes when he went to a hospital for an elective procedure, an experience he publicly talked about with an almost charming naivete, given that he runs such a powerful health care organization which has been so influential in shaping our US "health care reform," see post here.)

Such executives isolated from the real world of health care might thus not have gut level appreciation of how dysfunctional the health care system has become for even insured patients. Since top executives often are disproportionately influential members of the "superclass," their disconnection from the realities of dysfunctional health care is likely to translate into little real support by the powers that be for meaningful health care reform. There support may be further retarded by the influence of their fellow superclass members whose personal fortunes depend on the status quo in health care.

Real improvement of health care may depend on finding leaders who have better understanding of the plight of real people.

Two Postscripts

Note: the Goldman Sachs 2010 proxy indicates that the executive health plans given to the five most highly paid executives cost up to $56,927.

Also note that despite the effect that executive health plans may have on the thinking of those with the most power to influence health care policy, the plans have been of little interest to health care services and policy researchers. I have not been able to find a single article in these literatures on the subject. This appears to be yet another version of the anechoic effect, that certain inconvenient truths (to borrow from former US Vice President Al Gore) are not subjects of polite discussion of health care, lest the results excessively disturb the powers that be.

Prosecuting Doctors for Importing IUDs from Canada, but Still No Penalties for Selling Adulterated Heparin from China

2010-07-19T09:10:00.000-07:00

Here in Rhode Island, the big health care story recently was the use of unapproved intra-uterine devices (IUDs) by some local obstetrician-gynecologists (OB-GYNs). The first nuanced summary of the story which just appeared in the Providence Journal, written by Felice Freyer, suggested how the consequences of possible misconduct in health care depend on the clout of those involved.

The Unapproved IUDs

Here are the main points. The issue that caused so much local controversy was the use of unapproved IUDs:

Ten Rhode Island medical groups with 28 doctors told the Health Department that they bought IUDs, a form of birth control, from a foreign source, at prices about half what they had to pay for IUDs approved for use in the United States. Many had stopped using the unapproved devices long before the Health Department began its investigation in June.

Here is what we know about the actual devices they implanted:

An IUD is a T-shaped device that can fit in the palm of a woman’s hand. To prevent pregnancy, doctors insert it into the uterus, where it can stay for years. There are two types available in the United States: the ParaGard copper IUD and the Mirena hormonal IUD. Mirena, the more costly and more popular brand, has a coating of a progesterone-like drug that reduces heavy menstrual bleeding.

Unapproved IUDs Made by an American Company in Finland and Sold in Canada

Most of the "unapproved devices" the doctors were using were apparently made in Finland by an American company.

In most cases, the doctors were using Mirena, which is made at a factory in Finland by an American company, Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals. Only when it comes through approved channels can doctors and patients be assured that a product meets FDA standards. But it is unclear whether Bayer –– or anyone –– makes a version of Mirena that does not meet those standards.

The doctors imported the devices from far-away, exotic Canada.

Most of the devices apparently came from Canada, where the government negotiates with drug and device makers to keep prices low.

There is no reason to suspect the devices were counterfeit, or defective.

'If they’re really from Canada and from a reputable pharmacy, it should be exactly the same thing [as the FDA-approved version],' said Sheryl Ruzek, a retired public health professor at Temple University and vice chair of the board of the ECRI Institute, a nonprofit organization that evaluates medical procedures and products. 'My hunch is the patients were not harmed,' she said.

Potential Negative Consequences for the Physicians

However, the RI physicians are in big trouble for importing them:

In Rhode Island, the state boards that regulate physicians, nurses and nurse-midwives are investigating all those involved. If any are found guilty of unprofessional conduct, they could face disciplinary action such as a reprimand or license suspension. The state attorney general’s office has a Medicaid fraud unit, but declined to comment. The U.S. Attorney also had no comment.

US doctors in other states have also been importing IUDs, and also are in big trouble:

So many doctors were importing IUDs or considering doing so that the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists recently took an official stand, issuing an advisory opposing the use of imported devices.

In 2006, the California Department of Health found that eight doctors had used imported IUDs in some 850 women.

In October 2009, an Arkansas doctor was indicted by a federal grand jury for using non-FDA-approved versions of Mirena. He was charged with violation of the Food, Drug & Cosmetic Act, health-care fraud (for allegedly billing Medicaid for the unapproved devices) and money-laundering (for the way he allegedly handled Medicaid reimbursements). The doctor, Kelly Dean Shrum, has not yet come to trial, but potential penalties include fines and imprisonment.

Summary, and the Contrast with the Case of the Adulterated, Fatal Heparin
So to summarize, doctors who imported IUDs from Canada that appeared to be identical to those sold with FDA approval in the US, and were made in Finland by an American company at the same factory in which the US approved IUDs were made have gotten into major trouble with state and federal authorities. There is no clear evidence that the IUDs caused any harm to patients.

I am not defending the doctors' actions. However, contrast the treatment they are likely to receive with another case we have frequently discussed.

We last blogged about the case of Baxter International's adulterated heparin here. In summary, Baxter International imported the "active pharmaceutical ingredient" (API) of heparin, that is, in plainer language, the drug itself, from China. That API was then sold, with some minor processing, as a Baxter International product with a Baxter International label. The drug came from a sketchy supply chain that Baxter did not directly supervise, apparently originating in small "workshops" operating under primitive and unsanitary conditions without any meaningful inspection or supervision by the company, the Chinese government, or the FDA. The heparin proved to have been adulterated with over-sulfated chondroitin sulfate (OSCS), and many patients who received got seriously ill or died. While there have been investigations of how the adulteration adversely affected patients, to date, there have been no publicly reported investigations of how the OSCS got into the heparin, and who should have been responsible for overseeing the purity and safety of the product. Despite the facts that clearly patients died from receiving this adulterated drug, no individual has yet suffered any negative consequence for what amounted to poisoning of patients with a brand-name but adulterated pharmaceutical product.

Yet everyone from state health departments to the federal authorities have jumped into the case of the unapproved IUDs imported, but from Canada, and apparently identical to the IUDs sold in the US. There is, at least so far, no evidence that the IUDs were defective or dangerous, and no evidence they have harmed patients. One doctor has been prosecuted for violating the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, and for health care fraud and money-laundering. No one working for Baxter International (or for the identified organizations within its supply chain) has been prosecuted for anything.

What the...? I do not object to discipline and prosecution of individual doctors who appear to have broken the law. But why are we so vigorously pursuing individual doctors for an apparently technical violation of laws that did patients no apparent harm, when we are not pursuing health care corporate executives for selling adulterated drugs that likely killed patients?

F Scott Fitzergald wrote that the "very rich are different from you and me," and it appears that very rich health care leaders have impunity when it comes to conduct that let patients be harmed and die.

Real health care reform would make top health care leaders as accountable as we now make individual doctors.

The Avandia Spin Cycle Continues Even After the FDA Safety Hearings

2010-07-18T12:00:00.000-07:00

We have posted multiple times about Avandia (rosiglitazone), GlaxoSmithKline's star-crossed glucose-lowering drug. While Avandia has received considerable media coverage, we focused on two questions: 1 - what are the benefits and harms of rosiglitazone as a treatment of type 2 diabetes, and therefore for which patients under what circumstances should this drug be used? 2 - what barriers have prevented physicians and patients from getting the best possible answer to the first question, and what can be done about them? (See recent post here.)

In particular, the Avandia case has illustrated how those with vested interests in the success of a health care product have done their best to obscure information that might threaten its success, even when doing so obscures the information that physicians and patients need to make the best possible decisions. At one point, (in 2007, no less) we called this the "Avandia spin cycle."

Avandia once again has been in the news after the US Food and Drug Administration's hearings on the safety of the drug. These hearings were so well covered in the media that a lengthy summary would be superfluous. However, their main points demonstrated the persistence of the Avandia spin cycle:
- An FDA reviewer felt that "the company's misreadings of the ... Record trial ... were so profound, he concluded, that they 'suggest serious flaws with trial conduct.'" (per Gardiner Harris writing in the New York Times)
-A former FDA reviewer "withheld from regulators a study showing its Avandia diabetes drug may cause heart attacks." (per Bloomberg News)
- GlaxoSmithKline's forerunner SmithKline Beecham "secretly began a study to find out if its diabetes medicine, Avandia, was safer for the heart than a competing pill, Actos, made by Takeda." However, "the study also provided clear signs that it [Avandia] was riskier to the heart. But instead of publishing the results, the company spent the next 11 years trying to cover them up." (per Gardiner Harris writing in the New York Times.
- "Government experts and a panel of medical advisers repeatedly voiced skepticism on Tuesday about the trustworthiness of GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the controversial diabetes drug Avandia." (per Gardiner Harris again writing in the New York Times.)

So the Avandia saga has brought to the front pages the concerns we have had with suppression and manipulation of clinical research, especially when pursued by health care organizations with vested interests in the results of specific research projects coming out a certain way, and how they have been enabled by those with conflicts of interest. Doctors thus should be worried whether those of us who try to practice evidence-based medicine have been fooled into practicing pseudo-evidence-based-medicine.

Those commenting on the story focused on the need for transparency when clinical research is funded and run by the corporations whose products are being evaluated.
- "GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of Avandia, can't be trusted to report adverse clinical results fairly. The company must be watched like a hawk as additional trials that it sponsors go forward." (NY Times editorial)
- "What America should demand in return for ... [generous patent] protection is that the FDA be able to make an honest evaluation of the efficacy of drugs. When drug companies make this impossible by suppressing test results, not only do they violate their fundamental obligation of honesty with the public, their customers and their regulator, but they also break the bargain they have struck in return for the protection of their intellectual capital." (Former NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer in Slate.)

Instead, as I have written before, maybe we ought to consider whether those with vested interests in drugs or devices ought to be running clinical research meant to evaluate their own products.

Ironically, while this discussion of how the Avandia spin cycle first began to revolve were going on, others were still trying to add revolutions (per minute). In particular, a Reuters story noted:

Three influential groups of doctors who treat diabetes urged patients not to stop taking Avandia, saying on Thursday that while news about the controversial drug may be frightening, it would be worse to suddenly stop taking it.

That is odd, given that Avandia has never been shown to improve clinical outcomes for patients with diabetes, and that there are many other drugs that control blood sugar which appear to be safer. But wait, there is more,

The Endocrine Society, American Diabetes Association and the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists worried that patients may be afraid to take Avandia.

