Marketing Bad Health Care Decisions as a New Form of Stealth Health Policy Advocacy

A remarkable set of video advertisements appeared a few weeks ago that seem designed to frighten people into making bad health care decisions.

The "Bad Uncle Sam" Advertisements

As described by Businessweek,

In the first ad, dubbed 'The Exam,' a young woman who has signed up for Obamacare arrives at a medical facility and changes out of her clothes and into a flimsy hospital gown. Following the instructions of a doctor, she reclines on a hospital bed and spreads her legs into a pair of stirrups. The doctor leaves the room. Then, suddenly a mascot wearing a plastic Uncle Sam mask and sporting an unwavering grin—Creepy Uncle Sam!—pops up between her legs. As she screams, the ad pans out. 'Don’t let government play doctor,' reads the kicker.

The final message, for some reason not described by Businessweek, was

Opt out of ObamaCare

Similarly,

A second spot, entitled 'The Glove,' follows a similar narrative arc. A young man sits in an examination room and tells a doctor that he’s signed up for Obamacare. 'I saw the ads and figured, why not?' he says. 'Okay,' says the doctor. 'Take your pants off.' The man drops his trousers, reclines on the hospital bed, and brings his knees to his chest. The doctor leaves the room. Behind the young man, Creepy Uncle Sam pops up, raises his hand into the air, snaps on a latex medical glove, and wiggles his fingers menacingly.

Once again, the final message is

Opt out of ObamaCare

The Ostensible Message of the Advertisements

Again per Businessweek, the ads were sponsored by " Generation Opportunity, a Virginia-based conservative organization funded in part by Charles and David Koch,..."  According to an article on the Atlantic website, Generation Opportunity means to be

urging Millennials not to sign up for insurance on the health care exchanges created by the Affordable Care Act. It claims that paying the individual mandate's tax penalty and buying insurance that doesn't meet government coverage rules is a 'better deal' for young people.

As many have noticed, that is not the implication of the visuals.  As an opinion piece in the National Journal put it,

 the message is that the government is trying to forcibly rape women with a blunt metal instrument.

Furthermore, the final written message of both advertisements is not a nuanced one about where one should seek to go to buy health insurance.  It is simply "opt out of ObamaCare."

A Nonsensical Premise

Also, the premise of the advertisements is nonsense, to put it politely.

ObamaCare does require health insurance to pay for various kinds of preventive care without requiring patients to pay deductibles.  It does not make physicians and nurses provide these services.  Whether a patient gets, for example, a pelvic exam, is up to that patient and her doctor or nurse practitioner, not the government.  Of course, the legislation does not remotely suggest creepy government agents should perform pelvic or rectal exams. 

Thus, the entire point of these advertisements seems to be to generate irrational fears that will drive young people away from health insurance now available through ObamaCare.

Stealth Health Policy Advocacy by Means of Marketing Bad Personal Health Care Decisions

In the US, the Affordable Care Act, aka ObamaCare, still arouses a lot of controversy.  There are many people who have been critical of various aspects of the law.  (In fact, we criticized it for not addressing most of the issues about which we write on this blog.)  Furthermore, there is at least a large minority who want to repeal the law.  So there has been an ongoing barrage of persuasive messages meant to support or criticize various aspects of the law, and to support or discredit the entire law.

However, the "Bad Uncle Sam" advertisements are different.  They do not urge people to vote for any particular person or initiative.  They do not urge people to express their own policy views.  They do not ask for contributions to political or advocacy organizations.

Instead, they urge people to make particular health care decisions.  Despite the more nuanced messages espoused by Generation Opportunity when interviewed, their advertisements try to irrationally scare people away from purchasing health insurance made available by ObamaCare.

They are aimed at young adults, who are less likely to have spare funds to pay for expensive health insurance, less likely to get sick or injured, and more likely to feel relatively invincible.  However, were an uninsured person, even a young one, to suffer a significant illness or injury, the resulting costs in our dysfunctional and extremely expensive health care system could drive them bankrupt.  This is all the more likely since the uninsured are likely to be charged "rack rates" for health care, while insurance companies negotiate discounts for their subscribers.  Furthermore, uninsured people may put off needed tests and treatments due to financial concerns, yet doing so may lead to worse health care results, or even death.

An article in the St Louis Post succinctly listed the costs associated with some unlucky outcomes for uninsured young people, for example, 

Suppose you twist your knee playing soccer. Without coverage, fixing it will be at least $20,000 to repair the ACL ligament, according to an estimate from Costhelper.com.

Can’t pay it? Buy some crutches. They run about $30. You’ll also take on the risk of tissue damage and early arthritis.

Personal finance columnist Jim Gallagher concluded,

 although the vast majority of young adults stay healthy, serious trouble is not rare. Those without insurance are playing the odds. If they win, they’ve saved the insurance premiums. If they lose, they’re ruined.

Generation Opportunity may claim to be

 a free-thinking, liberty-loving, national organization of young people promoting the best of Being American: opportunity, creativity and freedom. 

However, what it appears to be doing is urging bad health care choices  based on a false premise to serve an ideological agenda.

Thus, its advertisements are a unique and uniquely bad mixture of marketing (of bad decisions) and stealth health policy advocacy.  If they want to publicly oppose ObamaCare, that is their right.  Fooling people into making bad decisions in the hopes that this will financially burden ObamaCare is completely unethical and amounts to disinformation, in my humble opinion.  The leadership and funders of Generation Opportunity ought to be ashamed of themselves.

The US has many major health care problems.  They deserve discussion and debate.  Disinformation that tries to confuse people into making bad personal health care decisions is likely to make our health care dysfunction even worse.  

Round and Round Spins the Revolving Door, Unimpeded by "Obamacare," Nor By Those Protesting "Obamacare"

On this day of government dysfunction in the US, it is time for our latest installment on the "revolving door," the interchange of insiders among government legislative offices that affect health policy and agencies that implement it, and large health care corporations and the lobbyists and attorneys who represent them.  While we have been discussing this issue since March, 2011 (look here),  it got major media attention in the form of a New York Times article two weeks ago.

We have accumulated several other relevant stories since late August, 2013, which we will group by the type of government offices and agencies affected, and within them, by the date the story first came out..

Regulatory and Law Enforcement Agencies

Health Care Antitrust Leader at the Federal Trade Commission to Arnold & Porter

 From the MainJustice.com site,

Peter J Levitas, a former senior antiturst attorney at the Federal Trade Commission, is joining Arnold & Porter LLP in Washington, D.C....

Levitas has spent the past four years as deputy director of the FTC's Bureau of Competition and oversaw investigations and litigation for mergers and conduct cases in numerous industries.  

So,

Levitas joins the firm's antitrust practice with experience3 addressing complex merger and conduct investigations, particularly in the healthcare, pharmaceutical and technology industries.

Leader of Health Care Fraud Enforcement for US Attorney New Jersey Office to Lowenstein Sandler

From the ComplianceWeek.com site,

Maureen Ruane, a former health care fraud chief at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, has rejoined the law firm Lowenstein Sandler to lead its new health care litigation, investigations and compliance practice.

