Giant GSK Settlement Provides Reminder of the Pervasiveness of Stealth Marketing

The latest  and biggest legal settlement involving health care to hit the news, that of GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and the US government, has many familiar elements. As summarized by the New York Times,

In the largest settlement involving a pharmaceutical company, the British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to criminal charges and pay $3 billion in fines for promoting its best-selling antidepressants for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a top diabetes drug, federal prosecutors announced Monday. The agreement also includes civil penalties for improper marketing of a half-dozen other drugs.

As was the case for nearly every other legal settlement we have discussed,

No individuals have been charged in any of these cases.

Thus, how well even such a large settlement will deter future wrong-doing is not clear.

Nonetheless, the documents released with it provide good documentation about how pervasive systematic, deceptive stealth marketing campaigns have become in health care. 

In particular, the official "complaint" filed by the US Department of Justice emphasized all these elements in the stealth marketing of paroxetine (Paxil, Seroxat in the UK) to adolescents.

Manipulation of Clinical Research

We have frequently discussed how health care corporations, particularly pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device companies, now sponsor  the majority of clinical research.  Their control of the design, implementation, analysis and dissemination of clinical research allows manipulation that increases the likelihood that the results will be favorable to their vested interests, usually the products and services they sell. 

We have previously discussed the manipulation of Study 329 to promote the marketing of Paxil (look here and here).  However, the US DOJ document makes these concerns more official.  It included:

Manipulation of Study Endpoints

Study 329 was a randomized controlled trial of Paxil vs imipramine vs placebo for depression in adolescents. The two primary endpoints pre-specified to the US Food and Drug Administration were "the degree to which a patient's Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression ('HAM-D') total score changed from baseline"; and "the patient's 'response' to medication, as defined as (a) a 50% or greater reduction in the patient's HAMD-D score, or (b) a HAM-D score of less than or equal to 8." However, initial analysis by GSK failed to show that Paxil improved either of these two end-points. The company concluded "it would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of [Paxil]."

So the analysis emphasized secondary outcomes, the "Study 329 investigators later added several additional efficacy measures not specified in the protocol. Paxil separate statistically from placebo on certain of these measures." Adding numerous post-hoc measures increased the likelihood of finding a difference on at least one due to chance alone.

Manipulation of Data

Initial analysis of the data suggested that patients given Paxil experienced 11 serious adverse events, including five that appeared related to suicidal ideation or action. When the FDA later reexamined the data, "upon closer examination the number of possible suicide-related events among the Study 329 Paxil patients increased beyond the five patients GSK described in the JACAAP article as having 'emotional lability.' While collecting saftey information for the FDA, GSK admitted that there were four more possible suicide-related events among Paxil patients in Study 329. In addition the FDA later identified yet another possible suicide-related event in the Study 329 Paxil patients, which was also not among the 11 serious advents listed in the JAACAP article. Thus, altogether, 10 of the 93 Paxil patients in Study 329 experienced a possible suicidal event, compared to one in 87 patients on placebo. This is a fundamentally different picture of Paxil's pediatric safety profile than the one painted by the JAACAP article...." 

Manipulation of Dissemination

The report describing the results of Study 329 (Keller MB, Ryan ND, Strober M et al.  Efficacy of paroxetine in the treatment of adolescent major depression: a randomized controlled trial.  J Am Acad Child Adolescent Psychiatry 2001; 40: 762-772.  Link here. ) was written under the control of GSK. "In April 1998, GSK hired Scientific Therapeutics Information, Inc (STI) to prepare a journal article about Study 329. GSK worked closely with STI on the article by providing a draft clinical report to 'serve as a template for the proposed publication.'"

The published report of Study 329 "mischaracterized the results." "Although the ... article identified the study's two primary endpoints in the abstract, the article did not explicitly state that Paxil failed to show superiority to placebo on either of the primary efficacy measures." Also, "the article did not explicitly identify the two protocol-specified primary outcome measures - or that Paxil failed to show superiority to placebo on these two measures. Instead the article claimed that there were eight efficacy measures and that Paxil was statistically superior to placebo on four of them." In addition, "while the article listed the five protocol-defined secondary endpoints, the text of the article omitted any discussion regarding three of the secondary measures on which Paxil failed to statistically demonstrate its superiority to placebo and instead focused on the five secondary measures that GSK added belatedly and never incorporated into the Study 329 protocol. The article claimed that these finve secondary measures had been identified 'a priori,' therefore incorrectly suggesting that all secondary endpoints had been part of the original study protocol." In other words, the final published articles contained multiple outright falsehoods about the drug's efficacy that exaggerated that efficacy.

Furthermore, initial analysis showed that patients given Paxil had more serious adverse events than others. An initial draft of the study article stated, "serious adverse events occurred in 11 patients in the paroxetine group, 5 in the imipramine group, and 2 in the placebo group." These included "headache during down-titration(1 patient), and various psychiatric events (10 patients): worsening depression (2); emotional lability (e.g., suicidal ideation/ gestures, overdoses), (5); conduct problems or hostility (e.g., aggressiveness, behavioral disturbance in school) (2); and mania (1)." As noted above, the number of suicide related events was actually double that noted in this draft as "emotional lability."  However, the published version of the report "falsely state[d] that only one of the 11 serious adverse events in Paxil patients was considered related to treatment...."  Nor did it mention the true number of events related to suicidal ideation or action.

The article only "listed at most five possibly suicidal events among Paxil patients, brushed those off as unrelated to Paxil, and conclude that treating children with Paxil was safe."

Later, GSK marketing materials described the results of the study thus,

This 'cutting-edge,' landmark study is the first to compare efficacy of an SSRI and a TCA with placebo in the treatment of major depression in adolescents. Paxil demonstrates REMARKABLE Efficacy and Safety in the treatment of adolescent depression."

Thus the conrol exerted by GSK over the published article, despite its apparent academic authorship, enabled it to promote a drug that was not efficacious and had major adverse events as remarkably safe and effective, a totally deceptive result that would mislead any health care professional who used the article to guide clinical practice. 

Suppression of Clinical Research

GSK sponsored two other studies of Paxil in pediatric populations, Studies 377 and 701. As stated in the Department of Justice's Criminal Complaint against GSK,

GSK Did Not Publicize the Results of Studies 377 and 701
43. GSK learned the results of Study 377 in 1998 and the results of Study 701 in 2001. Paxil failed to demonstrate efficacy on any of the endpoints of either study.
44. GSK did not hire a contractor to help write medical articles about the results of Studies 377 and 701, as it had with Study 329.
45. GSK did not inform its sales representatives about the results of Studies 377 and 701.

Thus, GSK managed to conceal the fact that the majority of the studies it sponsored about Paxil used for adolescent patients showed no evidence that the drug worked, again seriously distorting the evidence-base on which clinicians made decisions, and doubtless leading to the use of a dangerous, ineffective drug by numerous vulnerable patients.

Bribing Physicians to Prescribe

GSK's sales representative reflected in their call notes their use of money, gifts, entertainment and other kickbacks to induct doctors to prescribe GSK drugs....

One really creative way to pay physicians to be exposed to marketing:

For example, in or about 2000 or 2001, GSK used 'Reprint Mastery Training Programs' or 'RMTS' to further promote drugs by purporting to pay physicians to train sales representative to review reprints of studies. Although the training was purportedly for the representatives, in fact, the sales force was already familiar with the materials. GSK typically paid physicians $250 to $500 to review the reprints.

Thus GSK simply paid physicians to use its drug, a practice characterized as kickbacks in the official complaint.  An article in the Guardian noted that the US Attorney involved in the case put it even more bluntly,

The sales force bribed physicians to prescribe GSK products using every imaginable form of high-priced entertainment, from Hawaiian vacations [and] paying doctors millions of dollars to go on speaking tours, to tickets to Madonna concerts.

Use of Key Opinion Leaders as Disguised Marketers

GSK also created a group of national 'key opinion leaders' ('KOLs') who were paid generous consulting fees. GSK selected many of these physicians based on their prescribing habits and influence within the community and used the speaker fees paid to these physicians to induce and reward prescribing of GSK's products. GSK used these individual to communicate marketing messages focused on the drug's marketing campaigns at the time, including off-label uses. Some physicians on GSK's speaker's board have been paid more than a million dollars for speaking on behalf of the company and recommending its drugs.

