Shire Settles Claims of Deceptive Marketing of Multiple Drugs for $56.8 Million, No Individual Held Responsible

Here we go again.  A big drug company has settled claims of deceptive marketing, yet no individual was held accountable.  The most extensive coverage came from the Philadelphia Inquirer, presumably since the announcement came from the local US Attorney.

The basics were:

Shire Pharmaceuticals L.L.C. will pay $56.5 million to settle allegations that it inappropriately promoted the sale of ADHD medicine, among other drugs, the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia said Wednesday.

Shire is registered in the Channel Islands and headquartered in Dublin, but operates from the United States....

As is usual in such cases,

Shire admitted no wrongdoing, but also entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement with the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services.

The detailed allegations make for interesting reading.

The settlement resolves allegations that, between January 2004 and December 2007, Shire promoted Adderall XR for certain uses despite a lack of clinical data to support such claims and overstated the efficacy of Adderall XR, particularly relative to other ADHD drugs. Among the unsupported claims allegedly made by Shire was that Adderall XR was clinically superior to other ADHD drugs because it would 'normalize' its recipients, rendering them indistinguishable from their non-ADHD peers. Shire allegedly stated that its competitors’ products could not achieve similar results, which the Justice Department contended was not shown in the clinical data Shire collected. Shire also marketed Adderall XR based on claims that Adderall XR would prevent poor academic performance, loss of employment, criminal behavior, traffic accidents, and sexually transmitted disease. In addition, Shire promoted Adderall XR for the treatment of conduct disorder, an indication not approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

The settlement further resolves allegations that, between February 2007 and September 2010, Shire sales representatives and other agents also allegedly made false and misleading statements about the efficacy and abuse liability of Vyvanse to state Medicaid formulary committees and to individual physicians. For example, one Shire medical science liaison allegedly told a state formulary board that Vyvanse 'provides less abuse liability' than 'every other long-acting release mechanism' on the market. No study Shire conducted concluded that Vyvanse was not abusable, and, as an amphetamine product, the Vyvanse label included an FDA-mandated black box warning for its potential for misuse and abuse. Shire also made unsupported claims that treatment with Vyvanse would prevent car accidents, divorce, being arrested, and unemployment.

Additionally, the settlement resolves allegations that, from April 2006 to September 2010, Shire representatives improperly marketed Daytrana, administered through a patch, as less abusable than traditional, pill-based medications. The settlement also resolves allegations that, for part of the foregoing periods, Shire representatives improperly made phone calls and drafted letters to state Medicaid authorities to assist physicians with the prior authorization process for prescriptions to induce these physicians to prescribe Daytrana and Vyvanse.

Finally, the settlement resolves allegations that, between January 2006 and June 2010, Shire sales representatives promoted Lialda and Pentasa for off-label uses not approved by the FDA and not covered by federal healthcare programs. Specifically, the government alleged that Shire promoted Lialda off-label for the prevention of colorectal cancer.

Thus, the allegations were that Shire marketers and "agents" made false, sometimes apparently ridiculous claims about four different medicines.  Some of these claims, for example, that an amphetamine drug had no abuse potential, or that an anti-inflammatory drug would prevent cancer (in patients at risk for cancer), could conceivably have led to patients being harmed. 


According to the Wall Street Journal, the settlement was made to clean up loose ends before the big take-over of Shire,

 The pact resolves one outstanding issue ahead of Shire's planned $54 billion acquisition by AbbVie Inc.

So note that the dollar amount of the settlement is approximately one one-thousandth (0.1%) of the total value of Shire.

According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, no one admitted guilt, and no individual will pay any penalty:

'We are pleased to have reached a resolution and to put this matter behind us,' Flemming Ornskov, Shire’s chief executive officer said in a statement.

So this follows the usual formula for legal settlements in health care.  A big pharmaceutical company was alleged to have deceptively marketed multiple products.  Some of the deceptions could have lead to patient harm.  The government took the company to court, but the end result was a monetary penalty paid by the company that might appear large, but which was tiny compared to the assets of the company.  The company did not have to admit guilt.  No individual at the company paid any penalty or suffered any consequence.  While the organization had to sign a "corporate integrity agreement," it is not clear that such agreements prevent future bad behavior.

There have been many, many such settlements, as we have discussed on Health Care Renewal.  At least these settlements serve as evidence that many, many large health care organizations have behaved unethically, often in ways that not only increase health costs, but may directly harm patients.  Yet the settlements seem bent over backwards not to trouble the people who personally profited from unethical behavior. 

Individual company marketers, their supervisors, and top executive likely made more money because of the revenue brought in by the unethical practices.  However, the settlement somehow avoided identifying any of them, or even stating unequivocally that the company, or any of its employees did anything wrong.  That is absurd, since if nothing bad was done by anybody, why did the company have to pay anything?  Beyond that, if individuals who work for big drug companies, and other large health care organizations know that whatever they do in their official capacities, they will not be held personally responsible, what would deter them from taking unethical actions in the future?

Most citizens trust drug companies to provide safe effective medicines.  Marketing drugs as safer than they are, or for purposes for which they are not effective abuses the companies' entrusted power.  Doing so in order to enrich oneself thus is a manifestation of corruption.  The ongoing parade of legal settlements is thus a marker of how corrupt health care has become. 

Furthermore, the continued inability of regulators and law enforcement to do more in the face of corruption suggest moral failure, incompetence, and perhaps more corruption.

We will never achieve true health care reform, and will never really improve our vastly over-priced, ineffective health care system until we address this sort of health care corruption. 

A final note: Eric Holder, the current US Attorney General, will soon leave.  While he has been hailed for promoting human rights in some instance (that is, for LGBT individuals), he has been criticized for never making an effort to pursue the top corporate executives who were responsible for the global financial collapse of 2008 (look here) although the Department of Justice constantly goes after relatively small scale white collar criminals.  He also appears to have almost never pursued any top corporate executives involved in deceptive, unethical, illegal or corrupt health care practices, while the government constantly pursues perpetrators of relatively small scale Medicare and Medicaid fraud (look here).  One of his US Attorneys notably pursued the late Aaron Swartz for vaguely specified computer crimes which did not appear to harm anyone while she gave passes to executives at big health care corporations that settled cases of alleged actions that likely harmed patients (look here).   His failure to pursue such large scale health care corruption should be regarded as no less serious than his failure to pursue financial corruption.

Medicare Pays $220 Million a Year for Acthar Without Any Controlled Trials that Prove it Works - While We Have No Money to Develop Ebola Vaccines or Treatment?

Introduction - No Money for Ebola Vaccine Development

While a new Ebola epidemic continues in Africa, people in developed countries are getting worried. Even the 0.1%, who may have rarely worried about our dysfunctional health care system before, are getting nervous. For example, this week, the Donald seemed panic stricken that Ebola infected American health workers might be allowed to return to the US, no matter what the precautions.  As reported by Politico,

Donald Trump has a message for the Ebola patient coming to the United States for treatment: Stay out.

'Ebola patient will be brought to the U.S. in a few days — now I know for sure that our leaders are incompetent,' Trump tweeted Thursday night. “KEEP THEM OUT OF HERE!”

Yet, as we posted here, money was the major barrier to developing treatments of vaccines that could have helped contain the epidemic in Africa, but whose availability in the US could also have reassured the Donald.  Dr John Ashton, a top public health physician in the UK, wrote in the Independent,

 

We must also tackle the scandal of the unwillingness of the pharmaceutical industry to invest in research to produce treatments and vaccines, something they refuse to do because the numbers involved are, in their terms, so small and don't justify the investment. This is the moral bankruptcy of capitalism acting in the absence of an ethical and social framework.

 

It seems that in the US and UK, our market based health care system can only cannot develop treatments for dangerous diseases when the treatments will produce huge returns on investment.   The irony is that even people (like Mr Trump) who preached market triumphalism and limiting government, presumably from doing things like developing drugs, may now fear diseases for which the market alone provides no remedy.  

 

Meanwhile, while there was no money to develop vaccines and drugs for Ebola, a story about how much money we are spending on questionable remedies has reappeared.  

 

But a Huge Increase in Money for Acthar

This week, writing in ProPublica and the New York Times, Charles Ornstein noted the huge amounts being paid by the US government for a previously obscure drug,

An obscure injectable medication made from pigs' pituitary glands has surged up the list of drugs that cost Medicare the most money, taking a growing bite out of the program's resources.

Medicare's tab for the medication, H.P. Acthar Gel, jumped twentyfold from 2008 to 2012, reaching $141.5 million, according to Medicare prescribing data requested by ProPublica. The bill for 2013 is likely to be even higher, exceeding $220 million.

Over approximately the same time course, commercial US health care insurers and the Tricare program for military dependents noted a surge in the amounts they were paying for this drug too,

 At a recent conference hosted by Sanford C. Bernstein, Dr. Ed Pazella, Aetna's national medical director for pharmacy policy and strategy, explained the shift on Acthar.

Questcor's 'combination of aggressive marketing and aggressive price increases finally caused it to become a line item that a finance guy looked at and said: 'What the hell are we paying for this? Why? What is it?' And that's when we started looking at what's our policy around this stuff,' Pazella said.

You Heard it Here First - a Huge Price Increase for an Old Unproven Drug

This problem's development took quite some time.  As we first discussed in 2007, some clever  maneuvering by corporate executives around loopholes in government rules benefited the executives, but maybe no one else.