'Patients should continue taking all currently prescribed medications unless instructed otherwise by their health care provider,' Dr. Robert Vigersky of the Endocrine Society said in a statement.

'Stopping diabetes medications can cause significant harm and result in higher levels of blood glucose that may cause severe short term health problems and could increase the risk of diabetes-related complications in the long term.'

Would not it make more sense to advise patients still on Avandia to consult with their doctors urgently about possible alternatives? Meanwhile, it does not seem irrational to be afraid of taking Avandia, given the increasing evidence about its harms, and increasing evidence that what we know about its harms may be an under-estimate.

So I wondered why these august medical societies seemed so unaffected about the doubts about Avandia's safety, and about the evidence offered to support its use that the latest news ought to generate. It turns out that all three of the medical societies get financial support from, -- wait for it --, GlaxoSmithKline.

The Endocrine Society lists GSK as one of its Corporate Liaison Board Members. The American Diabetes Association lists GSK as one of its Banting Circle Supporters, that is, those that give at least $1,000,000 a year. The American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists lists GSK as a member of its Corporate AACE Partnership. (I was not able to find out the total amount contributed by GSK to either the Endocrine Society or the AACE.)

So once again, the loudest voices in support of the product come from those used to, and perhaps dependent on financial support from its manufacturer. As a physician, I have been particularly disappointed that our medical societies, whose missions are ostensibly to support our professional values, seem to act more and more like marketers for the companies whose contributions, rather than members' dues increasingly support them.

The cycle keeps spinning.

For further thoughts on the latest in the Avandia case, see this post by Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, and this by Alison Bass on the Alison Bass Blog.

The New York Times Reports A University President's Conflict of Interest

2010-07-16T13:32:00.000-07:00

Three months ago, we discussed the controversy at the University of Michigan about the university president's position on the board of directors of the big pharmaceutical, medical device and medical supply company Johnson and Johnson as a potential conflict of interest that could have influenced her decision to make the campus smoke-free. (Johnson and Johnson makes drugs to aid in smoking cessation.) I argued that by the Institute of Medicine definition, President Coleman did have a conflict of interest, and while it was not possible to tell whether it influenced the smoke-free decision, the issue with conflicts is that they constantly raise the possibility of undue influence on decisions.

Now this issue has made it to the big time. New York Times reporter Duff Wilson, wrote in the Times' Prescriptions Blog

The University of Michigan medical school became the first in the nation last month to say it would refuse any funding from drug companies for its continuing medical education classes. The decision could cost it as much as $1 million a year, but it was worth it, the medical school dean said, for education to be free from potential bias.

At the same time, Mary Sue Coleman, president of the entire University of Michigan, sits on the board of directors for the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. Last year, the company paid her $229,978 — roughly half in stock and half in cash — for attending a limited number of meetings, corporate filings show.

Conflict of interest? Conflict of policies? If the med school and mere professors could be tainted by drug money, what about the university president?

She says no. Responding to questions on Ms. Coleman’s behalf Monday, Kelly E. Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the university, said the president satisfied the policy by disclosing her outside work. Ms. Coleman has never had to recuse herself from any discussion or action at the university because medical purchasing and investment decisions are so remote from her, Ms. Cunningham said.

'The same is true at J&J,' she added. 'There has never been a discussion or decision at the board level that involved something related to the UM. But, of course, if there were, she would recuse herself.'

The story was picked up by the Detroit Free Press, which reiterated the official line that President Coleman's role on the Johnson and Johnson board did not pose a conflict:

A student group at the University of Michigan is calling on President Mary Sue Coleman to resign from her seat on the Johnson & Johnson board of directors, saying it's a conflict of interest.

But Coleman has no plans to resign, and university officials say her role on the board is not in conflict with university operations. Last year, she earned nearly $230,000 for her board duties. Coleman's U-M salary is about $550,000.

'It's essential that U-M have a voice and interact with the business world,' said Rick Fitzgerald, a U-M spokesman. 'She thinks it's her duty to understand what the commercial world is doing.'

So, as I did last time, let us turn to the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest (in a health care context) found in its report, Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice.

Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interests include promoting and protecting the integrity of research, the quality of medical education, and the welfare of patients. Secondary interests include not only financial interests....

I asserted then that President Coleman has a conflict of interest. Her primary interests as President of a university are to uphold the university's academic mission, and as President of a university that includes a medical school, a school of public health, and an academic medical center, also to uphold the integrity of patient care and public health practice. Her secondary interest as a member of the board of directors of a public, for-profit corporation is her fiduciary duty to that corporation and its stockholders, which means she must "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders" [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.] Such unyielding loyalty to the shareholders of a pharmaceutical and medical device company clearly creates a risk of influencing judgments or actions that could affect the corporations' sales or operations, economic or health policy, or the general environment in which it operates. Many of the judgments of or actions performed by the leader of a medical school, public health school, and academic medical center could so so, and are thus at risk of being so unduly influenced.

As the IOM report said, though,

a judgment that someone has a conflict of interest does not imply that the person is unethical. Such judgments assume only that some situations are generally recognized to pose an unacceptable risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by considerations that should be irrelevant.

However, note that the sorts of decisions that may be influenced by a conflict of interest go beyond just those that involve the specific secondary interest causing the conflict. So the University spokesperson's statement that the president would recuse herself from any decision at the university that directly involved Johnson and Johnson, but that no such decision has ever been necessary, missed the point.

Meanwhile, the university's insistence that the president's part-time position at Johnson and Johnson is justified by the need to "have a voice and interact with the business world" rings hollow. There are many ways a president could do that which do not involve getting corporate pay (and for "unyielding loyalty"). It rings especially hollow at a university that has identified corporate funding for continuing medical education as an unacceptably bad conflict of interest.

But then again, conflicts of interest are known to create confused thinking, and such confused thinking is likely to be prevalent at an institution that has one set of rules for the little people, and another for the top leaders.

Maybe this story in the New York Times will lead to some discussion about whether it is good for academic medical institutions to tolerate this previously "new species of conflict of interest" (as we termed it in 2006).

FDA MAUDE Database: Patient Outcome - Death

2010-07-16T04:13:00.000-07:00

I present another health IT problem case from the FDA's voluntary MAUDE (Manufacturer and User Facility Device Experience) database below.

From FDA's description of MAUDE:

MAUDE data represents reports of adverse events involving medical devices. The data consists of voluntary reports since June 1993, user facility reports since 1991, distributor reports since 1993, and manufacturer reports since August 1996. MAUDE may not include reports made according to exemptions, variances, or alternative reporting requirements granted under 21 CFR 803.19.
The on-line search allows you to search CDRH database information on medical devices which may have malfunctioned or caused a death or serious injury. MAUDE is scheduled to be updated monthly and the search page reflects the date of the most recent update. FDA seeks to include all reports received prior to the update. However, the inclusion of some reports may be delayed by technical or clerical difficulties.
MAUDE data is not intended to be used either to evaluate rates of adverse events or to compare adverse event occurrence rates across devices. Please be aware that reports regarding device trade names may have been submitted under different manufacturer names. Searches only retrieve records that contain the search term(s) provided by the requester.

I somehow missed the following case when I wrote the Oct. 2009 post 'Our Policy Is To Always Have Unabashed Faith In The Computer ... Except When It Screws Up, And Then It's The Doctor's Fault' but I have added it there as well:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfmaude/detail.cfm?mdrfoi__id=1656460
CERNER MILLENIUM POWERCHART CPOE
Event Date 11/19/2006
Event Type: Death
Patient Outcome: Death

The medication review screen of the subject device does not specify the exact dose in milligrams of combination medications. For example, narcotics are combined with tylenol in at least two strengths. Liquid narcotic tylenol-oxycodone combination is reported in ml, not mg. The exact dose of tylenol is not specified and requires knowledge of the combination medication dose in the volume specified.

Certain fields of the grid do not specify the volume, but rather state "date/time" requiring another click or pop up screen. The immediate knowledge of tylenol dosage in mg is directly related to understanding and preventing excessive doses. In the subject, 10 ml of acetaminophen-oxycodone is indicated as having been given 3 times over 4 hours. That means that 1950 mg of tylenol was administered in 4 hours while the patient was in a state of starvation and receiving other medication that increase the effects of tylenol.

This dose would equate to 11,700 mg of tylenol over 24 hours, nearly 3 times the maximum daily dose in otherwise health people. In the ensuing days, the patient developed acute renal failure, presumably acute tubular necrosis, and died. In the absence of other etiology, the excess tylenol was the culprit. This was not considered as etiology ante-mortem. The counterintuitive screen impaired the professionals. The pharmacist did not recognize and stop the medication, the nurses administered it, and the excessive dose, clinically meaninglessly listed as a volume of 10 ml -given 3 times in 4 hours- of acetaminophen-oxycodone, was missed by the physicians. Adverse events have been ascribed to "user error" by vendors.

The device offers a potent propensity to life endangering oversights. There are other screens on this device which present information that interfere with clinically useful visualization of data. [Who designed these screens, I ask? Clinicians, or business IT personnel used to designing inventory systems for widget control? - ed.] The data does not flow to the professionals. It is not represented in a meaningfully useful manner.

The professionals need to hunt for it. As such, the user unfriendly screens [see this link on mission hostile HIT - ed.] impair safe medical care consistent with the impediment to expedient professional understanding of what, exactly, is the dose of medication and how much was administered to the patient. This sentinel case of death is directly attributed to user unfriendly screens on this device.

How many cases like this, as well as "near misses" related to health IT go unreported, nationwide and worldwide?

As in my paper "Remediating an Unintended Consequence of Healthcare IT: A Dearth of Data on Unintended Consequences of Healthcare IT", nobody really knows; these devices are unregulated with no requirements for reporting.

However, let's roll it out nationally anyway, because HIT will deterministically "revolutionize" medicine. Just ignore those spoil-the-party, man-behind-the-curtain prattle from writers like these.

We can safely ignore all contrarian research and literature, of course, as we all know HIT will revolutionize medicine from the definitive certainty of HHS in "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records", NEJM, Blumenthal and Tavenner (10.1056/NEJMp1006114, July 13, 2010):

The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice.

[Except for those who haven't - ed.]

And our government's called BP Energy Company cavalier?

I offer no additional comments.

-- SS

NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company: "Electronic Health Records: Recognizing and Managing the Risks"

2010-07-15T17:45:00.000-07:00

The Insurance Industry is catching on that EMR's and other clinical IT are not exactly the cybernetic miracles they're sometimes held out to be, for example as implied in this statement from HHS in the July 13, 2010 NEJM that-

... EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers.