Thus key opinion leaders were paid specifically to market drugs, and as a reward, a bribe for prescribing drugs.

Consulting Fees as Kickbacks

In general,

In order to induce physicians to prescribe and recommend its drugs, GSK paid kickbacks to health professionals in various forms, including speaking or consulting fees, travel, entertainment, gifts, grants, and sham advisory boards, training,....

In particular,

During 2000 and 2001 at least, GSK also utilized events termed 'advisory boards' or consultant meetings and forums to disseminate its promotional message. Although these boards were purportedly composed of 'thought leaders' for the purpose of obtaining advice from the physicians, in fact, the 'advisory boards' were little more than promotional events coupled with financial inducement to prescribing and influential physicians.

Also,

GSK typically paid the physician between $250 and $750 to attend each local 'advisory' meeting. The payments did not reflect the value of services. The physician was not required to do anything but show up. GSK had no legitimate business reason to hire thousands of 'advisors' to 'consult' with the company about a single drug.

Manipulation of Continuing Medical Education

GSK also used so-called CME and CME Express programs and other sham training for marketing purposes, and to promote off-labe uses for the GSK prescription drugs.

Furthermore,

These CME programs purported to be independent eduaction free of company influence, but in fact functioned as GSK promotional programs disguised as medical education. GSK maintained control and influence over the purportedly independent CME programs through speaker selection, and influence over content and audience, among other things. Although third party vendors were usually also involved, they served only as artificial 'firewalls' that did not insulate the program from GSK's influence.

Summary

The legal documentation of the GSK settlement demonstrated how one drug company used an integrated, systematic campaign incorporating deception and bribery to sell drugs. Its elements included manipulation and suppression of the clinical research it sponsored, paying key opinion leaders to be disguised drug marketers, outright payments to physicians to prescribe drugs, and manipulation, again using payments to physicians, of supposedly independent continuing medical education. 

Note that while I summarized the elements of the stealth marketing campaign to sell Paxil, particularly for use in pediatric patients, the US government complaint also documents similar activities used to sell other drugs.  Furthermore, other stealth marketing campaigns have come to light through legal action, and many other instances of manipulation and suppression of clinical research, use of KOLs as disguised marketers, kickbacks and bribes, and manipulation of CME have been documented.

This means that any claims that:
- commercially sponsored clinical research provides clear, unbiased data that should drive clinical decisions
- health care professionals and academics paid as consultants by commercial health care firms are not influenced by these payments, and can provide clear, unbiased opinions
- commercially sponsored medical education provides clear, unbiased teaching
unfortunately must be viewed with extreme skepticism. This is particularly unfortunate given that most clinical research is now supported by commercial sponsors, and the majority of influential academics in medicine get some form of payments from the health care industry (look here).

Of course, there are some physicians who consult for commercial firms who actually provide clinical or scientific advice or assistance, and some commercially sponsored activities are honest. But we must wonder what garden path all those advocates for increasing industry "collaboration" to promote "innovation," and who regard conflicts of interest as "inevitable" and "manageable" are taking us down (e.g., look here and here).

Although the current settlement will require a huge payment, as I have said many times before (as early as 2008, here), do not expect such settlements to deter future bad behavior like that listed above.  The cost of the settlement will actually be spread among all company shareholders, all company employees, and likely patients and taxpayers.  However, the settlement will entail no specific negative consequences to the people who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior.  In particular, executives whose remuneration was swollen by proceeds from the sales of affected drugs, and the health care professionals who willingly accepted what the US Attorney called bribes will not pay any sort of penalty.  The bad behavior listed above was doubtless personally very profitable for some people.  Unless people who indulge in such behavior face the possibility of penalties worse than their expected gains, expect such bad behavior to continue.

In fact, as the New York Times reported,

critics argue that even large fines are not enough to deter drug companies from unlawful behavior. Only when prosecutors single out individual executives for punishment, they say, will practices begin to change.

'What we’re learning is that money doesn’t deter corporate malfeasance,' said Eliot Spitzer, who, as New York’s attorney general, sued GlaxoSmithKline in 2004 over similar accusations involving Paxil. 'The only thing that will work in my view is C.E.O.’s and officials being forced to resign and individual culpability being enforced.'

True health care reform would strive to eliminate important conflicts of interest affecting clinical research and medical education.  Specifically, it would prevent corporations that sell health care products or services from controlling clinical research meant to evaluate these products or services.  It would seek to eliminate serious conflicts of interest affecting health care professionals.  Finally, it would prevent vested interests from controlling medical education.  Not that I expect any such reform in the near future, it would be too threatening to those who have personally benefited from the current system.

Hat tip to Dr Howard Brody whose Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog scooped me on the details of the settlement relevant to study 329.

ADDENDUM (11 July, 2012) - see also this post on the 1BoringOldMan blog.

Abbott Pleads Guilty, Settles for $1.6 Billion, but No Individuals Suffer Negative Consequences

Once again, another big US health care organization is set to make a (monetarily) huge legal settlement.  As reported by Bloomberg, Abbott Laboratories will settle allegations about its marketing of Depakote (valproic acid), nominally an anti-seizure medication:

Abbott Laboratories (ABT) (ABT) said it will pay $1.6 billion to settle federal and state claims resulting from an investigation into its epilepsy medication Depakote, the second-largest drug-marketing settlement in U.S. history.

The company will pay $800 million to resolve civil allegations split among federal and state governments, $700 million for a criminal penalty, the Justice Department said in a statement. Abbott marketed the drug, approved for epilepsy, bipolar mania and migraine prevention, for unapproved uses including dementia, the U.S. said.

Note that we discussed preliminary reports of this settlement here.

Huge, but not Compared to Sales

The story included all the obligatory pieces. The settlement is huge, the second largest such financial settlement made by a drug company. However, compared to the money made by the product in question, it was not so large, as noted by the Wall Street Journal,

Depakote was once one of Abbott's best-selling drugs, racking up $1.6 billion in sales for 2007, before patent expirations cleared the way for cheaper generic copies.

A Guilty Plea, of Sorts

The settlement did require the company to

plead guilty to a criminal misdemeanor violation of a federal drug law

per the WSJ, but not to a felony. Nor did it appear that any individual would be charged with anything in connection with this settlement.

Admitting to Deception, Covering Kickbacks

This was so even though the allegations involved more than "misbranding." In fact, the Bloomberg story stated that the company admitted to active deception of physicians and health professionals,

'Abbott admits that from 1998 through 2006, the company maintained a specialized sales force trained to market Depakote in nursing homes for the control of agitation and aggression in elderly dementia patients, despite the absence of credible scientific evidence that Depakote was safe and effective for that use,' the Justice Department said in its statement today.

Abbott also marketed the drug to be used with certain antipsychotic drugs to treat schizophrenia, 'even after its clinical trials failed to demonstrate that adding Depakote was any more effective than an atypical antipsychotic alone for that use,' the Justice Department said.

In addition, the settlement also "covers" allegations of what amounts to bribery.

The settlement also covers allegations that Abbott paid kickbacks to health-care professionals and long-term care pharmacy providers to induce them to promote or prescribe Depakote, the Justice Department said in its statement today.

We Promise Not to Do Such Bad Things for Five Years

Yet despite these implications of massive deception and bribery of health care professionals, the only other punishment is a sort of probationary period during which the company promises not to do such things, per the WSJ.

Under the settlement, Abbott agreed to a five-year probationary period. During this term, Abbott will report any probable violations of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act to the probation office, according to the Justice Department.

Also, its chief executive will certify compliance with this reporting requirement, and its board will report annually on the effectiveness of the company's compliance program.

In addition, Abbott agreed not to compensate sales reps for off-label sales and take other steps during the probationary period.

A Bland Admission of Nothing

As is customary, an Abbott spokesperson provided a bland, positive statement that admitted no wrong-doing, per the WSJ,

'We are pleased to resolve this matter and are confident we have the programs in place to satisfy the requirements of this settlement,' Abbott General Counsel Laura Schumacher said in a news release. 'The company takes its responsibility to patients and health care providers seriously and has established robust compliance programs to ensure its marketing programs meet the needs of health care providers and legal requirements.'