The clinical background is that Acthar is a form of a hormone (ACTH) that stimulates the adrenal gland to produce more cortisol and other related hormones.  The formulation is made from pig pituitaries, and was developed in the 1940s.  It was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration at a time when this action did nor require proof of efficacy, that is, proof that the drug worked.  For years, the drug was only used for a rare form of infantile seizures, and occasionally for symptoms of multiple sclerosis in adults.  As noted in several reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration, there is little good evidence that the drug works for either condition, and no evidence that it is better than simpler, cheaper alternatives, like synthetic alternatives to cortisol, for the latter. (See this blog post).

The drug languished for years, but Questcor purchased the rights to it in 2001, apparently for a mere $100,000 (look here).  In 2007, the company jacked its price up in 2007 from $1650 a vial to $23,000 a vial.

A Further Price Increase, and a Big Marketing Push


As Mr Ornstein noted, its price is now $32,000 a vial.  One might expect that this huge price would quickly generate competition from generic drug manufacturers,  but, per Mr Ornstein,

Although it long ago lost patent protection, the drug is a complex biologic agent, and the manufacturing process is a trade secret. 

Furthermore, infantile spasms may be rare, but, 

Since Acthar came on the market in 1952, the rules about F.D.A. approval have changed. At the time, drug companies simply had to demonstrate that a drug was safe, rather than that it was effective. Acthar was initially authorized as a treatment for more than 50 diseases and conditions. (The list has since been cut to 19.)

Drug companies are barred by federal rules from marketing drugs for "off-label" indications, however, given the above, it was not obviously illegal when Questcor

 began marketing it for a broad menu of uses.

In addition, Medicare could not easily challenge the huge price Questcor was charging for this unproven remedy given to adults

Medicare cannot bar access to medications like Acthar, even in the face of rising expense and questions about efficacy, Aaron Albright, a spokesman for the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a written statement. The law mandates that Medicare's drug program, known as Part D, cover drugs for the uses authorized by the Food and Drug Administration, he said.

Questions about Questcor's Marketing

In fact, while it appears legal to promote Acthar for uses for which it has no proven efficacy, there are some questions about Questcor's marketing practices,

The company has disclosed in filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission that two United States attorney's offices and the S.E.C. are investigating its promotional practices.

A possible reason why was supplied by a companion ProPublica article, also by Charles Ornstein,

 Many of Medicare's top prescribers of the expensive specialty drug H.P. Acthar Gel have financial ties to the drug's maker.

Only 18 practitioners wrote 15 or more prescriptions for the drug in 2012. At least nine — and all of the top four — were promotional speakers, researchers or consultants for Questcor Pharmaceuticals, a ProPublica analysis shows.

Also, there are questions about whether Questcor has been concealing adverse events related to the increasing use of Acthar.  Until recently, as noted by Gretchen Morgenson in the NY Times in July, 2014,

For years, Questcor Pharmaceuticals has highlighted the potential benefits of Acthar, its immune-system drug, while saying little about its ill effects.

But as had been noted also by Gretchen Morgenson in the NY Times in June, 2014, more information about adverse events began coming out, not mainly for the benefit of patients, but apparently due to questions by investors about a pending takeover of Questcor by Mallinckrodt,

Since 2012, the events, as reported to the Food and Drug Administration’s Adverse Event Reporting System, or Faers (pronounced 'fares'), have included 20 deaths and six disabilities among patients reported to have been using Acthar and in which Acthar was recorded as 'suspect,' or the drug most likely to have been associated with the event. From January 2000 through 2011, by contrast, 13 deaths involving Acthar were reported to the F.D.A.’s system.

Although Questcor has reported some of these events to the F.D.A., as required, the company has not discussed the adverse outcomes in its financial filings. A Supreme Court ruling in 2011 concluded that reports of adverse events among patients using a drug, even if few in number, are of interest to investors weighing whether to buy or sell shares in the manufacturer.

The July, 2014 article by Gretchen Morgenson in the NY Times noted further,

according to a regulatory filing made by Questcor early Thursday, the number of patients reporting a so-called adverse event while using the drug last year represented almost 5 percent of prescriptions dispensed. The total number of events in 2013 reported by patients, who can experience multiple ill effects, was almost 14 percent of prescriptions, up from 9.1 percent in 2011.

 It was the first time Questcor, which has received a $5.6 billion takeover bid from Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals, had disclosed any problems experienced by Acthar patients, even though such information is of keen interest to investors.

That information might also be of interest to patients and doctors. 

Questions about Questcor's Executive Compensation

While Questcor brought in huge amounts of money from an old unproven drug using aggressive marketing that did not dwell on the drug's adverse effects, its executives have been making lots of money, sometimes in questionable ways.  For example, in February, 2014, Jesse Eisinger also reported for ProPublica that the timing of Questcor CEO Don M Bailey's stock sales has seemed unusually fortuitous,

Questcor Pharmaceuticals is a biotechnology company with a $4 billion market capitalization. Good things keep happening to Questcor in the middle of the month. Here’s what’s notable: The middle of the month just happens to be the time that the company’s chief executive, Don M. Bailey, sells stock through his regular selling plan.

The question is whether the company timed its favorable press releases to coincide with the times its CEO was known to be selling his shares?

Also, in May, a blog on The Street noted that the CEO's daughter also appears to have been quite fortunate, for no obvious reason,

As reported this morning by my colleague Herb Greenberg in his "Reality Check" newsletter (subscription required), Kirsten Fereday, a Questcor employee who also happens to be Bailey's daughter, received a huge salary bump in  in 2013, according to the compensation portion of its yet-to-be-filed proxy two days ago in an amended 10-K.

According to the filing:

Kirsten Fereday, the daughter of Don M. Bailey, our Chief Executive Officer, was employed by us during 2013 as our Senior Director, Business Analytics and Evaluation, and received total cash and equity compensation for the year ended December 31, 2013 equal to approximately $1,035,246 in cash compensation and $200,000 in restricted stock grants (value based on intrinsic value method). Ms. Fereday's employment was approved in accordance with the Related Party Transaction Policy and our Chief Executive Officer is not involved in the determination of Ms. Fereday's compensation. [Emphasis added.]

Why did her pay go up so much compared to that received in the previous year?

Furthermore, while Questcor derives a tremendous amount of revenue from the US government, a deal is in the works for it to be acquired by Mallinckrodt, now based in Ireland, which, if successful, will make top Questcor executives even richer, as Gretchen Morgenson wrote in the NY Times in June, 2014,

If the acquisition by Mallinckrodt goes through, Questcor’s top six executives could receive severance packages totaling $63.5 million under the terms of their contracts, the merger proxy shows.

Also,

During the time that adverse events involving Acthar have risen, Questcor’s top executives have been actively selling shares. So far this year, securities filings show, sales by the top five executives at the company, four of them under prearranged selling plans set up last year, have generated gains of $39 million.

Summary

As Andrew Pollack wrote in the first NY Times coverage of how Questcor used an old unproven drug to generate huge returns,

How the price of this drug rose so far, so fast is a story for these troubled times in American health care — a tale of aggressive marketing, questionable medicine and, not least, out-of-control costs.

 The sorry case of Questcor and Acthar reveal how crazy the costs of health care in the US have become, driven now by a system that itself now seems crazy.  Through clever use of regulatory loopholes, the company acquired rights to an old drug whose efficacy was unproven, hugely increased its price, began aggressive marketing even though the drug's efficacy was completely unproven, while remaining largely silent about the drug's substantial risks.  Fueled by hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue thus generated, mainly from the US government, the company richly rewarded its top hired executives, who then have decided to sell it to a company outside of the US in a deal that will make these executives millions more.  So patients received a drug whose benefits are unknown, and whose risks may be much higher than they were told, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, much of it borne by US taxpayers, while company executives got rich.


Just coupling for now the story of how we spent hundreds of millions on Acthar to enrich company executives with the story that we have no money to develop vaccines or treatments for Ebola virus (look here) demonstrates the massive failure of our experiment to turn our health care system over to market triumphalists and laissez faire mercantilists.  As long as we let the health care system be run by people who put their own enrichment ahead of patients' and the public's health, things will only get crazier.  And even the rich may not be immune from the results of that craziness

So to repeat, true health care reform would put in place leadership that understands the health care context, upholds health care professionals' values, and puts patients' and the public's health ahead of extraneous, particularly short-term financial concerns. We need health care governance that holds health care leaders accountable, and ensures their transparency, integrity and honesty.

But this sort of reform would challenge the interests of managers who are getting very rich off the current system.  So I am afraid the US may end up going far down this final common pathway before enough people manifest enough strength to make real changes.

The Price of Compassion - Commercialized Hospices and the Mistreatment of Vulnerable Patients

Introduction - Commercialized Hospices

We have occasionally written about the rise of the commercialized hospice industry, and concerns that commercialized hospices may not be providing the compassionate care they promise.  As we have discussed before, the hospice movement began with small, non-profit, community based organizations meant to provide compassionate palliative care to the terminally ill.  However, in the US, the hospice movement has been co-opted by commercial hospices, often run by large corporations, which may put profit ahead of compassion.

Several long investigative articles have appeared this year that focus largely on the commercial part of the hospice movement:
Terminal neglect? - how some hospices decline to treat the dying, Washington Post, May 3, 2014, by Peter Whoriskey and Dan Keating
How dying became a multibillion-dollar industry, Huffington Post, June 19, 2014, by Ben Hallman
Is that hospice safe? - infrequent inspections mean it may be impossible to know, Washington Post, June 26, 2014, by Peter Whoriskey.