The new practice will help the firm's healthcare and life science clients strengthen their regulatory and compliance programs, as well as defend corporate and individual clients who become the subjects or targets of government investigations or enforcement actions. 

Prior to rejoining Lowenstein Sandler, Ruane most recently served for more than three years as the Chief of the Health Care & Government Fraud Unit at the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey.

Health Policy Implementation

Counsel for Department of Health and Human Services to Sidley Austin

Per the NY Times, 

Dr. [Dora] Hughes, a former Obama administration official, has something Washington lawyers and lobbying shops covet: an insider’s understanding of the new health care law. After nearly four years as counselor to Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius, she left government last year to work for Sidley Austin, which represents insurers, pharmaceutical companies, device makers and others affected by the law. 

Previously,

she  began a decade ago, first as a health policy adviser to Senator Edward M. Kennedy, and later to Mr. Obama, then a senator.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Department of Health and Human Services to Glover Park Group

Also from the NY Times,

 Elizabeth Engel, who oversaw health legislation and served as a liaison to Congress when she was a deputy assistant health secretary under Ms. Sebelius, is now advising health care clients for the Glover Park Group.

White House to Avenue Solutions

From the NY Times,

Yvette Fontenot, a mother of three who began her Washington career in 1997, analyzing Medicare for the Office of Management and Budget. Ms. Fontenot worked on the health bill as a Finance Committee aide and later moved to the White House. Four months ago she joined Avenue Solutions, a boutique lobbying shop. 

White House "Health Czar" and Deputy Chief of Staff to Consonance Capital, and CVS

While we noted this in August, 2013, the NY Times reported in September as part of its larger article, 

   Nancy-Ann DeParle, Mr. Obama’s former 'health czar' and later his deputy chief of staff, now guides health care investments as a partner in a new private equity firm, Consonance Capital, with colleagues from her pre-White House days. 

Actually, as we discussed in 2009, Ms DeParle has been oscillating back and forth through the revolving door for a while.  She  was the administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration in the Department of Health and Human Services under President Clinton from 1997-2000.  She left to become managing director of a private equity firm, CCMP Capital.  She also served on the boards of directors of Boston Scientific, Cerner, and Medco.  Then she went back to the executive branch as noted by the the Times above.

Furthermore, as reported by AP, via the Providence Journal,

Drugstore chain CVS Caremark has added to its board of directors a former top adviser to President Barack Obama on the health care overhaul.

The Woonsocket, R.I., company said Wednesday after markets closed that Nancy-Ann M. DeParle, 56, will be an independent director who serves on the board's audit committee.

White House to health care venture capital

Also from the NY Times story,

Bob Kocher, a doctor, management consultant and former member of Mr. Obama’s economics team, is a California venture capitalist, helping finance health start-ups.

Legislative Offices

Senate Finance Committee Staff, then Department of Health and Human Services Staff to Avenue Solutions

As reported by The Hill bog,

The firm Avenue Solutions, for instance, recently hired Yvette Fontenot, a former staffer for both the Senate Finance Committee, which wrote ObamaCare’s tax-related provisions, and HHS's Office of Health Reform, which is assisting the implementation.

Since her hire in April, the four-woman firm has picked up Health Care Service Corp. as a client, and Fontenot is now lobbying for the Blue Cross Blue Shield Association

Congress to Alston & Bird

In the same report,

Former Rep. Earl Pomeroy (D-N.D.) joined Alston & Bird in 2011 after dealing with healthcare and tax issues as a member of the House Ways and Means Committee.

Now Pomeroy and his one-time chief of staff, Bob Siggins, are lobbying on ObamaCare for clients such as clients such as Vision Service Plan, the National Coordinating Committee for Multiemployer Plans and Medicare — a health insurance provider.

Health Counsel for Senate Finance Committee from WellPoint, Now to Johnson & Johnson

Note that we touched on part of this story back in 2010 here.  Now from the New York Times, 

Liz Fowler, a onetime executive with WellPoint, the insurer, helped draft the legislation as the chief health counsel for the Senate Finance Committee and later joined the administration. Now she runs global health policy for Johnson & Johnson, the medical equipment and pharmaceutical giant, which strongly backed the health bill and stands to benefit from it. 

Ms. Fowler is not a registered lobbyist, but she does provide in-house advice on the bill — work that has drawn criticism from publications like the British newspaper The Guardian and the Web sites Salon and The Huffington Post, where the journalist Bill Moyers singled out Ms. Fowler, asserting that 'when push comes to shove, corporate interests will have the upper hand.'

Summary

 It's enough to make one's head spin: all that traffic through the revolving door reported just in the last five weeks.

As we have said many times before, the constant interchange of health care insiders among government offices, lobbying and legal firms, and large health care corporations certainly suggests that health care, like many other sectors, seems to be run by an amorphous group of insiders who owe allegiance neither to government nor industry.  The NY Times tried to explain this in a benign way,

Yet the progression from government to the private sector is also predictable, a window into the peculiar rhythms of life in the capital. Young aides, often fresh out of college or graduate school, acquire highly specialized knowledge but eventually settle down, build lives and long for jobs that pay more and let them see their children at night. 

While the private sector may offer good pay, is it just for these poeples' skills and expertise?  Or are these offers only for those who while in government service evinced friendship to private vested interests?  Do government workers who think longingly of higher pay and shorter hours wonder what it would take to please those that might offer such opportunities?

Yet those who work in government are supposed to be working for the people, and those who work on health care within government are supposed to be working for patients' and the public health.  If they are constantly looking over their shoulders at potential private employers who might offer big checks, who indeed are they working for?

Attempts to turn government toward private gain and away from being of the people, by the people, and for the people have no doubt been going on since the beginning of government (and since the Constitution was signed, in the case of the US).  However, true health care reform  would require curtailing the severe sorts of conflicts of interest created by the revolving door.  This might require both improving pay and working conditions for government regulators, law enforcers, and legislative staffers; and specific laws to prevent immediate transitions from being a regulator, law enforcer, or legislator to handling corporate responses to or defenses against such regulation and enforcement. 

That bit does not seem to be part of the current Affordable Care Act, yet it was hardly to enact such restrictions on conflict of interest that certain members of Congress have shut down the government.  

What Sorts of People are "Most Influential in Healthcare?"

Modern Healthcare just put out their list of the "100 Most Influential People in Healthcare" for 2013.  A look at what sorts of people are on this list says a lot about who runs US health care, and raises questions about who should.

Some Health Care Professionals, Lots of Hired Managers

I did some quick descriptive categorizations. (Counts were double checked but I am not guaranteeing accuracy.  Categorizations were sometimes difficult for highly diversified organizations.)

First, less than one third of list members are physicians (31% by my count).  I did not see any other health professionals on it (although I confess I did not look up the biographies of all 100).

