The findings of a study at Boston University "raise the hypothesis that hair relaxer use increases" fibroids in women. So can relaxers cause fibroids? Further research is necessary, but the study points to a possibility.
ABSTRACT: http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/01/10/aje.kwr351.short
NEWS: http://www.myfoxhouston.com/dpp/news/local/120217-study-causes-hair-scare-about-tumors#ixzz1mwiRrwTi
Senin, 20 Februari 2012
Two Steps Back: International Council on Human Rights Policy Closes, Dutch Healthy Skepticism Ends Domestic Focus
We have noted the paucity of organized efforts to combat health care corruption and related phenomena. What efforts exist tend to focus on corruption elsewhere, as if no one is willing to admit it can occur in their back yard. Now one organization that has made some efforts in this sphere is closing, and another will explicitly focus its efforts on problems elsewhere.
International Council on Human Rights Policy Closes
The ICHRP was located in Geneva. It had a wide focus, but was willing to consider how corruption could affect human rights. Its publication, Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection, explicitly noted the threat of corruption to the right to health. (Note that in international policy, this right is not considered to be to unlimited health care, but to "attainment of the highest available standard of physical and mental health.") It went on to list a variety of ways in which government corruption, or corruption of health care leaders or organizations outside of government could harm health. (Full disclosure: I participated in a meeting the IHCRP convened to review a draft of this publication.)
Now, as announced in the IHCRP blog, the IHCRP will close at the end of this month:
Healthy Skepticism in the Netherland to Only Focus on Problems "Abroad"
Today I got a press release (as of 21 February available here) from the Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine (IVM), that stated:
The immediate reason seemed to be lack of funding, like the reason advanced for the closing of the ICHRP:
The announcement first suggested that the change of focus came about because the initiative had attained its original goals:
However, later in the announcement the implication was stronger that this lack of funding may have resulted from how the program challenged the powers that be, perhaps those who were personally profiting the most from the status quo:
Summary
We noted most recently (here, December, 2011) most of the organizations one might have expected would have provided some response to health care corruption instead have largely treated it as at best a nuisance. Specifically, there is almost no teaching or research on corruption in health care academics (including medical and public health schools, and programs in health care research and policy.) There is almost no mention of corruption by health care professional associations. There are almost no initiatives to fight corruption on the part of health care charities and donors. There is almost no interest in corruption among patient advocacy organizations. (See previous discussion here.)
Furthermore, I also postulated that at least in the US context, this lack of interest in corruption may partially be explained by these organizations' institutional conflicts of interest and the individual conflicts of interest affecting their leaders. It may be further explained by the exposure of some leaders to the irresponsible, if not amoral culture that now currently pervades finance, which may have in turn been one cause of the great recession, or global financial collapse.
The ICHRP and the Dutch Healthy Skepticism program seemed to be happy exceptions. However, both of them depended on outside government or non-profit organizations for funding. In both cases, these outside funders seem to have lost enthusiasm, maybe for reasons discussed above.
At least the ICHRP archives remain available, and Dutch Healthy Skepticism may be able to make some useful contribution outside the Netherlands.
There is increasing evidence that health care corruption may end up killing people. I still hope that the courage of those who have tried to increase awareness of health care corruption, the conflicts of interest that can increase its likelihood, and surrounding phenomena, will not be in vain. I still hope that some academic health care institutions, professional societies, health care charities and donors, and patient advocacy groups will gain enough fortitude to stand up for accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty in health care.
International Council on Human Rights Policy Closes
The ICHRP was located in Geneva. It had a wide focus, but was willing to consider how corruption could affect human rights. Its publication, Corruption and Human Rights: Making the Connection, explicitly noted the threat of corruption to the right to health. (Note that in international policy, this right is not considered to be to unlimited health care, but to "attainment of the highest available standard of physical and mental health.") It went on to list a variety of ways in which government corruption, or corruption of health care leaders or organizations outside of government could harm health. (Full disclosure: I participated in a meeting the IHCRP convened to review a draft of this publication.)