As we have discussed before, the biggest risk of the rush to commercialize hospices is that it may lead to the enrollment of patients who are not terminally ill.  To try to achieve a dignified death in as much comfort as possible, the hospice movement emphasizes aggressive use of analgesics, including narcotics, and other psychoactive drugs.  Also, hospice patients cannot expect treatments meant to prolong life or cure acute problems, since in terminal patients these may cause unpleasant side effects and will not, by definition, work.  Therefore, a patient who is not terminal enrolled in hospice runs risks of being drugged into a stupor, and could be doomed were he or she to develop an acute illness for which treatment is available, like a bacterial pneumonia that might respond to antibiotics, because in hospice antibiotics are not given for acute infections.  Thus the whole hospice model depends on the ability of hospices to enroll only terminally ill patients.

This is difficult because prognosis is difficult to predict.  Beyond that, we discussed how commercial hospices may have financial incentives to enroll patients who are not terminally ill because they can make a lot of money from such patients.

The recent articles add more evidence that commercial hospices may enroll patients who are not terminal, and such patients may end up suffering or dying prematurely because of excess pain treatment or withholding of treatment of acute illness inherent in the hospice model.

A Long Anecdote Illustrating the Dangers of Commercialized Hospices

The Huffington Post article provided an extended anecdote about what happened to a patient enrolled in a commercial hospice despite the lack of an identified terminal condition. The patient was Mary Maples.

By the fall of 2011, her health was often poor. She ate a special diet to keep her diabetes in check and likely also suffered from COPD, a disease that often afflicts ex-smokers and makes it hard to breathe. Still, she retained her wit and sense of humor

She was hospitalized briefly for a urinary tract infection. Her family felt she needed rehabilitation, but apparently had run out of eligibility for Medicare payment for it. Then somehow the family was approached by marketers for Vitas Inc, a commercial hospice company owned by Chemed, also the parent company of Roto-Rooter.

Spry doesn’t recall exactly when she first spoke to a representative from Vitas, or how the company found out that her mother might be a candidate for hospice. But Vitas staff told HuffPost that the medical director of the Titusville rehabilitation center is also on the Vitas payroll, as a team leader.

Spry said a Vitas nurse persuaded her that hospice was the correct choice for her mother. The nurse touted the at-home care and help with other chores that had grown difficult, such as bathing her mother,

Note that what the Vitas nurse allegedly emphasized were ancillary benefits of hospice, not its key function.  The implication is that at a time of vulnerability, the Vitas marketing pitch was deceptive.

It is not clear that Ms Maples or anyone with the legal power to make decisions for her understood the implications of hospice, or consented for her enrollment.

Spry signed the admission forms, even though she did not have the legal right to do so. Dunn, Maples’ grandson, actually had power of attorney over her affairs.

'I didn’t know what I was getting us into,' Spry said.

Vitas said patients or patient representatives must sign a consent form that clearly spells out the hospice mission before they can be enrolled. Records provided to HuffPost from Maples' family, obtained from Vitas, did not include this consent form.

Also,

It’s also not clear that Maples consented to hospice treatment, at least initially. She did not sign the documents authorizing her enrollment 'due to weakness,' according to Vitas records. Yet that same day, according to other nursing notes provided by her family, she was strong enough to move about using a walker during a physical therapy session. 

Enrolling the patient without her consent, or consent from a person with legal authority over her, appears to be a serious ethical failure by Vitas. 

Hospice records did not show the patient had a terminal illness.

Maples did not have a terminal illness. Her diagnosis was 'debility, unspecified,' according to her records. This is a catch-all term for frail patients that Medicare’s regulator has said hospices are no longer allowed to use, because so many claims made under the diagnosis were later rejected or determined fraudulent. 

So the patient did not have a terminal illness and did not consent to hospital enrollment, and the hospital company apparently did not make it clear that hospice is only supposed to be for terminal patients.  Furthermore, later it turned out that the family thought Ms Maples would be a candidate for resuscitation, yet hospice care is specifically not supposed to include such aggressive attempts at life prolongation.  Again, this suggests a serious failure by hospice personnel to communicate clearly at best, and perhaps outright deception.

Maples’ records show she or her family repeatedly indicated that she was full code, meaning she wanted life-saving treatment.

Nonetheless, the patient was apparently treated with narcotics and anti-psychotics even though she did not have chronic pain.  This appears to be very bad medical practice, and potentially very dangerous.

Maples was elevated to continuous care even when she wasn’t experiencing any pain at all, her records show. By doing so, Vitas boosted its daily billing rate from the standard $146.20 a day to $853.30.

Documents shared with HuffPost show that in the Melbourne office, at least, managers were encouraged to increase continuous care counts. In the fourth quarter of 2009, for example, one of four 'management program goals' was for continuous care to average 17 patients a day. Managers said they received bonuses pegged to whether they met this and other patient count targets.

The most difficult part of Maples’ experience to evaluate concerns her medication. Her records show she was given morphine, along with Ativan, a type of sedative, and Haldol, a powerful antipsychotic drug.

All three medications are contained in the 'comfort pack' that hospices ship to a patient’s house on admission. They are typically used in the final weeks of the patient’s life, when he or she is near death. 

Ultimately, Ms Maples suffered an acute event that the hospice did not apparently treat adequately.  A relative talked to her on the telephone, and found,

Her speech was garbled and she wasn’t making any sense, he recalled.

He then called the head office of the local Vitas chapter in Melbourne, Florida, and asked that his grandmother be discharged — he wanted to quit Vitas. The receptionist said Maples’ doctor was out of town, and nothing could happen until he returned the next week, according to Dunn.

Later that day, Vitas transferred Maples from her home to its inpatient unit at Courtenay Springs Nursing Home on Merritt Island.

Maples’ records indicate she was moved for 'constipation' — often a side effect of the medications she was receiving — and 'nausea.'

Then,

An ambulance brought Maples to Cape Canaveral Hospital, where she was 'unresponsive and in respiratory failure' on arrival, according to records. She was diagnosed with septic shock — a severe blood infection that is often fatal, especially in elderly patients. 

This implied that hospice personnel failed to adequately manage a potentially fatal acute problem, septic shock, extremely poor medical practice.  However, it would make no sense to aggressively treat septic shock afflicting a patient who was terminal, but, as noted above, Ms Maples did not have a terminal condition.  Although Ms Maples survived that episode, she died weeks later.

So in this one detailed case, a patient who had chronic problems but was not terminally ill was enrolled in hospice, apparently without adequate consent, and after a marketing pitch that did not seem to explain that hospice is only for terminal care.  The patient received apparently very bad medical care, including the use of narcotics for no apparent reason, and an initially inadequate response to a severe acute medical problem, probably hastening her death.  This suggests that commercialized hospices over-selling their services to the wrong patients can hurt, and sometimes even kill patients.

Overly Aggressive and Deceptive Marketing

The Huffington Post and two Washington Post articles also contained other illustrations of these problems.  In the Huffington Post article was the general observation that

Every day, hospice marketers descend on doctor’s offices, rehab centers and hospitals. These workers have been known to rifle through patient logs at nursing stations, scramble to sign up what some in the industry call 'last gasp' patients — people with just hours left to live — and even scuffle with each other in hospital corridors over the right to sign up dying people, according to current and former hospice employees and allegations made in federal lawsuits.

Such a frenzy suggests a certain lack of care about whether the targeted patients are appropriate. Furthermore, the article included specific examples of the push to enroll more patients, no matter what.  

'The pressure was direct from operations on a daily basis,' said James Robbins, a former sales manager at AseraCare Hospice, a chain operating in 19 states. 'What are you not doing? Why are we not getting more patients? We’d have constant conference calls, meetings.'

Robbins, who lives in Atlanta, said he would 'cruise' nursing home lobbies and try to pressure medical directors at those facilities to refer directly to him. 'It's not even about patient care anymore; they’ve gone to the dark side,' he said. 'It’s all about money.'

'I’m a nurse, not a saleswoman,' said Pamela Schiffman, a hospice nurse and patient case manager in California who said she has quit four jobs in the last decade because she was ordered to keep pestering families who resisted her pitch.

Note that AseraCare is a commercial hospice system owned by Golden Living, which in turn is a privately held corporation partially owned and entirely managed by Fillmore Partners, and San Francisco based private equity group (look here). 

Also, there is evidence that marketers were pushed by management to obscure the nature of hospice, and deceive patients into thinking that they would not be denied acute care should they need it.

'One huge problem I had to deal with on a daily basis is patients not understanding they were dying and truly on a real hospice,' said a former manager at a Vitas branch in Florida, who requested anonymity for fear of losing her current job in the industry. 'The admission and marketing staff would tell them, 'This is the new hospice, we are not for dying people, the rules have changed, we can just help you.'

Note that the idea that the rules have changed and hospice is not for dying people anymore is absolute nonsense. 

Furthermore, there is evidence that once enrolled, hospices may resist discharging patients even if it becomes apparent that they are not terminally ill.

A nurse who currently works for Vitas in the same Melbourne, Florida-based location that enrolled Maples said that nurses who tried to suggest at meetings that a patient was no longer appropriate for hospice were routinely 'humiliated.'

Medical Mismanagement

In the Huffington Post article, there were several anecdotes about excess use of pain medicine,

In one example described in court filings, prosecutors allege a Vitas patient was given crushed morphine, even though she wasn’t in pain. The morphine treatment continued even after the patient showed signs of having a toxic reaction to it — even seizures, prosecutors claim. 

Also,

Mary Gubacz fell into a ditch across the street from her assisted living facility at 2 a.m. after she was prescribed the powerful antipsychotic Seroquel while under care of Odyssey Hospice in Michigan, her daughter Marilyn Little said. 

Note that Odyssey hospices are one of multiple chains of hospices owned by Gentiva.