NORCAL Mutual Insurance Company, for example, produces a near-monthly publication entitled "Claims Rx." Its purpose:

The goal of Claims Rx is to help physicians better recognize their medical professional liability risks and implement strategies to minimize those risks. The topics addressed here are derived from numerous sources including closed malpractice claims analyses, emerging liability trends and current medical literature. Each issue is meticulously reviewed by an editorial board consisting of physicians, nurses, risk management specialists and attorneys with a mind toward optimal patient safety and proactive risk management.

The October 2009 issue, found at this link in PDF, is entitled "Electronic Health Records: Recognizing and Managing the Risks." It contains advice to physicians to limit their liability, reduce errors, and presents de-identified examples of HIT-related horror stories.

Some of the advice offered includes:

Electronic health records (EHRs) hold great promise of improving patient safety and decreasing medical liability exposure, but their use is creating a variety of new risk management and patient safety issues.

For some reason, the "great promises" made over the past fifty years still seem elusive...but we'll get it right some day...(perhaps when these issues among others are solved).

Some of these issues are directly associated with EHRs (e.g., providers disregard warnings generated by the EHR), but many of the risk concerns associated with EHRs are analogous to problems that currently exist in paper documentation systems.

The marketing puffery that today's EMR's are vastly superior to paper might be just that - marketing puffery.

In this month’s Claims Rx we present a number of shorter-than-usual case studies that exemplify various aspects of unsafe EHR documentation and communication practices. The scenarios are based on NORCAL closed claims, facts presented in appellate opinions, research findings and the observations of NORCAL Risk Management Specialists.

What many of the examples show is that EHRs do not eliminate many of the dangerous documentation and communication practices that have historically led to patient injury and malpractice lawsuits.

I would add "EHR's in their present form do not eliminate dangerous practices", designed as if they were clinical data inventory systems by business-IT eggheads rather than as clinical tools "of, by and for clinicians." (One might ask why we are about to spend 100+ billion dollars on them in national rollout the next few years.)

Consequently, while it is important to address new issues that arise with EHRs, many of the risk management recommendations that apply to a paper-based documentation system remain valid.

This Claims Rx will discuss the risks associated with various aspects of EHRs and will provide guidance for instituting policies and procedures designed to enhance the quality and safety of patient care, while diminishing professional liability risk.

A number of case examples then follow. I will reproduce two, but all can be read via downloading the PDF at the link above.

Saving Images in the Wrong Patient’s Chart

Just as an image can be misfiled or lost in a paper system, it can be misfiled in an electronic one. However, as the following case shows, it can be less obvious that an image has been misfiled in an electronic system.

Case Study

Patient #1 and patient #2 both presented to the Emergency Department (ED) complaining of abdominal pain. CT scans of the abdomen and pelvis were completed for both patients. A radiology tech mistakenly gave patient #2’s images the identification number assigned to patient #1 and uploaded the images into the Picture Archiving Computer System (PACS).

A short time later, the tech realized his mistake and called the on-duty teleradiologist to tell him about the mistake and request that the mislabeled images be deleted from the system. However, the on-duty teleradiologist did not have access to delete images from the PACS; this had to be done by the PACS administrator. The tech then corrected the labeling problem and sent the images out to the teleradiology service for a preliminary review and resent the correctly labeled images to the PACS.

Patient #1’s PACS file now contained both his own and patient #2’s images. A few days later the tech told his supervisor about the mislabeling, and assumed that the supervisor would remedy the problem. Pursuant to hospital policy, the tech should have immediately contacted the PACS administrator.

The teleradiology service reported that patient #1’s CT scan was normal. Patient #2’s CT scan, however, showed a large tumor (about the size of a grapefruit) on the patient’s kidney. The service faxed the reports to the radiology department at the hospital.

The next morning, the on-duty radiologist reviewed the PACS images from the night before. He disregarded the teleradiology service reports because they did not correspond to what he saw in the PACS. Because patient #2’s scan had been completed before patient #1’s, patient #2’s images were the first series in his file.

The on-duty radiologist noted the large tumor and dictated a note. Because patient #2’s images still carried patient #1’s identification number, the radiologist’s report was assigned to patient #1.

Patient #1 was subsequently seen by a number of specialists for the supposed tumor on his kidney. Seven days after the CT scan, he underwent a nephrectomy [lovely- ed.]. During the surgery, no mass could be positively identified on his kidney by his surgeons. Postoperatively, no tumor was identified in the removed kidney and pathology returned benign.

(Please note, once the filing mistake was recognized, patient #2 was notified and underwent a timely and successful nephrectomy.)

[In other words, through serendipity only one person was harmed, not two - ed.]

One wonders how many "cases" like this will arise out of the major-vendor EHR upgrade flaw that is claimed to have led patient data to go into wrong charts at not one, but several hospitals:

HIStalk Monday Morning Update 7/12/10

From Holy Smoke: “Re: Cerner. Misidentification incidents have been reported with Cerner PowerChart and Millenium in hospitals in Indiana, Michigan, and others after a Cerner upgrade. Entries are placed in the wrong electronic chart and reviewed data is for the wrong patient.” Unverified. I saw nothing in the FDA’s Maude database, so if it’s happening, customers should file an experience report.

(See my July 11, 2010 post 'Health IT and 'High Regulatory Standards': Criminal Negligence for Implementing Defective Systems That Put Data in the Wrong Charts?').

Next from NORCAL:

Checking the Wrong Box

In the following case, the appearance of the computer screen probably played a role in the medication error.

Case Study

A patient presented to his primary care physician (PCP) for the treatment of headaches and episodes of altered consciousness. The PCP prescribed amitripyline at 10 mg nightly. The PCP told the patient to escalate the dosage by 10 mg every three to four days until the pain was relieved, but not to exceed 50 mgs without consulting him.

When creating the prescription, the PCP intended to check off the 10-mg box in the computerized physician order entry (CPOE), but inadvertently checked the 100-mg box, which was right above it. In the medication instructions section, he indicated that five pills could be taken per night, so the patient would not have to return to the pharmacy and pay an additional co-pay if he ultimately needed the larger dose.

The pharmacist had noticed that the dose seemed high and requested that a call be made to the PCP prior to it being dispensed. A nurse at the PCP’s office picked up the call, and because she was very busy that day, told the pharmacy to dispense the medication as it had been ordered — she did not check the dose. Three days later, the patient took five of the 100-mg pills together. Early the next morning, the PCP was contacted by an emergency department (ED) physician who reported that the patient was in the ED reporting dizziness, an altered state of consciousness, an inability to coordinate his movements and a rapid heartbeat.

He was further informed by the ED physician that the patient had taken five 100-mg amitripyline tablets. The PCP then checked the patient’s record and realized his mistake.

[It's serendipitous that the patient was not in the morgue when the mistake was realized - ed.]

Read the rest of the cases and the explanations at the Electronic Health Records: Recognizing and Managing the Risks "Claims Rx" document from NORCAL here (PDF).

In these cases, both technological and "people" issues were responsible for the malpractice events.

However, healthcare is an extremely complex endeavor requiring exquisite attention to detail (or your patient's dead).

These IT systems could have been designed to provide cognitive, ease-of-use, and known-error revision (or at least known-error flagging) support to clinicians that could have helped prevent these errors.

HIT designers need to do their part if they want to be considered part of the clinical team.

If they don't do their part voluntarily and stop with the mission-hostile,1970's-paradigm "inventory system of widgets" health IT, as I've written before, they will increasingly find themselves part of that team in an involuntary manner - as defendants in litigation.

Finally, due to issues such as: an utter lack of governmental regulation of the HIT industry and a lack of defect and error reporting requirements; contractual gag and hold-harmless clauses (as raised by Penn researchers Koppel and Kreda in JAMA here); physician fear of hospital retaliation such as sham peer review for HIT whistleblowing especially now that more physicians are becoming hospital employees; and other causes, there is no reliable data on the incidence of EHR-related medical errors and malpractice.

As in my paper "Remediating an Unintended Consequence of Healthcare IT: A Dearth of Data on Unintended Consequences of Healthcare IT", there is also no reliable data on "near misses" or potential IT related mishaps that were averted by serendipity. These near misses expose patients to risk. With no reporting, there is no systematic data that can be used for remediation and prevention.

I thus present once again the following thoughts from my post Science or Politics? The New England Journal and "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records":

I believe we should hold off national Health IT roll outs until we:

learn sufficiently from failures such as the UK CfH and our own military's AHLTA debacle on how to avoid same, which can injure and kill patients and wastes massive money and resources healthcare can ill afford, and more importantly that can be better used elsewhere - such as care of the poor;

improve the technology's usability, safety and efficacy through the years of Medical Informatics and other disciplinary research needed, that was short circuited through the invention of the ONC office by Bush (although national HIT then remained a goal, not a mandate), and the 'militarization' of ONC under Obama whereby HIT was unilaterally declared a proven technology and mandated for national rollout;

end the contractual and fear-based censorship of information on health IT problems, and patient injuries and deaths related to the devices; and

meaningfully regulate these devices that have increasingly become governors of care delivery.

I have written extensively on these topics at this blog, at my academic website on health IT failure, and other sources (see list at end of my bio).

When there are significant doubts about a medication or medical device, we ought not push for national rollout.

Health IT devices have gotten special accommodation, and it's not on the basis of any rigorous science I am familiar with.

-- SS

Eli Lilly CEO on “America’s Growing Innovation Gap”

2010-07-14T19:24:00.000-07:00

In “America’s Growing Innovation Gap”, WSJ, July 9, 2010, Eli Lilly CEO John C. Lechleiter, Ph.D. writes that:

“…the most important elements are the seeds of innovation, which equate to talented people and their ideas.”

He then suggests these people are “highly skilled immigrants” abroad.

In my own circle of friends, I know American pharma industry cast-offs who are both brilliant and talented. One with dual MS degrees in mathematics and computer science from a major university, one a skilled bioinformaticist I've had teach my healthcare informatics students as guest lecturer, one a brilliant programmer who could be considered the grandfather of computer image manipulation, another with years of expertise in pharma knowledge discovery.

Then there's me – former Director of a Merck R&D support group and of The Merck Index - with degrees in medicine and post-doctoral specialization in biomedical informatics and information science, plus I'm an extra-class amateur radio licensee who understands complex technology at a level far beyond that of the usual pharmaceutical company worker.