Now, as announced in the IHCRP blog, the IHCRP will close at the end of this month:
The decision to close was taken by the Executive Board primarily due to continued financial difficulties, largely a result of the difficult funding climate, especially for human rights and even more so for human rights policy research. It is especially regrettable because for more than a decade the ICHRP stimulated co-operation and exchange across the non-governmental, governmental and inter-governmental sectors, and strove to mediate between competing perspectives.
Healthy Skepticism in the Netherland to Only Focus on Problems "Abroad"
Today I got a press release (as of 21 February available here) from the Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine (IVM), that stated:
The Dutch Institute for Rational Use of Medicine (IVM) is changing the course of its renowned Healthy Skepticism programme, which has critically monitored the pharmaceutical industry’s impact on the use of medication over the past ten years. Healthy Skepticism will be shifting attention away from its activities in the Netherlands, choosing to focus instead on supporting initiatives abroad.
The immediate reason seemed to be lack of funding, like the reason advanced for the closing of the ICHRP:
The change is prompted by the fact that the Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare and Sport has eliminated funding for the programme....
The announcement first suggested that the change of focus came about because the initiative had attained its original goals:
another factor is the radical change that has occurred in the pharmaceutical industry’s attitude and conduct over the past decade.
Commenting on the change, IVM director Ruud Coolen van Brakel stated: 'Although there are still some problem areas, overall the industry has become more mature and more responsible’.
However, later in the announcement the implication was stronger that this lack of funding may have resulted from how the program challenged the powers that be, perhaps those who were personally profiting the most from the status quo:
The impact of Healthy Skepticism’s initiatives has not been unequivocally positive. IVM met with considerable resistance, which at times even became personal, and, because of its critical attitude, often became the target of aggressive attacks that also compromised its funders, the Ministry of Health, Education and Sport and the Healthcare Inspectorate.
Summary
We noted most recently (here, December, 2011) most of the organizations one might have expected would have provided some response to health care corruption instead have largely treated it as at best a nuisance. Specifically, there is almost no teaching or research on corruption in health care academics (including medical and public health schools, and programs in health care research and policy.) There is almost no mention of corruption by health care professional associations. There are almost no initiatives to fight corruption on the part of health care charities and donors. There is almost no interest in corruption among patient advocacy organizations. (See previous discussion here.)
Furthermore, I also postulated that at least in the US context, this lack of interest in corruption may partially be explained by these organizations' institutional conflicts of interest and the individual conflicts of interest affecting their leaders. It may be further explained by the exposure of some leaders to the irresponsible, if not amoral culture that now currently pervades finance, which may have in turn been one cause of the great recession, or global financial collapse.
The ICHRP and the Dutch Healthy Skepticism program seemed to be happy exceptions. However, both of them depended on outside government or non-profit organizations for funding. In both cases, these outside funders seem to have lost enthusiasm, maybe for reasons discussed above.
At least the ICHRP archives remain available, and Dutch Healthy Skepticism may be able to make some useful contribution outside the Netherlands.
There is increasing evidence that health care corruption may end up killing people. I still hope that the courage of those who have tried to increase awareness of health care corruption, the conflicts of interest that can increase its likelihood, and surrounding phenomena, will not be in vain. I still hope that some academic health care institutions, professional societies, health care charities and donors, and patient advocacy groups will gain enough fortitude to stand up for accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty in health care.
The First State's Deadest (Deadliest?) Duck - Is This ED EHR Harming or Killing Anyone in NSW?
Nobody seems to be asking this simple question:
Is This ED EHR harming or killing anyone in NSW?
It cannot be "not compromising patient care" on first principles.
This type of practical and ethical question seems to never get asked, while what appears to be a tit-for-tat political kerfuffle goes on.
This is due in part to the baffling special accommodations afforded worldwide towards an extremely profitable but potentially extremely dangerous medical device, as well as due to the issues I described in my post about reckless technophilia and the accompanying disregard for rights of others here.
Stunning.
On the argument that "the older system was worse", or the corollary argument that "paper harms and kills too", I suggest anyone who proffers that argument should realize VIOXX (refoxicib) helped far more people than it harmed in reducing pain while sparing them from GI side effects compared to "older" drugs.