The Washington Post article, Terminal Neglect, provided data about many hospices' inability to manage worsening symptoms (but presumably mainly for patients who were terminally ill.)  In particular, it showed that many hospices never provide what is called continuous nursing care which is usually required by patients with worsening symptoms.  For example,

One of the largest such hospices in the country is the Heartland Hospice Services in Santa Rosa, Calif., a facility owned by HCR ManorCare, a company that was turned private in 2007 by the Carlyle Group, a private equity firm.

Its hospice in Santa Rosa billed Medicare in 2012 for more than 50,000 days of routine hospice care, but no patient received continuous care or general inpatient care, according to the Medicare billing records.

A spokesman for HCR ManorCare portrayed the absence of those services as a statistical anomaly.

Note that given the size of the sample, that would have to be a pretty major statistical anomaly.  

Also,

Other records, too, indicate that many hospices offer very little nursing care in the last days of life.

For example, Medicare tracks how often a hospice sends a skilled nurse to a patient in the 48 hours preceding death.  

But at about 12 percent of hospices, more than one-third of patients die without seeing a skilled nurse in the last 48 hours of their life. Indeed, at 34 hospices, no patient saw a skilled nurse during that time.

The newer Washington Post article, Is That Hospice Safe?, documented many instances of apparently inadequate care of worsening clinical problems,

A woman dying of liver cancer, battling nausea and breathing difficulties, waited weeks for someone to drain fluid from her swelling abdomen and died still waiting, according to records. Another cancer patient had a feeding tube that oozed pus where it pierced his skin and did not actually reach his stomach. He had received no fluids from it for five days, emergency room doctors said. At the same time, a patient complaining about chest pain waited two days for a recorded visit and eventually was taken to a emergency room and diagnosed with pleurisy.

Many of these problems may go unnoticed, because the article noted that hospices are inspected very infrequently, if ever, by government agencies.

Summary

The three recent articles add to the evidence that commercial hospices often enroll patients who are not terminally ill, although hospice is meant only for the terminally ill.  There may be strong incentives for hospice employees to do so, and such enrollment may be induced by deceptive marketing and not accompanied by true informed consent.  Once in hospice, many patients may get poor medical management.  Patients who are not terminally ill may be at risk of getting inadequate care, and perhaps dying due to this lack, were they to get acutely ill, since hospice is not meant to provide life prolonging or potentially curative care for acute problems.

Note that most of the examples above concern the largest commercialized hospices, owned by large publicly held corporations (Vitas owned by Chemmed and, Odyssey owned by Gentiva), or by large corporations owned by private equity (AseraCare, owned by Golden Living, run by Fillmore Partners, and HCR ManorCare, owned by Carlyle Group).  Such large and rich organizations ought to be particularly held accountable for what they are doing to vulnerable patients. 

The US is in the midst of a great, uncontrolled experiment.  We have systematically taken medical and health care services previously lead by health care professionals and sited within community non-profit organizations and given them to for-profit firms, often huge corporations.  Meanwhile, rather than increasing regulation to account for this, we have systematically deregulated health care organizations.  There is more evidence that an increasingly commercial health care system within the framework of wild West, laissez faire capitalism is expensive and dangerous.  It is particularly dangerous for vulnerable populations especially when they are unaware that their caregivers must answer to huge corporations.

In my humble opinion, we should return control of direct patient care, especially of the most vulnerable patients, to health care professionals and if necessary small non-profit community organizations.  We ought to give strong consideration to banning corporate hospices, and banning all forms of the corporate practice of medicine and corporate health care "delivery."

Given how many insiders make so much money from the current version of laissez faire capitalism in health care, however, I would expect strong resistance should such apparently "radical," but actually conservative proposals actually get any mainstream attention.    

GlaxoSmithKline's Marketing Firm Promised "Clinical Trials Could be Your Solution" to Poor Graduate Students

We have frequently raised concerns about the increasing domination of clinical research, particularly clinical trials, by those with vested in interests in the research producing particular results.  In particular, drug, biotechnology and device companies often sponsor trials meant to evaluate their own products.  Often it appears that commercial trial sponsors manipulate various aspects of research design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination to increase the likelihood of a result favorable to their interests.  Furthermore, when even such manipulation fails to produce the desired result, particular studies may simply be suppressed, that is, hidden.

Clinical Trial Participation as "Your Solution" to Graduate Students' Money Woes

A recent story, first told on the In-Pharma Technologist web site, gave an example of how trial recruitment could be gamed so as to produce more compliant study subjects. Since that web-site does not allow copy and pasting of even a few sentences of its content, I will quote, instead, from a subsequent article in the Guardian.

GlaxoSmithKline  the pharmaceuticals multinational, has apologised after being accused of playing on the hardship of unpaid interns to recruit them to take part in clinical trials.

A marketing firm working for the FTSE 100 company sought to place a blog on careers advice websites boasting that involvement in drug trials could help graduates to finance their way through unpaid work placements.

In a proposed 'guest blog' for the website Graduate Fog, an employee at TouchPoint Digital, working on behalf of GSK, wrote: 'Clinical trials could be your solution.'

The "guest blog" proposed that many graduate students "would prefer an immediate income to tide you over for the coming months."  So,

Clinical trials could be your solution. Depending on the length of the study, you could earn up to £2,000 per trial for up to 4 trials a year, plus reasonable travel expenses.

This was not a one-off,

 Touchpoint provided examples of similar articles previously published on websites targeted at students. In an email to the founder of Graduate Fog, Tanya de Grunwald, it added: 'Your readers would also benefit if there is a small link at the end of the article to the GSK website, which is the biggest pharmaceutical company in the UK, so that if they want to find out more or get answers to more specific questions they can do so.'

Excessive Inducement

The story was picked up by Ed Silverman at the PharmaLot blog in the US, who pointed out how TouchPoint Digital appeared to be supplying an excessive inducement to vulnerable subjects,

Tanya de Grunwald, who runs the Graduate Fog website in the U.K., objected to the tone of the overture. 'Some of my readers are feeling very low, vulnerable and desperate for money,' she wrote us in an e-mail after openly questioning the recruiting tactic in a note to readers on her website last week. 'Many are unemployed. Others are in low-paid graduate jobs or doing unpaid internships.'

'Suggesting that participating clinical trials is a great way to earn easy cash is not just crass – I think it’s irresponsible. Surely, the more desperate someone is for money, the more likely they are to be dazzled by the financial benefits and less careful about weighing up the risks.'

A long time ago, that is, from 2006 - 2008, we published a series of posts about how contract research organizations running clinical research projects for commercial health care firms often preyed on financially and otherwise vulnerable research subjects by offering what would appear to such people to be dazzling remuneration.  For example, we discussed the trials by SFBC International (later PharmaNet Development Group, and now apparently Inventiv Health Clinical)  in Miami that enrolled immigrants, often undocumented, under questionable circumstances and in Montreal that resulted in the transmission of active tuberculosis (see post here and links backward); and the trial by Parexel International in London that put most of its subjects in intensive care (see post here, with links backward). In 2008, as we discussed here, two articles questioning the ethics of research done under the auspices of CRO appeared in two major medical journals.  Excessively zealous recruiting designed to tempt vulnerable subjects with money appears unethical, and may be dangerous for these subjects.

How Excessive Inducement Could Lead to Invalid Trial Results

Not only is such a practice apparently unethical and dangerous, it could endanger patients outside the research projects in question by producing invalid research.  Subjects who could be dazzled by such inducements might avoid disclosing conditions which would otherwise exclude them from particular research projects, or participate in multiple projects without sufficient or any wash out periods in between, meaning that one treatment's effects could confound another.  (Note that the blog post proposed by the marketer above suggested that subjects could participate in multiple trials during one year.)  Furthermore, subjects desperate to complete studies and earn their fees might avoid reporting adverse effects to avoid the risk of premature termination of their participation, or avoid protesting questionable actions by the researchers.   

But now in the modern era of the Internet and social media, overzealous recruitment using monetary lures is still going on.  As per PharmaLot,

One expert believes the flap is not surprising, because drug makers are under pressure to maintain a steady stream of clinical trial recruits.

'Middle class folks just sit back and wait until the drug reaches the market. Poor folks are the guinea pigs in an economy that is more and more uneven, and uncertain by the day,' says Roberto Abadie, a senior researcher at the Social Networks Research Group at John Jay College, City University of New York, and author of ‘The Professional Guinea Pig: Big Pharma and the Risky World of Human Subjects.'

A Belated Response from GSK

Apparently only after the story broke did GSK notice there was a problem.  Again, per PharmaLot,

A Glaxo spokeswoman blamed the outside marketing firm for the episode. In an e-mail, she wrote us that 'we would agree that the tone used in the ads… is wrong. It trivializes the role of clinical trials in developing new medicines and the part that volunteers play in that process. This isn’t acceptable and we’re looking into what happened.'

Whether GSK was properly supervising the marketing firm, and whether GSK had provided incentives that might have lead to overzealous recruitment were not addressed.

Summary

This story is yet another reminder that health care professionals, health policy makers, and the public at large should be extremely skeptical of clinical research sponsored (and controlled) by those with vested interests in the research results turning out a certain way, particularly clinical trials run by drug, biotechnology, or biotechnology companies meant to assess those companies' own products. However, note that very rarely do published clinical trial reports provide enough detail about subject recruitment to determine whether overzealous recruitment and undue inducements may have lead to enrollment of subjects who should have been excluded, under reporting of adverse effects, etc.

In my humble opinion, we need to reassess current policies that allows organizations with such obvious conflicts of interest to run experiments on human beings (which is what clinical trials are.)

By the way, this story is also a reminder that most big drug, device and biotechnology firms seem to be associated again and again with dodgy clinical research.   For example, see what we have previously written about GSK here.