Previous Misbehavior

Apparently not taken account into stories about or the crafting of the current settlement was Abbott's previous record of legal misadventures:

Obstructing Justice - In 2003, an Abbott subsidiary settled civil allegations and pleaded guilty to obstructing a federal criminal investigation of its marketing practices, resulting in fines of $614 million (mentioned in this post, and see the Los Angeles Times.)
Suppressing Reports of Drug Contamination - In 2009, the FDA charged that an Abbott subsidiary failed to report bacterial contamination of an optic product (see post here).
Blocking Generic Competition - In 2010, Abbott settled with the New York state Attorney General allegations that the company conspired to block generic competition for its lipid lowering drug TriCor (see Reuters and our post here).
Inflating Charges - In 2010, Abbott also settled with the US Justice Department for $421 million charges that it defrauded Medicare and Medicaid (see post here).
Paying Kickbacks to Doctors - In 2010, an Abbott subsidiary also settled with the US government charges it paid kickbacks to physicians to prescribe other cholesterol lowering drugs (see post here).
Anti-Competitive Pricing Practices - In 2011, Abbott settled lawsuits alleging that its anti-competitive practices inflated prices of anti-viral drugs (see post here).

More Richs for the CEO

Despite this now long record of ethical missteps, the Abbott CEO gets richer every year. In 2009, his total compensation was over $26 million (see this post). According to the company's 2012 proxy statement, his pay has gone down ever so slightly, from $25,564,283 in 2010 to $24,010,902 in 2011, but still approximately 480 times the median earning of a US family.

Summary

The march of legal settlements progresses. Despite its showy finery of legal language, it fails to include meaningful negative consequences for any individuals, and particularly for those who authorized, directed or implemented unethical actions. It provides the illusion of financial punishment of the organizations involved. However, the amounts paid, albeit large, never approach how much money was brought in by the bad behavior. Furthermore, the costs are diffused among many employees, and for publicly held for-profit corporations, among the nominal owners, the stock-holders. Yet the top executives who personally gained the most almost never have had to answer for the misbehavior, and despite of, or perhaps because of the misbehavior continue to collect voluminous compensation.

Despite promises of tougher action, nothing seems to be changing in this parade. However, without real penalties for individuals involved in bad behavior, expect to deterrent of future bad behavior.

So once more,.... if we really want to reform health care, we must make the leaders of health care organizations accountable for their organizations' effects on patients' and the public's health, and make sure they get reasonable, not royal compensation reasonably related to their organizations' performance, including ethical performance.

Three Facets of One Hospital: Coddling the Rich, Hounding the Poor, and Crooked Executives

Juxtaposing three news stories from the past few months raises disturbing questions about the priorities of the leaders of one of the US' more prestigious hospitals.

"Chefs, Butlers, Marble Baths: Hospitals Vie for the Affluent"

 This 21 January, 2012 article from the New York Times focused on the ritzy comforts now provided for wealthy (but perhaps not very sick) patients at the renowned New York Presbyterian/ Weill Cornell Hospital.  It opened,

The feverish patient had spent hours in a crowded emergency room. When she opened her eyes in her Manhattan hospital room last winter, she recalled later, she wondered if she could be hallucinating: 'This is like the Four Seasons — where am I?'

The bed linens were by Frette, Italian purveyors of high-thread-count sheets to popes and princes. The bathroom gleamed with polished marble. Huge windows displayed panoramic East River views. And in the hush of her $2,400 suite, a man in a black vest and tie proffered an elaborate menu and told her, 'I’ll be your butler.'

It was Greenberg 14 South, the elite wing on the new penthouse floor of NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell hospital. Pampering and décor to rival a grand hotel, if not a Downton Abbey, have long been the hallmark of such 'amenities units,' often hidden behind closed doors at New York’s premier hospitals. But the phenomenon is escalating here and around the country, health care design specialists say, part of an international competition for wealthy patients willing to pay extra, even as the federal government cuts back hospital reimbursement in pursuit of a more universal and affordable American medical system.

Additional amenities include:

A waterfall, a grand piano and the image of a giant orchid grace the soaring ninth floor atrium....

Also,

the visitors’ lounge seems to hang over the East River in a glass prow and Ciao Bella gelato is available on demand....

An architect who specializes in designing such luxury facilities for hospitals noted:

'These kinds of patients, they’re paying cash — they’re the best kind of patient to have,' she added. 'Theoretically, it trickles down.'

Note that the article also mentioned other hospitals which offered similar luxuries, including Johns Hopkins Hospital in Baltimore, Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, and Mount Sinai Medical Center in New York.

On the other hand,....

Hounding the Poor for Payment While Getting Government Money for Indigent Care

On 12 February, the New York Times published an article about how New York Presbyterian/ Weill Cornell deals with patients with fewer resources than those discussed above:

For most of her life, Hope Rubel was a healthy woman with good medical insurance, an unblemished credit history and a solid career in graphic design. But on the day an ambulance rushed her to a Manhattan hospital emergency room shortly after her 48th birthday, she was jobless, uninsured and having a stroke.

Ms. Rubel’s medical problem was rare, a result of a benign tumor on her adrenal gland, but the financial consequences were not unusual. She depleted her savings to pay $17,000 for surgery to remove the tumor, and then watched, 'emotionally paralyzed,' she said, as $88,000 in additional hospital bills poured in. Eventually the hospital sued her for the money.

Yet that year the hospital, NewYork-Presbyterian/Weill Cornell, had already collected $50.2 million from the state’s so-called Indigent Care Pool to help care for people like Ms. Rubel who have no insurance and cannot pay their bills.

Note that the article also included other New York hospitals that allegedly used aggressive collection tactics on poor patients even though they too collected government money for indigent care. These included NYU Langone Medical Center and State University of New York Downstate Medical Center.

And one more...

Kickbacks for Hospital Executives

For some reason, the only media coverage of this story was not in New York, but by the Philadelphia Inquirer on 13 February, 2012.

The FBI said that ... [Michael Yaron] he received asbestos-removal and construction contracts at New York Presbyterian Hospital for two of his companies, Cambridge Environmental & Construction Corp. and Oxford Construction & Development Corp., because he paid about $2.3 million in kickbacks starting in 2000.

Neither Yaron, a resident of Meadowbrook, Montgomery County, nor his attorneys could be reached for comment yesterday. No one answered at Yaron Properties, his offices on Arch Street in Old City.

Bucks County native Moshe Buchnik, a president of two asbestos-abatement companies, was also convicted after the four-week trial. Santo Saglimbeni, a former vice president of facilities operations at the hospital, and Emilio 'Tony' Figueroa, a former director of facilities operations at the hospital, were also convicted. The FBI said the two former hospital employees steered contracts to Yaron and Buchnik in exchange for the kickbacks.

The Inquirer apparently covered the story because Yaron lives in Philadelphia. Thus it treated the convictions of a former vice president and former director of facilities operations at New York Presbyterian/ Weill Cornell Hospital as afterthoughts.

Summary

Thus, in the last six weeks, we have been treated to stories that showed how New York Presbyterian/ Weill Cornell Hospital has devoted substantial resources to create luxury suites for rich patients, presumably because they may pay cash; while simultaneously hounding poor patients who could not pay their large medical bills, even though the hospital was receiving government funds for indigent care; and until recently was employing some executives now shown to have abused their authority.

The themes of the three individual stories should be familiar.

The first story was a reminder that the very rich are different from you and me in how they interact with the health care system. In many ways, the rich and powerful - some might call them the one percent - are personally protected from various aspects of health care dysfunction. For example, here we have discussed how wealthy executives seem to be able to obtain health insurance with benefits unheard of by the more common folk, and here we discussed how the wealthy and influential may get preferential hospital treatment. Thus, even one percenters who are not otherwise involved in health care may not be inclined to lend their support to any efforts to really reform the system.

Aggressive bill collection practices by hospitals which are supposed to serve the poor are also old news. We first discussed such practices occurring in New York City in 2004 - yes, this blog is that old. We also discussed such practices in Baltimore in 2008. Such practices are an example of mission-hostile management.

