Money vs Mission - How Generic Managers vs Physicians Think

On Health Care Renewal, we emphasize problems in leadership and governance in large health care organizations, and how they affect health care professionals' attempts to carry out their mission, and ultimately how they affect patients' and the public's health.  Large health care organizations are increasingly led by people trained in business, not health care professionals, thus generic managers.  The stewards of these organizations, the members of their boards of directors or boards of trustees, are also increasingly current or former managers without direct health care experience. Yet all too often, health care leadership is ill-informed, incompetent, unsympathetic or hostile to health care professionals' values, self-interested, conflicted, dishonest, or even corrupt.

Recently, in an effort to "bridge the gap" between physicians and MBAs, a new article in Becker's Hospital Review by Todd Kislak discussed differences in the thinking and values among business trained health care managers and physicians.  The author, an MBA, listed nine issues on which MDs and MBAs have different views.  I have summarized below what appear to me to be the main points, somewhat reorganized from how he did it. Whether he meant to or not, Mr Kislak showed why physicians may have reason not to trust their new generic managers. 

Making Widgets vs Treating Patients

Mr Kislak wrote that MBAs see health care in terms of orderly, uniform and standardized processes, while physicians see it in terms of the complexity and variability of patients, the ambiguity of diagnosis, and the unpredictability of outcomes.  

 2. Scalability. As a rule, MBAs tend to seek solutions to problems in a way that they perceive to be scalable and replicable, trained in the belief that the capacity to perform repetitively and consistently leads to better efficiency and quality. One-off situations are by definition outliers, and as such their importance tends to be downplayed.

Also,

 3. Centralization....   MBAs, ... tend to seek centralized approaches to decision-making, often appearing in the guise of policies, programs and processes. 

So, the gist is MBAs see health care as analogous to an assembly line.  The idea is to provide uniform, consistent services that conform to the policies, programs and processes that come down from central headquarters, run by MBAs.

On the other hand, he noted that physicians think that "every case has the potential to be unique in some way," while MBAs "view the unusual case as an unwelcome break in the routine, adding cost while slowing down the efficient care of other patients."

IMHO, common sense, and a raft of epidemiological data support the MDs.  Patients differ in demographics, biopsychosocial characteristics, co-morbid conditions, histories of previous treatment, responses to therapy, etc, etc, etc.  Patients, their complaints, and their situations are complex and variable.   Furthermore, acute illnesses, complications of chronic illnesses, accidents occur unexpectedly, in unexpected ways.  Diagnosis are often unclear and ambiguous.  Patients' prognoses and responses to therapy are unpredictable.  Thus, IMHO, seeing health care like an assembly, in terms of regularity and uniformity, seems dissociated from reality.  I have a hard time believing that MBAs who actually require medical care want to be treated as if they were identical to the next 10 patients.

"You Manage What You Measure" vs Complexity, Variability, Ambiguity, and Unpredictability of Patients, Diseases, Prognoses, and Treatments 

Mr Kislak suggested that MBAs emphasize measurement, especially the measurement of physicians' performance,

5. Performance. One of the healthcare MBA's favorite analytical tools is performance rankings of the MDs. Quantifying 'results' based on pre-determined metrics, assigning them a weight for averaging purposes and reducing performance down to a number is, to the MBA, how MDs and indeed all workers should be measured. 'You manage what you measure' is the MBA's mantra.

Also,

6. Productivity. MBAs look at MDs' productivity statistics (another performance measure) and wonder why so many MDs claim they are overworked. Looking at work hour statistics supplied by the Medical Group Management Association, one would not come away convinced that most MDs are logging more hours than, say, the typical healthcare MBA or indeed any high-caliber professional service provider.

Mr Kislak noted that physicians object to pay for performance and "may viscerally react to this uniform approach to performance assessment as inappropriate and even fundamentally at odds with the practice of medicine. Too much context is lost in the numbers, and too many factors beyond their personal control bear upon the performance 'data.'"   He did explain why MBAs are unconcerned about the accuracy and meaning of the measures they manage. 

The "you manage what you measure" heuristic seems based on the concept, or better yet fallacy that everything in health care is uniform and predictable.  This seems an extended version of what has been called the streetlight effect or the drunkard's search.  (See, for example, the version from Wikipedia, attributed to David H Freedman.  (2010). Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us)  It begs the question of what is practical to measure is worth measuring, that is, is accurate, reliable, and meaningful.
 
Furthermore, there is now a considerable literature in medicine and health care showing that it is extremely difficult to develop performance measures that are reliable and meaningfully predictive.  (I cannot claim to have written comprehensively on this topic, but see posts here, and here.  For some good informal writing on why pay for performance [P4P] may not work, see Dr Robert Centor's blog DBs Medical Rants)

Considerable research has also shown that P4P rarely improves performance, and may make it worse.   For example, the results of a systematic review published in 2012 [Houle SKD, McAlister FA, Jackevicius CA et al.  Does performance-based remuneration for individual health care practitioners affect patient care? - a systematic review.  Ann Intern Med 2012; 157: 889-899.  Link here.] were that

The effect of P4P targeting individual practitioners on quality of care and outcomes remains largely uncertain.

Furthermore, a 2012 analysis of pay for performance [Glasziou PP, Buchan H, Del Mar C et al.  When financial incentives do more good than harm: a checklist.  Brit Med J 2012; 345: e5047. Link here.] included the summary statement,

Current evidence on the effectiveness of financial incentives is modest and inconsistent.

Thus, it would seem that the MBAs have neither good logic nor good evidence to support their faith in their current metrics, particularly those they use to assess physicians' performance. 



Power and Money vs Patients' and the Public's Health

Mr Kislak saw himself as supporting physicians in "their mission to provide high quality and effective care to their patients."  In the conclusion to his article, he asserted that physicians and MBAs "share the same overarching goals ... - effective healthcare delivery...."  However, in the body of the article, Mr Kislak suggested that MBAs see their goals in terms of power and money...  

4. Leadership. MBAs like to think of themselves as either nascent or actual leaders. It is understood that their intention is to build a career trajectory that will move them up in their organization (or in another organization) into positions of increasing authority and control. After all, this is an important reason why they become MBAs in the first place.

Furthermore, Mr Kislak wrote

8. Language. MDs and MBAs usually work for some type of business entity, whether that entity is for-profit, nonprofit, academic, government or sole proprietorship. To the MBA, however, it is all too apparent that with few exceptions MDs have little training in the language of business that all entities speak — the language of finance and accounting.

He noted that "this is a significant disconnect and a root cause of why MDs and MBAs often find themselves talking past each other on even the most basic business issues."  However, interestingly he did not even mention that MBAs may have as little facility with the language of medicine and health care as physicians have with the language of finance or accounting.  Furthermore, he seemed unaware that it makes as little sense to say that discourse in health care should be in the language of finance as to say discourse in finance should be in the language of health care. 

Finally, Mr Kislak made it very clear that to MBAs, money comes ahead of patient care,

9. Growth. MBAs are trained to look for ways to grow the organization's revenues and profits to the long-term benefit of the owners or stewards of that organization. Improvements to quality, efficiency, profits, revenues, technology and the like are generally viewed as a means to that end of growing,

Yet he noted that

the MDs sometimes wonder what all the growth talk may be costing their own priorities, including their compensation. This issue can become rather sensitive when it implies that the MD is less concerned with the long-term health of the organization than the MBA, and can devolve into finger-wagging about lack of engagement or weak physician-hospital alignment.

It is a measure of how much generic managers have taken over that the physicians may be blamed for lack of interest in the long-term "health of the organization," while the MBAs seem totally unconcerned about what effects the organization has on the real health of patients or the public.