Fool Me Twice? - Boehringer Ingelheim, Medtronic Settle Lawsuits Alleging Deceptive Marketing

It seems like it has been really quiet on the legal settlement front in the US, but maybe corporate executives wanted to wait until things calmed down after the unofficial start of summer to let out news that some people might not think reflected well on them.  So this week it was time to announce two new legal settlements of allegations of bad behavior by corporate health were announced, as we will list in alphabetical order....

Boehringer Ingelheim Settles Suits Alleging it Hid Data About Pradaxa Harms

As per Bloomberg,

Boehringer Ingelheim GmbH, the German family-owned drugmaker, agreed to pay $650 million to settle the majority of lawsuits filed over its blood thinner Pradaxa, which has been linked to more than 500 patient deaths.

The major allegations were about deception,

 Patients and their families alleged Boehringer executives knew Pradaxa posed a deadly risk to some consumers when they brought it to the U.S. market in October 2010.

In particular, as we discussed in more detail in February, 2014,

Documents made public as part of patients’ Pradaxa suits showed Boehringer officials didn’t disclose to U.S. regulators a data analysis that indicated the blood-thinning drug may have caused more fatal bleeding after it was cleared for sale than in a study used to win approval. 

Per the New York Times, Boehringer Ingelheim executives continued to maintain

that it stood behind the safety and efficacy of Pradaxa and continued to believe that the lawsuits lacked merit, but that settling the case allowed the company to move on. 'Time and again, the benefits and safety of Pradaxa have been confirmed,' said Desiree Ralls-Morrison, senior vice president and general counsel of Boehringer Ingelheim USA.

This is typical of most legal settlements involving large health care organizations, whether they end lawsuits brought by private parties or by the US government.  The settlements often allow the parties to continue to disagree, do not establish guilt or innocence, but leave one to wonder why executives would pay so much of admittedly other peoples' money just to "move on" without upholding their or their companies' honor, especially when documents revealed and legal findings made in cases prior to settlement remain unchallenged.

So this settlement also comes after December, 2013, as we discussed here, December, when a judge

ordered Boehringer to pay a $931,000 fine in December for failing to preserve 'countless' files on Pradaxa’s development and marketing. Patients’ lawyers say Boehringer should have placed an effective 'litigation hold' on the documents, forcing employees to preserve them.

(The above per Bloomberg.)  That finding, which the settlement does not dispute, does not fill one with confidence about the openness and transparency of Boehringer Ingelheim managers.

Also the settlement does not refute documents released during this litigation which suggested that Boehringer Ingelheim personnel tried to influence, or manipulate a company sponsored research paper to prevent it from contradicting the company's official marketing message that Pradaxa administration does not require monitoring of patients with blood tests (as we discussed here).    

Note further that this case comes only a few years after a case in which Boehringer Ingelheim settled allegations of deceptive marketing of drugs other than Pradaxa, as we discussed here.

Medtronic Settles Suit Alleging Kickbacks to Physicians

The most extensive and colorful report was in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

Medtronic Inc. will pay the U.S. Justice Department $9.9 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit that accused the company of paying kickbacks to doctors for using its defibrillators and pacemakers.

The alleged kickbacks, according to the newly unsealed suit, included 'gifts of wine and alcohol' and 'trips to strip clubs' paid for by the Fridley-based company. The lawsuit also says Medtronic paid to fly doctors to events in San Francisco, Las Vegas, New Orleans, New York, Minneapolis and other cities that some physicians used as 'a free vacation.'

More colorful details,

The lawsuit, whose details remained secret until Tuesday, describes Medtronic business plans with names such as 'Project Wildfire' that had sales representatives offer 'cash payments, expensive trips and meals, expensive gifts and entertainment to physicians as kickbacks in exchange for the physicians’ agreement to implant Medtronic devices.'

The lawsuit alleged that Medtronic 'funneled millions of dollars in unrestricted grant money to physicians' to get them to encourage the use of Medtronic defibrillators and pacemakers in patients whose 'mild heart failure symptoms did not meet [Food and Drug Administration] criteria for an implantable device.'

Those procedures were not only unnecessary, the suit alleged, but potentially dangerous.

The suit describes payments of thousands of dollars in speaking fees to doctors for attending dinners at which they spoke for only a few minutes, if at all. In other cases, Medtronic allegedly prepared entire presentations that physicians offered almost verbatim.

The suit talks of a plan that 'instructed sales representatives to personally review patient charts in friendly doctor’s offices' and to flag those patients the sales representative 'felt should receive an implant.'

Note that commercially supplied "unrestricted grant money" is now the lifeblood of many ostensibly academic continuing medical education (CME) programs, but this case suggests that corporate executives may believe they are paying such money to get doctors to use their products.  Note further that many physicians defend their receipt of money in payment of talks they have given on behalf of commercial firms as fair payment for providing unbiased education, but this case suggests that corporate executives may believe they are paying such money for marketing, and/or to get the supposedly unbiased physician speakers to use their products. 

Once again, the settlement did not resolve the allegations.

 Medtronic said it did not admit that any of its activities were improper or illegal and that the settlement would bring to a close a long-running review of events dating from 2001 to 2009.

Also,

 Asked to comment specifically on the strip club allegations and the accusation that it financially facilitated unnecessary implantations, Medtronic reiterated that its $9.9 million payment was not an admission that it had done anything illegal or improper.

See my comments above.  Why would executives with even the slightest ability to feel shame not contest such allegations if they were untrue?  But maybe many of today's corporate health care executives are not capable of feeling shame, and of course they get to pay off these lawsuits with other peoples' money.

By the way, this is just one of many Medtronic settlements.  As Bloomberg summarized,

 Medtronic agreed in 2007 to pay about $130 million to settle consumer suits accusing the device maker of hiding defects in its defibrillators. The company agreed to a $268 million settlement of suits in 2010 over allegations that fractured wires in another line of defibrillators caused at least 13 patient deaths.

In fact, Medtronic has provided our blog with lots of material.  We first discussed detailed and vivid allegations that Medtronic had been paying off doctors starting in 2003 here in 2006.  Medtronic has been involved in other lawsuits alleging various kinds of deception.
-  In 2011, it settled for $23.5 million two other federal lawsuits alleging it paid kickbacks to encourage physicians to implant its devices (look here).  
- In 2008, Medtronic subsidiary Kyphon settled a suit for $75 million and signed a corporate integrity agreement for allegations that it defrauded Medicare through a scheme that lead to excessive hospitalization for patients who received the company's spine surgery device (link here)
- In 2006, Medtronic subsidiary Sofamor Danek settled for $40 million allegations that it gave kickbacks to doctors in the form of sham consulting fees and lavish trips (look here).

Yet we are now writing at the end of May, 2014, and Medtronic is still settling lawsuits involving vivid allegations of payoffs to physicians, and its executives are still saying nothing to see here, move on.

Summary

These sorts of cases provide evidence that large health care corporations, including not just pharmaceutical companies, but biotechnology and medical device companies, commonly use deceptive and unethical practices to market their products.  Such marketing lets them charge high, even outrageous prices and sometimes results in patients getting expensive treatments that do them no good, or worse, that do more harm than good.  Some of the executives of these companies doubtless got large bonuses, and may have gotten millions in compensation partially because of the sales generated by these practices.  However, they get to walk away from such lawsuits without any personal accountability, just by paying out a few millions, or billions, of the company's, that is, other peoples' money.  They get do pay that money without any other explanation that it eliminates distractions and allows them to move on (with whatever they have already made).

The more this goes on, the more health care dysfunction continues, and the more the health care oligarchy prospers.  As we have written many times,

penalties that only appear to be (relatively small) costs of doing business are unlikely to deter future bad behavior. Until the people who actually authorized, directed and implemented the bad behavior have to suffer some negative consequences, expect the bad behavior to continue.  Note that each of the companies discussed above have had their previous ethical lapses discussed in previous Health Care Renewal posts.

The continuing march of settlements, and sometimes criminal convictions involving major health care organizations should be regarded merely as providing a floor to estimates of the extent of bad behavior by large health care organizations. Bad behavior may not be reported, or lead to legal action, and legal action may not lead to settlements or convictions. However, it is amazing how many organizations that were once regarded as exemplary have had to settle, or plead guilty, or been convicted.

When it comes to health care's leadership, society seems to have acceded to defining deviancy down. Until we start holding health care leaders to high standards, expect their organizations not to uphold high standards.

(That version was from 2010, posted here re Medtronic's 2010 settlement. You heard it here first.  Medtronic is still settling, and according to its most recent proxy, from 2013, the annual total compensation of its CEO was last reported to be $8,975,886.)

Is this Any Way to Discuss Health Care Policy? - Television Advertising about US Health Care Reform Cost $445 Million from 2010 -2014

Every now and then, we get an anonymous comment criticizing our "lack of balance" or words to that effect, maybe because we criticized some action by a big, often but not always for-profit, health care organization.  We usually respond that we have no obligation to be balanced, since
- We publish opinion, not hard news
-  It is questionable that even hard news reporters must report all opinions on an issue, if some of those opinions are demonstrably less credible
-  There are far more voices extolling the wonderful "innovations" provided by our current "best health care system in the world," than providing our sorts of criticism.

To expand on that last point - a recent news item suggests how much of the health care policy debate is paid marketing and public relations, rather than individual voices of citizens, health care professionals, or even health care policy experts.

From the AP, via the Seattle Post -Intelligencer,

A new analysis finds the nation's health care overhaul deserves a place in advertising history as the focus of extraordinarily high spending on negative political TV ads that have gone largely unanswered by the law's supporters.