Finally, we have commented many times about misbehavior by health care executives, and discussed examples of fraud, kickbacks, and health care corruption. It has been unusual, however, for individual executives to actually suffer negative consequences when they induce systemic misbehavior in their organizations. Instead, the results are often legal settlements that only lead to financial penalties on the organizations that are no more than costs of doing business.

However, the juxtaposition of stories that a hospital has been coddling the rich, and simultaneously hounding the poor while it was lead by at least a few criminal executives is unusual. One would think that they should lead to an in-depth look at the leadership and governance of the institution in question, perhaps even to some reform of same. (By the way, one area of interest to such an investigation should be the presence of several former and current leaders of some of the failed financial firms that lead us into the global financial crisis or great recession on the board of that hospital, as we discussed here and here.)

However, so far I seem to be only one to note the inter-relationships of these stories, and their implications, while obvious, therefore remain anechoic.

So I get to repeat.... Health care organizations need leadership that understands, and knowledgeably upholds the organizations' missions and patients and the public's health. The leaders should be subject to incentives that align with these responsibilities, and should not be given opportunities to personally profit from activities hostile to the mission.

Legal Settlements Have Become So Common that They are Barely News

Legal settlements by big health care organizations have become so common that those of less than blockbuster size barely seem to qualify as news.  They have become "dog bites man" stories.  For example, the following stories barely got noticed in the media (presented chronologically).

Novartis Settles Price Misrepresentation Suit for $150 Million

This story was mentioned as an aside in a a news story covering a settlement by Watson Pharmaceuticals in September.  In slightly more detail, it has only appeared in PharmaLot in November.  In a very small nutshell,

the Sandoz unit of Novartis earlier this week agreed to pay $150 million to settle lawsuits filed by the states of Florida and California, as well as a whistleblower, to settle charges that it deliberately misreported pricing information in order to hike reimbursements from Medicaid.

By the way, per the settlement document, the allegations were that Novartis' subsidiary knowingly maintained, set or reported "false, fraudulent, and/or inflated Reported Prices," yet, as is typical of nearly all settlements, the settlement "shall not constitute or be construed as an admission of fault, liability, or unlawful conduct."

Roche Settles Off-Label Promotion, Physician Kickback Suit for $20 Million

This story was reported briefly in some blogs, including again PharmaLot, and in the most detail in the San Francisco Business Times. The basics of it were:

Genentech Inc. will pay $20 million to settle a whistleblower lawsuit around off-label marketing of the cancer-fighting drug Rituxan.

It only took eight years since a whistle-blower raised the issue:

John Underwood, ... was a senior manager of sales development from the start of Genentech’s oncology franchise in 1997.

When Underwood filed the suit in July 2003 in U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, he was a senior hospital systems specialist for Genentech.

This suit is actually of particular interest because it was not just about off-label promotion,

Genentech, the suit claimed, retained doctors to act as independent speakers on behalf of Rituxan and its off-label uses, paid kickbacks to doctors that were disguised as consulting payments, 'exerted significant pressure' on sales reps to increase off-label uses of Rituxan, and devised and conducted 'selling skills workshops' for sales reps devoted to non-label uses,

What’s more, the suit claimed, Genentech invited doctors to attend “medical education seminars” at 'luxurious locations' and gave financial incentives to sales reps to get doctors who sold the most Rituxan to attend the events.

These were serious allegations, involving allegedly direct efforts by the company to subvert physicians' ethics by tying their decisions for individual patients to payments for prescribing specific products whatever the benefits and risks of those products for those patients.  The allegations suggested that "consulting payments" to physicians may be nothing more than disguised bribes, and that the companies making these payments may be quite conscious of this. 

Nonetheless, as usual,

Genentech, the South San Francisco-based U.S. subsidiary of Swiss drug giant Roche, did not admit wrongdoing....

So, as in the famous recent Citigroup case (see this post), the settlement obfuscates the crucial question, did the corporation involved commit illegal acts? It seems likely that what they did was in some sense unethical, since they were willing to pay millions not make the matter go away.

By the way, one member of the Executive Committee of Genentech at the time these events were allegedly occurring is now the Chancellor of the University of California - San Francisco (See our post here). Maybe concerned students or faculty might ask her what really went on.

CVS Caremark Settles Fraud Suit for about $20 Million

As reported briefly in the Los Angeles Times,

Pharmacy and prescription drug management company CVS Caremark Corp. has agreed to pay nearly $20 million to settle three lawsuits involving allegations that the company defrauded pension systems in three states, including California’s giant pension fund, attorneys said.

The whistleblower lawsuits, filed by two former CVS Caremark pharmacists, accused the company of reselling returned drugs, changing prescription orders to make them more expensive and submitting false reports about how long it took to fill prescriptions.

Not the least bit surprisingly, the company did not admit liability in the settlement, and had no comment for the Times. Ho, hum, another big company paying millions to make allegations of fraud go away... nothing to see here, so we will just move on.

Merck Settles Fraud Suit for $24 Million

This story was picked up by AP, so a very brief version of it did appear in a variety of locations. A longer version was published by the Boston Globe,

At this point, it should be no surprise that it took a long time to get to this settlement, eight years in fact, just as in the case above,

Merck & Co. has agreed to pay $24 million to the state Medicaid program to settle long-running civil charges that it charged too much for some drugs, in the largest single-case Medicaid fraud settlement in Massachusetts history.

The agreement, unveiled yesterday by Attorney General Martha Coakley’s office, closes out a 2003 lawsuit....

Again, the allegations were of fraud,

Coakley said her office’s Medicaid fraud division wanted to hold accountable drug companies that defraud taxpayers.

Again, "hold accountable" did not translate into establish the allegations as true,

Ron Rogers, a spokesman at Merck corporate headquarters, said the drug company did not admit liability or wrongdoing in the settlement. He said Merck agreed to resolve the claims to put the matter behind it.

Nothing more to see here, so we will move on again.
Summary

Every month, it seems that more settlements are announced of cases alleging all sorts of wrongdoing by major health care organizations. Very often, the allegations are of wrongdoing that appears serious to the uninitiated. For example, most of the above cases involved allegations of fraud, and one involved allegations of kickbacks, that is, bribes to doctors.

Yet, in every one of these cases -
- The monetary penalties were barely more than pocket change for the corporations involved.
- The payments were made by the organization as a whole, and hence would disadvantage many people who were not involved in and did not benefit from the specific actions alleged. Such de facto victims of the settlement included company shareholders, employees, and probably patients (who may have paid prices raised to pay for settlements), and the public (who may have indirectly paid these higher prices through insurance premiums or taxes.)
- The organization did not have to admit any facts, leaving the record foggy, and clouding the chances for any people who might have been hurt by the actions to take legal action.
- No people who actually authorized, directed, or implemented the apparent bad behavior suffered any negative consequences.

Thus, these settlements, like many others we have discussed, did not appear to be any major deterrent of future bad behavior.

These settlements do provide a public, if largely ignored, record that suggests how a miasma of sleazy behavior, if not outright corruption has settled over health care. These settlements do provide the context for many pithy questions that could be asked of health care organizational leaders, if anyone dared to do so. The settlements do suggest a need for wholesale, real health care reform that would make health care leaders accountable for what their organizations do, particularly when these organizations misbehave.

Medtronic Settles, Yet Again

And the march of legal settlements continues... Circling around the block and coming in front of the viewing stand again is device manufacturer Medtronic. 

The Latest Medtronic Settlement

As Bloomberg reported:

Medtronic (MDT) Inc., the world’s biggest maker of heart rhythm devices, agreed to pay $23.5 million to settle claims it paid kickbacks to doctors who implanted its pacemakers and defibrillators in patients, the U.S. Justice Department said in a statement.

Medtronic agreed yesterday to settle two lawsuits filed in federal courts in California and Minnesota accusing the company of violating the federal False Claims Act by paying physicians $1,000 to $2,000 for each patient who was implanted with one of the company’s devices, according to the Justice Department.

'Patients who rely on their health-care providers to implant vital medical devices expect that those decisions will be made with the patients’ best interests in mind,' Tony West, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department’s Civil Division, said in an e-mailed statement. 'Kickbacks, like those alleged here, distort sound medical judgments with financial incentives paid for by the taxpayers.'