Thus, fundamentally, MBAs running health care organizations are mainly interested in growing their organizations so that they bring in more money.  MBAs hope to leverage their organizations' financial performance so that they personally can rise to positions of greater power and wealth.  Health care is simply a "means to that end."  Mr Kislak seems to have confirmed my worst fears that most of health care's current generic managers put short-term revenue, and their own wealth and power, ahead of patients' and the public's health. 

Summary

In 1988, Alain Enthoven advocated in Theory and Practice of Managed Competition in Health Care Finance, a book published in the Netherlands, that to decrease health care costs it would be necessary to break up the "physicians' guild" and replace leadership by clinicians with leadership by managers (see 2006 post here). Thus from 1983 to 2000, the number of managers working in the US health care system grew 726%, while the number of physicians grew 39%, so the manager/physician ratio went from roughly one to six to one to one (see 2005 post here). As we noted here, the growth continued, so there are now 10 managers for every US physician. 


Now we have one MBA with considerable experience inside health care, and personal sympathy for the goals of high quality and effective care for patients, who. perhaps inadvertently, suggested why this managers' coup d'etat was a terrible idea, and why MBAs should not be allowed to lead health care organizations.  He corroborated our concerns that generic managers may be ill-informed and do not understand the health care context, particularly the variability and complexity of patients and their problems, the ambiguity of diagnosis, and the unpredictability of prognosis and response to therapy.  They believe in simplistic management approaches, particularly the usefulness of measurement and metrics, even in the absence of logic or evidence supporting them.  Furthermore, they may be heedless of the mission of health care, particularly of the primacy of the patient, and in fact put their own organizations' revenue ahead of patient care, and ultimately may pursue power and money rather than patients' and the public's health.  

As I have said before,  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.

ADDENDUM - This post was re-posted on the Naked Capitalism blog. 
 

When Money Talks, the Sick Will Walk, or Crawl - Three Illustrations of the Brave New World of Health Care

In the quaint days of yesteryear, there were those health professionals who thought of what they did as a calling.  The best care of the individual patient was supposed to come first, especially ahead of maximizing one's own income.  Now in the brave new world of neoliberalism, economism, unregulated, laissez faire capitalism - call it what you want - health care has become a business, an industry.  Protests that it still should be a calling are anechoic.

For example, who noticed when a very famous person wrote this in 2012?

Hospitals and other facilities 'must rethink their particular role in order to avoid having health become a simple 'commodity,' subordinate to the laws of the market, and, therefore, a good reserved to a few, rather than a universal good to be guaranteed and defended,'

For those who cannot tell who that was, see the end of this post.

Recently, some illustrations of how health care now puts money ahead of patients came to light.

Intellectual Property Rights Ahead of Sick Patients

The first example is from the KevinMD blog, written by medical and business student Samyutka Mullangi.

 My business ethics class recently discussed the case of Cipla Pharmaceuticals, an Indian generic drug manufacturer drawing the ire of big pharma by blithely ignoring international patents or employing workarounds to manufacture low-cost generics in direct violation of the patents. Cipla’s founder, Dr. Yusuf Hamied, stressed that Cipla’s goal wasn’t to steal from the bottom line of the likes of Merck and Eli Lilly, but rather to serve its mission of helping the world’s poor gain access to life-saving medications that they could otherwise not afford.

Of course,

 Students hailing from careers in pharma vehemently stated their opposition to Cipla’s cause, invoking the necessity for pharmaceutical companies to amortize their costs through sales. Though the incremental costs per pill of actual manufacturing were negligible, the high initial investments in research trials and production required a modicum of intellectual property protection.

The argument was briefly halted when 

 a classmate from the Middle East, who had been holding back furious tears through most of the discussion, raised a trembling hand and broke his silence. He told us of how his father, when he contracted diabetes, would not have survived if not for the availability of exactly such generic drugs.

He said, 'This entire discussion disgusts me.'  

However, very soon another student piped up and started talking about incentivizing.  Mullangi noted that

 At the business school, we use words like incentives, value proposition and return on equity. The liberals in the room had to couch their arguments in these terms. It would have been indelicate to talk about human rights and moral obligations.

While the end of the post suggested that medical students may not understand the language of business students, while business students may not understand the language of medical students.  However, it is clearly discussion of what matters to patients, empathy, ethics, morals that is "indelicate," and incentives, value propositions, and returns on equity have won out.


Efficiency Ahead of Patients' Needs

Just published online in JAMA was a commentary by Dr Christine K Cassel, and Robert S Saunders of the National Quality Forum summarizing recent findings by the US President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology on Health Care [Cassel CK, Saunders RS. Engineering a better health care system; a report from the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology.  JAMA 2014; doi:10.1001/jama.2014.8906.]  While it started with the usual paean to

an increased need to ensure care remains high quality, affordable, and centered around the needs of patients and families.

What it was really about was how

systems engineering ... includes a range of tools to improve efficiency and reliability

So, for example, while some people dislike the US fee-for-service payment system because it may encourage unneeded, useless, or even dangerous care, these authors noted just that it

rewards inefficiency and serves as a disincentive to more efficient care.

The whole point was about increasing efficiency.  But efficiency according to economists is "the use of resources so as to maximize the production of goods and services." (per Wikipedia.)  It is not about health care outcomes, benefits versus harms, or health care quality.  And there was not a word in the paper about patients' values or preferences, benefits or harms, or adverse effects of medical interventions.


The Highest Bidder, not the Sickest Patient, Gets the Earliest Appointment

The starkest example appeared in a Bloomberg article, aptly titled "Doctors for the 1 Percent."  The new start-up HelloMD is

a company that connects patients with the best doctors in San Francisco, Los Angeles and Las Vegas, as determined through a selection process. HelloMD offers faster appointments than regular patients can get, for a price: Its customers pay the doctors higher rates than insurance plans offer. And they pay those rates in cash.

So,

HelloMD is a portal to the top specialists in every field, letting you buy your way to the front of the line.

So in the brave new world of HelloMD, presumably a wealthy patient with a chronic or even trivial problem could bid his or her way to specialty care ahead of a more acutely and severely ill patient who lacks the extra money (and even if the latter patient has full conventional health insurance.)   Most codes of medical conduct suggest that the needs (meaning clinical needs) of individual patients come first, presumably ahead of the wants of wealthier patients.  Yet HelloMD allows the wants of the rich trump the needs of the less rich.  (For any rich people who think that may be good for them, remember there is always somebody richer.)  To an old school doctor, this seems completely unethical.  (And some lawyers might think that participating doctors risk violating any contracts they have with health insurance companies.) 

(Note: see another post about HelloMD on the Health Business Blog.O

Summary

So right now those who believe that health care should be a business, not a calling, are winning.  In an era of deregulation and rampant suspicion of anything government can do to level the playing field, those with more money will win, and patients, no matter how sick, will lose.

By the way, anyone thinking that they are rich enough to buy their way to good care in this brave new world, remember there will always be someone ahead of you who is richer. 

Good health care will not survive long in a time when it is indelicate to talk about human rights and moral obligations.  Obviously, true health care reform will take more than talk.


Answer to Quiz - Pope Benedict XVI, see this post.

To Die in Texas - Dr Mahmood's Apparently Fatal Stealth Hospital System Collapses Nearly Anechoically

I would bet that most people in the US still think our health care system is highly regulated.  Some may thus conclude that the system is basically safe, because, for example, drugs have to be proven safe and effective to be approved by the government, and hospitals must be licensed and run by competent people who are thoroughly vetted.  Of course, some people still think that the US has, or had until recently, the best health care system in the world (look here).

Furthermore, the view that less regulation is always better is no quite popular in the US and elsewhere.  For example, after the chemical spill threatened water supplies in the capitol of West Virginia, the Dallas News reviewed Texas Governor Rick Perry's consistent attacks on government regulation.   

'American business in general, and American agriculture specifically, have had enough of bureaucracy at both the federal and state levels, but especially bureaucracy out of Washington,' Perry said at a congressional hearing. 'The men and women who feed and clothe this nation are suffocating under the weight of mounting federal regulations.'