Of these physicians, most are now functioning as hired managers, usually at the CEO level, of big health organizations.  I found only a few who could be characterized as somewhat academic: Dr Atul Gawande, professor at Harvard Medical School, Dr Eric Topol, chief academic officer at Scripps Health, Dr Harvey Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, Dr Brent James, chief quality officer and executive director, Institute for Health Care Delivery Research, Intermountain Healthcare,  and probably Dr Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. 

My counts of hired managers on the list included

CEOs of For-Profit Health Insurers - 5%

CEO of For-Profit Hospital Systems - 8%

CEOs of Non-Profit Hospital Systems - 21%

CEOs of Other For-Profit Care Delivery Corporations - 7%

CEOs of Drug/ Device/ Medical Supply Corporations - 2%

CEOs of Health Care Information Technology Corporations - 1%

CEOs of Non-Profit Trade Associations - 14%

CEOs and other Leaders of Professional or Medical Association - 5%

CEOs of Health Care Charities - 4%

CEOs of Other Non-Profit Organizations - 15%

Elected Government Leaders - 6%

Leaders of Government Agencies, Departments - 10%

Union Leaders - 2%

People Whose Organizations Have Issues

The list included quite a few people who lead organizations which have had issues of the sort we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  For example, the list included the following among its top 10 most influential, in order of listed influence -

4.  Stephen Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group - We have discussed concerns about his executive compensation and how it does not fit his organization's stated mission, or his organization's long list of ethical misadventures (most recently summarized here)

6. Mark Bertolini, CEO, Aetna - We most recently discussed how Aetna's leaders' pontifications on health policy seem mainly based on self-interest (here)  We also discussed various other management, ethical and legal issues.

7.  Richard Bracken, CEO, HCA - A long time ago, HCA was one of the first big health care corporations to have to make a billion dollar plus settlement for fraud, among other issues (look here).  The company has had legal, ethical, and management issues since.

8.  Joseph Swedish, CEO, WellPoint - He is new as CEO, but under previous leadership, the company amassed a record of misadventures while making its leadership very rich (summarized here, and look here for details.)

The list also included many other people whose organizations have been frequent fliers on Health Care Renewal.  For example, the CEOs of Epic Systems (ranked 13),  Tenet Healthcare (18), Cigna (20), McKesson Corp (24), Sutter Health (42), Johnson & Johnson (46), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (48), HealthSouth (59),  UPMC (69), and  Steward Health Care System (86).

There are many other people on the list who lead organizations that have gotten unfavorable notice on this blog, and a few whose own extreme executive compensation garnered comment.  As my science professors used to say, I leave their identification as an exercise for those interested.

Who Is Not on the List

It is interesting who is not on the list.  There are no physicians in private practice.   I would argue there are no physicians who are "pure" academics at the moment.  There are no other health care research, health policy research, or public health academics.

I saw only one person on the list (Senator Charles Grassley - R, Iowa) who has been identified with the sorts of real health care reforms we discuss here.  (Senator Grassely has investigated many instances of alleged conflicts of interest and fraud, and sponsored the Sunshine Bill to disclose better physicians' conflicts of interest.)  I do not see anyone else who in my humble opinion is identified as a dissident within the current environment. 

Many of the media accounts we have noted include people identified as experts who decried such issues as excessive executive compensation, mission-hostile management, conflicts of interest, ethical issues leading to legal settlements, or crime and corruption in health care.  None of them save Senator Grassley  are on this list. 

Summary

The Modern Healthcare list of 100 most influential people in health care demonstrates the enormous influence of hired managers in modern health care.  The vast majority of list members were hired managers.  While the list did include some physicians, most of them were currently working as hired managers.

It also demonstrates the influence of the for-profit, industrial part of health care.  It included 5 for-profit insurance CEOs, 8 for-profit hospital corporation CEOs, 7 for-profit health care delivery corporation CEOs, 2 for-profit drug/device company CEOs, and 1 for-profit health care IT CEO, a total of 23.  It also included CEOs of multiple trade associations, some of which represent the for-profit side of health care (e.g., PhRMA, America's Health Insurance Plans).  While it included leadership of many non-profit organizations as well, some of these organizations have clear financial links to the for-profit industrial side.  These ties may include significant financial support from industry, significant holdings of health care corporate stock, or managers or board members with their own relationships to industry.  (For example,  see this discussion of conflicts of interest affecting the Gates Foundation, whose co-chair is 76 on the Modern Healthcare list.)  Many of the large, non-profit hospital systems, 21 of whose CEOs are on the list, have major institutional conflicts of interest, and have many people with individual conflicts of interest among their leadership and on their boards of trustees.

As opposed to the influence of the for-profit industrial part of health care, the influence of government seems muted.  The list included only 6 politicians and 10 government managers.  Some of the politicians are notable proponents of smaller government, e.g. Senator Grassley, and specifically of a smaller role of government in health care, e.g., Governor Bobby Jindal, R, Louisiana.    Nor do unions have much influence.  Only two union leaders were on the list.  There was little counterweight provided to industrial influence from academia, and an almost complete absence of those who might question the current US status quo of dominance of health care by commercial interests. 

So here is the latest evidence that US health care is dominated by commercial interests (in an era of regulatory capture, revolving doors, and financialization) and professional, if often generic managers.  This suggests why our health care system seems more about revenue (and thus is very expensive), and less about improving patients' and the public's health.  True health care reform would require increasing the influence of people who have different priorities than the currently most influential. 

The Door Revolves Again: the Former White House Health Reform Czar Goes to Private Equity Firm Looking for Investments Created by Health Reform

Round and round it goes, and when it will stop, nobody knows.

Background: The Former Health Care Reform Czar's Past Career

It appears that Ms Nancy DeParle, formerly a White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and before then, from 2009 - 2011, the Director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform, has gone through the revolving door again.

We raised concerns about Ms DeParle's strong ties to the commercial side of health care at the time she was put in charge of getting health care reform legislation passed (look here.)  Specifically, her background for shepherding this legislation included being on the boards of directors of three large health care corporations, Boston Scientific, a medical device company, Cerner, a vendor of health care information technology, and Medco, and pharmacy benefits company.   She had previously been on the boards of DaVita, a commercial kidney dialysis care delivery company, and Triad Hospitals, a for-profit hospital system.  At the time, I wondered whether this set of relationships with multiple  health care corporations would lead to "health care reform" that was more about the interests of big health care corporations and their top executives than about us, the people.

As it turned out, there is a case to be made that a lot of the health care reform legislation that eventually passed was in the interests of big corporations.  It enabled for-profit health care insurance companies to continue to dominate the insurance market, and created no "public option" that could have competed with them.  It fostered the development of "accountable care organizations," (ACOs), and thus fostered a wave of consolidation in the hospital market favoring ever larger hospital systems, including for-profit ones, and the rise of the corporate physician.  It pushed the use of commercial health care information technology without requiring these devices' effects on patients to be rigorously assessed, and with no obvious concerns about the risks posed by these systems.  It did nothing to stop concentration of power in health care, nothing to support small private practices, small non-profit hospitals, or non-profit health insurance.  While it required more disclosure of conflicts of interest affecting physicians, it did nothing to reduce them, or to combat deception in health care marketing and public relations, or to reduce manipulation or suppression of clinical research to serve commercial vested interests, or even to combat blatant health care corruption.