Yet no donuts for us. In recent years the pharmaceutical industry won’t grant any of us the courtesy even of an interview.

However, in Mar. 2009 as I documented here, I did receive an email solicitation from Lilly that read as follows ("sic's" are mine):

“Your Help Is Requested for a Eli Lilly Career Opportunity! (sic) I am a member of the Staffing Team at Eli Lilly. I were referred to me (sic) as person who specializes in pharmaceutical based informatics. I wanted to reach out to me (sic), to see if you maybe able (sic) to recommend anyone that could qualify for the below position (sic)."

I was not exactly inspired by this solicitation, perhaps written by one of the "highly skilled immigrants" Lechleiter covets.

Nor was I inspired by the earlier solicitation I documented at my Jan. 2009 post "What, Me Worry? Lilly Fined Over Zyprexa, Should Be Fined For eRecruitment Inanity As Well?"

I suggest if Mr. Lechleiter wishes to close America’s purported "innovation gap", he spend some time away from the executive castle and perhaps review some resumes – and the job solicitations his company proffers – in his HR department.

A cause of the "innovation gap" may be leadership xenophilia, at the expense of the American born-and-raised scientists the pharma industry is so fond of discarding.

-- SS

Science or Politics? The New England Journal and "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records"

2010-07-14T04:22:00.000-07:00

In the NEJM article "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records", David Blumenthal, M.D., M.P.P. (ONC Chair) and Marilyn Tavenner, R.N., M.H.A. (10.1056/NEJMp1006114, July 13, 2010) available at this link, the opening statement is (emphases mine):

The widespread use of electronic health records (EHRs) in the United States is inevitable. EHRs will improve caregivers’ decisions and patients’ outcomes. Once patients experience the benefits of this technology, they will demand nothing less from their providers. Hundreds of thousands of physicians have already seen these benefits in their clinical practice.

I think it fair to say those are grandiose statements and predictions presented with a tone of utmost certainty.

(My 84 year old mother must be the sole exception to those "patient demands" for electronic health record-mediated cybernetic miracles).

My mother, in ICU on ventilator after iatrogenic cerebral hemorrhage, May 2010,
after receiving the rewards of electronic medical record beneficence.
Still in hospital as of this writing in mid July.

Even though it is a "perspectives" article, I once long ago learned that in writing in esteemed scientific journals of worldwide impact, statements of certainty were at best avoided, or if made should be well documented.

I note the lack of footnotes showing the source(s) of these statements.

I also note the lack of mention of literature refuting or potentially refuting these statements of certainty. I can think of a few examples of the latter [ref. 1-13 below, certainly not a comprehensive list].

In politics, however, no such sourcing is necessary. It's easy for a politician to say "Free markets will not give us the healthcare system we want" or, conversely, "I never heard about the DOJ's selective dismissal of charges against people intimidating voters at a voting site in Philadelphia."

So, did the NEJM publish fact, or political platitude?

Can someone provide a list of peer reviewed, rigorous studies that back the assertions of certainty in 10.1056/NEJMp1006114, and override the body of literature that could cast doubt on these assertions of certainty?

Since it's people's lives at stake, not an inventory of widgets, I've promoted the idea of holding off on national roll outs until we:

learn sufficiently from failures such as the UK's NPfIT (National Programme for IT) in the NHS and our own military's AHLTA debacle on how to avoid same, which can injure and kill patients and wastes massive money and resources healthcare can ill afford, and more importantly that can be better used elsewhere - such as care of the poor;

improve the technology's usability, safety and efficacy through the years of Medical Informatics and other disciplinary research needed, that was short circuited through the invention of the ONC office by Bush (although national HIT then remained a goal, not a mandate), and the 'militarization' of ONC under Obama whereby HIT was unilaterally declared a proven technology and mandated for national rollout;

end the contractual and fear-based censorship of information on health IT problems, and patient injuries and deaths related to the devices; and

meaningfully regulate these devices that have increasingly become governors of care delivery.

References: (hyperlinks to these and others can be found at my medical informatics teaching sites here and here):

1. Health IT Project Success and Failure: Recommendations from Literature and an AMIA Workshop by Bonnie Kaplan and Kimberly D. Harris-Salamone. From the May/June 2009 issue of JAMIA.

2. "E-Health Hazards: Provider Liability and Electronic Health Record Systems.” Hoffman and Podgurski’s followup paper on EHR medical and legal risks

3. Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors. Ross Koppel, PhD, et al, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005;293:1197-1203

4. Electronic Health Record Use and the Quality of Ambulatory Care in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1400-1405. The authors examined electronic health records (EHR) use throughout the U.S. and the association of EHR use with 17 basic quality indicators. They concluded that “as implemented, EHRs were not associated with better quality ambulatory care.”

5. Pessimism, Computer Failure, and Information Systems Development in the Public Sector. (Public Administration Review 67;5:917-929, Sept/Oct. 2007, Shaun Goldfinch, University of Otago, New Zealand)

6. Bad Health Informatics Can Kill. his site contains summaries of a number of reported incidents in healthcare where IT was the cause or a significant factor. It comes from the Working Group for Assessment of Health Information Systems of the European Federation for Medical Informatics (EFMI).

7. The U.S. National Research Council’s "Current Approaches to U.S. Health Care Information Technology are Insufficient."

8. The UK Public Accounts Committee report on disastrous problems in their £12.7 billion national EMR program.

9. Gateway reviews of the UK National Programme for IT from the Office of Government Commerce (OGC) (released under the UK’s Freedom of Information Act).

10. A report on the serious problems with the Department of Defense’s AHLTA system, Electronic Records System Unreliable, Difficult to Use, Service Officials Tell Congress. (This system, as I wrote here, is slated for abandonment. I cannot imagine it was greatly improving outcomes).

11. A New York Times report “Little Benefit Seen, So Far, in Electronic Patient Records” on Jha’s research at the Harvard School of Public Health, that compared 3,000 hospitals at various stages in the adoption of computerized health records and found little difference in the cost and quality of care.

12. An American Journal of Medicine paper “Hospital Computing and the Costs and Quality of Care: A National Study” by Himmelstein and Woolhandler at Harvard Medical School, that also concluded “as currently implemented, hospital computing might [very] modestly improve process measures of quality but not administrative or overall costs."

13. A Milbank Quarterly article “Tensions and Paradoxes in Electronic Patient Record Research: A Systematic Literature Review Using the Meta-narrative Method" by Greenhalgh, Potts, Wong, Bark and Swinglehurst at University College London.

Addendum 7/14:

I think this statement at "The Road to Hellth" blog in a post entitled "Meaningful Ruse" that cites my posts is apropos:

... Meaningful use entered our vocabulary in early 2009 as part of a $20+ billion gift from doctors, hospitals and the taxpayers to the needy folks at Cerner, GE, Siemens, Allscripts, Epic and other purveyors of complex, expensive and difficult-to-use and potentially even dangerous medical software products.

-- SS

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

2010-07-13T16:33:00.000-07:00

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

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

A "Patient-Centered Extremist"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Enter the Woo

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

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

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

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

"Physicians have no Immunity to Moral or Ethical Constraints"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

KA

Two other blogs that have addressed this issue are:

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

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

Meaningful Use Final Rule: Have the Administration and ONC Gone Insane on Health IT?

2010-07-13T11:49:00.000-07:00

Meaningful use before meaningful usability?

The Dept. of HHS today has released the final version of "Meaningful Use" rules on HIT, which can be seen here: Meaningful Use – Final Version Full Text.

By what category of diligence were the rules for "meaningful use" finalized on the same date that a NIST conference is being held on health IT "usability" ("Usability in Health IT: Technical Strategy, Research, and Implementation", http://www.nist.gov/itl/usability_hit.cfm), implying there's a problem with usability of these experimental devices physicians are supposed to "meaningfully use?"

Don't take my word on the issue of usability problems...

The National Research Council of the National Academies (considered the highest scientific authority in the U.S.) issued a 2009 report on HIT. In that report, presided over by noted HIT pioneers G. Octo Barnett (Harvard/MGH) and William Stead (Vanderbilt), were findings that current HIT does not support clinicians' cognitive needs as here:

CURRENT APPROACHES TO U.S. HEALTH CARE INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY ARE INSUFFICIENT

WASHINGTON -- Current efforts aimed at the nationwide deployment of health care information technology (IT) will not be sufficient to achieve medical leaders' vision of health care in the 21st century and may even set back the cause, says a new report from the National Research Council. The report, based partially on site visits to eight U.S. medical centers considered leaders in the field of health care IT, concludes that greater emphasis should be placed on information technology that provides health care workers and patients with cognitive support, such as assistance in decision-making and problem-solving.

How about HIT industry trade/"educational" group HIMSS itself? I think reasonable people might conclude the technology is not ready for "meaningful use" on a national scale from their mid 2009 report:

Defining and Testing EMR Usability: Principles and Proposed Methods of EMR Usability Evaluation and Rating (PDF)
HIMSS EHR Usability Task Force
June 2009

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Electronic medical record (EMR) adoption rates have been slower than expected in the United States, especially in comparison to other industry sectors and other developed countries. A key reason, aside from initial costs and lost productivity during EMR implementation, is lack of efficiency and usability of EMRs currently available. Achieving the healthcare reform goals of broad EMR adoption and “meaningful use” will require that efficiency and usability be effectively addressed at a fundamental level.

These "usability" problems require long term solutions. There are no quick fix, plug and play solutions. Years of research are needed, and years of system migrations as well for existing installations.

Yet we now have an HHS Final Rule on "meaningful use" regarding experimental, unregulated medical devices the industry itself admits have major usability problems, along with a growing body of literature on the risks entailed.

For crying out loud, talk about putting the cart before the horse...

Something's very wrong here...

However, this situation is anything but humorous.

How more insane can government get?

Poor usability promotes medical error. Medical error puts patients at risk of iatrogenic injury and death - such as the one suffered in May 2010 by my own mother.

My mother, in ICU on ventilator after iatrogenic cerebral hemorrhage, May 2010, after receiving the 'rewards' of electronic medical record beneficence that caused a critical cardiac medication to 'disappear' from her current meds list. Still in hospital as of this writing in mid July.

Are we are entering an era of cybernetic medical assault on our patients (and perhaps criminal negligence and manslaughter, a term I do not use lightly) through irrational exuberance in computing -- and through exuberance about the profits to be made by the HIT industry?