The report, released Friday by nonpartisan analysts Kantar Media CMAG, estimates $445 million was spent on political TV ads mentioning the law since the enactment of the Affordable Care Act in 2010. Spending on negative ads outpaced positive ones by more than 15 to 1.

In particular,

In the 2014 congressional races, 85 percent of the anti-Obama ads were also anti-'Obamacare' ads, the analysis found. In some competitive races, 100 percent of the pro-Republican TV ads aimed at Democrats contained anti-health law messages.

Over the four years, an estimated $418 million was spent on 880,000 negative TV spots focusing on the law, compared to $27 million on 58,000 positive spots, according to the analysis. Nearly all of the spending was on local TV stations, in races ranging from state offices such as treasurer and governor to Congress and the presidential election.

That is just amazing.

My concern is not so much that much of this advertising is against "Obamacare."  We have not often written about the Affordable Care Act (ACA), aka "Obamacare," and what we wrote at best was mild praise.  As I posted back in 2009, very little of the law had anything to do with the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  In my humble opinion, since the law went into effect, it has increased access to health insurance, especially for certain groups of people that commercial health care insurers previously spurned, e.g., older people and people with pre-existing diseases.  It also contained provisions that might increase disclosure of conflicts of interest, and foster comparative effectiveness research.  On the other hand, the law has done nothing to reduce concentration of power in health care.  It has done nothing to make health care leaders more accountable, especially for their organization's unethical or even criminal behavior, decrease their ability to line their pockets regardless of such behavior, and thus reduce their impunity.  It will not obviously decrease conflicts of interest affecting those who make decisions about patient care or health policy, lock the revolving door between government and the health care industry, end manipulation of clinical research to serve vested interests, or suppression of research whose results offend such interests, etc, etc.  So there is plenty to discuss about health care reform and related matters of health care policy.

Yet a major venue of US public discussion about health care policy, at least having to do with health care reform legislation, appears to be 15 -60 second paid television advertisements.  Often who pays for these ads are obscure, as certainly are the identities of the advertising or public relations firms that actually craft them.  Certainly, the ads do not explain who might profit were what they urge be implemented. The ads may appeal to emotion, or engage in logical fallacies.  And they appear in millions of peoples homes day in and day out.

Such advertising, added to all the other billions of dollars worth of marketing and public relations that swirl around health care, make any sort of intelligent discussion very difficult.  The advertising frenzy renders the voices of individual citizens, health care professionals, and even health policy experts  whispers in comparison.

While there are ostensible free speech advocates who defend these advertisements, and maybe who promote the free speech rights of corporations as the same as those of human citizens (without, of course, many of the responsibilities of citizens), none of these vocal self-proclaimed civil libertarians seem to be doing anything to defend the audibility of the voices of individuals in the health care policy debate.

So we will continue to do what we can to bring some healthy skepticism about loud proclamations in health care made by people who stand to gain financially from their effects.  But is it any wonder that our voices create so few echoes?

The Smarming of Health Care - How to Spin a Minimally Efficacious Variant on an Old Drug as New and Wonderful

A recent announcement of the approval of a new drug showed the latest ways pharmaceutical companies can spin products as new and effective when in reality they are barely either. 

Announcing a Drug Approval with a Twist

United Therapeutics just got US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for their new oral prostacyclin agent for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension. The basics, per Bloomberg, were:

United Therapeutics Corp. (UTHR)’s gained U.S. marketing approval for the oral version of its treatment for high blood pressure in the arteries that supply the lungs.

The Food and Drug Administration cleared orenitram, an extended-release tablet, for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension to improve exercise capacity in some types of patients, the Silver Spring, Maryland-based company said today in a statement.

The pill’s active ingredient, treprostinil, is the same as in the company’s approved injection and inhalation solution for PAH, a life-threatening disorder, United Therapeutics said. The FDA had rejected the oral version of the therapy in March and in October>

'This approval marks the first time that the FDA has approved an orally administered prostacyclin analogue for any disease -– and our fifth approval from the FDA for treatment of PAH -- supporting our mission of providing a wider choice of PAH therapies for physicians and patients,' Roger Jeffs, the company’s president and chief operating officer, said in the statement. 'We are grateful for the FDA’s thorough review and will continue to build clinical support for the use of Orenitram.'

But the triumphant announcement by the company CEO had some unusual twists.  As reported on National Public Radio's (NPRs) Shots blog,

'When I started the company 17 years ago, the only option for treating pulmonary hypertension was intravenous ,' Martine Rothblatt, CEO of United Therapeutics told investors in a celebratory conference call Monday. 'My young daughter looked at me and said, 'Can't there be a pill?''

Now there is

So, 

'What it has resulted in is something that as the parent of a lovely young lady with pulmonary hypertension, I cannot even put into words, the emotional meaning that it has to have a pill form of prostacyclin,' Rothblatt said.

It appears to be such a warm and happy story.  A mother is so concerned about her daughter's serious illness that she founds a company to develop treatments for it.  Now many years later they have come up with something groundbreaking.

How could anyone not shed a tear?  How could anyone not be happy about this triumph of commercial drug development.

However, while it may seem snarky to point this out, drug development is usually about issues other than "emotional meaning," and this discussion of emotional meaning took place during the public relations/ marketing blitz put on after the approval of the marketing of a new drug, so maybe closer examination, and some skepticism are warranted.


How Well Does Orenitram Work?

The quote above from the CEO was about "emotional meaning," not efficacy or effectiveness.  In fact, the blog post by Mr Hensley hinted at and a review of the one relevant published article strongly suggested that the drug really had minimal efficacy, and possibly benefits that failed to outweigh its harms.

Mr Hensley wrote,

 The FDA approved Orenitram on the basis of a study that gauged its safety and effectiveness as a standalone treatment. The drug helped people walk a little farther in a timed walking test. The most common side effects seen in the study were headache, nausea and diarrhea.

On my review of the evidence....

A single randomized controlled trial(1) showed that patients given treprostinil could walk on average 26 meters (less than 100 feet) more in 6 minutes after 12 weeks of treatment than they could at the beginning of the treatment, while those given placebo were only able to walk about as far as they did before.  The treated patients also had some improvement in their shortness of breath.  On the other hand, they were substantially more likely to experience adverse effects, particularly nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, flushing, jaw pain, or pain in the extremities. 

Furthermore, the study lasted only 12 weeks, and provided no information about outcomes after that.  Treated patients were not spared overall worsening of their clinical situation compared to untreated patients.  Treated patients were no less likely to be hospitalized or to die.

Various aspects of its design may increase doubts about its validity, including emphasis on a "modified intention-to-treat population" which was not clearly defined, a relatively high rate of premature study drug discontinuation, and a complex statistical analysis scheme which seemed unnecessary to assess the main results of a randomized controlled trial.

Finally, the generalizability of the study was limited to patients already optimally treated with conventional therapy, and perhaps by ist predominantly Asian female population.

So the only apparently positive trial of trepronsinil did not provide good evidence that its benefits outweighed its harms.  At best, some patients might find that the modest increases in exercise capacity and decreases in dyspnea it may produce may be worth nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, flushing, or jaw or extremity pain.  

Note that treprostinil is an oral version of a type of compound called a prostacyclin.  As noted above, United Therapeutics markets other forms of prostacyclin.  However, the latest (2005) Cochrane Collaboration systematic review of this class of drugs for pulmonary arterial hypertension only found evidence that the drugs helped when added to first-line drugs to improve symptoms for the short-term, no more than 12 weeks.  It found no evidence that prostacyclin prolongs survival, or lessens complications of the illness(2) 

So having an oral prostacyclin treatment for PAH may have emotional meaning, but the pill, while likely more convenient than an injectable prostacyclin, does not seem to have sufficient efficacy to outweigh its harms for many patients. 

What Does Orenitram Cost, and Why?

But United Therapeutics may have been able to make one aspect of this drug superlative, - its price.  Per Scott Hensley in the Shots blog,

Orenitram won't be available for sale for about six months, the company said, and its exact price hasn't been determined either. But it will be very expensive, about $150,000 a year, according to an estimate by Dr. Mark Schoenebaum, an industry analyst with ISI.

That would be about three times the median US family income.  But the CEO shrugged concerns about the price off,

Rothblatt acknowledged that the cost of the drugs is high but manageable, because pulmonary hypertension remains pretty rare, though the exact prevalence is hard to pin down.

One explanation for that amazingly high price comes from a post on Forbes by Matthew Herper,

She commercialized [prostacyclin] ..., and was able to get investors interested because she realized there was no maximum price insurers would pay for an effective drug. United Therapeutics became one of biotech’s great success stories.

A lack of an upper limit on pricing has other effects of course.  According to Morningstar, the company's sky high pricing enabled a net profit margin over 33% in 2012-13.   According to the United Therapeutics 2013 proxy statement, CEO Martine Rothblatt's total compensation is $7,958,328.  Three other executives got more than $4.5 million.

So I imagine that marketing a drug that may produce so much revenue may have emotional meaning for company executives.  On the other hand, in this era of high insurance deductibles and co-payments it may have considerable negative emotional meaning for patients.

Some Off-Key Notes


The recent publicity about the new oral prostacyclin did not dwell on an issue that appeared earlier in a December, 2013, press release from United Therapeutics about its other prostacyclin products,

 United Therapeutics Corporation (NASDAQ: UTHR) announced today that it has received a subpoena from the Office of the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services reflecting an investigation by the United States Department of Justice, principally represented by the United States Attorney's Office in Baltimore. The subpoena requests documents regarding Remodulin® (treprostinil) Injection, Tyvaso® (treprostinil) Inhalation Solution and Adcirca® (tadalafil) Tablets, including the company's marketing practices relating to these products.