That was back in 1993, when Perry was Texas’ agriculture commissioner. Now Texas’ longest-serving governor, Perry has remained steadfast in his opposition to government regulations.

Some who take such a neoliberal stance may say the health care system is over-regulated, and thus is inefficient and not innovative, leading to our high costs and poor access.

However, an amazing case out of Governor Perry's Texas that was made public last year, and I regret I just heard about recently, suggests how little health care may be regulated, and how unregulated health care, whether or not it is efficient, may be deadly.

As reported in the Dallas News, July, 2013, in the last few years there seems to have been an epidemic of quality problems in a number of seemingly unrelated small rural Texas hospitals.  The report focused first on one hospital,

Renaissance Hospital Terrell

After for-profit hospital corporation Renaissance Healthcare declared bankruptcy in 2008 (look here), it sold its hospital in Terrell, Texas to RH Terrell Management LLC owned by one Dr Tariq Mahmood.  Almost immediately, however, there was trouble.  First Edwina Henry, the quality director, spied a doctor making questionable entries in patients' charts:

from her office, she had a clear view of doctors’ foot traffic through the medical records department.

When she saw [Dr Tariq] Mahmood jotting in patient charts, she knew he wasn’t seeing patients. Mahmood himself had not been credentialed to treat patients — a process in which management vets backgrounds and competencies of doctors. Part of Henry’s job was tracking such evaluations. She also knew it was a breach of privacy laws to review patients’ medical records.

'I immediately questioned some of the clerks and [insurance billing] coders,' she said. They were deeply concerned, saying he was altering the patients’ records to help boost reimbursements for insurance claims, Henry said.

When Ms Henry complained, things did not go well,

Henry made her confidential call to the bankruptcy court in early November 2008, alleging potential fraud and threats to patient care that were eluding government notice [Ed - note that the hospital was going through bankruptcy proceedings and had just been acquired by a new owner]. The court forwarded her complaint to the U.S. Justice Department, the Texas attorney general’s office and the state health department, officials confirmed.

Later that month, the state health department sent an inspector to the hospital. However, the visit was brief, Henry said, and the inspector didn’t interview her or seek her help in obtaining records.

Williams, the health department spokeswoman, told The News her agency’s records show the inspector was unable to substantiate violations at the time.

Henry was terminated from Renaissance as part of a 'restructuring'....

Then the hospital was cited for turning patients away from the emergency department,

At Renaissance, two women in labor, one bleeding, were refused treatment. The inspection reports don’t reveal whether the women suffered complications because of the delays.

A Renaissance employee told one of the women that if she 'could stand there and have a conversation with them then (she) wasn’t about to have a baby,' reports say.

Then there were problems with infection control,

At Renaissance, no supervision over infection control could be found. For three months in the summer of 2010, no one was in charge of tracking infectious diseases or preventing their spread.

The next year, the problem was blood transfusions

Inspectors returned to Renaissance in September 2011 to investigate a botched blood transfusion procedure. They found that a registered nurse had not supervised the patient’s care. In another case, an inspector witnessed an unsupervised vocational nurse administering blood to a patient, despite no evidence that she was competent to do so — another violation.

In 2012,

During the summer, the Texas secretary of state had revoked Renaissance’s business charter for failure to pay franchise taxes.

That office didn’t share the information with the health department; it isn’t required to do so.

In September, state health regulators notified Renaissance that they were proposing a $35,050 fine for 13 violations, including the nursing supervision failures, dating as far back as 2010.

Williams, the health department spokeswoman, could not explain why the fine process took nearly two years since the first violation. 

Finally, in 2013, patients started to die,

In January of this year, when state inspectors returned to Renaissance, they found nursing supervision failures yet again.

This time, the failures had led to three deaths: All ER patients. All with severe breathing difficulties. All receiving little to no intervention as their conditions worsened.

In particular,

[Eve] McCallum sought her own care after complaining of shortness of breath during a family dinner.

McCallum had chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. When she was admitted, nurses were ordered to monitor her vital signs and oxygen levels. Her breathing soon improved, said her niece, Lou Ann Sims.

'We were fully expecting to pick her up the next morning,' Sims said.

Instead, they watched helplessly as her condition deteriorated. On Christmas Day, a physician explained to McCallum’s family that she had to be transferred to the intensive care unit.

Later, Sims witnessed a scene she can’t let go of: Her aunt lay connected to a ventilator while a nurse stood smoking a cigarette just outside the door. The nurse had propped open the door with an IV pole.

The family immediately sought to have McCallum transferred to another hospital. But hospital officials told them 'this would be a lateral move and was not allowed,' according to a transcript of an interview the family later conducted with state officials.

McCallum died two days later.

Inspectors wrote that a licensed vocational nurse had been left in charge of her treatment, without a registered nurse’s oversight. There was no evidence an RN had assessed her condition on admission or was watching over her in the ICU.

They could find no doctor orders to place her on oxygen, no order for medications administered to her, 'nor evidence of communication with the M.D.'

Suspecting more than just care breakdowns at Renaissance, McCallum’s family reported her death to the Texas attorney general’s fraud-control unit.

So partially in response to this egregious case,

By February, the state health department had moved to revoke Renaissance’s operating license, and CMS had ordered its federal funding terminated — only the ninth time nationally in the last three years CMS had taken such a step.

Even those steps could not shut down the hospital, but city officials took that last step due to the failure to pay taxes.

Other Hospitals

Dallas News reporter Miles Moffeit found several other cases of severe problems at small hospitals owned by Dr Mahmood, with at least one patient death apparently resulting, .


Shelby Regional Medical Center

This hospital was owned by Tenet Healthcare, but was sold to another of Dr Mahmood's companies, Shelby Medical Holdings, in 2007 (look here). 

In 2009, this hospital was also cited for providing insufficient treatment in the emergency department.

In 2012, things were really falling apart,

In October 2012, inspectors were at Shelby chronicling dirty, clogged air-conditioners and failures to prevent ceiling plaster 'from falling into the patient food service line and contaminating food.' Those problems put patients’ safety in 'immediate jeopardy,' they wrote.

As inspectors roamed Shelby’s halls in December, the power suddenly went out in four buildings, though not in the main hospital facility itself. The electric bill hadn’t been paid. They found other debts stacking up, too — as much as $190,442 owed to as many as 79 service providers.

Signs of neglect were everywhere. Only three of 20 patient rooms inspected were 'fully functional for patient care,' they wrote. They found holes in walls, dirty and tattered curtains, and patients complaining of heat pouring from the faulty A/C system.

Finally, in 2013, another patient died,

On Wednesday, CMS cut off federal funding to ... Shelby Regional Medical Center in Center in East Texas after regulators said a patient rushed there by ambulance never received treatment from a doctor.

The ER physician wouldn’t leave his 'sleep room,' the inspection report said, resulting in the patient’s death. Regulators also cited the hospital for failing to vet backgrounds of doctors and nurses.

Apparently soon thereafter Dr Mahmood shut the hospital down due to "legal issues that ... [he] is facing," per the Shelby Light and Champion.


Lake Whitney Medical Center

Dr Mahmood apparently purchased this hospital from a struggling local hospital authority in 2007.  

In 2009, it was cited for inadequate care in the emergency department,

At Lake Whitney, a nurse acknowledged to inspectors that she had shredded records of a patient who was denied care following a fall, according to a report. The 'patient wasn’t going to pay anyway,' the nurse was quoted as saying in the document.

In 2010, there was evidence of major infrastructure problems,

At Lake Whitney, patients were served food on rusty 'over-the-bed tables that were a source of possible infections for open wounds.' Bulging ceiling tiles exposed pipes. Pavement outside a main hospital door was 'cracked and unlevel,' putting patients at risk of injury.

As Dr Mahmood's legal troubles mounted, the hospital was sold to Frontier Hospitals Inc (look here).