Unless we slow down in our exuberance and recklessness on HIT diffusion, my fear is that we very well might be.

-- SS

Addendum:

Also see my followup July 14, 2010 post "Science or Politics? The New England Journal and "The 'Meaningful Use' Regulation for Electronic Health Records."

-- SS

Health IT and 'High Regulatory Standards': Criminal Negligence for Implementing Defective Systems That Put Data in the Wrong Charts?

2010-07-11T11:42:00.000-07:00

Over at the HIStalk blog (a blog whose owner remains anonymous, and who uses an ISP that does not reveal information that could be used to identify him, apparently out of fear of retaliation for controversial stories he posts), the following appeared:

Monday Morning Update 7/12/10

From Holy Smoke: “Re: Cerner. Misidentification incidents have been reported with Cerner PowerChart and Millenium in hospitals in Indiana, Michigan, and others after a Cerner upgrade. Entries are placed in the wrong electronic chart and reviewed data is for the wrong patient.” Unverified. I saw nothing in the FDA’s Maude database, so if it’s happening, customers should file an experience report.

While the reports are "unverified", I can add that the FDA MAUDE database would not show any data if this problem were recent, as I believe MAUDE contributions are reviewed by FDA before posting.

(7/21/10 addendum: various sources confirm this occurred at a religious-denomination hospital chain headquartered in the Great Lakes region of the U.S.)

However, as I wrote in Oct. 2009 at "Our Policy Is To Always Have Unabashed Faith In The Computer ... Except When It Screws Up, And Then It's The Doctor's Fault", the MAUDE database does contain some error reports from this vendor (one of the very few HIT vendors who actually file such reports) such as:

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfRES/res.cfm?id=64345
Cerner Millennium RadNet Auto Launch Study and Auto Launch Report software functionalities. Defects in the Auto Launch functionality make it possible for a mismatch of patient data.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/Detail.CFM?MDRFOI__ID=946706
Patient care delay. The issue involves functionality in cerner millennium powerchart office and powerchart core and affects users that utilize the powerchart inbox and message center inbox. In results to endorse or sign and review, if the user clicks ok and next multiple times in quick succession while attempting to sign a result or a document, the display could lag behind the system's processing of the action, and multiple results or documents could be signed without the user's review. In message center, when clicking ok and next or accept and next, or when deleting or completing messages and moving to the next task, a document could be signed or a message could be deleted without the user's review. Results could be endorsed or documents could be signed without physician review, which could impact patient care. Cerner received communication that a patient's follow-up care was delayed as a result of this issue.

http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfMAUDE/Detail.CFM?MDRFOI__ID=753029
Microbiology set up a program within the cerner computer system to automate the reporting system for hsv (herpes simplex virus)testing. The system was tested with the assistance of cerner and found to be working appropriately. The new system was operational for approximately 3 weeks when it was determined that the first word of the sentence, "no" was inappropriately dropping off of the following sentence: "no herpes simplex virus type 1 or herpes simplex virus type 2 detected by dna amplification. " as such, two of five patients were incorrectly informed that they had hsv before the error was detected. One had started an antiviral creme treatment. The other three did not have follow-up visits until after the correct results were determined. Cerner has looked at the program and has not provided an answer for the system issue. In the interim, the previous manual review and entry process is being used.

Assuming the current reports from anonymous whistleblower "Holy Smoke" are true, I note the following.

My observations apply to any vendor and/or healthcare organization that puts defective HIT into use in patient care--

At my April 2010 post "Healthcare IT Corporate Ethics 101: 'A Strategy for Cerner Corporation to Address the HIT Stimulus Plan'", I'd written:

A profoundly disappointing lesson in the ethics of the healthcare IT sector (and the B-schools as well) can be gleaned from the following, a paper written by a Cerner employee and two health industry colleagues for a Duke Fuqua School of Business course.

The course is "Health Economics & Strategy (HLTHMGMT 326), Distance Executive MBA" (syllabus here in PDF) ... The paper is entitled "A STRATEGY FOR CERNER CORPORATION TO ADDRESS THE HIT STIMULUS PLAN."

The paper was scrubbed from the Duke Fuqua School of Business Site on or around April 16, 2010 but a cached copy is available here. In that paper what I believe is a combination in restraint of trade was suggested:

This paper seeks to clarify these implications [of the the economic 'stimulus' package - ed.], understand the strengths and weaknesses of various players in the industry and recommend a strategy for Cerner Corporation to maximize its profit from the stimulus package and thereby secure a dominant position in the HIT industry.

... We recommend that Cerner collaborate with other incumbent vendors to establish high regulatory standards, effectively creating a barrier to new firm entry.

High standards? I have some suggestions regarding "high regulatory standards."

I agree that high, in fact, the highest regulatory standards should be upheld.

I think I can safely state that a common regulatory standard in healthcare is that those involved in patient care, even peripherally, act with sound judgment and with patient well being as a foremost concern. Those acting recklessly and dangerously might be found negligent in a civil sense, or if acting recklessly in a willful and knowing manner, might be found criminally negligent.

Two descriptions of criminal negligence:

Criminal negligence - (law) recklessly acting without reasonable caution and putting another person at risk of injury or death (or failing to do something with the same consequences).

Criminal negligence is conduct which is such a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences. Criminal negligence is negligence that is aggravated, culpable or gross.(PDF).

It is damn well clear that electronic medical records systems must function without unpredictable data errors that put data into the wrong persons' charts, thus producing two errors and two possibilities for patient harm: an erroneous absence of appropriate data in one patient's chart, and an erroneous presence of inappropriate data in another's.

This is not a theoretical argument open to debate, and this is not a drill.

As in the bottom half of my May 2010 post "Did EPIC CEO Judy Faulkner of Epic declare that ‘healthcare IT usability would be part of certification over her dead body?'", I report that a recent data error involving one single medication nearly killed my mother, caused great pain and suffering that continue almost two months later, and has resulted in her being an invalid with continuing, ongoing complications she may not survive.

In addition, the "learned intermediary" excuse used to punt liability onto physicians and other clinicians for patient harm due to IT errors does not apply here, and this is also not open to debate. Physicians, even the most learned, are not clairvoyant; they should not be expected to know which chambers are empty and which chambers are loaded in a game of cybernetic Russian Roulette with the data on their patients.

Having an EMR maintain fundamental relational integrity, i.e., not place clinical data entered in good faith by trusting clinicians in another patients' chart, is not rocket science.

Those who design, those who implement, and those who put into production (i.e., for use by physicians, nurses and other clinicians in the care of patients) any health IT "upgrade" without the extensive testing, testing and more testing necessary to prove proper operation on such a fundamental point as maintenance of relational integrity (i.e., correct patient identity in data storage and retrieval) knew, should have known, or should have made it their business to know that doing so puts patients at risk of injury or death.

Putting an "upgraded" software application with such fundamental defects into actual use in real, live patients care environments - for whatever reason, e.g., finances, vendor marketing pressures, meeting planned objectives and numbers, obtaining a bonus, etc. - reflects in my view:

"... a departure from what would be that of an ordinary prudent or careful person in the same circumstance as to be incompatible with a proper regard for human life or an indifference to consequences."

Thus:

In upholding the highest regulatory standards, if patients are harmed or die as a result of this type of HIT snafu, criminal charges against the responsible IT, clinical and administrative personnel would be an appropriate remedy to this type of negligence.

It should be noted that, as a result of my mother's injury, I am now on a path to become a provider of litigation support to plaintiffs injured by EMR-related medical errors and malpractice.

This is not a career path I intended for myself when I entered the academic field of Medical Informatics two decades ago (although it will leverage my background in interacting with lawyers and giving depositions as a former occupational medicine physician in the public transit industry).

However, and regrettably, as I wrote at "$4 Billion Military EMR "AHLTA" to be Put Out of Its Misery?", in my view as of 2010 legal actions are the only way that the domain of healthcare IT can be returned to a field "of, by and for" clinicians, instead of "of, by and for" those who live off the lifeblood of clinicians and their patients.

-- SS

Hospitals' Star-Crossed Financial Engineering

2010-07-09T13:48:00.000-07:00

And speaking of the costs of financial maneuvering by hospitals, the Wall Street Journal just reported on "Hospitals' Wall Street Wounds,"

Hospitals nationwide are tangling with Wall Street to get out of disastrous wagers that have complicated their financial problems.

Some hospitals are paying millions of dollars in penalties to get out of derivatives contracts, after betting incorrectly that interest rates would rise. Other hospitals are paying higher interest rates. At many, these ill-fated financial bets have contributed to layoffs and scuttled projects.

More than 500 nonprofit hospitals—at least one in six—bought interest-rate "swaps" in a bid to lower their borrowing costs, estimates Municipal Market Advisors, a Concord, Mass., consulting firm. The swaps allowed hospitals to act much like homeowners switching from a floating-rate mortgage to fixed-rate one, betting on rising interest rates.

For a fee, the hospitals received a fixed rate to sell bonds, lower than the municipal-bond market at the time. These bets backfired when the Federal Reserve cut interest rates to nearly zero from more than 5% in 2007.

Hospitals also issued auction-rate securities—which reset bond prices weekly or monthly through auctions—that represented about a third of the $330 billion market for these derivatives. Hospitals paid Wall Street firms more than $120 million in fees for the securities between 2005 and 2007, said data firm Thomson Reuters. That market dried in the 2008 financial panic, leaving hospitals with higher interest rates.

The article included a few pointed examples, e.g.,

In April 2007, Smith Barney brokers pitched Tri-City Medical Center in Oceanside, Calif., on ways to save money on interest rates. In a presentation, the brokers argued that the hospital could save tens of millions of dollars by refinancing its debt with derivatives from parent Citigroup, according to a lawsuit filed in April 2010 against Citigroup and Smith Barney, now co-owned by Morgan Stanley.

'Historically low' interest rates created an 'optimal environment,' according to Citigroup documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. 'Citigroup can mitigate the primary risks,' according to a slide presentation.

Persuaded that it could cut its interest rate—5.7% at the time—on $67 million in outstanding bonds, the hospital issued auction-rate securities and added interest-rate swaps, according to the lawsuit and Daniel Callahan, an attorney for the hospital.

Soon, the auction-rate market collapsed. Investors stopped bidding on these securities and the banks that sold them stopped acting as a buyer of last resort as they had in the past. This forced many hospitals and other issuers to pay a maximum penalty rate—sometimes up to 20%—that kicks in if there aren't buyers.