As usual, Medtronic did not admit doing anything wrong:

Medtronic said in an e-mailed statement that it makes no admissions that the studies were 'improper or unlawful.' The company also said it established a reserve for the anticipated payment in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2011.

'We are happy that the investigation is behind us, so we can continue designing and executing clinical trials that generate evidence to improve patient care, outcomes and cost effectiveness,' Marshall Stanton, vice president of clinical research and reimbursement for the cardiac and vascular group....

Previous Legal Settlements by Medtronic
Note that this is not the first time Medtronic has been accused of paying doctors (kickbacks, this time, which seem to be the ethical equivalent of bribes) to use its products. The Bloomberg report also noted:

In 2006, Medtronic agreed to pay $40 million to settle allegations that its Sofamor Danek unit violated state laws and the False Claims Act by paying sham consulting fees and providing lavish trips to doctors who used its products from 1998 to 2003.

Perusing the Medtronic file on Health Care Renewal also showed that Medtronic has had to settle other lawsuits alleging misconduct:

- 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 2010, Medtronic settled multiple civil lawsuits for $268 million for allegations that it marketed an implantable cardiac defibrillator with faulty leads whose failures lead to 13 deaths (link here)

Cases of Apparent Conflicts of Interest Generated by Medtronics' Payments
In fact, paging through the Medtronic file on Health Care Renewal, we also found these cases of apparent conflicts of interest that Medtronic caused by making payments to or otherwise creating financial relationships with:

- FDA advisory board members (2007 link here),
- health care professionals who appeared on public television programs about heart disease and treatments of it (2007 link here),
- members of a non-profit organization which was supposed to guide the FDA regarding drug development  (2007 link here),
- prominent academic orthopedic surgeons who were in positions to influence other physicians' choices of orthopedic devices (2008 link here and 2009 links here, here and here),
- a military surgeon who wrote questionable articles about the supposed virtues of a Medtronic bone growth product (2009 link here),
- a top leader of US Veterans Affairs Department who objected to the appointment of an industry critic as US Surgeon General (2010 link here),
- spine surgeons apparently who could promote Medtronics' spine surgery products in (2010 link here) and who did not disclose all such payments when writing ostensibly scholarly articles on the subject (2010 link here)

So prior to the current settlement for "alleged" kickbacks, Medtronic had a long history of allegations that it had financial relationships with physicians who were in a position to promote the use of its products or its policy interests.

Why the Bad Behavior Continues

The latest settlement by Medtronic illustrates why the anemic approach by US government agencies to health care corporate misbehavior does not deter bad behavior.

- The punishment was a fine not large enough to have any effect on the finances of the corporation.. Such a relatively small financial penalty might just be seen as a cost of doing business by company executives.  (See these comments on the current case by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.)
-  The punishment was not a result of any specific bad behavior.  In this case, like many others, the corporation did not have to admit to anything.  This leads to the paradox of a punishment meted out for apparently nothing other than "alleged" actions, making it appear that the actual punishment was just a payment by the company to allow it to continue the sorts of actions that were alleged with impunity.  (Such punishments without clear crimes happen all the time in cases affecting the finance sector.  See a federal judge's condemnation of this practice here.) 
-  The punishment seems unrelated to the corporation's historic behavior.  In this case, there was no reference to the company's previous settlements, or the other allegations of questionable payments to physicians and health care decision makers in other circumstances listed above.  (Keep in mind that Health Care Renewal strives to present interesting cases, but does not have the resources to report on every single case of bad behavior by health care organizations.  Hence the list above of apparent bad behavior may not be complete.)
-  The punishment applied to the corporation as a whole, and hence may disadvantage many people, stockholders and corporate employees in particular, who had nothing to do with the alleged bad behavior.  On the other hand, those who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior were not subject to any negative consequences. 

So why on earth would corporate leaders cease bad behavior which could increase revenues short-term and hence increase their compensation (e.g., in 2011, the Medtronic CEO received $9,624,709 according to the 2011 proxy statement), when the likelihood of any negative consequences for them appears to be near zero? 

This would be bad enough if the bad behavior only causes financial disadvantage for stockholders or corporate employees.

However, the bad behavior in question seems to repeatedly involve paying physicians and other health care decision makers in ways likely to influence their decisions in favor of Medtronics' products and corporate well-being.  Making decisions this way, however, is unlikely to be good for patients' and the public's health, as it is likely to lead to excess use of expensive tests and treatments that may have adverse effects, sometimes severe.  Thus patients may suffer unnecessary morbidity and mortality, and the public at large may pay far too much for medical care.

So will we see in our lifetimes honest, tough policing of health care corporate behavior?  Will the punishments start to fit the crime, and will they be significant enough to deter future misbehavior?  Why do we continue to accept government actions that seem more solicitous of the executives of big corporations than the public for whose benefit government is supposed to be run?  Where is the outrage?   

So, once more, with feeling.... in my humble opinion, until the people responsible for the bad behavior experience negative consequences from that behavior, they will continue to perform, direct, and condone bad behavior. We will not achieve real health care reform in the US until we effectively deter unethical, self-serving behavior by leaders of health care organizations.

ADDENDUM (15 December, 2011) - On the GoozNews blog, Merrill Goozner called Medtronic's actions "a crime against science."

Abbott Laboratories to Settle for $1.3 Billion Allegations Including Giving Doctors Kick-Backs and Training Them to Make False Diagnoses

It looks like the march of billion dollar legal settlements by health care organizations is on its way again. 

The Proposed Abbott Laboratories Settlement

Last month Bloomberg reported:

Abbott Laboratories (ABT) agreed to pay at least $1.3 billion to settle claims by the U.S. government and 24 states alleging the company illegally marketed its Depakote epilepsy drug, people familiar with the accords said.

Abbott executives, federal prosecutors and state officials reached a tentative agreement calling for the drugmaker to pay about $800 million to resolve civil claims over Depakote and about $500 million in criminal penalties for marketing the epilepsy medicine for unapproved uses, said three people familiar with the settlement who declined to be identified because the agreement hasn’t been made public. Abbott said earlier this week it was reserving $1.5 billion to cover costs of the potential settlement.

A billion here, and billion there, it begins to add up:

The settlement would be the third-largest illegal pharmaceutical marketing accord in U.S. history, behind the $2.3 billion Pfizer paid in 2009 over the marketing of its Bextra painkiller and other drugs and the $1.4 billion Eli Lilly & Co. paid the same year over sales of its Zyprexa anti-psychotic medicine.

Encouraging Dishonesty, Giving Kick-Backs

The Bloomberg report only briefly discussed the behavior by Abbott that lead to the settlement:

In February, the government joined cases brought by former Abbott employees alleging the company engaged in so-called off-label marketing starting in the late 1990s. The suits contend the illegal sales practices resulted in false claims being submitted to government health programs.

The whistle-blowers claim the drugmaker marketed Depakote for unapproved uses including agitation and aggression in patients with dementia, autism, sexual compulsion and other disorders.

However, an article published last week in the Chicago Tribune further described the allegations made by the whistle-blowers. In summary,

The lawsuits against Abbott allege that the company encouraged and trained sales reps to market Depakote off-label to nursing home directors, geriatric doctors and other long-term care facilities. The company also gave doctors illegal kickbacks to talk about off-label uses of the drug in an effort to boost sales, according to the lawsuits, which were filed in federal courts in Virginia, Illinois and the District of Columbia.

The FDA approved Depakote in 1983 to treat certain seizures in adults and children over 10. Since then, the drug has received approval for the treatment of other types of seizures, manic episodes of bipolar disorder and the prevention of migraine headaches.

However, Depakote was never approved to treat Alzheimer's disease or other types of dementia or for general treatment of bipolar disorder.

According to the whistle-blower lawsuits, though, Abbott sales reps specifically marketed Depakote to treat agitation and aggression associated with dementia.