Cozby-Germany Hospital 

I have been unable to discover when Dr Mahmood purchased this hospital. 

In 2010, it became apparent that the hospital was not properly licensed,

'The administrator reported the new owner had not notified (CMS) … and has not applied for hospital licensure with the state licensing agency,' a report said. [The owner] ... also was found to have appointed his own employees to the hospital’s governing board of directors, instead of independent outsiders.

And there were more severe problems with credentialing,

At Cozby-Germany hospital, hospital inspectors discovered that the chief of staff and another doctor had expired medical licenses. There were no 'functional' nurse and doctor credentialing processes, and clinical policies had not been updated since 2008, they said. The hospital pledged reforms.

But in May 2011, records show, Cozby hired one of Texas’ most notorious doctors, Rolando Arafiles.

At the time, Arafiles had been placed on probation by the medical board for allegations of harming nine patients, overbilling and improper coding at a Winkler, Texas, facility, according the board. He also was disciplined for intimidating the Winkler nurses who blew the whistle on his practices.

In November, Arafiles would be convicted of two felonies linked to the retaliation and would surrender his license.

In 2013, two local doctors purchased the hospital.

The Vanishing Owner

What made this series of cases all the more amazing is that it was really one interlinked case.  All these hospitals, plus a few more, had the same owner.  Yet no one, especially  no one in state or federal government knew that until 2013 when the facts were uncovered by Mr Moffeit.

[Dr Tariq] Mahmood, a Pakistan-trained doctor, obtained his Texas medical license in 1978. Since 2008, he has practiced medicine only at his Central Texas Hospital in Cameron, south of Waco, records with the Texas Medical Board show. Older documentation is not available.

Over the last two decades, he has purchased at least six hospital companies and two home-health care agencies, according to filings with the Texas secretary of state. He also has invested his money outside health care, acquiring the historic Hotel Lawrence in downtown Dallas, property records show.

In addition to Renaissance, Shelby and Central Texas Hospital, Mahmood owns the Lake Whitney Medical Center in Whitney and Cozby-Germany Hospital in Grand Saline. He sold Community General Hospital in Dilley around the time of his arrest in April.

The hospitals have no common corporate identity and little or no website presence, making it difficult for anyone to know they are owned by Mahmood or are part of a chain.

However, much bout Dr Mahmood was mysterious, and the deliberate cultivation of mystery might have slowed the response to this case.

Mahmood is rarely seen in the communities where his hospitals are located, say business associates and city officials. Sometimes they catch a glimpse of him passing by in a chauffeur-driven car.

'He’s almost impossible to track down' to discuss business matters, said Tom Elliott, a director for a nonprofit company that owns the hospital building in Grand Saline. 'He lets his people do the talking.'

Mahmood is a mystery to many of his own employees. He works almost entirely behind the scenes, they say, focusing largely on the business side of his operations. He often is traveling or spending time at his 10,000-square-foot gated estate in Cedar Hill, they say.

'We see him maybe once a year,' said one of his hospital physicians. 'The employees say he doesn’t like confrontation. I say he just doesn’t like to communicate. He seems to live in a different world.'

Aftermath

 At some point, the shadowy Dr Mahmood may have to answer for all this, at least to some extent,

In April, federal authorities charged the 62-year-old Cedar Hill resident with defrauding Medicare and Medicaid programs through $1.1 million in false billings.

Mahmood is accused of directing employees at his Central Texas Hospital in Cameron to alter underlying information in insurance claims from his other hospitals. 'In many cases,' the indictment alleges, these were 'for patients he had never seen.' Mahmood pleaded not guilty, and his attorney said he denies all charges. He has declined repeated interview requests from The Dallas Morning News. 

Note, however, that these are charges of financial fraud.  They do not obviously have to do with poor quality care, risks to patients' safety, or the deaths of at least three patients as discussed above.

This case was so bad that even the current Governor of Texas, Rick Perry, a politician known for taking a small government, minimal regulation stance, at least said he was going to take some action, as reported again in the Dallas News,

The governor’s office has ordered a 'deep and comprehensive look' at health care facilities owned by Dr. Tariq Mahmood, whose chain of rural Texas hospitals avoided serious regulatory action despite years of endangering patients.

The inspector general for the state Health and Human Services Commission and one of the agencies it oversees, the state health department, will conduct separate investigations, officials said Friday.

And in February, 2014, the Dallas News reported that the chief financial officer of the Dr Mahmood's stealth hospital chain was also in hot water,

The top administrator of a chain of hospitals that collapsed under the ownership of a North Texas physician faces charges that he defrauded the federal government of nearly $800,000 in stimulus funds.

Joe White of Cameron rose from maintenance man to head administrator and chief financial officer over hospitals once owned by Dr. Tariq Mahmood. Now he joins Mahmood in facing the possibility of prison time.

Like Mahmood, who pleaded not guilty, White is accused of identify theft and bilking the federal government of health care dollars. White has yet to enter a plea.

Note that the CFO and apparently COO was not even a professional generic manager.  He was a former maintenance man  and operator of a Radio Shack store.. 

Dr Mahmood has not yet come to trial.  Many questions about the case remain unanswered:
 -  Did Mahmood the only person besides his CFO cum maintenance man in charge of all this, or did he have other backers,  cronies, associates?
-  What happened to the rigorous state investigation promised by Rick Perry?
-  Given that what went on harmed patients, and hence was not just financial manipulation, are there any civil lawsuits pending?  Are there any other criminal investigations?\

Furthermore, despite its egregious nature, this case was amazingly anechoic  The only national recognition I could find was in Paul Levy's Not Running a Hospital blog.  Seven months later, I could find nothing in the national media, nothing in medical and health care literature.  Despite the amazingly poor quality of care in evidence, despite the fact that patients died, I could find no cries of outrage from those who proclaim to support quality health care or patient safety. 


Summary

Dr Mahmood and his chief operating and financial officer collectively displayed leadership that was ill-informed (the COO/ CFO was a former maintenance man), incompetent (see the egregious health quality problems listed above), self-interested (note the size of Dr Mahmood's mansion versus how little was obviously spent on his hospitals), opaque and dishonest (note how Dr Mahmood's ownership of the hospitals was obscured), and allegedly criminal.  This leadership persisted over at least eight years until it culminated in cases of apparently needless patient deaths.  

The amazing case of the stealth for-profit hospital system run by Dr Mahmood, and how its combined problems failed for so long to get systemic regulatory notice hardly suggest that our health care system is heavily regulated, or that current regulation can be relied upon to reassure patients that all is well and that the system is safe.

In fact, in the case of Dr Mahmood, government regulators did not seem to even want to know too much about hospital ownership,

Top health regulators weren’t even aware Mahmood owned several hospitals until The News sought information about them earlier this year. Regulatory agencies aren’t set up to track problem hospital owners or hold them accountable. Nor do they look for patterns of care breakdowns inside hospital chains.

'We just don’t have that authority,' said David Wright, deputy regional administrator for CMS. The federal agency oversees the state health department’s inspections of federally funded hospitals. 'We can only address problems in stand-alone facilities.'

Furthermore, it appears that modern regulators have decided to become hospital managers' and owners' best friends,

The process allows hospitals to avoid sanctions if they cooperate. Hospitals submit “corrective action plans” to remedy failures. It can take months for state regulators to bring penalties such as fines against a facility. In the case of Renaissance, it took years.

'We want to do what’s in the best interest of the patients, and our regulatory philosophy is to get hospitals into compliance,' said Carrie Williams, spokeswoman for the Texas Department of State Health Services. 'We’re not in the business of shutting down hospitals. We will give them some leeway and work with them.'