As a result, rates shot up to 17%, costing Tri-City some $16 million more than it would have paid under its old rates, according to the lawsuit, filed in California Superior Court in Orange County.

The hospital board replaced many top officials and paid Citigroup more than $6 million to get out of the auction-rate securities and the interest-rate swaps, Mr. Callahan said.

The loss 'continues to impact Tri-City's ability to meet the needs of the entire community,' Mr. Callahan said, delaying the expansion of services and capital improvements.

Auction-rate securities 'were an engineered, artificial market supported by the activities of the investment bankers designed to postpone a collapse,' the hospital alleges in the lawsuit.

At least one financial expert agreed:

'Financial engineering by Wall Street has been a huge part of hospital's financial problems and has even translated into a lack of hospital beds,' said Brian McGough, a managing director of health-care investments at Bank of Montreal Capital Markets in Chicago.

This is another example of how health care organizations, including respected not-for-profit institutions, jumped headlong into the transactions first economy of the last 20 plus years. The were lured by the prospect of making easy money from financial transactions. However, it looked like those who really made money were the middle men who sold everyone on the magic of derivatives.

You would have thought that the highly compensated financial wizards that hospitals and other health care not-for-profits chose for their leaders in the last 20 plus years would have been able to see through such nonsense. Why were they paid so much, if not for expertise in this area? But I would suspect that they too became distracted by all the money floating their way to think about how it might end.

We have often decried the problems of ill-informed health care leaders who do not have direct experience in actually providing health care, or much sympathy for the values of health care professionals. Breaking the medical "guild," and putting professional managers in charge of health care was once touted as a way to control costs. It is ironic that after health care organizations became sold on the uncanny abilities of managers with business, usually finance or marketing training, these geniuses turned out to be as gullible about the wonders of Wall Street as everyone else.

The Failure of "Success Healthcare" - When Financial Maneuvering Takes Precedence Over the Health Care Mission

2010-07-08T07:31:00.000-07:00

In the last few years, it seems that the whole world got tangled up in a web of complex financial dealings that mostly benefited those moving the money and paper, but often harmed everyone else. So it should be no surprise that health care was similarly affected.

A story from the St. Louis Post-Dispatch provided an illustrative case. The news article began discussing the current difficulties of two local St Louis hospitals, then provided an explanation in what amounted to a series of flashbacks. Let me re sequence it a bit, starting with the background of two local hospitals that got caught up in web.

Background

For several decades, Forest Park Hospital — founded in 1889 as Deaconess Central Hospital — was one of the city’s leading community hospitals, serving a broad spectrum of patients including many African-American residents from north St. Louis.

But in recent years, the hospital’s revenues and its number of patient visits had waned because, in part, of the emergence of major hospitals in west St. Louis County and its decision in 2006 to discontinue obstetric services.

As the hospital struggled, it continued to be passed along from one owner to the next. In 2004, it was acquired by Argilla Healthcare Inc. Argilla merged with Doctors Community Healthcare Corp. of Scottsdale, Ariz., which became Envision Hospital Corp.

Former board member Buford said Forest Park’s downfall began several years ago when Envision executives made the decision to use the hospital’s profits to help prop up a faltering hospital that Envision owned in Washington.

In 2005, Envision sold the buildings and land of Forest Park Hospital and St. Alexius Hospital to Medline Industries, the Illinois manufacturer of surgical supplies.

How the Hospitals were Sold to Success Healthcare LLC

To address its financial problems, Envision decided to sell its accounts receivable to a firm in Florida. Here is the rationale:

Less successful hospitals operate on razor-thin profit margins, waiting for slow-paying state and federal agencies to provide Medicaid and Medicare reimbursements. Such hospitals have difficulty obtaining financing and lack dependable cash flow.

To provide support to a distressed hospital, the Florida partners would purchase its accounts receivables at a discount. For instance, if the government, a health insurer or patient owed a hospital for services, the partners would purchase that invoice for less money. The hospital, in turn, would have cash in hand.

Note that "hospitals tend to avoid such cash-flow companies, because some of them use heavy-handed collection tactics." However,

For struggling Forest Park and St. Alexius, selling their accounts receivables was an alluring option.

So,

Forest Park also was dogged by creditors and having difficulty making its payroll and paying utility bills.

That’s when Envision began doing business with one of the Florida partners’ firms, Sun Capital Healthcare Inc., which purchased $61 million in receivables from Forest Park and St. Alexius.

When Envision defaulted on its sales agreement in September 2008, the Florida partners formed Success [Healthcare LLC] to purchase the two hospitals for $39.5 million.

The Promise of a Turn Around

To the public and the struggling hospitals, the purchase by Success Healthcare LLC seemed a promise of deliverance:

Eighteen months ago, the new buyers of Forest Park Hospital vowed to revive the beleaguered institution.

They voiced optimism that the once-thriving, 450-bed medical center could be saved by fresh capital and determined leadership. They seemed equally enthusiastic about their other acquisition — St. Alexius Hospital in south St. Louis. Even the name of their company — Success Healthcare LLC — evoked the sense that better days were ahead.

Also,

When Success Healthcare bought Forest Park Hospital in December 2008, company officials spoke of transitions, not cutbacks.

In a statement, the company called Forest Park and St. Alexius hospitals important community assets, saying that it planned to enact a 'turnaround plan and financial strategy' in the next six months “that will support the immediate and long-term objectives for the hospitals.'

The Actual Results

Better days were not ahead. Instead, as summarized by the Post-Dispatch article,

But the three partners from South Florida were ill-prepared to make good on their words. In reality, they were already deep in a financial scandal that involved the potential loss of more than $500 million in investor funds, the suicide of an investment manager in Bermuda, and allegations of fraud and self-dealing.

The mess resulted from the involvement of what became Success Healthcare LLC and an off-shore financier. First, here is some information on the history of the ironically named Success Healthcare LLC:

In recent years, [Peter] Baronoff, [Howard] Koslow and [Lawrence] Leder had built a small empire of health-related companies, whose holdings include at least 18 hospitals, and two finance firms. The firms share an office building at 999 Yamato Road in Boca Raton, Fla.

Baronoff, a former deputy mayor of Boca Raton, had worked as a wine and spirits importer. Koslow had experience in financial services and real estate. Leder, an accountant, was a former supervisory auditor for the U.S. General Accounting Office.

The partners marketed themselves as 'rescuing health care clients in financial emergencies,' including providers that file for bankruptcy protection or are considering such a filing.

Then enter the off-shore financier:

Court records indicate that the Florida partners approached [William] Gunlicks in 1999 to invest in the health care receivables business. Two of the partners — Koslow and Baronoff — formed a Bermuda-based venture with Gunlicks in December 2009 called Stewards & Partners Ltd. to attract offshore investors.

But between 1999 and December, 2009, things had had gone bad,

The first sign of serious problems appeared in April 2009, when the Securities and Exchange Commission filed a case against money manager William Gunlicks, a former Chicago banker whose investment funds provided hundreds of millions of dollars to the Florida partners to help finance their ventures. The SEC accused Gunlicks of placing at risk about $550 million in investor funds, including $5 million invested by the archdiocese of New Orleans.

Soon after, Gunlicks’ fund manager in Bermuda killed himself with an overdose of pills, upset that he had lured investors to the troubled fund, according to media reports. Gunlicks, who declined to comment, settled the SEC case — agreeing not to operate another investment fund.

In July 2009, a receiver appointed by a federal judge — whose mission is to recover Gunlicks’ investor’s money — sued the Florida partners’ finance companies for allegedly defaulting on loan payments to Gunlicks. The receiver accused the partners of fraudulently transferring hundreds of millions of dollars to purchase or prop up distressed hospitals that they owned. Investors also have sued the Florida partners.

The troubles afflicting Success Healthcare LLC quickly affected the hospitals they had promised to save:

There are conflicting accounts about the financial strength of the Florida partners, but this is clear: They do not appear to have the wherewithal to operate Forest Park as a full-service hospital, and their financial troubles could also negatively affect St. Alexius, which reported in 2008 a bare-bones profit margin of 1.38 percent.

Daniel Newman, the court-appointed receiver, has asserted that the Florida partners’ finance firms 'had long been insolvent ... and had been losing money.' He has accused them of overstating their revenues and assets to conceal at least $50 million in losses in recent years.

The results on local health care were not good:

By April of this year, Forest Park Hospital had laid off about three-quarters of its staff and reduced its operations to a small emergency department, 20-bed psychiatric ward, laboratory and pharmacy.

'It’s a very dire situation,' said Dr. James Buford, president of the Urban League and a former member of the Forest Park Hospital’s board. 'It wouldn’t surprise me if the hospital went under. There hasn’t been a necessary infusion of capital to make it work.'

Today, Forest Park Hospital is an almost empty landmark that overlooks the renovated Highway 40 (Interstate 64). The hospital is trying to use only one of its six floors and staffs a few dozen patient beds. Meanwhile, St. Alexius Hospital continues to offer a range of patient services, though it staffs only about one-third of its 456 licensed beds.

Summary

First, I must admit that it is possible that the two St Louis hospitals could not have been maintained in their original configurations by even the most knowledgeable, dedicated, and visionary leadership. It may be that there location was untenable, given the growth of powerful competitors.

However, it is hard to believe that the complex financial maneuvers in which they were caught up provided any benefits to patients, health care, or health professionals. Instead, it is likely that these maneuvers provided considerable personal gains to the people behind them (although these were not investigated in the St Louis Post Dispatch story).

The big lesson: be very skeptical of glorious promises, especially those that come from new health care leaders who turn out to have no knowledge or background in health care. (Note that the leaders of Success Healthcare had no apparent background in actually providing health care, and no apparent commitment to the values health care professionals ought to support.) When you meet the new boss, assume at best he or she will be "same as the old boss," (to the lyrics of "Won't Get Fooled Again.") We seem to be caught up in a business culture in which every new leader and fashionable management strategy is hyped and spun, and somehow people believe it all, forgetting how badly the previously hyped leaders and strategies crashed.

How many times have we health professionals been told the new CEO, the new corporation taking over, the new business strategy will make everything better? How often has that been true?

Health care desperately needs leadership that understand the context, and believes in the values. The quick buck artists have been making themselves rich, while health care on the ground becomes poor. How much money goes into the pocket of the clever leaders for their fancy financial maneuvers, rather than to provide patient care? The answer might explain why US health care is the most expensive in the world, while primary care, and in this case, basic hospital acute care becomes less available.