Over 84 million people were prescribed rofecoxib at some time and only mere thousands, or tens of thousands, are presumed to have been injured or died.
Therefore, following their own illogic and ethical (dis)orientation, they should put all their family members on the drug - especially the elderly with cardiovascular disease - to benefit from pain relief and VIOXX's other miraculous effect, suppression of colonic polyps.
Surely those benefits outweigh the risks, and therefore it is ethical to do so, no?
Of course not.
Health IT, as I've written in many posts on this blog, has a magnitude of harms that is admittedly unknown. Health IT needs significant further study and improvement, certainly before national rollouts, and before decisions are made that particular systems are "too entrenched to abandon."
-- SS
Is This ED EHR harming or killing anyone in NSW?
It cannot be "not compromising patient care" on first principles.
This type of practical and ethical question seems to never get asked, while what appears to be a tit-for-tat political kerfuffle goes on.
This is due in part to the baffling special accommodations afforded worldwide towards an extremely profitable but potentially extremely dangerous medical device, as well as due to the issues I described in my post about reckless technophilia and the accompanying disregard for rights of others here.
The Register
NSW government accused of dodgy software cover-up
FirstNet: the First State's deadest duck [or "deadliest duck?" - ed.]
Posted in Business, 12th February 2012 22:00 GMT
The buggy FirstNet emergency department software has become the subject of a political argument in NSW. [What about a clinical and ethical argument? - ed.]
In one of those paradoxes of democracy, an opposition which, in government, was responsible for a now-despised implementation is now using the IT project as a stick to beat a government which was in opposition when the system was chosen.
Last week, the Sydney Morning Herald obtained a report into the system by Deloitte, under a freedom of information request. It says [1] the Deloitte report criticises FirstNet because it is:
- Is chronically under-funded;
- Produces inadequate records;
- Was unreliable in delivering messages, and did not provide alerts when messages failed to reach their destination; and
- Demanded excessive amounts of screen time from clinicians.
[But is it harming or killing anyone? Are those statistics being collected robustly and scientifically, or are self-serving statements by hospital executives that "care was never compromised, and nobody was injured" simply being taken at face value?
Further, the obvious increased risk of harm due to deficient IT currently in operation is being cavalierly ignored. This is alien to medicine, and could cause career termination or land people in jail in fields such as aviation if planes with known potentially-dangerous avionics software or other defects are kept flying - ed.]
In spite of its inadequacies, the Deloitte report seen by the SMH said the $AU100-plus million Cerner FirstNet system is too entrenched to abandon.
[I'm quite sure dead or injured patents would not appreciate that explanation - ed.]
Over the weekend, opposition health spokesperson Dr Andrew McDonald issued a statement accusing NSW health minister Jillian Skinner of covering up the report since August 2011.
However, other published studies into FirstNet, such as a detailed investigation by Sydney University e-health expert Professor Jon Patrick here [2], identify problems similar to those apparently cited by Deloitte. This study was undertaken to investigate issues with FirstNet outlined in November 2008 in a special commission of review, conducted by Peter Garling,
While noting that FirstNet represented an improvement on some aspects of its predecessor, Garling said the system attracted complaints that it was unfriendly to users, that the vendor and Health Department did not respond to complaints about the software, and that emergency department patients were being held in triage for excessive times, while clinical staff fought with the software.
[What sane patient would want such a system used in their care? - ed.]
Deloitte, on the other hand, was far less critical of FirstNet in 2008, when in a review [3] of triage benchmarks it managed to turn up a downtime issue, difficulty in uploading triage data to the Health Department, and the identification of the wrong doctor or nurse with a patient’s records.
Stunning.
On the argument that "the older system was worse", or the corollary argument that "paper harms and kills too", I suggest anyone who proffers that argument should realize VIOXX (refoxicib) helped far more people than it harmed in reducing pain while sparing them from GI side effects compared to "older" drugs.
Over 84 million people were prescribed rofecoxib at some time and only mere thousands, or tens of thousands, are presumed to have been injured or died.