A Brief Stop at a Think Tank

At any event, Ms DeParle left the government early this year.  She did not immediately go back to the commercial world, however.  Instead, as reported by The Hill, she went to a think tank.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, a White House deputy chief of staff and the president's point person on his signature health care law, is leaving the West Wing to join the Brookings Institution. 

Brookings president Strobe Talbott announced in a post on Twitter that the longtime Obama staffer would work as a guest scholar for the think tank.

Through the Revolving Door to Private Equity

That position did not last long, however.  A few days ago, a Wall Street Journal blog announced she was moving again,

As health care-focused private equity firms navigate the nuances of the Affordable Care Act, one such shop, Consonance Capital, has decided to go straight to the source, hiring Nancy-Ann DeParle, the former director of the White House Office of Health Reform.

So now she will be with private equity, and in particular, with a private equity firm specializing in, of course, health care:

Consonance has been out targeting between $350 million and $450 million for its debut fund.

The fundraising effort appears to have gained traction in recent months. LBO Wire reported in February that the firm had raised $30.3 million for Consonance Private Equity PV LP.  According to a person familiar with the fundraising, the vehicle has gathered as much as $200 million so far from investors including Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, Travelers Insurance and LGT Group.

The fund is earmarked for buyouts and recapitalizations of health-care providers, payors, pharmaceutical and specialty distributors and device manufacturers with between $20 million and $150 million in annual revenue.

Finally, it seems Ms DeParle will be suited to this new employment opportunity since she knows so much about how the new supposed health care reform will create investment opportunities,

 Ms. DeParle said the changing regulatory environment will give rise to a host of new investment opportunities. 'There’s a lot that’s changing in health care,' said Ms. DeParle. 'There will be millions of new customers for hospitals and health care providers, much stronger demand for health care services....'

Summary

So to recapitulate, Ms DeParle came from roles as a steward of multiple large health care corporations to lead the health care reform efforts of the executive branch.  In that capacity, she helped to create and enact legislation that she would later say created many "new investment opportunities."  Now, as the legislation is going into operation, she has spun over to private equity to take advantage of these opportunities.

This seems to be a great example of why the revolving door is bad for government, health care, and the American public.  People in responsible government positions, in which they are supposed to represent all the people, may be constantly thinking about impressing those who might employ them in the private sector when they leave government service.  What better way to impress these potential employers than to take actions which may later improve these companies'  commercial prospects, whatever effect they may have on us, the people?

I am no political scientist, but in my humble opinion, there should be multi year cooling off periods before someone who worked in the commercial world can get a job in a government agency whose work has direct effect on his or her previous employer or industry sector, and before someone who worked in a government agency whose work had direct effect on a particular economic sector can accept a job for a company in that sector.  Now that would be a real reform. 

Is the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Really More Industry-Centered?

One of the biggest reasons our health care system seems so dysfunctional is that clinicians and patients have great difficulty determining what might be the appropriate management of particular clinical problems.  Due to endless and sometimes deceptive marketing, conflicts of interest affecting health care professionals and academics, and manipulation and suppression of clinical research, making truly evidence based decisions that put individual patients interests first has become very difficult.  Instead, we may end up using excessively expensive, relatively ineffective, and more dangerous than anticipated drugs, devices, and diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, thus leading to poor patient outcomes and high costs.

Background - the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

One lingering hope has been that better clinical research, particularly focusing on the outcomes that are most important to patients (patient-centered outcomes), and comparing clinical strategies that may be widely used but poorly evaluated (comparative effectiveness research) would help dissipate the fog.  An attempt to promote such research in the US appeared in our recent health reform legislation, the Affordable Care Act.  It authorized the creation of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

However, as we observed, how good a solution this would be would depend on the details.  Our concerns were that PCORI, which is an independent although government sponsored institute, not a government agency, might be too beholden to "stake-holders" including the large organizations, device and pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospital systems, etc, that already dominate health care and may promote their and particularly their executives' interests ahead of patients.

Recently, Merrill Goozner, the editor of Modern Healthcare, raised similar concerns,

there is the law's requirement for stakeholder boards to set PCORI research priorities. They must include representatives of researchers, clinicians, patients, providers, insurers, employers and industry. The interests of those groups are not the same. Priority-setting by stakeholder boards could turn into a prescription for steering clear of the most controversial, and therefore most significant, questions.

So,

There is no shortage of drug and device firms, specialty hospitals and medical specialty societies with a vested interest in leaving certain questions unasked or muddying the waters with methodological quibbles. They shouldn't be allowed to hijack or soften the agenda.

PCORI is now in operation, but has seemingly not gotten a lot of scrutiny. What scrutiny it has received as not allayed these concerns.

The PCORI Advisory Panels

Recently, the publication of the membership of four key advisory panels for PCORI got the attention of  Michael Millenson, blogging on the Health Care Blog.  He noted that initially the members of the panels were identified only by name and city of residence, without any information on their other affiliations or characteristics.  He suggested,

PCORI isn’t a church, where all are created equal in the eyes of God, but a politically created, politically governed, controversial dispenser of a very large amount of money that a host of interest groups would like to control. PCORI staff chose the panel members in part by looking at their affiliations, and those connections (or lack of them) should be an immediate part of the public record when the appointments are announced. By being vague, PCORI obfuscates political and power relationships and makes it more difficult for the public and industry stakeholders to either approve of or criticize those choices.

Eventually, PCORI did release somewhat more information on membership of these panels, on Addressing Disparities, Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options, Improving Healthcare Systems, and Patient Engagement.  Mr Millenson was able to review the membership of one panel, and noted some strange anomalies in a comment to his original blog post. 

One panel member who supposedly represents "patients, caregivers, and patient advocates" had a full time position with a pharmaceutical company.  Another worked for a big consumer organization which is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

This raised concerns that PCORI may get guidance from people whose interests are actually different from those they are supposed to represent.

Therefore, I attempted to review the stated affiliations of all PCORI advisory panels.

Review of the what was made public about the membership of the advisory panels revealed several additional important anomalies.  Members said to be representing "patients, caregivers, and patient advocates" appeared to have positions working for organizations who might have their own, and different interests from the group they were supposed to be representing. 

Let me summarize the apparent anomalies by advisory panel.  In each case, in alphabetical order by panel,  I will list the panelists name, supposed representation, and affiliation, with my comments. 

Addressing Disparities

Monique Carter MS - Dallas, TX
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Senior Research Scientist, AROG Pharmaceuticals Inc

So this person would appear to be more of an industry (pharmaceuticals) representative.