One whistle-blower alleged that Abbott encouraged doctors to make false diagnoses that would enable the government to pay for the use of Depakote:

During a nationwide conference call in 2007, an Abbott trainer allegedly coached sales reps on how to explain to doctors that they could miscode a patient's illness in order to bypass federal regulations. For example, a physician could code a patient as having 'late onset of bipolar' or 'underlying seizure disorder' instead of 'agitation associated with dementia,' according to her complaint.

Abbott held training sessions focused on off-label promotion but brought in outside consultants and held the training away from its North Chicago headquarters.

At one training event, McCoyd and another sales representative allegedly were asked to share their techniques for off-label marketing but were forbidden from preparing or distributing any written materials about the topic.

Upper-level management who attended the sales training purposely left the room when the off-label training sessions began, according to the complaint.

The whistle-blowers also alleged that Abbott gave kick-backs (presumably the same idea as bribes) to doctors for prescribing Depakote:

The complaints also allege that doctors were given kickbacks to talk about off-label uses of Depakote.


According to McCoyd's filing, Abbott salespeople were given about $20,000 to $30,000 each year to 'educate' physicians and other heath care providers about off-label use of Depakote.

Abbott paid doctors who promoted the drug between $500 and $2000 per speech, the complaint states. The money allegedly was funneled through intermediaries and associations, including the Alzheimer's Association, although the association told the Tribune it has 'no knowledge' of such activities.

Using the organizations to pay doctors was done to 'disguise the direct payments to doctors and Abbott's substantial and direct involvement' in the events, the complaint alleges.

Summary

So it appears that Abbott is about to settle a case involving some very serious allegations, including training physicians to make false diagnoses, and giving physicians kick-backs. These sort of actions seriously subvert physicians' core values (and any physicians who made such false diagnoses or accepted such kick-backs would have seriously violated core ethical principles.)

These actions also may have directly harmed patients. There appears to be no good evidence that Depakote has benefits that exceed its harms for patients with dementia, autism, etc. So encouraging doctors to prescribe the medicine for these patients was likely to have subjected some patients to side-effects without providing them any benefit. That would contradict the physicians' obligations to put the interests of individual patients first, and to avoid harming them. As the Tribune article noted,

[Dr Adriane} Fugh-Berman, with PharmedOut, said companies put patients at risk when they promote drugs that haven't gone through the FDA's regulatory process.

'These drugs are being promoted for conditions they have not been shown to be effective, and they might be dangerous,' she said.

So a $1.3 billion penalty would actually be a cheap price to pay for such ethical offenses. Note that the Bloomberg report did mention "criminal penalties," so this may be one of the infrequent cases in which a big health care organization actually would plead guilty to some crime.

Note however that neither article mentioned anything about any individual who authorized, directed, or implemented the conduct in question suffering any negative consequence or paying any penalty. These reports are preliminary, so it may be that such penalties are part of the final settlement. But it is also possible that this settlement becomes another, and particularly flagrant example of health care corporate executive impunity.

If no one turns out to have to pay a penalty for training physicians to lie to the government, and giving them kick-backs to prescribe a possibly useless and likely harmful medicine, what will deter other executives from authorizing and directing such actions again to make more money? Note in the Bloomberg article:

Sales of Depakote 'rocketed to over $1.4 billion per year' as a result of improper marketing, according to a complaint filed in February by ex-Abbott sales representative Meredith McCoyd. 'Compensation for senior executives soared as well.'

Furthermore, if no one turns out to have to pay a penalty for these actions, this case will just contribute to the ongoing demoralization of health care professionals. It will be another example of how insiders take advantage of the system for their personal gain, to the disadvantage of patients, and at further cost to an already overly expensive health care system that fails to provide adequate access and quality care.

So I repeat, repeat, repeat... to really deter bad behavior, those who authorized, directed or implemented bad behavior must be held accountable. As long as they are not, expect the bad behavior to continue. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

"Prepare Them to Die" - For-Profit Hospices as the Real Death Panels

A Bloomberg news investigative report illustrated the adverse effects of having for-profit corporations taking care of patients.

Hospice as a Social Movement

The corporations in question this time are for-profit hospices. Hospices in general gained a good reputation for improving the quality of life for patients near life's end:

Hospice got its start in the 1960s as a social movement. Volunteers, often meeting in schools and church basements, organized care so patients could die at home with loved ones, instead of at the hospital laced with tubes. Dame Cicely Saunders, the pioneering English physician who opened St. Christopher’s Hospice in London in 1967, fought traditional methods of unconditional resistance to death, and brought the concept to U.S. shores.

Hospices Become Commercial

Subsequently, in the US, every part of health care has become commercialized, including hospices:

hospice care has evolved from its charitable roots into a $14 billion business run mostly for profit,

In addition,

Of the hospices with two- thirds or more of their patients in nursing homes, 72 percent are for-profits.

Commercial Hospices Expand Their Markets: "Stop All the Live Discharges"

Hospices were originally meant to care for patients near death, however commercial hospices sought to expand their markets:

Providers have been accused of boosting their revenues with patients who aren’t near death and not eligible for hospice -- people healthy enough to live a long time with traditional medical care.

In particular,

Two-thirds of patients in hospices run for profit have general diagnoses like 'failure to thrive' and 'debility' compared to half in non-profits, which cater more to faster- killing conditions like cancer, a Harvard University study found earlier this year. Patients stay an average of 98 days in for- profit hospices versus 68 days at non-profits, which have a 0.2 percent profit margin, according to Medicare. The margin at for- profits is 50 times higher at 10 percent.

My comment is that "failure to thrive," and "debility" are not real diagnoses. At best, they are merely general descriptions of patients' conditions. Physicians have a hard enough time predicting the life span of patients with chronic, ultimately terminal, well-defined diseases, like specific types of metastatic cancer. How anyone can accurately predict the survival of patients who fail to thrive or exhibit debility is beyond me (and I have spent many years assessing the accuracy of physicians' predictions of a variety of outcomes, including the survival of critically ill patients, references provided on request).

So,

To be eligible for Medicare hospice coverage, a person must have a prognosis of six months or less to live, certified by two doctors. Yet 20 percent of hospice patients live beyond that term, with their providers receiving government checks via recertifications that can go on indefinitely.

One case cited by the Bloomberg article includes allegations that a for-profit hospice held on to patients even though it had become clear they were not at the end of life.

An executive of a hospice owned by Harden Healthcare LLC emailed managers in 2008 urging them to 'stop all these live discharges' of patients to keep enrollments high, according to a civil fraud complaint by the Justice Department in federal court in Kansas City, Kansas. Company spokeswoman Meg Meo said the alleged events occurred before Austin, Texas-based Harden owned the hospice.

A whistleblower lawsuit brought by a former social worker for hospices run by Atlanta-based Gentiva Health Services Inc. (GTIV) said her job was to talk people who weren’t dying into believing that they were. The allegations predated Gentiva’s ownership of the chain, spokesman Scott Cianciulli said.

Gentiva’s Odyssey hospice unit faces investigations by HHS’s Office of Inspector General and the state of Georgia, according to regulatory filings. The company, which is the second-largest hospice provider, is cooperating with investigators, Cianciulli said.

Furthermore,

Enrolling patients, retaining them as long as possible, and controlling costs are the top priorities at for-profit hospices, according to former and current employees interviewed by Bloomberg News. To increase revenues, hospices tie employee bonuses to enrollment, pay kickbacks to patients and referral sources, and use false diagnoses to admit ineligible patients, according to whistleblower, or qui tam, suits against three chains filed under the False Claims Act, which allows plaintiffs to share in any financial recovery for the government.

The Bloomberg report contained an even more chilling case:

One of the suits was filed by Misty Wall, a former social worker at Gentiva’s VistaCare hospice unit who said she was fired in 2005. Wall was assigned to convince people who weren’t dying that they were, she said in an interview.

Wall, now an assistant professor of social work at Boise State University in Idaho, said one woman broke down in tears when Wall suggested her father was dying from renal failure. The man’s own doctor had declined to recommend hospice, prescribing dialysis instead. Wall said VistaCare sent her to the daughter to change the family’s mind.

'I gave her this huge emotional blow, then sat there and soothed her,' Wall said. 'Of course she signed.'