Sanofi-Funded Society of Hospital Medicine Stands Up for Lovenox

2010-07-05T13:22:00.000-07:00

Here is another case to raise questions about the true goal of some medical societies. As reported by Alicia Mundy in the Wall Street Journal in late June,

A medical researcher and two medical groups with financial ties to Sanofi-Aventis SA have asked federal regulators to hold off on approving generic forms of a Sanofi blood-thinner....

Citing potential patient safety issues, the head of the Society of Hospital Medicine and a medical researcher at Duke University last month sent letters to the Food and Drug Administration contending that Lovenox is too complex for any generic maker to copy fully.

Earlier this year, another Sanofi-sponsored medical group, the North American Thrombosis Forum, sent two letters in favor of Sanofi's position opposing generic Lovenox. None of the letters mentions the signer's financial support from Sanofi.

Two small drug companies, Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc., filed applications to the FDA in 2003 and 2005 respectively seeking to sell generic Lovenox, called enoxaparin.

Of course, the two medical societies involved denied that there was any relationship between their support from Sanofi-Aventis and their concerns about the safety of biogeneric medications that might compete with a Sanofi-Aventis product (which, as the WSJ article noted, "had global sales of $4.57 billion in 2009").

Laurence Wellikson, chief executive of The Society of Hospital Medicine, which represents doctors who coordinate patient care, said his letter to the agency 'was based entirely on the best evidence-based medicine available and the collective experience of SHM's senior hospitalists.'

Also

Ilene Sussman, executive director of the North American Thrombosis Forum, said the group's doctors are concerned about generic Lovenox, and its letter was independent of Sanofi.

The CEO of the SHM denied even a responsibility to disclose the Society's support from Sanofi-Aventis:

Dr. Wellikson said it wasn't necessary to disclose that the group receives financial support from Sanofi because its letter 'focused on providing the best, most effective care to the hospitalized patient.'

In fact, the SHM web-site includes a "disclosure of organizational support" page which suggests Sanofi-Aventis provided somewhere between $200,000 to $800,000 for three projects of the Society's projects, "pharmacoeconomics," "improving glycemic control," and "preventing VTE." The latter presumably could have something to do with anti-coagulants such as Lovenox. (The numbers are vague because the statement only discloses the amount of support provided in broad ranges.) Thus, support by Sanofi-Aventis could provide as little as 2.7% or as much as 11.1% of the Society's total income, which was noted to be $7,203,596 in its 2009 Form 990 filed with the IRS, and publicly available via Guidestar.

Given the broad mission of the SHM

SHM is dedicated to promoting the highest quality care for all hospitalized patients. SHM is committed to promoting excellence in the practice of hospital medicine through education, advocacy and research.

one wonders why it would want to get officially entangled in the approval process for specific biogeneric drugs. If the leadership of the Society is so concerned about the safety of anti-coagulants, one wonders why they did not speak up about the case of the lethal contaminated heparin, about which we have blogged extensively, most recently here. (I can find nothing on the web to suggest the Society, or Dr Wellikson, ever noted any concerns about this issue.) Of course, that case involved heparin sold by Baxter International, whose production was out-sourced to a questionable supply chain. SHM also receives support, amounting to something between 0 and $100,000, according to its "disclosure of organizational support" page, from Baxter International.

Thus it appears that the leadership of SHM was very concerned about the safety of an anti-coagulant manufactured by a competitor of Sanofi-Aventis which could threaten that company's revenues from the drug, while Sanofi-Aventis is one of the Society's major financial supporters. On the other hand, the leadership seemed unconcerned about the safety of an anti-coagulant sold under the Baxter International label, while Baxter-International is also one of the Society's major financial supporters. So it is hard to tell whether the leadership is more concerned about the safety of anti-coagulants, or the financial interests of the drug companies that support it.

The problem with the funding of health care professional societies by health care corporations that sell products or services that doctors can prescribe or order is that it raises the suspicion that such societies may use their considerable influence to serve the corporations', not patients' interests, and so undermine the professional values of the societies' members. For this reason, Rothman et al suggested that such societies sever most of their financial ties to such corporations.(1) (See our blog post here.) As long as the SHM chooses to accept support from drug and device companies, questions will be asked about the effects of such support on how the Society uses its influence. Furthermore, assertions that such support is so irrelevant that the Society need not even disclose it will only fuel more suspicion.

If ostensibly mission-driven not-for-profit health care organizations, like health care professional societies, but also including medical schools, academic medical centers, and patient advocacy groups, want the public and health care professionals to believe that they really are mission-driven, they need to spurn funding from organizations with vested interests whose service might distort these missions.

Hat tip to Steve Lucas for his comment here.

References

1. Rothman DJ, McDonald WJ, Berkowitz CD et al. Professional medical associations and their relationships with industry. JAMA 2009; 301: 1367-1372. (Link here.)

Jurassic Attitudes about Medical Informatics: in the U.S. Navy?

2010-07-05T07:21:00.000-07:00

The message below to a listserv for Chief Medical Informatics Officers and related positions was recently forwarded to me by a colleague. I cannot believe what I am reading, as it reflects attitudes I'd thought were extinct by the late 1990's ("I don't see the value of clinical informatics").

The last time I'd heard such nakedly Jurassic views, and other anti-physician informatics attitudes as in this 1999 essay I penned, was from the C-level officers of the hospital where I was CMIO in that time frame, Christiana Care Health System in Delaware.

From: (Withheld)
Date: Sun, Jul 4, 2010 at 9:24 AM

Hi All,

I was recently told by one of our senior leaders that he saw no value to Clinical Informatics and followed that up by disbanding the Clinical Informatics Directorate at the BUMED (Headquarters of Navy Medicine) level.

I successfully countered that argument with a more senior leader, but I tried to find objective evidence of the value of Clinical Informatics without success. As an academic family physician who lives, eats and breathes evidence-based medicine, I try to make all my decisions and arguments for and against positions/programs based on the best available evidence. In this case, all I could use was potential value and logic.

My question is this: Does anyone out there (and I have already discussed this with [name redacted - ed.]) have any objective evidence that shows the value of clinical informatics to the Enterprise (which has multiple definitions, but suffice it to mean across an entire health care system.however large)? I have already talked with [name redacted - ed.] about including a survey of CEO's/COO's/CMO's/CIO's as to the value they see in clinical informatics, but that is some time in the future. I really need some data now. Anyone have anything? Any and all assistance is greatly appreciated.

In the face of the apparent spectacular failure of AHLTA ($4 Billion Military EMR "AHLTA" to be Put Out of Its Misery? Also, Does the VA Have $150 Million to Burn on IT That Was Never Used?), I certainly view such statements as extraordinary, and in a very negative sense.

While I could help with cases showing the "value of clinical informatics" right up to the Office of the National Coordinator, my mother was recently severely injured by an HIT mishap in the public hospital sector. This came after my written warnings to the CEO of that hospital a month prior that I was noticing major EHR problems impairing clinician-clinician communications, and that in my professional view patients would likely be injured. I did not realize one of those patients would be my own 84-y.o. mother (see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/05/did-epic-ceo-judy-faulkner-of-epic.html , bottom section). The letter went unanswered except for a response from an underling, in essence denigrating medical informatics.

It has become my opinion that Jurassic attitudes about medical informatics are virtually unremediable; they suggest an underlying technical and mental deficit in those who proffer such opinions that is not correctible by evidence and logic. (I can predict with a good degree of certainty that this "senior leader" had a role in AHLTA's demise.)

I suggest a different approach: surely patients received suboptimal care (and perhaps suffered injury) under AHLTA. The freebie newspapers serving the soldiers such as I have seen in my visits to Fort Dix, where my mother has commissary/PX privileges as a result of my father's service-connected injuries and disability, might find such a story "interesting."

In the meantime, I am doing a John Galt regarding persons espousing the "I don't see the value of informatics" view. I'm frankly tired that such people remain in the healthcare workforce. While I could provide a lot of material supporting the value of informatics (actually, its essential nature) that I and others have written over the years, I choose to no longer do so.

The military person proffering this view is apparently a "senior leader"; it's their responsibility and indeed obligation to make the Navy better. Let them lead.

And let the pieces fall where they may.

-- SS

Wellcare Settles Again, but Wait, There is More...

2010-07-02T09:13:00.000-07:00

We posted several times, most recently in 2009 (here and here), about misbehavior by the health insurance company/ managed care organization Wellcare. That year, the company settled criminal charges that it defrauded the Florida state Medicaid program by paying a fine and accepting a deferred prosecution agreement. Previously, the state of Connecticut had canceled its arrangement with Wellcare to run a Medicaid program in that state after the company refused to provide the state with requested data. Then the company signed a consent order with the Florida Elections Commission in which it admitted making "questionable" political contributions.

Then this year, it was announced that the company would settle additional civil charges, as per the St. Petersburg (FL) Times,

Tampa-based WellCare Health Plans Inc. has agreed to pay $137.5 million to the U.S. Department of Justice and other federal agencies to settle civil lawsuits accusing the company of overcharging for its Medicaid and Medicare programs.

Also,

Under the tentative deal, which must be approved in court, WellCare would have three years to make payments to the Justice Department's civil division, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida and the U.S. Attorney's Office for Connecticut.

WellCare said the payments will include the approximately $23 million owed to the Florida Agency for Health Care Administration for overpayments received by the company in 2005.

The civil settlement is separate from a deal struck last year on the criminal front. In that case, WellCare agreed to pay $80 million to settle a charge of conspiracy to defraud the Florida Medicaid program and the Florida Healthy Kids Corp.

It also previously agreed to a $10 million civil penalty settling an informal inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission that regulatory filings reflected more than $40 million in profits that WellCare failed to return to the Florida agencies from 2003 to 2007.

WellCare, which is Florida's largest Medicaid plan operator, has acknowledged that it overcharged Florida and Illinois health programs by about $46.5 million.

But wait, there is more. No sooner than this settlement been announced than it was challenged. While considering the settlement, the judge involved unsealed a set of complaints by whistle-blowers about Wellcare. First, as reported by the Miami Herald,

The complaint, filed by former WellCare financial analyst Sean J. Hellein, portrays a company so ethically challenged that it rewarded employees who dumped hundreds of sick newborns and terminally ill patients from the membership rolls, thereby pumping up profits by millions of dollars.