Venus Gines, MA, P/CHWI - Manvel, TX
representing: patients, caregiver, and patient advocates
affiliation: Instructor, Chronic Disease Prevention and Control Research Center, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine

So this person appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative

Doriane C Miller MD - Chicago, IL
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Director, Center for Community Health and Vitality, University of Chicago Medical Center

So this person also appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative.

Carmen E Reyes, MA - Whittier, CA
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Center and Community Relations Manager, Los Angeles Community Academic Partnership in Research in Again, UCLA

So this person appears to be more of a health system representative.

Mary Ann Sander, MHA, MBA, NHA - Pittsuburgh, PA
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Vice President, Aging  and Disability Services, UPMC Community Provider Services

So this person appears to be more of a health system representative

Deborah Steward, MD, MBA - Jacksonville, FL
representing: clinicians
affiliation: Florida Blue

So in summary, this panel included five people who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates but who actually work for large academic medical centers or health systems, and one who was there to ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates who works for a pharmaceutical firm.  (In addition, one person supposedly representing clinicians apparently works full time for a health insurance company.)

Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options

Karen Chesbrough, MPH - Annandale, VA
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Scientific Program Administrator, Foundation for Physical Therapy.

Note that the stated mission of the Foundation for Physical Therapy is that it "supports the physical therapy profession’s research needs," and the foundation is funded in part by companies that make physical therapy devices and supplies  (look here).  Therefore, this person appears to be more of a representative of clinicians, or perhaps industry (devices).

Bettye Green RN - South Bend, IN
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Community Outreach Nurse and Associate Director of Advocacy, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center

So this person appears to be more of a health system representative.

Debra Madden - Newtown, CT
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Clinical Applications Systems Analyst, Associated Neurologists

So this person appears to be more of a clinician representative.

Daniel Wall - Spencer, WI
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Analyst, Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield Clinic Foundation

So this person appears to be more of a clinician or health system representative

So in summary, this panel included four people who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates but who actually work for health systems or clinician organizations, and one of the latter organizations appears to be heavily funded by the medical device and supplies industry.

Improving Healthcare Systems

Susan Diaz MPAS, PA-C - Jacksonville, FL
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Physician Assistant in Liver Transplant, Mayo Clinic in Florida

So this person appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative.

Anne Sales PhD-  Ann Arbor, MI
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Professor, School of Nursing, University of Michigan

So this person appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative.

Jamie Sullivan MPH - Silver Spring, MD
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Director of Public Policy, COPD Foundation.

Note that the COPD Foundation receives support at least from "Boehringer-Ingelheim/Pfizer Inc. and Grifols" (look here).  .

So this person appears to be at least somewhat an industry (pharmaceutical) representative.

So in summary, this panel includes three people who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates, two of whom actually work for large health system, and one who works for a foundation with significant pharmaceutical industry support.  

Patient Engagement

Stephen Arcona MA PhD - East Hanover, NJ
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Executive Director, Outcomes Research Methods & Analytics, Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

So this person appears to be more of a researcher, and industry (pharmaceutical) representative.

Marc Boutin JD - Washington, DC
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, National Health Council 

Note that while the National Health Council claims to be an advocate for people with chronic disease and disability, its core membership includes "major pharmaceutical, medical device, health insurance, and biotechnology companies." and it receives considerable industry support.  For example, it disclosed contributions in the $100,000 - $300,000 range from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and smaller but still significant contributions from other pharmaceutical companies and other industry associations.  So this person appears to be at least somewhat of an industry (pharmaceutical) representative.

Charlotte W Collins JD - Elkridge, MD
representing patients, caregivers, and patient adovcates
affiliation: Vice President of Policy and Programs, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America

Note that while the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America claims to be a patient advocacy organization, it disclosed financial support from many pharmaceutical, device, and health insurance companies, and from major health care systems

So this person appears to be at least somewhat an industry, health insurance, and/or health system representative.

Amy Gibson, RN MS - Washington, DC
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Chief Operating Officer, Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative (PCPCC)

Note that the PCPCC has an executive committee that includes multiple pharmaceutical, device, and health insurance companies, and health systems.  So this person appears to be at least somewhat an industry, health insurance, and/or health system representative.

Julie Ginn Moretz - Augusta, GA
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Associate Vice Chancellor, Patient- and Family-Centered Care, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

So this person appears to be more of health system representative.

Sara Triagle van Geertruyden - Washington, DC
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Executive Director, Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC)
(Note: this affiliation appears incomplete.  Sara van Geertruyden is listed as a current partner of Thorn Run Partners, a lobbying firm, with a major practice area in health care, boasting, "Thorn Run Partners offers one of Washington, DC’s most comprehensive, competent and effective health policy practices."


Note also that PIPC has membership that includes many specialty physician societies, and a steering committee that includes the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and PhRMA. 

So this person appears to be more of an industry (pharmaceutical and biotechnology) representative.

So in summary this panel includes six members who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates, but who work for either patient advocacy organizations that get considerable industry support, or a health system, or a pharmaceutical company.  One person whose affiliation was listed as a patient advocacy organization also somehow appears to be a full-time lobbyist.  

Summary

While PCORI has set up advisory panels that seem to strongly emphasize representation of patients, caregivers, and patient advocates, a substantial fraction of the people who are supposed to provide this representation seem to work for patient advocacy groups with considerable industry support, or directly for industry or health care systems.  Some of them may work as clinicians or researchers, but many appear to have high level executive positions with these organizations.  One appears to be a full-time lobbyist at a firm that has a strong health care practice. 

Thus it appears that PCORI advisory panels actually may be as much about the interests of big health care organizations, including pharmaceutical and device companies, health insurance companies, and large hospital systems, as they are about patients, caregivers, or patient advocates.  

I am afraid my and Merrill Goozner's original fears that PCORI may end up being more about industry-centered interests than patient-centered outcomes may not be paranoid.  I do hope that PCORI leadership manages to put improving patients' and the public's health ahead of making industry executives happy. 

by Roy M. Poses MD, for Health Care Renewal

Why Did the "Dean of Health Care Economics" Urge Reforms that "Appeal to Some Special Interests?"

We have often discussed, some would say belabored, the importance of the "anechoic effect" in health care.  Particular issues which would make those who benefit the most from our current dysfunctional health care system uncomfortable are often considered not to appropriate for polite conversation. 

A prominent recent article in JAMA provided a great example of  how there are certain topics that health care, services, and policy experts avoid discussing.

Summary of the Article

The article was by Victor R Fuchs, who has been called the" dean of health care economics."  His topic was why US health care is so expensive compared to those in other countries, but provides little additional value for the extra expense.  [Fuchs VR. How and why US health care differs from that in other OECD countries.  JAMA 2013; 309: 33-34.  Link here.]