Therefore, following their own illogic and ethical (dis)orientation, they should put all their family members on the drug - especially the elderly with cardiovascular disease - to benefit from pain relief and VIOXX's other miraculous effect, suppression of colonic polyps.
Surely those benefits outweigh the risks, and therefore it is ethical to do so, no?
Of course not.
Health IT, as I've written in many posts on this blog, has a magnitude of harms that is admittedly unknown. Health IT needs significant further study and improvement, certainly before national rollouts, and before decisions are made that particular systems are "too entrenched to abandon."
-- SS
Minggu, 19 Februari 2012
Health IT Ddulites and Disregard for the Rights of Others
At my Feb. 8, 2012 post "Health IT: Ddulites and Irrational Exuberance " I defined a "Ddulite" (Luddite with the first four characters reversed) as the opposite of a Luddite, specifically:
An astute reader points out that "opposite" may be an incomplete description, as the Luddites:
In other words, they were merely trying to save their jobs, and their actions did not cause life-threatening adverse events, such as death by freezing due to lack of warm garments.
Ddulites, on the other hand, ignore the downsides (patient harms) of health IT.
This is despite being already aware of, or informed of patient harms, even by reputable sources such as FDA (Internal FDA memo on H-IT risks), The Joint Commission (Sentinel Events Alert on health IT), the NHS (Examples of potential harm presented by health software - Annex A starting at p. 38), and the ECRI Institute (Top ten healthcare technology risks), to name just a few.
In fact, the hyper-enthusiastic health IT technophiles will go out of their way to incorrectly dismiss risk management-valuable case reports as "anecdotes" not worthy of consideration (see "Anecdotes and medicine" essay at this link).
They will also make unsubstantiated, often hysterical-sounding claims that health IT systems are necessary to, or simply will "transform" (into what, exactly, is usually left a mystery) or even "revolutionize" medicine (whatever that means).
This is despite the fact that many of this mindset are medical and/or Medical Informatics professionals who know better. They also ignore the draining waste of resources of failed or ineffectual IT ("bad health IT"), potentially depriving patients of the best healthcare possible.
Thus, as the reader pointed out, there could be an element of psychopathy or, at best, reckless disregard for rights of others in their thinking.
In my opinion, at a time of mass funding and pressure for rapid rollout of health IT in its present state of experimental development, this is not an observation that should be casually dismissed.
-- SS
Hyper-enthusiastic technophiles who either deliberately ignore or are blinded to technology's downsides, ethical issues, and repeated local and mass failures.
An astute reader points out that "opposite" may be an incomplete description, as the Luddites:
"were a social movement of 19th-century English textile artisans who protested – often by destroying mechanized looms – against the changes produced by the Industrial Revolution, which they felt were leaving them without work and changing their way of life. The movement was named after General Ned Ludd or King Ludd, a mythical figure who, like Robin Hood, was reputed to live in Sherwood Forest."
In other words, they were merely trying to save their jobs, and their actions did not cause life-threatening adverse events, such as death by freezing due to lack of warm garments.
Ddulites, on the other hand, ignore the downsides (patient harms) of health IT.
This is despite being already aware of, or informed of patient harms, even by reputable sources such as FDA (Internal FDA memo on H-IT risks), The Joint Commission (Sentinel Events Alert on health IT), the NHS (Examples of potential harm presented by health software - Annex A starting at p. 38), and the ECRI Institute (Top ten healthcare technology risks), to name just a few.
In fact, the hyper-enthusiastic health IT technophiles will go out of their way to incorrectly dismiss risk management-valuable case reports as "anecdotes" not worthy of consideration (see "Anecdotes and medicine" essay at this link).
They will also make unsubstantiated, often hysterical-sounding claims that health IT systems are necessary to, or simply will "transform" (into what, exactly, is usually left a mystery) or even "revolutionize" medicine (whatever that means).
This is despite the fact that many of this mindset are medical and/or Medical Informatics professionals who know better. They also ignore the draining waste of resources of failed or ineffectual IT ("bad health IT"), potentially depriving patients of the best healthcare possible.