Instead, as we discussed above, the CEO of the company that will market this very expensive but not very efficacious drug went out of her way to bring up emotional issues about her own daughter's illness.  Certainly, anyone can believe the CEO was motivated to develop prostacyclins for PAH by concerns about her daughter's own illness.  However, focusing on such emotional issues may also distract from concerns about other aspects of the company's marketing.

So maybe it is not a surprise that she decided to name the new drug in a personal way,...  But she did not name it for her daughter.  Again per Scott Hensley,

 Now there is: Orenitram. The name comes from 'Martine Ro,' as in Martine Rothblatt, backward.

Instead, Martine Rothblatt names her company's new drug for.... herself. 

So what is this very emotional and personal drug marketing/ public relations campaign really about?


On Smarm in Health Care

So it appears that United Therapeutics and its CEO used what may now be called smarm to promote their vested interests and divert attention from uncomfortable facts. 

In a now widely read and commented upon article in Gawker, Tom Scocca asserted that smarm has become "an omnipresent, unnamed cultural force."  Some aspects of smarm, as discussed in the article,

Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance.

 it expresses one agenda, while actually pursuing a different one. It is a kind of moral and ethical misdirection. Its genuine purposes lie beneath the greased-over surface.

 Smarm, whether political or literary, insists that the audience accept the priors it has been given. Debate begins where the important parts of the debate have ended.

So the smarmy element in the public relations about Orenitram was the misdirection created by invoking the CEO's daughter's illness and its emotional ramifications.  By focusing on an emotional issue which apparently only the callous could dismiss, the issues of the drug's minimal efficacy, frequent side effects and very high price were eclipsed.   Yet they, not the emotional connection between a particular parent and chile should be salient to patients, doctors, regulators, and the general public.

 (The issues of the investigation of the company's marketing of other prostacyclin products, and the egotism implied by the drug's name were certainly eclipsed as well.)

Presumably by raising these truths which might be unpleasant to United Therapeutics executives, I am now guilty of "snark."  As Scocca pointed out, one aspect of smarm is to exile reasonable criticism and skepticism as "snark,"

What is snark reacting to?

It is reacting to smarm. 

So snarky as it may be, I believe that the major considerations for patients and physicians when considering a therapy - like Orenitram - should be the benefits versus harms of the the therapy for the individual patient, and the strength of the evidence supporting both.  The more marketers, public relations functionaries, and executive try to distract from that, and the more smarm they employ to do so, the more skepticism is required. 

References

1.  Jing ZC, Parikh K, Pulido T et al.Efficacy and safety of oral treprostinil monotherapy for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension: a randomized, controlled trial.  Circulation 2013; 127: 624-633. Link here.

2. Paramothayan NS, Lasserson TJ, Wells A et al.   Prostacyclin for pulmonary hypertension in adults. Cochrane Review 2005; Link here.

"Emotion, not Information" - the Lucrative Deceptive Marketing of Hospice, and its Potentially Fatal Consequences

One of the real recent advances in health care, in my humble opinion, was the organization of compassionate, palliative care for people at the end of life.  During my training and early career I saw too many patients with terminal illness getting aggressive, sometimes very painful treatments which at best only offered hope of briefly prolonging their lives.  Some patients chose such treatments with full knowledge of the implications, at times with the hope that they might survive until some significant event, for example, the birth of a grandchild.  Many patients, however, seemed to be suffering with no purpose.

The hospice and palliative care movement, however, offered true comfort to those with little hope of prolonged survival.  Good hospice care eased the final days of patients with advanced disease for whom no definitive treatments could be found.

Hospice seemed like a great alternative for such patients, but its reasonable use depended on physicians' abilities to identify patients who really were at the end of life, and for whom aggressive treatment would be futile.  The Achilles Heel of the hospice movement remained health care professionals' inability to reliably identify such patients.  The big problem is that putting a patient who actually potentially could survive for a long time in hospice will doom that patient were he or she to develop an acute illness for which treatment is available, like a bacterial pneumonia that might respond to antibiotics, because in hospice antibiotics are not given for acute infections.

So the development of hospice had a downside which could be fatal for some patients.  I think most physicians hoped, however, that we could minimize the number of such patients by trying hard to make accurate predictions, and that in the future, better technology would lead to better predictions.

The Rise of Corporate Hospices

Back in the 1980s, however, I did not anticipate that hospices might become parts of for-profit corporations, and that such corporations might be able to make more money by admitting more patients, even patients who really were not at the end of life.   Starting in 2011, however, we started to find cases in which that appeared to be what was going on (look here, then here, here, and here).

In 2013, more cases appeared, listed in chronologic order -

Hospice of Arizona LC and American Hospice Management LLC - Per a news release from the Department of Justice, these entities settled litigation that alleged, among other things, that they "submitted or caused the submission of false Medicare claims between Sept. 1, 2002, and Dec. 31, 2010, for Hospice of Arizona patients who did not need end of life care...."

 Hospice Care of Kansas, and parent company Voyager HospiceCare - Per a Topeka (Kansas) Capital-Journal article, these entities settled to resolve allegations that they "submitted inappropriate claims between January 2004 and December 2008 for patients without a terminal prognosis of six months or less."

Hernando-Pasco Hospice - Per the Tampa Bay Times, " Hernando-Pasco Hospice has agreed to pay $1 million to settle allegations that it billed the Medicare and Medicaid programs for patients who did not need end-of-life care, the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Middle District of Florida announced Monday.  The not-for-profit Hernando-Pasco Hospice, which goes by HPH Hospice, is accused of admitting ineligible patients in order to meet targets imposed by its management team, federal authorities said in a statement."

These were all small settlements, that is, less than $15 million, reported in relatively small media outlets.

This week the issue was in the media spotlight courtesy the Washington Post, in an article which provided yet more data and vivid examples suggesting that for-profit hospices were putting money ahead of vulnerable patients' well-being.   


The Post added to the background we provided above,

Medicare began paying for hospice care in 1983, following a resurgence of interest in end-of-life care, sparked in part by the publication of 'On Death and Dying' by Elisabeth Kubler-Ross.

'We can give families more help with home care and visiting nurses, giving the families and the patients the spiritual, emotional, and financial help in order to facilitate the final care at home,' Kubler-Ross testified to the Senate Special Committee on Aging in 1972.

After this well-intentioned beginning, there was a rapid increase in the use of hospice, and hence its costs,

The benefit was quickly embraced by Americans and continues to grow, with Medicare paying for hospice care for more than 1.2 million people annually. In 2000, Medicare spent $2.9 billion on the hospice benefit. By 2012, that figure has risen fivefold, to $15.1 billion.

But as more Americans have taken up hospice care, a profound change has been underway: Big businesses have moved in.

In parallel, the nature of hospices changed, going from being predominantly local non-profit organizations to predominantly corporate,

When Medicare paid its first hospice benefit, the vast majority of hospice-care providers were nonprofit groups. Over the past decade, however, the for-profits have come to dominate the industry.

In 2000, 70 percent of hospices were run by nonprofit organizations or government agencies. Today, nearly 60 percent are for-profit companies, and they may account for an even larger share of patients.

They really were for-profit,

The profit margins as measured by MedPAC, the Medicare watchdog, climbed to 8.7 percent in 2011.

The per-patient operating profit has risen from $353 in 2002 to $1,975 in 2012, according to the analysis of California data.

Big money lured aggressive players, in particular, private equity,

 The returns have attracted some prominent financial firms, whose analysts have run the numbers and decided to invest. Among the private investment companies that have put down bets on hospices in recent years are Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co., KRG Capital Partners and Summit Partners.

As we have discussed elsewhere, the private equity model involves not long term management, but trying to make big money in the short term, either by directly extracting it from the companies taken over, of by rapidly selling them, if necessary, piece by piece. 


Financial Incentives to Enroll the Wrong Patients

Keep in mind that the revenue fueling the uber capitalists involved in for-profit hospices came predominantly from the US government, and depended on the rules set by the government to pay for hospice,

The vast majority of those profits flow from the U.S. government and Medicare, which makes an estimated 85 to 90 percent of all payments to hospices.

The payments provide more profit from patients with the longest stay in hospice,

The reason that longer stays are more profitable is that hospice companies typically spend more on patients at the beginning of their care and then again at the end of their lives.

When a patient is first enrolled, the hospice often must diagnose the patient’s illness, set up home equipment and get them stabilized. Then, during the last week of life, a hospice typically must pay for more frequent home visits by the nurse, aides and others.

As a result, patients who live a longer time — and for whom there is a long, stable period in the middle — generate more profits.

There is evidence that for-profit hospice management has reacted to these incentives to enroll patients who would live a long time, despite the fact noted above that hospice was intended for patients who were at the end of life, and were obviously thus expected not to live for a long time,

Indeed, it has been an open secret in the industry that, because of the method of payment, the way to run a hospice profitably is to enroll patients who stay for a long time.

The annual report in 2004 for one large hospice provider, VistaCare, noted that its fortunes depended on its ability to manage costs and 'maintain a patient base with a sufficiently long length of stay.'

The company also warned that 'cost pressures resulting from shorter patient lengths of stay . . . could negatively impact our profitability.'

'It is common knowledge in the industry that a longer length of stay is going to be more lucrative,' said Rachel Mason, who worked in marketing at Delta Hospice in California, where one of the company’s branches had one of the highest discharge rates of living patients in the state last year — 63 percent. 'If they come in very sick and die right away, it’s difficult to run a business that way.'