Of course, this minimalist, light touch regulatory methodology may have made some sense in an earlier era when nearly all hospitals were small community not-for-profit organizations, non-profit academic institutions, or were run by local governments.  It seems quaint, and hopelessly out of date in an era when most hospitals are part of ever larger systems, now often owned for-profit corporations, and when hospital system CEOs who are professional, and thus generic managers, not health care professionals, in an era of financialization and "maximizing shareholder value," that is, making short-term revenue the most important outcome.

Instead, the current minimalist regulatory system seems insufficient to prevent patients from dying of poor care allowed by poor leadership of health care organizations.  Much of the content of this blog has been about bad health care leadership, i.e., leadership that is ill-informed, incompetent, unsympathetic or hostile to health care professionals' values, self-interested, conflicted, dishonest, or even corrupt.  In my humble opinion, health care regulation ought to be sufficient to promote competent, caring, unconflicted, honest leadership that is accountable for putting patients' interests ahead of self-interest.  Regulation needs to be more intense, and much smarter, geared to the reality of a health care system that is now largely for-profit in an era when management dogma puts revenue ahead of all other concerns.

Maybe the deaths of some patients in Dr Mahmood's Texas hospital will finally let the air out of the mindlessly anti-regulatory bubble, and start some discussion of intelligent regulation to improve patient safety.

However, that cannot happen if this case remains anechoic.  I regret it took me so long to find it, but now I have done my part to start some echoes.  But where are the media, where are the journal editors, and where are those who so loudly proclaim their interest in patient safety and health care quality?

In particular, there are several prominent organizations that claim to promote health care quality and patient safety.  These organizations make these claims-

Joint Commission

 For more than 60 years, The Joint Commission has been a champion of patient safety by helping health care organizations to improve the quality and safety of the care they provide.

Leapfrog Group

 The Leapfrog Group is a voluntary program aimed at mobilizing employer purchasing power to alert America’s health industry that big leaps in health care safety, quality and customer value will be recognized and rewarded.

National Quality Forum

 Transforming our healthcare system to be safe, equitable, and of the highest value will take time and the work of many, but the potential rewards are great. The National Quality Forum (NQF) is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, public service organization committed to this transformation.

Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

Our efforts focus on improving both the health of everyone in America and their health care—how it's delivered, how it's paid for, and how well it does for patients and their families.

These  organizations should the ones to start the conversation about improving rather than forever shrinking regulation.   I have not heard anything from them about the deadly hospitals of Dr Mahmood.  Are they listening now?  Will we ever hear from them?  Time will tell.... 

 Note: the entire Dallas News series on the Mahmood hospitals can be found here. 

The Camel's Aching Back - Johnson and Johnson and Novartis Fined 16 Million Euro for "Anticompetitive" Scheme to Delay Generic Fentanyl

Legal and regulatory actions unfavorable for giant pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device company Johnson and Johnson just keep coming.  We last discussed such a story only two weeks ago here. 

The Latest Case

This latest story got only desultory US coverage from the wire services.  The most complete version is in the European Commission press release. 

The basics were:

The European Commission has imposed fines of € 10 798 000 on the US pharmaceutical company Johnson & Johnson (J&J) and € 5 493 000 on Novartis of Switzerland. In July 2005, their respective Dutch subsidiaries concluded an anticompetitive agreement to delay the market entry of a cheaper generic version of the pain-killer fentanyl in the Netherlands, in breach of EU antitrust rules.

In more detail,

J&J initially developed Fentanyl and has commercialised it in different formats since the 1960s. In 2005, J&J's protection on the fentanyl depot patch had expired in the Netherlands and Novartis' Dutch subsidiary, Sandoz, was on the verge of launching its generic fentanyl depot patch. It had already produced the necessary packaging material. 

However, in July 2005, instead of actually starting to sell the generic version, Sandoz concluded a so-called 'co-promotion agreement' with Janssen-Cilag, J&J's Dutch subsidiary. The agreement provided strong incentives for Sandoz not to enter the market. Indeed, the agreed monthly payments exceeded the profits that Sandoz expected to obtain from selling its generic product, for as long as there was no generic entry. Consequently, Sandoz did not offer its product on the market. The agreement was stopped in December 2006 when a third party was about to launch a generic fentanyl patch.

The agreement therefore delayed the entry of a cheaper generic medicine for seventeen months and kept prices for fentanyl in the Netherlands artificially high - to the detriment of patients and taxpayers who finance the Dutch health system.

The obligatory colorful bits,

 Why did J&J and Novartis conclude that agreement? According to internal documents Sandoz would abstain from entering the Dutch market in exchange for 'a part of [the] cake'. Instead of competing, Janssen-Cilag and Sandoz agreed on cooperation so as 'not to have a depot generic on the market and in that way to keep the high current price'. Janssen-Cilag did not consider any other existing potential partners for the so-called 'co-promotion agreement' but just focused on its close competitor Sandoz. Sandoz engaged in very limited or no actual co-promotion activities.

So, 

 The Commission therefore concluded that the object of this agreement was anticompetitive and infringed Article 101 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU). 

Johnson and Johnson's Ever Lengthening Unhappy Legal History

There have been so many settlements made by, fines assessed against, and other adverse legal actions affecting Johnson and Johnson in the recent past that we must make a major revision of our summary of such cases (see same appended at the end of this post.)

Yet despite all these actions, there is no hint that anything will change at the company.  After all, it is extremely profitable, and all the fines, while they individually appear large, are not a big fraction of the money it brings in.  And, as we have noted far too often, not one of these actions actually provides any negative consequences, much less severely punishes anyone at the company who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior.  

Instead, the leadership of the company continues to make itself very rich. As we wrote here,  Mr William Weldon, the outgoing CEO on whose watch most of the misbehavior resulting in the legal actions listed in the appendix below occurred, retired with a huge retirement package, after receiving extremely generous compensation prior to that.  The new CEO as of April, 2012,  Mr  Alex Gorsky, per the company's 2013 proxy statement, already owns more than 190,000 Johnson and Johnson shares,  and received $10,977,109  total compensation in 2012.  Mr Weldon received over $29 million in total compensation just for 2012, the year in which he retired.  Other top executives received from over $3.5 million to over $8 million. One can only imagine how much top executives are making this year.

So Johnson and Johnson, once admired for proclaiming in its famous credo to "put the needs and well-being of the people we serve first," now seems to put its own hired managers first.  It boggles the mind that despite this amazing record of bad behavior, the executives who presided over it still have jobs, have made no obvious changes in how they manage the company, and in fact continue to get ridiculously rich.  The board of directors, which includes the President of the University of Michigan, a Professor and Emeritus Chancellor and Vice President of Health Affairs at Emory, a Professor at MIT, a former FDA Commissioner, and Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, and the Vice Chancellor of Health Sciences, Dean of the David Geffen School of Medicine at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA); Chief Executive Officer of the UCLA Health System, who seemingly ought to care about the integrity of evidence, protecting patients from harm, and the need for simple honesty, have not obviously done anything about the apparent massive violation of the company credo that has made its managers wealth.   Other than the stockholder lawsuit discussed below, the supposed owners of the company seem to be mute.

When will the straws break the camel's back?  In the absence of such a fracture, I repeat like an old, broken record... 

Many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

Again, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.

Appendix - Johnson and Johnson Recent Legal Record

2010

- Convictions in two different states in 2010 for misleading marketing of Risperdal
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010
2011

- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by Johnson and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses in 2011 (see this link for all of the above)
- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
2012

- In 2012, testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
-  Also in 2012,  Johnson & Johnson was fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
-  Also in 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising again about Risperdal (see this post). 

2013

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson settled case by shareholders alleging that management made misleading statements and withheld material information about manufacturing problems (see this post)

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Janssen subsidiary pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding Risperdal, and settled for a total of $2.2 billion allegations that it promoted the drug for elderly demented patients and adolescents without an indication, and despite evidence of its harms (see this post). 