Thus, as the reader pointed out, there could be an element of psychopathy or, at best, reckless disregard for rights of others in their thinking.
Reckless disregard: An act of proceeding to do something with a conscious awareness of danger, while ignoring any potential consequences of so doing. Reckless disregard, while not necessarily suggesting an intent to cause harm, is a harsher condition than ordinary negligence.
In my opinion, at a time of mass funding and pressure for rapid rollout of health IT in its present state of experimental development, this is not an observation that should be casually dismissed.
-- SS
Sabtu, 18 Februari 2012
By 2606, the US Diet will be 100 Percent Sugar
The US diet has changed dramatically in the last 200 years. Many of these changes stem from a single factor: the industrialization and commercialization of the American food system. We've outsourced most of our food preparation, placing it into the hands of professionals whose interests aren't always well aligned with ours.
It's hard to appreciate just how much things have changed, because none of us were alive 200 years ago. To help illustrate some of these changes, I've been collecting statistics on US diet trends. Since sugar is the most refined food we eat in quantity, and it's a good marker of processed food consumption, naturally I wanted to get my hands on sugar intake statistics-- but solid numbers going back to the early 19th century are hard to come by! Of all the diet-related books I've read, I've never seen a graph of year-by-year sugar intake going back more than 100 years.
A gentleman by the name of Jeremy Landen and I eventually tracked down some outstanding statistics from old US Department of Commerce reports and the USDA: continuous yearly sweetener sales from 1822 to 2005, which have appeared in two of my talks but I have never seen graphed anywhere else*. These numbers represent added sweeteners such as cane sugar, high-fructose corn syrup and maple syrup, but not naturally occurring sugars in fruit and vegetables. Behold:
Read more »
A Camel Through the Eye of a Needle - at Non-Profit Health Insurers
It is time to drag out that well-worn phrase,... sometimes you just cannot make this stuff up.
Recently, the New York Post reported about executive compensation at some non-profit health maintenance organizations/ health insurance companies in New York. To wit,
FidelisCare
So much for a vow of poverty, even at a non-profit providing health care mainly to the poor.
EmblemHealth
On the other hand, executives of secular, but still non-profit health insurers do even better,
We have noted before how the "peer benchmarking process," setting executive (but not necessarily other) compensation based on a comparison with compensation at other, often highly selected organizations, coupled with the "Lake Wobegone Effect," the belief that one's own executives are always above average, will lead to inexorable rises in executive pay, regardless of performance, or whatever else is going on in the world. The Bishop's assertion that Fidelis' executive compensation should be at the seventy-fifth percentile, because of the "quality of leadership," not further described, is a perfect example of these phenomena.
It is striking to see these phenomena at a non-profit organization whose mission is:
So, ad infinitum, I repeat.... health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior.
If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.
Recently, the New York Post reported about executive compensation at some non-profit health maintenance organizations/ health insurance companies in New York. To wit,
FidelisCare
At one Catholic-run health insurer for the needy, charity starts in the executive suite.Amazingly, the justification that was trotted out in this case was just of the "our CEO is brilliant" variety, but in this case, provided by a Bishop:
Mark Lane, the CEO of the Fidelis Care/New York State Catholic Health Plan, receives a $1.1 million salary plus another $864,000 in retirement pension and other benefits, The Post has learned.
His total compensation comes to nearly $2 million.
Fidelis is a tax-exempt, not-for-profit HMO serving 750,000 patients throughout the city and state who mostly qualify for Medicaid, the public insurance program for the needy. That means nearly all of Fidelis’ revenues come from taxpayers.
Meanwhile Fidelis’ executive vice president and chief operating officer, the Rev. Patrick Frawley, an ordained Catholic priest, is paid $587,249.
Frawley received more than $900,000 in other retirement and deferred benefits — raising his total compensation to $1.54 million, according to IRS filings.
That’s a lot of pennies from heaven.
'It’s shocking to me,' said a source familiar with Catholic health charities.
Fidelis defended the salaries of its top officers, who oversee a $3 billion operation.