It describes a company that embraced fraudulent accounting as a business model, eventually stealing between $400 million and $600 million from Medicare and Medicaid programs in several states, perhaps most of it from Florida.

See these specifics:

Hellein, who wore a wire for more than a year to gather evidence for federal agents, says in the complaint that:

- WellCare moved money between accounts to make it appear that patients' treatment cost much more than it actually did. In some cases, the company made payments years in advance to jack up the apparent cost of care to fool states into increasing Medicaid premiums. It worked, he said.

- When states made overpayment errors, WellCare didn't pay the money back, as its contract requires. Florida Medicaid made a series of overpayment blunders that fattened WellCare's bottom line by many millions; those who made the errors included both state officials and contractors.

- Sometimes hospitals and physician groups helped WellCare hide its true spending from Medicaid programs by accepting payments through one account for expenses incurred by another. Sometimes they allowed WellCare to pay for future years' expenses to make it appear spending for the current year was higher than it actually was.

Hellein named two hospital systems - one in Illinois and one in Florida - that he said participated in the sham arrangement, but he said it was common.

WellCare pushed expenses into certain programs - behavioral health programs in Florida and Illinois and the Healthy Kids program in Florida, a program for uninsured children of families with modest incomes - because they required repayment if the cost of treatment fell below a certain threshold.

Florida public officials were repeatedly duped by WellCare. The director of the Florida Medicaid program from 2004 to 2007, while much of the alleged fraud was going on, was Tom Arnold. He currently is Secretary of the Agency for Health Care Administration.

Another agency that fell for WellCare's line was the Office of Insurance Regulation, where an actuary found nothing wrong with a WellCare subsidiary in the Cayman Islands acting as the company's reinsurer.

The reinsurance arrangement enabled WellCare to bank $5 for each insured while making it appear that the cost was just 11 cents, the complaint says.

After Wall Street analysts raised questions about the legality of the reinsurance arrangement in 2007, some thought it might be reviewed by Chief Financial Officer Alex Sink. But nothing ever came of it.

WellCare conducted a study to figure out which Medicaid recipients were profitable and which were not so that it could engage in "cherry-picking," a term for enrolling only the profitable members. The study found that disenrolling a baby born with health problems saved the company an average of $20,000; each terminally ill patient saved $11,500.

Those who were persuaded to resign from WellCare went into the general Medicaid or Medicare fee-for-service programs.

WellCare also restructured its benefit package to discourage the least-profitable Medicaid recipients from enrolling and encouraging those who were more profitable to sign up.

Low-income mothers and children yielded a net of only about 10 percent, while the physically and mentally disabled paid for by Medicare yielded a net of 30 percent, the complaint says.

The complaint names about 20 employees of WellCare who knew about the fraudulent activities. Only one, Gregory West, has been charged. He pleaded guilty in December 2007 but sentencing has been postponed several times.

No charges have been brought against three former executives of the company named in the complaint as orchestrating the fraud: President, CEO and Chairman Todd Farha, CFO Paul Behrens and General Counsel Thaddeus Bereday.

They all resigned in January of 2008, three months after the FBI and other law-enforcement agents raided the Tampa campus of WellCare and carted off computers and files.

The the St. Petersburg Times reported about two more complaints that were unsealed:

Clark J. Bolton, a former supervisor of special investigations at WellCare, said the insurer encouraged overbilling and refused to audit claims for fraud in order to curry favor with doctors and hospitals and build market share. The result was millions in excessive and illegal expenses passed through to federal Medicare and state Medicaid programs, Bolton said.

Eugene Gonzalez, a referral coordinator for seven years, claimed WellCare met government customer service standards only because it had employees create backdated documents and make bogus calls to the company's phone lines. Failure to meet these standards would have resulted in the loss of billions of dollars worth of Medicare and Medicaid contracts.

As we have before, we see a striking contrast between the scope of the allegations and the response by the government agencies that are supposed to regulate insurers, insure that public money is spent wisely, and investigate and seek punishment for illegal activities. As the latter St. Petersburg Times article noted,

U.S. Rep. Kathy Castor criticized the proposed settlement as wholly inadequate in a letter this week to Attorney General Eric Holder. 'Where is the penalty and punishment for such egregious actions?' she wrote. 'It appears that companies such as these simply build such payments into the 'cost of doing business.' We cannot allow this to continue.'

This notion should be familiar to readers of Health Care Renewal. The Wellcare case fits right into the parade of legal settlements we have discussed. As we have said again and again, the usual sorts of legal settlements we have described do not seem to be an effective way to deter future unethical behavior by health care organizations. Even large fines can be regarded just as a cost of doing business. Furthermore, the fine's impact may be diffused over the whole company, and ultimately comes out of the pockets of stockholders, employees, and customers alike. It provides no negative incentives for those who authorized, directed, or implemented the behavior in question. My refrain has been: we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

Also note that the case of Wellcare remains relatively anechoic. Despite the severity of allegations, and the national scope of the company, the case has only been mentioned in news stories, mainly in Florida where the company has its headquarters, and in a few health care trade publications. It, like many of the cases we discuss on Health Care Renewal, has not been mentioned in the medical/ health care research/ health care policy literature.

If we cannot even speak about the sort of very bad management that afflicted Wellcare as a cause of many of the ills of our health care system, how do we really expect to constructively reform that system?

Quackwatch being sued by "Doctor's Data", a laboratory that caters to chelation therapists

2010-07-02T04:52:00.000-07:00

Quackwatch is being sued by "Doctor's Data", a laboratory that caters to chelation therapists. See the post "Why Doctor's Data Is Trying to Shut Me Up" by Stephen Barrett, MD at this link.

(I have no connections to either Quackwatch or "Doctor's Data", and do not know Dr. Barrett. However, this case caught my eye.)

From a law firm, Augustine, Kern and Levens, Ltd. of Chicago:

Dear Dr. Barrett:

It has recently come to the attention of our client, Doctor's Data, Inc., an Illinois corporation, that you have, on a continuing basis, harmed Doctor's Data by transmitting false, fraudulent and defamatory information about this company in a variety of ways, including on the internet and in other publications. Doctor's Data is shocked that you would intentionally try to harm its business and its relationship not only with doctors but also with the public. Doctor's Data has also learned that you have apparently conspired with and encouraged individuals to seek litigation against it, and have filed false complaints at various government and regulatory agencies against Doctor's Data.

"It is never libelous," you have said, "to criticize an idea." However, you have gone way beyond the idea stage, and our client will not tolerate it. You apparently have carried on this conduct in an intentional manner and with the assistance of others. It is clear that you have a specific intent to harm Doctor's Data, and this conduct must stop immediately.

We demand that you cease and desist any and all comments regarding Doctor's Data, which have been and are false, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful, and make a complete and full retraction of all statements you have made in the past, including those which have led in some instances to litigation. Such comments include, but are not limited to, those made in your article entitled, "How the 'Urine Toxic Metals' Test Is Used to Defraud Patients," which you authored and posted on Quackwatch.com. "The best evidence for reckless disregard," you have written, "is failure to modify where notified." Consider this notice to you that if you do not make these full and complete retractions within 10 days of the date of this letter, in each and every place in which you have made false and fraudulent, untruthful or otherwise defamatory statements, Doctor's Data will proceed with litigation against you and any organizations, entities and individuals acting in common cause or concert with you, to the full extent of the law, and will seek injunctive relief and monetary damages, both compensatory and punitive.

Doctor's Data is a CLlA-certified company in full compliance with all state and federal regulatory and CLlA standards, and your false, fraudulent, defamatory and otherwise untruthful comments have been made to intentionally damage Doctor's Data, Inc. This conduct will no longer be tolerated and if the retractions are not made as written above, the lawsuit shall be filed imminently.

Very truly yours,

Algis Augustine

Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch replied:

Dear Mr. Augustine:
Thank you for your letter of June 4th in which you accuse me of "transmitting false, fraudulent and defamatory information" about Doctor's Data. Your letter asks me to:

Cease and desist any and all comments regarding Doctor's Data, which have been and are false, fraudulent, defamatory or otherwise not truthful. and make a complete and full retraction of all statements you have made in the past.

Make . . . full and complete retractions within 10 days of the date of this letter, in each and every place in which you have made false and fraudulent, untruthful or otherwise defamatory statements.

I take great pride in being accurate and carefully consider complaints about what I write. However, your letter does not identify a single statement by me that you believe is inaccurate or "fraudulent." The only thing you mention is my article about how the urine toxic metals test is used to defraud patients: (http://www.quackwatch.org/t). The article's title reflects my opinion, the basis of which the article explains in detail.

If you want me to consider modifying the article, please identify every sentence to which you object and explain why you believe it is not correct.

If you want me to consider statements other than those in the article, please send me a complete list of such statements and the people to whom you believe they were made.

Thank you,

Stephen Barrett, MD

To which the response was predictable, resulting in this:

On June 18th, Doctor's Data filed suit against me [Barrett], the National Council Against Health Fraud, Inc., Quackwatch, Inc., and Consumer Health Digest, accusing us of restraint of trade; trademark dilution; business libel; tortious interference with existing and potential business relationships; fraud or intentional misrepresetation; and violating federal and state laws against deceptive trade practices. (On June 29th, Consumer Health Digest was dropped as a defendant.) The complaint asks for more than $10 million in compensatory and punitive damages. The suit objects to seven articles on my Web sites:

How the Urine Toxic Metals Test Is Used to Defraud Patients
CARE Clinics, Doctor's Data, Sued for Fraud
Be Wary of CARE Clinics and the Center for Autistic Spectrum Disorders (CASD)
Three brief articles in Consumer Health Digest:
Slate article blasts the urine toxic metals test
Shady clinic and lab under legal assault
"Autism specialists" sued

Laboratories Doing Nonstandard Laboratory Tests

My personal opinion of "offbeat practitioners"

Barrett also writes:

Very few people provide the type of information I do. One reason for this is the fear of being sued. Knowledgeable observers believe that Doctor's Data is trying to intimidate me and perhaps to discourage others from making similar criticisms. However, I have a right to express well-reasoned opinions and will continue to do so. If you would like to help with the cost of my defense, please follow the instructions on our donations page.

This seems like a case of legal intimidation and may be a case for Senator Grassley's whistleblower hotline (whistleblower@finance-rep.senate.gov).

Finally, as a Medical Informatics specialist once called "Doctor Data", I find the company name "Doctor's Data" for a company in this business ironic indeed.

-- SS