-  In 2013, Johnson & Johnson DePuy subsidiary agreed to settle with multiple plaintiffs for $2.5 billion allegations that it sold defective mental-on-metal artificial hip, and hid evidence of its harms .

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnsonn Janssen subsidiary was found by two juries to have concealed harms of its drug Topamax (see this post for this and above case).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson Ethicon subsidiary's Advanced Surgical Products and two of its executives agreed to settle charges by US FDA that is sold mislabeled products used to sterilize equipment such as endoscopes (see this post).

- In 2013, Johnson & Johnson fined by European Commission for anticompetitive practices, that is, collusion with Novartis to delay marketing generic version of Fentanyl (in the current post above). 

Why Trust Drug Company Executives After One Admits Commercially Sponsored Clinical Research Is All About "Competitive Advantage?"

Mickey, the semi-anonymous blogger on 1BoringOldMan, wrote a righteously angry post in support of transparent clinical research.  As we have noted frequently, clinical trials done on human subjects are often manipulated to increase the likelihood of results favorable to commercial sponsors, or suppressed when even such manipulation does not produce the desired results.

Note that such suppression and manipulation degrade the scientific value of the studies, impede the evidence-based medicine process to rationally apply clinical research evidence to improve the health of patients and the public, and violate the trust of research subjects who volunteer to participate based on the assumption that clinical research is meant to improve patient care and public health, and contribute to science, not just secure commercial advantage.  

A European initiative to combat suppression of clinical research has been opposed by a lawsuit from US pharmaceutical manufacturers AbbeVie, spun off from Abbott Laboratories, and Intermune.  The European Medicines Agency had been willing to to make public unpublished patient level data from commercially sponsored clinical trials.  The lawsuit has shut down the process, and is meant to shut it down permanently, claiming that the clinical data, obtained from volunteer research subjects, includes "trade secrets."

As summarized by Mickey, their motivation seems to be to conceal how pharmaceutical manufacturers and other commercial sponsors of human research use this research for promotional, rather than scientific purposes.

An AbbeVie lawyer asserted that some adverse effects data should be kept confidential, and that "internal tactical decisions on how we are going to run a study, engage with regulators, and confront and solve problems and challenges we have uncovered during clinical trials" should also be kept secret because revealing them could "give other companies a tremendous competitive advantage," never mind whether keeping secrets could undermine science, decrease the study's usefulness to aid clinical and policy decision making, and break the implicit contract between researchers and study subjects.

It is becoming more obvious that many drug company executives, and other leaders of large health organizations, may care more about "competitive advantage" than patients, science or the public good, as Mickey points out.  So much for that advertising puffery  about drug development to improve patient health.  Thus it may be ridiculous to think that these executives they will negotiate to improve transparency of clinical research in good faith when doing so could decrease such advantage, again no matter what the effect on patients, public health, or science.

On this case there is an opportunity to speak out, Dr David Healy has a petition up on Change.org to oppose the AbbeVie and Intermune lawsuit which might get some notice if there are enough signatures.

The Long Con - "Charitable" Hospitals Make Multimillionaires out of Their CEOs

The CEOs of ostensibly charitable hospitals founded to serve the poor continue to become rich.  

The latest reminders are in two articles from Maryland, from DelMarVaNow, and from the Baltimore Sun,.and one from the Boston Globe.

All this diligent reporting showed multimillion dollar executive compensation,  as usual not justified by evidence or logic, but also how executive compensation is becoming divorced from the ostensible charitable mission of non-profit hospitals.  

Most Hospital CEOs are Paid a Lot

So jin Maryland, we found via DelMarVaNow,

Peninsula Regional Medical Center paid its top executive and her immediate predecessor a total of $2.37 million in compensation in 2011 as the nonprofit hospital gained millions of dollars in profit.

In particular,

 The analysis shows that R. Alan Newberry was the third-highest paid hospital chief in Maryland, even though he has not run PRMC since 2009. In the year after formally stepping down from the hospital’s top job, Newberry received $1.57 million, about $600,000 more than he had while still working full time.

The Baltimore Sun summarized compensation given to multiple executives,

 Eleven executives earning seven-figure compensation packages including salary, bonus, retirement and other pay saw their total pay rise from as little as 0.13 percent to as much as 308 percent in the fiscal year that ended in 2012, according to tax filings. Another executive earning more than $1 million saw a pay cut.

In particular,

 The state's highest-compensated hospital executive that fiscal year was Kenneth A. Samet, the CEO of the 10-hospital MedStar Health system, who earned $6.3 million. More than half — $3.5 million — was money earned in a supplemental retirement plan during his 23 years of service. He won't get the money until he retires. His base pay was $1.2 million, and he received $1.5 million as a bonus and incentives.

The other top five highest-paid executives in Maryland are James Xinis, CEO at Calvert Memorial Hospital in Prince Frederick; Ronald A. Peterson, CEO of the Johns Hopkins Health Center Corp.; Robert A. Chrencik, CEO of the University of Maryland Medical System; and Thomas Mullen, CEO of Mercy Medical Center.

Xinis saw his compensation package jump 307.8 percent to $3.5 million, $2.8 million of which was a required distribution of vested retirement funds from a plan he begin contributing to in 2003, the hospital said in a statement. Xinis has served as CEO for 26 years and plans to retire in the next 18 months, the hospital said. His base salary in fiscal 2012 was $309,557.

Peterson, who oversees six hospitals, earned a $3.5 million compensation package. Peterson's 86.5 percent pay increase largely reflected pension benefits he'd earned during 40 years at Hopkins. His annual base salary increased about $49,500 to $1.1 million in fiscal 2012.

Chrencik, whose system has 12 hospitals, earned about $2.3 million. Chrencik's total pay grew 23.4 percent. Mercy's Mullen saw his pay rise 24 percent to $1.6 million for the fiscal year ending in 2012.

The one CEO earning more than $1 million who saw his compensation fall was Edward D. Miller, who retired in June 2012 as CEO of Johns Hopkins Medicine and dean of the university's medical school. His reported pay dropped to just over $1 million in fiscal 2012 from nearly $2.3 million the prior year, when he took a one-time retirement payout.

Also,

According to Saint Agnes tax filings, [CEO Bonnie] Phipps received $1.9 million in the 2012 fiscal year, 4.4 percent more compensation than a year earlier.

 Per the Boston Globe, local hospital executives also did really well

Chief executives at the Boston area’s largest nonprofit teaching hospitals drew pay packages of $1 million to $2.1 million in 2011, including salaries, bonuses, and compensation such as health and life insurance and retirement benefits.

Topping the list locally was Gary L. Gottlieb, chief executive of Partners HealthCare System, the state’s largest hospital and physicians organization, who received total compensation of $2.1 million in 2011, according to federal tax documents released Thursday by the nonprofits.

And,

The presidents of Partners-owned Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals also drew seven-figure packages in 2011, with Peter L. Slavin at Mass. General receiving a total of $1.7 million and Elizabeth G. Nabel at Brigham and Women’s a total of $1.9 million.

Also,

Tufts Medical Center reported that Ellen M. Zane, who served as chief executive through September 2011, had total pay of $1.6 million that year.

Eric J. Beyer, who took over from Zane in October, had total compensation of $744,722 that included pay for work as chief executive and at his previous job as president of the Tufts Medical Center Physicians Organization.

James Mandell, chief executive at Boston Children’s Hospital, was paid a total of $1.5 million in 2011. That was down from the $2 million he earned the prior year when he received two separate incentive awards, according to a hospital spokeswoman. Mandell plans to retire next month and will be succeeded by Sandra Fenwick, the hospital’s president and chief operating officer.

Total compensation for Boston Medical Center chief executive Kate Walsh was listed at nearly $1.4 million in 2011, an increase from $1.3 million in 2010.

At Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, chief executive Edward J. Benz Jr. received total compensation of nearly $1.3 million in 2011, up from $1.1 million in 2010.

Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center paid three different top executives in 2011.