Bishop Joseph Sullivan, a member of Fidelis’ board of trustees who formerly served as chairman, called the compensation 'generous but fair.'
He said the goal is for salaries to be at the '75th percentile' of rivals.
“Our ability to continue to grow is based on the quality of leadership. You get what you pay for. Lane and Father Frawley are worth every penny,” Sullivan said.
Fidelis also issued a statement explaining that Frawley, after serving in pastoral roles for 25 years, was granted release from his priestly assignment to pursue a career in health care.
So much for a vow of poverty, even at a non-profit providing health care mainly to the poor.
EmblemHealth
On the other hand, executives of secular, but still non-profit health insurers do even better,
Anthony Watson, CEO of EmblemHealth, gets a compensation package of $8.5 million — about half in salary and bonuses and the rest in retirement and deferred benefits, according to IRS filings.Summary
Two other EmblemHealth executives also snagged multimillion-dollar compensation packages.
We have noted before how the "peer benchmarking process," setting executive (but not necessarily other) compensation based on a comparison with compensation at other, often highly selected organizations, coupled with the "Lake Wobegone Effect," the belief that one's own executives are always above average, will lead to inexorable rises in executive pay, regardless of performance, or whatever else is going on in the world. The Bishop's assertion that Fidelis' executive compensation should be at the seventy-fifth percentile, because of the "quality of leadership," not further described, is a perfect example of these phenomena.
It is striking to see these phenomena at a non-profit organization whose mission is:
to ensure that every resident, regardless of income, age, religion, gender, or ethnic background, has access to quality health care, provided with dignity and respect.
So, ad infinitum, I repeat.... health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior.
If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.
Jumat, 17 Februari 2012
The Bloat Continues: More Tales of Non-Profit Hospital Executive Compensation
While unemployment remains high, and mortgage foreclosures continue in the US, nothing seems to stop the rise of health care costs, lead by compensation for top health care leaders. So, it is time once again for a round-up of inflated executive compensation at non-profit and government hospital systems. We will describe the bloat in order of the appearance of the information in public.
Cincinnati
The December, 2011, the Cincinnati Business Courier tabulated the pay of the best compensated hospital employees, and discussed the results in an accompanying article. By my count, 19 local hospital employees made more than $1 million in 2010. These included 6 system CEO, 4 division CEOs, 5 chief level executives or vice presidents, 1 clinical department chair, and 3 doctors. The top compensation went to Kenneth Hanover, CEO of Health Alliance/ UC Health, $2,799,338. Three others made more than $2 million.
Western New York
In January, 2012, Buffalo Business First reported:
The life of a top hospital executive near Buffalo was not quite as plush as in Cincinnati. Only 4 made more than $1 million, including the CEO, Chief Medical Officer/ Executive Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer of Kaleida Health, and the CEO of Catholic Health System. Eleven more executives got more than $500,000.
North Carolina
It was a very good year for executives from some of the state's biggest health care systems, per a February, 2012 article in the Charlotte Observer.
Meanwhile, at Novant Health,
A data table within the article showed that there were 10 employees, all executives, at Carolinas Healthcare System in 2011, and 6, again all executives, at Novant Health in 2010, who got more than $1 million in compensation.
Why did the Carolinas CEO warrant a multi-million dollar pay package? One of his employees endeavored to explain,
Northern New York City Suburbs
In February, 2012, LoHud.com reported:
The details included:
Also,
This article highlighted the contrast between compensation for executives and for employees who provide front line care:
While it is a rare hospital that would disparage the performance of its dedicated nurses and physicians, somehow executive talent seems to matter more. For example, here is how Hudson Valley Hospital Center president John Federspiel's compensation was justified by his board chair:
Summary
It all gets so tedious, doesn't it? CEOs of all but the smallest non-profit hospitals now seem entitled to at least $1 million a year. At larger systems, multiple executives per system seem entitled to that level of compensation, and CEOs may get multiple millions a year. Yet these are ostensibly non-profit organizations dedicated or providing care to their communities, and often to serving the poor. Thus the health care bubble continues to inflate, and executives are ever more distracted by money, and seem less focused on mission.