So, in the aggregate, stays have gone up, costs have increased, partially because there are more hospice ''urvivors," that is, patients who actually were admitted to hospice not at the end of life, survived much more than the six months which was supposed to have been their expected lifespan, and thus ended up graduating from hospice, a service meant originally for the terminally ill,

over the past decade, the number of 'hospice survivors' in the United States has risen dramatically, in part because hospice companies earn more by recruiting patients who aren’t actually dying, a Washington Post investigation has found. Healthier patients are more profitable because they require fewer visits and stay enrolled longer.

The proportion of patients who were discharged alive from hospice care rose about 50 percent between 2002 and 2012, according to a Post analysis of more than 1 million hospice patients’ records over 11 years in California, a state that makes public detailed descriptions and that, by virtue of its size, offers a portrait of the industry.

The average length of a stay in hospice care also jumped substantially over that time, in California and nationally, according to the analysis. Profit per patient quintupled, to $1,975, California records show.

Yet, while Medicare administrators have been warned about these perverse incentives, they have done nothing to fix them,

For five years, Medicare’s watchdog group has been recommending that the payments to hospice companies be revised to eliminate the financial incentive for improper care, but Medicare has not yet done so. To ensure that patients are appropriately selected for hospice care, Medicare relies on strict medical documentation requirements, a spokesman said. 

Perhaps Medicare administrators are listening harder to for-profit hospice executives than to their own advisory committee,

 The hospice industry is opposed to fundamental changes to the payment system. Jonathan Keyserling, senior vice president of health policy at the National Hospice and Palliative Care Organization, an industry group, said that the current payment system is sound and that tampering with it could have unintended consequences. 

Furthermore,

because of the large sums of money at stake, MedPAC in June added a sense of urgency to its recommendation.

'Given the magnitude of hospice spending devoted to long-stay patients, who are more profitable under the current payment system than other patients, it is important that an initial step toward payment reform be taken as soon as possible,' MedPAC wrote.

Yet Medicare administrators still seemed to feel no sense of urgency, and are not eager to address the specifics of the MedPac recommendations,

A spokesman for Medicare said the agency is considering hospice payment reform but that no such changes will happen in fiscal 2014.

'While the Medicare hospice benefit provides a choice for beneficiaries to seek the care that best meets their care needs and desires, Medicare has and will continue to take actions to safeguard this benefit from inappropriate use,' said Jonathan Blum, principal deputy administrator of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, said in a statement.

So to recap so far, the hospice movement devolved from one involving non-profit organizations providing care to the terminally ill to ever larger corporations providing care to the less ill, paid largely by the US government under rules from a simpler era.  However, since hospice provides only palliative care, this transition meant that some patients who were not terminally ill may have died from illness that would have been treated in an environment other than hospice.

Vivid Anecdotes of the Deceptive Marketing of Hospice

The Washington Post article summarized allegations from multiple legal actions that provided a disturbing tapestry of deceptive marketing deployed to recruit patients unsuitable to hospice care,

While the lawsuits against the for-profit hospices vary in the details, as a whole they depict an industry in which companies compete for new patients and provide services to patients who are not eligible for them.

Hospice 'outreach specialists' and 'community education representatives' seek out patients in a variety of ways: They solicit doctors and hospitals who might regularly deal with the terminally ill; they make connections at nursing homes, assisted-living developments and Meals on Wheels groups. They show up at the 'health fairs' held at senior centers with, for example, machines that test blood pressure. For families struggling to take care of a loved one, they offer the promise of extra help.

At AseraCare, officials gave advice to their recruiters on how to close a deal with families who are 'not ready yet' for hospice, according to a company presentation for Alabama employees. It instructed recruiters to 'focus families' by stressing the urgency of a decision, and saying things like, 'We only have 10 minutes left.'

'Effective communication is the transfer of emotion, not information,' the presentation said.

At Odyssey Healthcare, one of the nation’s largest hospice companies, representatives earned bonuses if they met their goals for new patients, according to that complaint. The case led to a $25 million settlement with the company.

At Vitas, a division of Chemed, a company that also owns the Roto-Rooter plumbing service, the corporate culture encouraged staff members to admit as many patients as possible, regardless of whether they were eligible for hospice care, according to the lawsuit. The lawsuit said the company paid bonuses based on the number of patients enrolled. One former manager said that the company philosophy was 'sign everybody up' and that medical staffers felt pressured to admit patients regardless of whether they were appropriate.

And at Angels of Hope hospice in LaGrange, Ga., audio recordings cited in the complaint described how some salespeople found patients: by cruising neighborhoods, looking for elderly people with disabilities.

The article coned down on specific litigation about AnseraCare,

One of the primary lawsuits against AseraCare was initiated by Dawn Richardson, a clinical manager at the company, and Marsha Brown, the former executive director at the company’s Monroeville, Mobile and Foley, Ala., outlets.

There was steady pressure for AseraCare managers to find more patients, the lawsuit said.

An executive who did not meet a quota was penalized, according to the lawsuit, and the company offered a massage chair for the person who brought in the most hospice patients.

'In order to make our admission goal for the month, we are down to the wire, and need today to be a huge admit day for every region,' a regional vice president wrote in an e-mail, according to the lawsuit. 'Mobilize your teams, get them into the game this morning . . . when we call on them, they always respond with referrals and a push to convert those referrals into admits ASAP.'

'We had a director who would be like, ‘Get a patient, get a patient, get a patient,’ ' Michael Bonham, a Lutheran minister who worked as a chaplain at the company in Alabama, said in an interview. He is not a party to any of the lawsuits.

These demands for patients were sometimes met with people who were sickly but not dying, according to the federal lawsuit, which outlines five examples.

One patient was supposed to have had end-stage heart disease and thus would have had trouble breathing and walking, according to the lawsuit.

He left the nursing home for his granddaughter’s graduation and for Christmas, had a good time and ate a lot, according to notes from hospice workers cited in the lawsuit.

Another, diagnosed with end-stage 'debility,' was not losing weight as is typically the case, according to the legal filing, and instead went out for a trip to Wendy’s and another to go birdwatching.

Hospice firms' public relations departments provided the usual high minded statements that did not address specific allegations about the marketing of hospice, for example,

'AseraCare provides an important and valuable service to patients and their families facing difficult end-of-life decisions,' the company said in a statement. 'Our policies and programs comply with the Congressional intent of the hospice benefit to reduce the stress and anxiety of the end of life of a loved one,' the company said.

'Doctors for each patient in question determined that the patient needed hospice care, and expressed their clinical judgment by signing the required physician certifications. Other independent and well-qualified physicians reviewed the charts of these ­patients, and overwhelmingly agreed with the original conclusions that these patients were entitled to receive the hospice benefit.'

The company declined to identify the doctors who certified the patients in Alabama.

That seems about as relevant as the mission and values statements of Golden Living, AseraCare's parent corporation,

Our Mission

To share our passion for improving quality of life through innovative healthcare — one person, one family and one community at a time.

Our Values

Make integrity and accountability your pledge.
Share our passion for excellence.
Be uncompromising in delivering quality care.

Summary

Yet somehow our society must make it right and possible for old people not to fear the young or be deserted by them, for the test of a civilization is in the way that it cares for its helpless members. 

Pearl S Buck, My Several Worlds, 1954, p 377 (see Wikiquote)

I also was once taught that the true test of a doctor is his or her care of the sickest and most vulnerable patients.  By this token,  how the hospice movement in the US evolved into corporate health care delivery which generates tremendous revenues from the most vulnerable patients, and in some cases may condemn ill but not terminal patients to death from treatable disease marks how badly US health care has failed.

The story combines many of the themes we have sounded before -

Perverse Incentives - a reimbursement scheme that made sense when hospices were local community non-profit organizations now provides incentives for commercial hospices to enroll patients who are not terminally ill, putting them at risk of inadequate care should they develop a new serious but treatable problem.

Money Before Mission - For-profit hospices which market themselves as equivalent to their community non-profit forerunners, are run, as is suggested above, to maximize revenue no matter the effect on mission. Presumably this is justified by the fallacy of maximizing shareholder value, which really means maximizing apparent short-term revenue in order to maximize executive compensation, no matter what the collateral damage.

Impunity - Although hospice enrollment of unsuitable patients not only may defraud the government, but may put such patients at risk of their lives, the only regulatory or law enforcement actions against big corporate hospices so far involve corporate fines that are small in comparison with revenues, but not penalties imposed on any individuals who authorized, directed or implemented such patient enrollment, even when patients wrongly enrolled have died from lack of treatment of potentially treatable problems.

Corporatism - Government agencies which could seriously challenge corporate hospices' actions have been curiously inert, perhaps because agency leaders feel more sympathetic to their fellow managers within corporate hospices than to the citizens whose interests they are supposed to protect.

Because of their potentially severe adverse effects on our most vulnerable patients, reform of hospices should be at the forefront of true health care reform.  At the least, we need vastly tougher regulation of corporate hospices, removal of perverse incentives for them from the government payment system, and vigorous law enforcement when their leaders induce them to misbehave.  Leaders of corporate hospices need to be held accountable for their actions, and must be pushed towards putting their patients' health ahead of all other considerations, including the leaders' personal enrichment.

Furthermore, the story of corporate hospices shows that while turning direct health care over to poorly regulated for-profit corporations may have been increased efficiency, been "disruptive" and lead to innovations, the efficiency, disruption and innovation have mainly lined the pockets of corporate insiders, and not improved patients' or the public's health.  We ought to give strong consideration to banning corporate hospices, and banning all forms of the corporate practice of medicine and corporate health care "delivery."

Given how many insiders make so much money from the current version of laissez faire capitalism in health care, however, I would expect strong resistance should such apparently "radical," but actually conservative proposals actually get any mainstream attention.