Eric Buehrens, who served as interim chief executive from February to October, drew total compensation of just over $1 million for that role and other executive jobs.

The Justification for this Pay is Stereotyped (and not Supported by Logic or Evidence)

The Usual Talking Points

The articles in combination provided the usual talking points as justification.  It seems nearly every attempt made to defend the outsize compensation given hospital and health system executives involves the same arguments, thus suggesting they are talking points, possibly crafted as a public relations ploy.   We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use here, here here, here, here, and here..   

They are:
- We have to pay competitive rates
- We have to pay enough to retain at least competent executives, given how hard it is to be an executive
- Our executives are not merely competitive, but brilliant.

As we have noted before, there is little evidence in support of these talking points.  What evidence there is on the topic suggests there is no real free market in interchangeable CEOs, and that CEOs are not very mobile, especially not across different kinds of organizations (look here).  There is little evidence that hospital (or other health care) executives are particularly brilliant, or any more brilliant than multitudes of physicians, nurses, and other health care professionals who work hard to make their institutions run.

True to form, the reporting from Maryland and Boston found that defenders of executive pay cited the talking points, but without any further logic or evidence. 

Competition

Re PRMC (from DelMarVaNow),

 'We’ve looked at about 17 like institutions. Eight are smaller than we are; eight are larger. Every hospital is different, so you have to always take into account there’s some variation, but we’ve always stayed in the middle. Our goal has been to stay in that 60 percent level as far as compensation goes,' said Martin Neat, chairman of PRMC’s board of directors, which oversees executives’ salaries.­

Note that in this case, no justification was provided for constantly setting the CEOs pay above the median.


Re Maryland, via the Baltimore Sun

 Hospitals argue that they have to offer competitive compensation to attract talent to run a complicated business.

Re Maryland and particularly UMMS, via the Sun,

 The medical institutions say they hire independent consultants and look at the pay of executives at comparable health systems when making their decisions.

Also,

UMMS hospital executives are compensated in line with national benchmarks,' [UMMS spokeswoman Mary Lynn] Carver said.

Note that there was no justification for the comparability of these institutions, or why a national versus regional comparison was made.

Retention

Re PRMC

 Above all, PRMC’s board of directors seeks to ensure that the hospital attracts and retains the best leaders.

Note that there was no evidence given that current leaders might leave were their compensation reduced.

 Brilliance

Re PRMC,

[Board Chairman Neat]  added: 'These are high-paid positions, but these are very capable people who could go elsewhere.'

Re Maryland, from the Baltimore Sun

 Executives need to understand everything from the latest health technologies to regulatory changes, including health reform.

So do doctors and nurses, so why do they not not get similar pay?

Also,

 [Carmela Coyle, CEO of the Maryland Hospital Association, said,] 'Hospital executives are in charge of incredibly complex organizations,' she said. 'They are organizations that are open 24 hours a day and are highly regulated. These are really difficult, difficult jobs'.

Note again the lack of comparison with the doctors and nurses who must staff the hospitals 24 hours a day, and make difficult decisions while caring for patients with sometimes life-threatening conditions.  How often does a hospital CEO get a call in the middle of the night, and how often does it require a decision in a life-and-death situation?

Re Mercy Medical Center,

 'As a result of Mr. Mullen's leadership, vision and skillful stewardship, Mercy has been an economic engine for the city, infusing additional jobs into the local economy,' the hospital said in a statement.

When in doubt, use the v (for visionary) word.  Note that this begs the questions of how many other people were responsible for the economic benefits, and whether such benefits, rather than, say ability to provide good care to patients, should be the main consideration.

Should Brilliance be Measured by Revenue?

At best, some defenders of high CEO pay seem to argue that the main measure of CEO brilliance ought to be their hospitals' financial performance. For example, the DelMarvaNow article included,

Fiscal health is one of the most important considerations in determining [new CEO Peggy] Naleppa's pay, [board chairman] Neat said. 

Also, he was quoted,

'There's no question that the financial performance of the institution is going to affect what you're going to pay', Neat said.

While,

Nationwide, hospital boards subscribe to a similar philosophy.  Financial health was cited by 100 percent of multi-hospital organizations in a 2006 survey as a factor in determining bosses' incentive plans.

Similarly, the Baltimore Sun quoted Dr Stephen F Jencks, "who serves on the board of the cost review commission,"

executives should be judged by whether they are running cost-efficient organizations

However, CEO pay seems to increase even at financially challenged institutions,  as the Baltimore Sun noted,

The CEO pay question — always a hot-button issue — is generating debate again this year after a state panel spurned a push by hospitals for higher rates, instead approving smaller increases and calling on them to do more to curb expenses. Hospitals have sought rate increases in each of the past three years, and this year at least one Baltimore-area hospital responded with layoffs in an effort to trim labor costs.

So,

'If they are laying off staff and decreasing what they invest in the community and executive compensation is increasing, that is a real question,' said Jessica Curtis, project director of the hospital accountability project at Community Catalyst, a national advocacy group that promotes wider access to affordable health care.

Even if one accepts that the compensation of leaders of organizations that take care of sick and injured patients ought to mainly depend on the brilliance of their leadership as measured by how much money the organizations make, rather than the quality of that care, it is not clear that all these leaders are brilliant in that sense.

The Charitable Mission and CEO Compensation

Essentially all US non-profit hospitals and hospital systems have a history of a charitable mission to improve the health of their patients and communities, even if that means taking care of poor people who cannot pay for these services.  Nearly all justify their legal status as non-profit corporations by stating this mission. 

For example, Peninsula Regional Medical Center, the main subject of the DelMarVaNow article, describes its mission thus in its US tax filing,

Peninsula Regional Medical Center is a not-for-profit 501 (c) 3 non-stock corporation founded in 1897 to serve the health care needs of the community.  The Hospital's primary purpose is to provide the highest [sic] primary, secondary, and selected tertiary health care services to residents of and visitors to the Mid-Delmarva Peninsula in a competent, compassionate, and cost effective manner designed to elicit a high degree of consumer satisfaction.  The Hospital's mission is to improve the health of the communities we serve....

Yet it appears that this mission is honored mainly in the breach, at least when it comes to CEO compensation. 

The DelMarVaNow article emphasized that hospitals' charitable functions are not seen as relevant by hospital boards when setting CEO compensation,

Despite the nonprofit status of the organizations they oversee, hospital boards don't appear to put weight toward the amount of free medical services and community outreach activities, good deeds collectively known as charity care, [executive vice president of Integrated Healthcare Strategies Kevin] Talbot

Also,

The head of the consulting firm that helps PRMC's board establish [current CEO] Naleppa's pay said community benefit shouldn't be part of the equation.

'In my over 25 years of consulting on hospital compensation, I have never seen community benefit used as a factor in determining executive pay,' Rian Yaffe said.  'Community benefit has nothing to do with how difficult a hospital is to manage and lead.'

However, community benefit is the mission of the hospital, and is justification for most US hospitals' non-profit status, which allows them to escape certain kinds of taxation, and for donors to make charitable, tax-advantaged contributions to the hospitals.  

The Baltimore Sun listed financial but not charitable performance as a justification for the compensation of a particular executive, the CEO of Johns Hopkins Medical Center, who is

'held responsible for stringent qualitative measures,'  in such areas as financial performance, patient safety and service excellence, [Johns Hopkins] spokeswoman Kim Hoppe said in a statement.

When asked by the Sun to comment, the advocacy group Community Catalyst stated

One of the factors that should be considered, it says, is the role of non-profit hospitals in the community and in providing charity care. 

Meanwhile, while the hospitals gain advantages from ostensibly focused on the mission of providing community care and benefit, not only are there leaders not given incentives to uphold this mission, they are explicitly compared to leaders of for-profit organizations who have no such missions, and who are primarily tasked with increasing short term revenue in this era of "financialization." 