Note that reporting of this ever rising compensation seems to be becoming more perfunctory as the results seem more routine (and tedious). Two of the four articles noted above did not provide any justifications for the high pay, while two only trotted out brief versions of the "our CEO is so brilliant" meme.
As I said in December, in a health care system with ever rising costs, declining access, and stagnant quality, we no longer can tolerate the perverse incentives generated by unaccountably high compensation to top executives. As long as top executives continue their sense of "self-entitlement," and can continue their current management practices reinforced by ever rising pay checks, expect poor leadership to undermine any attempts to improve health care. Tired repetitions of the usual rationales, that the CEOs are brilliant and hard-working, and that their compensation is mandated by the market do not make these rationales true.
We need health care leadership that has compassion for the increasing hardships that their patients have to endure, and that puts doing the right thing for patients' and the public's health ahead of self-interest.
Cincinnati
The December, 2011, the Cincinnati Business Courier tabulated the pay of the best compensated hospital employees, and discussed the results in an accompanying article. By my count, 19 local hospital employees made more than $1 million in 2010. These included 6 system CEO, 4 division CEOs, 5 chief level executives or vice presidents, 1 clinical department chair, and 3 doctors. The top compensation went to Kenneth Hanover, CEO of Health Alliance/ UC Health, $2,799,338. Three others made more than $2 million.
Western New York
In January, 2012, Buffalo Business First reported:
The top hospital administrators in Western New York took home more than $53 million in compensation during 2010, with four executives earning $1 million-plus paydays.
Hospital presidents and chief executives at the region’s two largest health systems were among the top earners, with James Kaskie, president and CEO of Kaleida Health , earning $2.36 million; and Joseph McDonald, president and CEO at Catholic Health , earning nearly $1.1 million.
Kaskie’s compensation, as well as Kaleida executives Connie Vari, Robert Nolan and Margaret Paroski, included a deferred retirement plan payout. All four were among the top five earners for 2010, the most recent year for which complete data is available.
The life of a top hospital executive near Buffalo was not quite as plush as in Cincinnati. Only 4 made more than $1 million, including the CEO, Chief Medical Officer/ Executive Vice President, and Chief Operating Officer of Kaleida Health, and the CEO of Catholic Health System. Eleven more executives got more than $500,000.
North Carolina
It was a very good year for executives from some of the state's biggest health care systems, per a February, 2012 article in the Charlotte Observer.
Carolinas HealthCare System paid its CEO $4.2 million in 2011, $523,000 more than the year before, as the system celebrated a profitable year and met all of its systemwide goals, according to hospital officials.
Chief Executive Officer Michael Tarwater, 58, who has led the $6 billion public hospital system for 10 years, received a base salary of about $1 million, two bonuses totaling $2.5 million, and other compensation, including retirement and health benefits, of about $700,000.
That represents a 9 percent increase in base salary and a 14 percent overall increase compared to 2010, when Tarwater's salary was $986,172 and total compensation was $3.7 million.
Meanwhile, at Novant Health,
The most recent compensation figures for Novant executives are from 2010. In that year, Novant's CEO Paul Wiles, 64, received total compensation of $3.2 million, including his salary of $1 million, a bonus of about $837,000, and $1.37 million in other income, including retirement and health benefits.
Wiles retired at the end of 2011 and was succeeded by Carl Armato, who was previously chief operating officer for Novant.
A data table within the article showed that there were 10 employees, all executives, at Carolinas Healthcare System in 2011, and 6, again all executives, at Novant Health in 2010, who got more than $1 million in compensation.
Why did the Carolinas CEO warrant a multi-million dollar pay package? One of his employees endeavored to explain,
'We've had extremely good performance,' said Debra Plousha Moore, the system's chief of human resources. 'All performance goals this year were either met or exceeded.'Why the credit for that performance should not be spread amongst more hospital employees, especially those who actually took care of patients, she did not explain.