His explained the differences as follows:
-  "US individuals appear more distrustful of government...."  Thus presumably they shun government operation of health systems, which can lead to lowering administrative costs, and more effective negotiating "with drug companies and physicians and to control investment in hospitals and equipment."
-  "reluctance to achieve more equal outcomes for the population through redistributive public policy."  He attributed this to attitudes stressing personal responsibility for success, and the heterogeneity of the population leading to decreased sympathy to those who are unfortunate but "whose identity may differ greatly from one's own."
- "the opposition [to health care reform] of 'special interests,' such as pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, physicians (especially those in high-income specialties), and hospitals."  He noted that other countries have special interests, but attributed the power of US special interests to the country's system of government, especially "checks and balances," which provide "'choke points' for special interests to block or reshape legislation."

He ended with three policy prescriptions for more and better health care reform:


-  "government's role should be limited to what is necessary, not just desirable."
-  "provision of basic coverage for all should not require equality for obtaining additional coverage."
-  "reform should have features that would appeal to some special interests, or to some elements within each special interest group (for example, some physicians or some health plans."


I believe this essay, because it is in a prominent journal and by the supposed dean of US health care economists, provides a good example of some of the things that ail the discussion of health care policy. First, the author made rather cavalier use of evidence to support his points.  Second, he avoided even mentioning any of the unpleasant issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  Third, he not only failed to challenge any of those who benefit the most from the current system, but also suggested further appeasement at least of some of them.

Cavalier Use of Evidence

Prof Fuchs' justification for the role of distrust of government was based on a rather casual review of American history, and a single survey.  In fact, the proportion of people who appear to trust the government appears to depend on who asks the question and how it is asked.

For example, Gallup polling from 1998 to 2012 showed from 65% to 80% of people expressed “a great deal/ fair amount of trust in state and local government.”  Gallup polling from 1997 to 2012 showed from 51% to 83% of people had “a great deal” or “fair amount” of “trust in federal government to handle international problems.”  On the other hand, the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press showed public trust in government peaking at nearly 80% during the administration of President Johnson, then precipitously declining, rarely exceeding 50% over the ensuing years, and now around 20%. Furthermore, although Prof Fuchs argued that distrust of government is uniquely American, he provided no data comparing such poll results from the US with those from elsewhere.

Nor did he compare results of polls about trust of the government with those about trust of other organizations involved in health care.  However, while people in the US may be distrustful of government, polling shows even bigger distrust of health care special interests (like pharmaceutical companies and health insurance).    While Edelman marketing showed relatively constant trust in the pharmaceutical industry at around 50% from 2009-2012), a Harris Interactive 2010 poll showed that only about 10% of people thought the pharmaceutical industry was honest and trustworthy from 2003 to 2010, while health insurance companies and managed care companies were trusted by even fewer.

Avoiding Unpleasant Issues

While Prof Fuchs acknowledged the role of "special interests," he avoided mentioning how these special interests might negatively affect health care, and thus how their role could be altered or countered.

Some issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal, but which he ignored were:

Concentration of Power

We have frequently discussed how health care organizations have grown ever larger, increasing their market power, and hence their ability to command revenue.  Although we often hear arguments that larger organizations are more efficient, this historic excuse of monopolists has little evidence in support.  In fact, large organizations seem mainly efficient in extracting money for the benefit of their insiders.  For a recent discussion of the push toward monopolies that has some health care angles, see this post on Naked Capitalism.   


Commercialization of Health Care 

The US seems to be unique in that it allows a larger role for private, for-profit corporations in health insurance and the actual provision of health care.  In the US, many health insurance companies, some hospitals and hospital systems, and many other types of health care providers, like hospices and dialysis centers, are now for-profit.  Furthermore, the physicians who provide direct patient care are more frequently employed by corporations (rather than being in solo or small group practice), and these corporations are increasingly for-profit  (look here).

This increase in the provision of health insurance and direct health care by for-profit corporations is a historical change.  Through the 1970s, the American Medical Association declared "the practice of medicine should not be commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade." (Look here)   In most states, the corporate practice of medicine used to be banned.


Commercialization in an Age of Financialization -

This commercialization took place in an era in which economists were advocating that corporate leaders ignore all goals other than increasing "shareholder value" (look here).  This de facto meant increasing short-term stock price and/or revenue.  Clearly focusing only on short-term revenue increased the risk of management that ignored or was even hostile to the health care mission.  The focus on short-term revenue lead to strong incentives for employees to "make their numbers," that is, to achieve financial goals, no matter what it took (see examples here).  This likely lead to many examples of unethical behavior.  Furthermore, physicians were not immune to such requirements (look here).

 Abandonment of Government Regulation

As was noted in the comments on the post on Naked Capitalism,enforcement of anti-trust law that could prevent concentration of power has generally been abandoned by recent US administrations.  Furthermore, as we have discussed here, enforcement of laws against fraud, kickbacks, etc have lead to numerous legal settlements, but almost never any penalties against individuals who authorized, directed or implemented such actions within large health care organizations.  Thus, the leaders of health care organizations, particularly large health care corporations, have experienced impunity.  In some cases, there has been outright regulatory capture.  Conflicted regulators have proliferated, often through the mechanism of the "revolving door."

Executive Compensation 

Thus protected by such impunity, executives of large health care organizations often have become rich, and seem to be able to do so without any accountability for their organizations' actions.  As noted above, their incentives push them to put short-term financial goals ahead of the health care mission.  Furthermore, another currently fashionable business school doctrine is that health care managers may and perhaps should be generic, and thus need not know anything about health care, have experience caring for patients, or have sympathy for health care values.  All this has lead to health care management that ignores or even is hostile to the health care mission. 

Deception Undermining Clinical Research and Education 

Furthermore, this impunity and lack of accountability has been correlated with a rising tide of unethical behavior.  In particular, corporations that make drugs and devices have taken over clinical research meant to evaluate their own products.  They have often manipulated research to favor their products, and suppressed research that even when manipulated does not favor these products.  Thus they have corrupted the clinical research base on which physicians and patients rely to make the best possible health care decisions.  Marketers have launched stealth campaigns that have also included corruption of medical education.  In particular, they have paid influential health care professionals, called key opinion leaders, to support marketing under the guise of medical education.  Thus distorting health care and medical research and education decision making has distorted decision making, likely leading to increased costs and decreased quality.  

Other examples of poor, that is ill-informed, unaccountable, self-interested, conflicted and corrupt leadership are strewn around Health Care Renewal.  He have also shown how the governance of health care organizations often lacks accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty.  All these problems can lead to increased costs, and decreased quality and access.  Yet almost never do any of these issues make it into polite discussion within health care research and policy circles.

Appeasement of Special Interests

Over eight years of  effort by a few dedicated academic researchers, health care professionals, investigative reporters, whistle-blowers, and watch dog organizations,  chronicled to some extent on this blog and by other bloggers and commentators, has shown bad leadership and governance of, and resulting unethical behavior by health care "special interests."  Yet, the example essay by Prof Fuchs failed to deal with any of these issues.  Instead of discussing how they might be approached, he suggested continuing appeasement of special interests, which would likely make our problems even worse.  Why he ignored all the privileges the leaders of special interest have, and felt the need to treat them even more nicely, remains unclear. 