Wall’s lawyer, Loren Jacobson, said, 'It wasn’t her idea. She did it because that was what was expected of her as part of her job, and when she refused to do it anymore and complained, she was fired.' Jacobsen called her client 'an extremely good soul stuck in a bad situation.'

Wall’s lawsuit, filed in federal court in Dallas, accuses VistaCare of paying illegal kickbacks to patients and nursing- home employees who referred residents to hospice. It also accuses VistaCare of doctor shopping to get patients certified.

As part of its sales pitch, the hospice told prospects, 'The VistaCare Foundation is here to make all your dreams come true,' Wall said. 'We used it as a selling feature.'

This case is particularly disturbing because patients with kidney failure actually may have quite a long life expectancy if they do not have serious co-morbid disease. Patients can be sustained on dialysis, and may be eligible for kidney transplants.

Note also that in 2009 we discussed a case of SouthernCare, a for-profit hospice company which settled (for $24.7 million) a case alleging that it had enrolled patients who were not likely to die in six months to increase its revenue, further suggesting that this is a widespread problem among for-profit hospices.

Limiting Care: "Prepare Them to Die" 

So I am actually surprised that only 20% of hospice patients survived more than six months.

However, putting patients who were not already near the end of life in hospice may mean denying potentially life saving care to patients who had the potential to live for at least a while:

Providers have been accused of boosting their revenues with patients who aren’t near death and not eligible for hospice -- people healthy enough to live a long time with traditional medical care. In hospices, patients give up their rights to 'curative' measures because they are presumed to be futile.

'By admitting these folks to hospice, they are denied access to routine medical and rehabilitative care that they need to extend and improve their lives,' said Cristen Krebs, executive director of Catholic Hospice of Pittsburgh, a non- profit. 'A vulnerable and voiceless population is preyed upon for money.'

So if "curative" measures are not used for patients who started with relatively favorable prognoses, but have developed new problems, guess what may happen?

The Bloomberg article opened with another distressing case:

With his mother wheezing and losing consciousness in a California nursing home, Robert Rogers wanted her moved to a hospital. Vitas Healthcare, her hospice provider, said that wasn’t in the plan.

'Our job is not to prepare them to live,' a Vitas nurse told Rogers on the phone, according to a deposition he gave in April. 'Our job is to prepare them to die.'

Rogers called 911. At the hospital, an emergency-room doctor removed 11 maggots from an open wound on his mother’s big toe. Five days later, in September 2008, 91-year-old Thelma Covington died of a sepsis infection brought on by gangrene in her toe and poor circulation, her death certificate said.

Rogers is suing Vitas, a unit of Cincinnati-based Chemed Corp. (CHE), in a California court for alleged elder abuse and wrongful death. Vitas, the biggest company in hospice care, has denied negligence and said that Covington and Rogers knew the risk involved in entering hospice.

The article elaborated on Ms Covington's initial condition, and how she was enrolled in hospice despite of it:

Vitas admitted Thelma Covington to hospice in November 2007, taking over her medical care at Willow Pass Healthcare Center in Concord, California. Her son, Robert Rogers, who had Covington’s power of attorney, said a Vitas salesperson called him and offered help so he wouldn’t have to be there so much.

Rogers said he didn’t know he was giving up rights to curative care when he signed his mother up for hospice, and wouldn’t have done so if he did. He said he 'didn’t read the fine print' and gave his consent because he was told there would be more people looking after her, taking a load off him.

He described her as alert on his visits, doing crossword puzzles, discussing movies and enjoying the Kentucky Fried Chicken he brought her.

The Vitas admission assessment for Covington said she was terminally ill with 'debility, unspecified' and had various other conditions, including dementia, congestive heart failure and diabetes. Two doctors certified that she had less than six months to live.

'She didn’t have no dementia,' Rogers said.

No one said anything about his mother’s life expectancy, according to Rogers, 75, a retired longshoreman and Covington’s only child. For 10 months, Medicare paid Vitas $199 a day to provide palliative care for her at Willow Pass, bills show.

Obviously, Ms Covington had more than 10 months to live. There is a major question whether she had anything resembling dementia. As noted earlier, "debility" is not a real diagnosis and does not imply a specific life-span.

The details of how the hospice allegedly failed to treat a new condition which was eventually fatal for Ms Covington are gut-wrenching:

On July 9, 2008, two months before her death, a Vitas doctor ordered a two-week cleansing and ointment treatment for an open wound on Covington’s toe, medical records show. The treatment was never carried out because the plan wasn’t placed in the 'treatment administrative record' that the nursing home used to implement orders, according to a deposition by Jennifer Bernal, one of Covington’s Willow Pass nurses. She called it 'a serious nursing error.'

Nevertheless, Vitas 'discontinued' the toe treatment on July 28, according to notes written by one of its nurses, who added 'course complete.'

Two days later, Covington was in agony from the wound; a Vitas nurse assessed her pain at level 10 on a 10-point severity index, records show. She was given morphine and a sedative.

On Aug. 25, a nursing home employee noted in a 'skin condition report' that the toe was scabrous, swollen, contained pus and had developed black 'eschar' -- dead tissue that’s a sign of gangrene. 'Hospice notified,' the report said.

Vitas’s notes on the toe for Aug. 25 and Aug. 27 again said 'interventions effective, continue plan.' On Sept. 5, a Vitas nurse described 'soft black eschar' on the toe. By then, Covington was in such pain from the wound that she lay moaning, 'Lo[r]d have mercy,' a Vitas nurse noted.

On the morning of Sept. 7, a Vitas nurse discovered the gangrene and maggots, conferred with a Vitas doctor, washed the toe and wrapped it in plastic, according to nursing notes.

Rogers said in his deposition that he learned of the maggots later that day from the emergency-room doctor.

Summary

There has been a lot of blather from politicians in the US about "death panels" in debates about health care reform. Many such politicians seem worried that the US government has or will have death panels under the new health care reform legislation. We have criticized that legislation for not addressing many important health care problems. No one, however, has convingly demonstrated how its provisions would convene "death panels."

Wendell Potter argued in his book, Deadly Spin, (see this post) that for-profit insurance companies had their own "death panels." The Bloomberg article strongly suggests that for-profit hospices may also act like death panels. In search of more revenue, for-profit hospices may enroll patients who are not at the end of life, but then provide them only "comfort care," so that if they develop new conditions that are treatable, they are likely to die in the absence of treatment.

I am waiting for the politicians who so enthusiatically condemned the supposed "death panels" to be found in health care reform legislation to condemn for-profit hospices for behaving like death panels. 

In my humble opinion, the cases discussed above are the strongest argument yet that we need to reconsider our headlong rush to turn health care, particularly the direct care of patients, over to relatively unregulated, for-profit corporations. The cases above suggest that the pursuit of revenue ahead of patients' welfare by such organizations may lead to sick and dead patients.

I cannot see how for-profit direct patient care can be made safe for patients without intense government regulation. If any of those vocal advocates of "free market" health care (in the absence of any good explanation of how health care can ever be an ideal free market, see this post) can explain to me how for-profit hospices can be made safe for patients without such regulation, I would welcome their attempts.

Meanwhile, this just calls out for legislative and legal investigation, and urgent policy changes.

Quest Diagnostics Settles, Version 2

And the latest entrant in the parade of legal settlements is a medical laboratory company, as reported by the Los Angeles Times:

Quest Diagnostics Inc., the biggest provider of medical lab services in California, has agreed to pay $241 million to settle a whistle-blower's lawsuit that accused it of overcharging the state Medi-Cal program.

This was not only about financial misbehavior, but about paying physicians and health care providers to influence their decisions in favor of the payer, but not necessarily their patients:

The lawsuit also alleged that the Madison, N.J., company paid illegal kickbacks to doctors, hospitals and clinics that sent patients their way.

As usual, despite the allegations above, the company issued the de rigeur denials:

Quest acknowledged the settlement in a statement but denied any wrongdoing.

'Our laboratory testing services for Medi-Cal were priced appropriately, and we deny all allegations in the complaint,' said Michael E. Prevoznik, Quest's senior vice president and general counsel.

Quest said it settled 'to put the lawsuit behind us.'