Northern New York City Suburbs
In February, 2012, LoHud.com reported:
Eight executives from 15 Lower Hudson Valley hospitals received more than $1 million in salary, bonuses, benefits and other pay in 2010 at a time when the state struggled to control health-care costs.
The details included:
Three executives received more in total compensation than Westchester Medical Center CEO Michael Israel, who earned $1.3 million and oversees a hospital that’s more than twice the size of other facilities in the region.
Also,
The highest-paid hospital employees include White Plains Hospital CEO Jon Schandler with $1.6 million in total compensation, Dr. Edward Lundy at Good Samaritan Hospital in Suffern with $1.48 million and Edward Dinan, CEO of Lawrence Hospital in Bronxville, with $1.41 million.
Others in the million-dollar range include John Federspiel, president of Hudson Valley Hospital Center in Cortlandt; Joel Seligman, CEO of Northern Westchester Hospital in Mount Kisco; and Keith Safian, CEO of Phelps Memorial Hospital Center in Sleepy Hollow. A year earlier, Federspiel received a compensation package of nearly $2 million due partly to an $800,000 deferred compensation payout.
The average CEO compensation rose 13 percent from 2009, to $939,751.
Ten hospitals paid $7.7 million in bonuses to top executives, an increase of 15 percent over 2009. White Plains Hospital alone distributed $2.1 million in bonuses, including $650,000 to Dr. Jesus Jaile-Marti, chief of neonatology, and $575,000 to Schandler.
This article highlighted the contrast between compensation for executives and for employees who provide front line care:
The high salaries also come as hospitals pressure many employees for wage freezes, rising insurance costs and watered-down pensions, said Deborah Elliott, a nurse and deputy executive officer of the New York State Nurses Association, a statewide union representing nurses at Sound Shore, Mount Vernon, St. John’s Riverside, St. Joseph’s and Nyack hospitals as well as Westchester Medical Center.Again, contrast that one half percent with the average chief executive increase of 13%.
'It never ceases to amaze me that we sit at the bargaining table with these executives who are making $1 million and they give us such a hard time about a half-percent increase for a nurse who is making $63,000,' Elliott said. 'It’s galling.'
While it is a rare hospital that would disparage the performance of its dedicated nurses and physicians, somehow executive talent seems to matter more. For example, here is how Hudson Valley Hospital Center president John Federspiel's compensation was justified by his board chair:
Edward B. MacDonald Jr., chairman of Hudson Valley Hospital Center’s board of directors, said Federspiel deserves his paycheck. The hospital has earned a profit for 22 of the 25 years that Federspiel has been at the helm and has expanded both its services and payroll in that time, he said.Again, why the CEO, but not the nurses and doctors deserves the credit for the hospital's performance was not stated.
'He’s the best administrator, planner and motivator I have ever had the privilege to work with,' MacDonald said. 'I wish I could pay him more.'
Summary
It all gets so tedious, doesn't it? CEOs of all but the smallest non-profit hospitals now seem entitled to at least $1 million a year. At larger systems, multiple executives per system seem entitled to that level of compensation, and CEOs may get multiple millions a year. Yet these are ostensibly non-profit organizations dedicated or providing care to their communities, and often to serving the poor. Thus the health care bubble continues to inflate, and executives are ever more distracted by money, and seem less focused on mission.
Note that reporting of this ever rising compensation seems to be becoming more perfunctory as the results seem more routine (and tedious). Two of the four articles noted above did not provide any justifications for the high pay, while two only trotted out brief versions of the "our CEO is so brilliant" meme.
As I said in December, in a health care system with ever rising costs, declining access, and stagnant quality, we no longer can tolerate the perverse incentives generated by unaccountably high compensation to top executives. As long as top executives continue their sense of "self-entitlement," and can continue their current management practices reinforced by ever rising pay checks, expect poor leadership to undermine any attempts to improve health care. Tired repetitions of the usual rationales, that the CEOs are brilliant and hard-working, and that their compensation is mandated by the market do not make these rationales true.
We need health care leadership that has compassion for the increasing hardships that their patients have to endure, and that puts doing the right thing for patients' and the public's health ahead of self-interest.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)