In the Baltimore Sun,

Hospitals note that they compete with private sector businesses where their executives could choose to work instead.

Again, as noted above, there is little evidence that top hired managers are really that mobile, and less that a manager from one sector, e.g., non-profit hospitals, would be in great demand in another, e.g., a for-profit corporation.

The Boston Globe noted an argument made that implied no one should complain about how much non-profit hospital executives make, since executives of for-profit corporations make even more.

 'In a big successful teaching hospital, it’s very rare to see anything less than $1 million in total compensation for the chief executive, and $1.5 million to $2 million is the norm,' [managing director of consulting firm Compensation Resources Paul R] Dorf said. 'Executives at publicly traded pharma or medical device companies can make 10 times as much.'

So if there is little evidence for the mobility of top hired managers, there is less for the desirability of managers of non-profit hospitals as heads of large pharmaceutical or medical device companies.  But furthermore, in trying to justify, albeit illogically, outsize CEO compensation, the defenders of this compensation have provided evidence that the leaders and stewards of non-profit hospitals may no longer care about the hospitals' fundamental mission.  This suggests that hospitals' overt declarations of their mission, especially when used to obtain more donations and tax benefits, may amount to the ethical equivalent of a "long con," that is, a long-term confidence scheme.


Summary

While F Scott Fitzgerald noted that the very rich are different from you and me, it may now be more appropriate to say that top hired managers are very different from you and me.  Again and again we see that they play by very different sets of rules than do other people who work in health care.  Notably, while they often emphasize cost cutting, and may be quick to lay off or outsource other employees, their compensation increases year by year no matter how well their organizations are doing.  While other employees, increasingly now including doctors as well as other health care professionals, have to answer to the hired managers, the hired managers only answer to boards of directors or trustees who often act like their cronies, perhaps because they are often also current or retired hired managers.

Hired managers are subject to incentives that seem designed not to improve patients' and the public's health, but at best to improve the short-term revenue of health care organizations, and at worst to increase the wealth of hired managers.  Such perverse incentives risk promoting ill-considered, mission-hostile, or even corrupt management.  The sorts of people who aspire to be hired managers in such conditions are likely not the sort of people one would expect to really advance the health of patients or of the population.

As a first step to restoring health care leadership to some state of reasonable accountability and responsibility, we need to challenge the rules that only hired managers play by.  It would be nice to see articles in the media about health care CEO compensation that at least attempt to question the usual talking points.  All of us could think about how we could challenge our local million dollar plus hospital CEOs to justify why they should be treated so differently from all other hospital employees.

Since it seems that many hospitals no longer fit at least the spirit of the definition of not-for-profit organizations, even though they use this designation for financial advantage, we need policies to encourage them to uphold their mission, and that provide negative consequences if they do not. 

Guest Post: Incompetent Management Breeds Demoralized Physicians

Health Care Renewal presents a guest post by Dr Howard Brody, John P McGovern Centennial Chair of Family Medicine, Director of the Institute for Medical Humanities at University of Texas - Medical Branch at Galveston, and blogger at Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma. 

Danielle Ofri, a prominent internist/author at Bellevue in New York, started a recent op-ed piece, “Last week I was ready to quit medicine."

She described an encounter most physicians can relate to—a 15-minute appointment slot, a new patient who spoke only Bengali, a long and complicated problem list, a bag containing 18 different medicines, two forms that had to be filled out by the doctor on this day’s visit, and a computer that froze while she was trying to keep up with the electronic charting. She described how, 45 minutes into the supposedly 15-minute visit, she had a phone in one ear with the Bengali translator and tech support on hold in the other ear.

Ofri’s plaint caught my attention because I had recently put up a guest post on Health Care Renewal about another highly skilled, caring physician who was seriously considering quitting practice. This led me to write a column for some of our local newspapers about demoralized doctors

In the space allowed in an op-ed column, you can’t go into great depth in analyzing a complicated situation. So here’s what I would have wanted to say.

We can list all the management failures that this encounter represents. I won’t even start with the electronic record as that’s such a frequent theme in this blog. Who scheduled such a patient for a 15-minute visit? Where is the pharmacist who could have done a better job of going through all the lady’s medicines? Where is the staffer who could have filled out the forms for Dr. Ofri to sign? This is just to scratch the surface.

There are two things worrisome about this long list of management failures. If the goal of the health care system is actually to take good care of patients, then it seems obvious that Dr. Ofri, who wanted to try to provide high-quality care, had roadblock after roadblock thrown in her way.

Cynics will protest that this system obviously has no interest in quality patient care and seeks only to maximize revenue. If that’s so, is it really true that a board-certified MD is the most efficient labor source for keyboarding data into a computer, filling out paper forms, and doing all the other busy-work tasks that Dr. Ofri had to juggle? Can anyone really believe that this management structure supports either quality care orefficient resource use?

If the management of U.S. hospitals was severely understaffed or underpaid, then we could perhaps forgive such lapses. But we know that while the growth of physicians in the U.S. has been slow, the number of administrators has grown by leaps and bounds [The number of health care managers increased by 726% from 1983-2000 while physician numbers increased by 39%, look here - Ed]  . And we know that at least at the high end, these managers are paid munificent sums, and are lauded for their supposed genius (look here for example). 

So we appear to have a system that is slowly (in some cases rapidly) driving the best doctors out of practice, and yet somehow imagines that everything is going all right and there’s no problem—or if there’s a problem, it’s those whining doctors.

All us medical educators know that when we ask the first-year class how may of them have been told by practicing physicians that they’re making a big mistake coming to medical school, the majority will raise their hands. Yet the managers of America’s health systems apparently believe that they can go on demoralizing good practitioners and nothing bad will happen.

This may sound as if I am saying that health care managers are all evil people, but that’s an unfair characterization. These folks are simply trying to do what our society tells them. As I explained some time ago, most of our popular and political discourse has been captured by a belief system that can be variously called neoliberalism, market fundamentalism, or economism. The ideology can be summarized as a quasi-religious faith in the so-called “free market,” steadfast opposition to government regulation of the market, and opposition to just about any form of taxes (for more on the nature of economism, look here.)

Among other things, this ideology teaches us that everything important in our society can be accurately captured in objective measures of “productivity” and “efficiency.”  [This is akin to the "shareholder value" theory of management (look here), or "financialization." - Ed]  Once one has mastered the basic concepts taught in MBA school, there’s no need to learn anything about health care and what makes it a unique activity; there’s no basic difference between providing health care and flipping burgers at McDonalds or making widgets. [We have called this generic management. - Ed.]. And so we get the crazy style of management well documented on this blog, not because of personal nastiness or ill will, but due to the ideological Kool-Aid everyone has been drinking for several decades now.

Today’s physicians seem to be like the proverbial frog being boiled in the pot of water because the heat was turned up so gradually the frog never figured out it needed to jump. [That is, they are suffering from "learned helplessness." - Ed] Dr. Ofri herself seems to represent a typical frog. Why? Perhaps it’s the style of the blog or op-ed writer to start off with a downer and then try to end on an upbeat note. Or perhaps it’s the natural physician’s tendency to stay away from policy questions. I’m not sure.

After starting us off with this hard-hitting description of a dysfunctional system, Dr. Ofri ends by opining that things are going to be better in the future because more women are entering medicine and because today’s medical students are more tech savvy. She gives herself credit for managing to forge a bond with the patient because they sat together and faced this adversity. She cites an upbeat study, “when asked what was the most satisfying aspect of medical practice, the number one answer was relationships with patients. This is what keeps us going on even the most trying of days.”

Dr. Ofri gets full credit for remembering the importance of relationships, and feels that she bonded more firmly with her patient because they went through all this together. How about a word, though, about the people behind the curtain, who are responsible for all that she and her patient had to go through, and who don’t seem to have a clue how bad it is and what it all means? 

Dr Howard Brody