Thus it appears that the anechoic effect is leading to failure to grapple with the real reasons for health care dysfunction, thus ensuring that health care costs will continue to rise while access and quality fall.

Real health care reform will first require honest, unflinching consideration of what has gone wrong.  As long as the conversation seeks to avoid offending those who benefit the most from the current system dysfunction, that dysfunction will only get worse. 

US President Theodore Roosevelt had the courage to challenge the "malefactors of great wealth" who engineered the first gilded age, at the expense of the public at large.  During this second gilded age, will we have the courage to take on the new malefactors of great wealth, including those who benefit from health care's dysfunction?

Where is the risk?

That’s the question Thomas Cox, an RN with insurance experience and expertise, says should be asked about any health care financing mechanism.

The whole idea of insurance is distributing risk widely so that it can be shared over a wide group of people and thus become manageable. That’s why people need insurance at all, and that’s also why schemes that put too much of the onus on individuals are a very bad idea – as has happened in recent years to a number of people,  the “insured” individual can incur costs that are more than he or she can bear.

In general, insurance is most solid when it’s over a larger group. Each major increase in group size distributes the risk further and makes the healthcare financing system stronger. Cox has an interesting paper on this which he presented at an American Statistical Association meeting.

In general, large insurers are an order-of-magnitude more sound than small ones, and nationwide insurance systems (such as Medicare) have a distinct actuarial edge over state-based insurance (think, for example, California earthquake). For this reason, it’s a shame that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has state exchanges as its primary mechanism rather than one single federal exchange; risk dispersal is inferior.

Looking at the risk question, there’s a real problem with affordable care organizations (ACOs), which are one of the primary ways the ACA aims to keep down future costs. Essentially, ACOs are a form of capitation, and (Cox maintains and I think he’s right) capitation is essentially a mechanism to push risks down from the insurer or from Medicare to providers. Pushing risks to smaller groups is a terrible idea and will worsen the system. With ACOs having  smaller covered populations, they are far more subject to being the victim of events they can’t control, whether that’s having a large number of huge-cost, high-needs patients in a single year or having a large number of patients affected by an epidemic or natural disaster.

Providers are not trained or qualified to manage risk well, nor do they have the financial reserves to do so.  Cox calls this “professional caregiver insurance risk.”  Burdening providers with a task they are very ill-suited for is a truly bad idea. As Cox comments:

Pushing risks elsewhere removes the only real function we are paying insurance companies for.  If insurance companies are pushing down their risks elsewhere, we are paying them money for nothing of value. Insurance companies don’t provide healthcare – if they don’t manage risk either, what good are they? Of course, if they can sit there and siphon off profits without taking risks, it may not trouble profit-making insurers . . . but it should trouble the public [if they are] issuing policies, passing the insurance risks on to health care providers, and walking off with guaranteed profits year after year.

And (particularly for the ACO that has been “unlucky” and has incurred larger-than-expected costs), the financial risk can be a force for corruption, pushing organizations toward denying care and undertreatment.

Of course, with the enormous amount of unnecessary care and overtreatment in the US medical system today, some ACOs may indeed manage to give really good care for quite a while provided they are reasonably lucky. But this is a strategy with diminishing returns (as unneeded care dwindles in amount). At root, pushing down insurance risk to smaller entities is, Cox has persuaded me, a fundamentally flawed direction.

And I’ll never look at a health care financing proposal in future without asking myself: “Where is the risk?”

Fool Us Once, Shame on You, Fool Us Twice, Shame on Us - The Untrustworthy Pronouncements of Aetna's Former CEOs

A small tempest in the larger US health care reform teapot was produced a few weeks ago when Ron Williams, former CEO of Aetna, declared in a Wall Street Journal op-ed that he no longer supported the health insurance mandate.  The "mandate" for all US citizens to buy health insurance, actually a relatively small tax that would be imposed on people without health insurance, was the central point of contention in the lawsuit before the US Supreme Court challenging the Affordable Care Act (ACA). 

Immediate Past-CEO of Aetna Ron Williams' Abrupt Change of Mind on the Individual Mandate

Williams wrote,

Soon the U.S. Supreme Court will rule on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act. I am not a lawyer, or an expert on the Constitution. But as the chairman and CEO of a major health plan, I had a ringside seat to the entire health-care reform process. After much reflection, I have concluded that the federal individual mandate, which requires all Americans to purchase health insurance starting in 2014, will not be upheld.

On this, Williams was soon proven wrong. The Supreme Court upheld the law. However, the tempest was not due just to Williams' reversal of his former opinion, but the role he actually played in pushing his former opinion into the passage of the law, which was really far more than being a "ringside" spectator.

In an August 24, 2009 article, "Aetna's Ron Williams on Health Reform," Forbes' Dan Whelan noted,

Williams, 59, is taking a surprisingly visible role in arguing for change in the health care system. He has met with Obama a half-dozen times (he shrugs off the surname gaffe), has testified four times in front of Senate committees this year and participates in shindigs set up by the many trade groups for which he's a director.

Williams' position echoes that of the HMO industry generally: He's against a government-run plan but favors universal coverage and forcing insurers to take all comers.

As Wendell Potter, the former head of public relations for large health for-profit health insurance company Cigna, who is now a strong industry critic, put it on his blog,

Ron Williams who possibly more than anyone else had persuaded the President to reconsider his campaign pledge to enact reform without making people buy coverage from a private insurer. Candidate Obama’s reform platform differed from those of Hillary Clinton’s and John Edwards’ in only one significant way: both Clinton and Edwards embraced the mandate, which Williams was championing, first behind the scenes and then publicly, on behalf of the insurance industry. Candidate Obama said he didn’t believe it was right for people to be forced to buy something they couldn’t afford.

Williams was the industry’s most visible CEO on Capitol Hill during the debate on reform. He testified at numerous congressional hearings about how essential it was to move the millions of uninsured Americans into private health insurance plans and how an individual mandate was necessary to make that happen. He also never missed an opportunity to trash the idea of a 'public option' to compete with private insurance companies, which candidate Obama had said was essential 'to keep private insurers honest.'

Capitol Hill was not the only place Williams was frequenting during the reform debate. In an August 2009 article in Forbes, Williams was quoted as saying that he already had met with the President six times. When I called the White House to confirm that, a top aide told me it was true Williams had been there many times, adding, 'We’ve found him to be one of the more reasonable ones.'

Williams' recent seeming disavowal of the individual mandate raises the question of why anyone, much less President Obama, trusted him in the first place. After all, he was CEO of Aetna.

2001 Aetna CEO John Rowe Blamed Everyone Else for Health Care Problems

In fact, perusal of my memory, and a few file folders suggested several previous cases in which Aetna CEOs issued pronouncements that should not have been trusted.

First I recalled a meeting in 2001 at Brown during which the then Aetna CEO was honored by giving the Paul Levinger Lecture on "Good Health: Can We Afford It?" (See original Brown news release here.) My memory is that of Dr Rowe blaming just about everybody other than the for-profit health care insurance companies for health care's ills. A Brown Daily Herald article (not currently on line, Baskin B. Health care getting harder to afford, Aetna chief tells Brown U. Brown Daily Herald, November 30, 2001) recounted him blaming "cost inflation," (presumably due to doctors and hospitals), and employers, for whom "quality doesn't matter." He only allowed that insurers were to blame for not giving "better service," but not either rising costs or poor quality. I also recall Dr Rowe being treated with great respect by the audience. After all, this was a prestigious lecture.

However, his talk seemed just the least bit self-serving. If the audience had been aware of his record at the time, maybe we would have been more skeptical.

Mount Sinai CEO Dr John Rowe Extolled Merger with New York University, Jumped to Become Aetna CEO as Merger Began to Fail

By 1993, Dr Rowe was CEO of Mount Sinai Medical Center, and was seemingly at the vanguard of the movement for health care CEOs to be paid a lot. The New York Times reported that the 1993 Chronicle of Philanthropy survey showed him to be the country's best paid non-profit CEO, bringing in total compensation of over $800,000 in 1993 dollars. By 1998, Dr Rowe's big project was pushing concentration of power in health care in the form of a proposed merger between New York University Medical Center and Mount Sinai. According to the New York Times, the plan would be for Dr Rowe to become CEO of the combined entity. At the time, he said,

The advantages of merging hospitals are so great, they far outweigh any hypothetical potential negative impact.

The bond issue needed to finance the merger, however, ran into trouble by early 2000.  Soon after that, Dr Rowe seemingly demonstrated his lack of faith in it by jumping to the leadership of Aetna. It turned out, according to the Hartford Courant, Aetna's offer was just to rich to turn down.

Rowe got a $2 million sign-on bonus to leave Mount Sinai NYU Health and become chief executive of Aetna's health business, the document says. He will also get a $1.4 million retention bonus on July 3, 2001.

Both bonuses are designed to replace money that Rowe forfeited by leaving the giant New York hospital system, Aetna spokeswoman Joyce Oberdorf said.

In addition, Rowe will get an annual salary of at least $1 million and an annual bonus of $1 million to $3 million, depending on how well goals are met, under a three-year employment agreement with two possible one-year extensions.

Rowe, who already received 25,000 shares of restricted Aetna stock and options on 500,000 shares, will get another 100,000 options. The new options will be granted when Aetna spins off its health business to shareholders, or on Jan. 1, 2001 -- whichever comes first. The exercise price will be about $72.73, or whatever price Aetna stock is trading at the time if it's higher than that.

By 2001, the New York Times referred to the merger as existing "in name only." That year, the campuses resumed separate administration. The merger was officially terminated in 2008. Its failure was documented in an Academic Medicine article. (Kastor JA. Failure of the merger of the Mount Sinai and New York University hospitals and medical schools: part 2. Acad Med 2010; 85: 1828-32. Link here.)

If the Brown audience had known that the merger Dr Rowe extolled with such confidence was already failing, but that he was able to leverage his role in its development to go from the country's best paid non-profit CEO to a multi-million dollar a year insurance CEO, maybe we would have felt less guilt about our responsibility for health care's high cost, low access and poor quality.

Aetna CEO Richard Huber's Failure to "Walk the Walk"

In fact, searching through the files showed an even earlier example of an Aetna CEO talking out of two sides of his mouth.

By 1998, an American Medical News article documented the "rocky relations" between Aetna and physicians. By early 2000, Aetna CEO Richard Huber was known as "the managed care executive physicians love to hate," per the American Medical News. His departure was characterized by then American Medical News Street Smarts columnist Dr Scott Gottlieb, as partly due to how

Huber talked out of one side of his mouth about his company's obsessive quest for 'quality' health care -- while out of the other he was screaming at doctors, hospitals and drug firms about controlling costs. Yet Aetna's medical costs were still creeping up. As Richard Huber learned, you can't talk the talk if you don't walk the walk.

Summary

So the unreliability of recent Aetna CEO Ron Williams' advocacy of the "patient mandate," was presaged by similarly untrustworthy pronouncement by two former Aetna CEOs. In each case, the remarks of the particular CEO seemed more designed to promote his immediate self-interest than to provide trustworthy opinion or policy advice.

By the way, this summary should not be viewed as particularly an indictment of Aetna. I am sure I could find equally untrustworthy but self-serving pronouncements from the leaders of many other health care organizations. (Recall the visionary pronouncements of the failed and ultimately jailed CEO of the now vanished Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation, see post here.)

The recent Ron Williams reversal should serve, however, as a stark reminder that we, meaning physicians, other health care professionals, those who study health care and health policy, policy makers, and the public at large, should be very, very skeptical about any pronouncements about health policy by top executives of health care organizations. They as a group have shown themselves to be remarkably good at doing whatever it takes to buttress their immediate self-interest, including making apparently oracular but ultimately foolish policy pronouncements.

The real question is why these pronouncements continue to be treated with reverence, if not as "visionaries,"  by health care professionals, health care and policy researchers, the news media, health care and medical journals, policy makers, politicians, and the public at large? Why has hardly anyone, besides yours truly, gone back to check the accuracy of their previous pontifications before swooning over their latest ones? Why has hardly anyone examined the accuracy of their predecessors' opinions, given that most executives these days seem to be subject to the same incentives to make things look good in the short term, and never mind the consequences?

Health Care (Insurance) Reform Upheld, but Concentration and Abuse of Power Remain Largely Unaddressed

This may seem like sour grapes, but...  Numerous media reports say that the US Supreme Court has upheld the massive US health care "reform" law (look here for Reuters coverage today, and here, for the Los Angeles Times, for example).  In my humble opinion, the law will likely increase acess to commercial health care insurance, although will likely not reduce the expense of such insurance, or address the misbehavior of many large insurance companies (for example, see our series of posts on Aetna, UnitedHealth, WellPoint, and the insurance industry in general, etc, etc).

The law, as we summarized here, does contain a few provisions relevant to the concerns we raise on Health Care Renewal.  These include measures to improve disclosure of certain kinds of conflicts of interest affecting individual physicians and health care academics, and improved funding for comparative effectiveness research.  We hoped that the law would lead to a more rational way to fix payments to physicians that might supplant the secretive, procedure-happy RUC, but so far that hope remains unfulfilled. 

However, as we wrote in 2010, the legislation will leave most of the other problems we discuss on Health Care Renewal untouched. We thus have one or two small steps for mankind in the US, but no reason for complacency.


The news is not bad.  We are probably on balance somewhat better off with some health care insurance reform than none.  However, we are still a long way from meaningfully addressing concentration and abuse of power in health care. There will be no rest for the weary bloggers of Health Care Renewal.

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

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

The Peripetatic Architect of Health Care Reform Implementation

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Peripatetic Legislative Policy Director

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That is part of the story.

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

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

What is Loper doing in the Marianas?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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