Of course, lawyers are expensive. But it is awfully hard to believe a trial would cost more than a small fraction of the amount paid out. So it is very hard to believe that the company paid nearly a quarter of a billion dollars just to avoid the expense and inconvenience of going to court.

That the company paid so much to avoid contesting an action that alleged such kickbacks seems at odds with the company's earnest "corporate citizenship" statement:

Honesty and integrity are the cornerstones of our corporate philosophy. We strive to do the right thing when it comes to caring for our patients, dealing with our business partners and working alongside our fellow employees. We never forget that we’re in the business of caring for people. Every day, we work hard to earn your trust and maintain our reputation for providing unsurpassed diagnostic insights and innovation.

What does not contesting allegations about kickbacks to doctors and hospitals have to do with "honesty and integrity," doing "the right thing," or "earn[ing] your trust?"

That would be a particularly good question to put to certain members of the Quest Diagnostics board of directors who have roles that ought to suggest they might have a certain level of discomfort with not  contesting allegations of giving kickbacks to physicians and hospitals, e.g.:

• John C Baldwin MD, the surgeon who is "Senior Advisor for Health Affairs to the Texas Tech University System,"
• Jenne K. Britell, Ph.D.,"a trustee of the Fox Chase Cancer Center,"
• Rosanne Haggerty, "the founder and President of Common Ground Community, a not-for-profit organization that develops strategies to end homelessness,"
• Surya N. Mohapatra, Ph.D., CEO and Chairman of the Board, also "a Trustee of Rockefeller University," and
• Gail Wilensky Ph.D., a well-known health policy expert who has been vocal in health care reform discussions, and is "a Senior Fellow at Project HOPE."

Of course, as the parade of legal settlements continues, it has been markedly unusual for any of the board members of the organizations involved, no matter how distinguished their credentials in the health arena, to have anything to say about them.

Also, as is tediously usual in such cases, I could find nothing to suggest any negative consequences for any individual who might have authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior, and specifically, that might have had anything to do with the kickbacks that were alleged to have occurred.

The continuing march of legal settlements now seems to have included most of the previously well reputed commercial health care firms in the US. The length of this march is an indication of how pervasive is bad behavior by such health care organizations, especially when the marchers were accused of behavior that appeared clinically, not just financially unethical.

I assert again that pervasive bad behavior by large health care organizations has got to be a major cause of our ongoing health care dysfunction.

As we have said repeatedly, even large monetary penalties paid by corporations are unlikely to do anything other than somewhat increase their costs of doing business.  (Note that this is the second settlement by Quest Diagnostics we have discussed on Health Care Renewal.  The first settlement, for over $300 million, was in 2009 and involved felony misbranding charges by a Quest subsidiary.  In that case too no actual persons suffered any negative consequences.)

So, to really deter bad behavior, those who authorized, directed or implemented bad behavior must be held accountable.    As long as they are not, expect the bad behavior to continue. 

(We said that in 2009 about the first Quest Diagnostics settlement, and now it seems to have been a good prediction.  You heard it here first on Health Care Renewal.)

Merck KGaA Settles, Again

They just keep marching along, legal settlements, that is.  The latest entry in the parade is Merck KGaA (of Switzerland, not to be confused with the American Merck and Co, Inc), as per the AP, via ABC News:

The Department of Justice said Wednesday that multinational drugmaker Merck Serono SA has agreed to pay $44.3 million to settle allegations that it illegally promoted one of its drugs using kickbacks to doctors.

Federal prosecutors said that Merck Serono and EMD Serono allegedly made inappropriate payments to hundreds of doctors for prescribing its multiple sclerosis drug, Rebif, between 2002 and 2009. Merck Serono paid to send doctors to various training meetings and conferences at upscale resorts and other locations, according to the Department of Justice.

Of course, while agreeing to pay out the money, the company denies everything:

The company pointed out in a statement: 'the settlement contains no claims that unnecessary prescriptions for Rebif were written, no allegations of patient harm and no admission of fault by the company.'

One wonders whether $44 million is now such a trivial amount to a large health care corporation that companies are willing to pay so much just to avoid the inconvenience of a trial? Or did perhaps the company leadership worry it might lose this trial?

Note that regardless of the above company statement, the US Department of Justice asserted that the company made "improper payments" to physicians "For prescribing its drugs." So, unlike some of the many settlements we have discussed which involved only financial improprieties, this one allegedly involved actions that corrupted physicians.

As we have noted previously, Transparency International defines corruption as "abuse of entrusted power for private gain." Physicians are entrusted to make decisions for individual patients for the patients' good. Accepting payments from a drug company to prescribe a particular good appear to be an abuse of such entrusted power, obviously for private gain. So the sorts of behavior that allegedly resulted in this settlement are particularly pernicious for medical professionalism, as well as for the good of patients.

Nonetheless, despite protestations that they are going to get tough, US law enforcement seems unwilling to hold any individual accountable for this sort of behavior. Granting individual impunity, though, seems to provide no deterrent against future bad behavior. 

For example, as we noted here, Merck KGaA had to pay a settlement last year of claims that its previous subsidiary, Mylan, reported falsely inflated claims.  That legal action also imposed no negative consequences on individuals.  This legal action had been in the works since at least 2007, but as noted above, the actions that lead to the current settlement continued through 2009. 

So, to repeat, repeat, repeat: we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

St Jude Medical Settles Again

Here we go again to kick off the week, legal settlements, cardiac devices, alleged kickbacks, manipulated research, as reported by Bloomberg:

Another Legal Settlement by St Jude Medical

St. Jude Medical Inc. agreed to pay $16 million to settle a U.S. government probe of claims the company paid kickbacks to doctors who implanted its heart devices in patients.

The accord resolves a five-year investigation of St. Jude’s marketing practices for defibrillators and pacemakers.

This was not even the first recent settlement by this particular company:

In June, St. Jude agreed to pay the federal government $3.7 million to resolve a separate whistleblower case over claims that it made illegal payments to hospitals in Kentucky and Ohio that used the company’s heart devices.

Our relevant post about that previous settlement was here.

Kickbacks, Manipulated Research

The $16 million settlement stemmed from a case filed by Charles Donigian, a former St. Jude technician from St. Louis, who accused the company of using kickbacks to market products.

The kickbacks, which ranged as high as $2,000 per patient, came in the form of 'sham fees' for phony clinical-research studies on the devices, Donigian said in his suit.

There was slightly more detail in a report in TheHeart.org:

According to the DoJ, the company used postmarketing studies and a registry as vehicles to reward physicians participating in those studies to implant the devices. 'In each case, St Jude paid each participating physician a fee that ranged up to $2000 per patient,' a statement from US Attorney Carmen M Ortiz notes. 'The United States alleges that St Jude solicited physicians for the studies in order to retain their business and/or convert their business from a competitor's product.'

The statement also observes: 'Although St Jude collected data and information from participating physicians, it knowingly and intentionally used the studies and registry as a means of increasing its device sales by paying certain physicians to select St Jude pacemakers and ICDs for their patients.'

Summary

It all is getting so old, isn't it? Yet another pharmaceutical, biotechnology or device company settles a case alleging payments to physicians to induce them to use its products. The twist here is that the form of the payment allegedly also manipulated the clinical research process.

There have been other cases of manipulation or suppression of research about cardiac devices. For example, see our recent post about how Guidant, now a subsidiary of Boston Scientific, was put on probation for its actions in another such case.

The allegations amounted to serious external threats to physicians' professionalism: payments to promote use of health care products whether or not their implantation was in patients' best interests, and manipulation of clinical research that could have further corrupted the clinical evidence base, and presumably could have broken the trust of clinical research subjects. Left unsaid in the brief articles is how willingly the physicians gave in to these threats to their professionalism for the dollars involved.

Yet despite the apparently corrosive quality of the bad behavior, the penalties to the company were trivial. Per St Jude Medical's most recent financial profile, its yearly revenue was over $4.5 billion.  Two settlements totaling less than $20 million amount to a relatively small cost of doing business.  And note that St Jude Medical is not admitting it did anything wrong.  Per TheHeart.org, its statement was:

We are pleased to have reached a settlement agreement with the DoJ that fully resolves the postmarket-study matter in Boston. The company maintains that its postmarket studies and registries are legitimate clinical studies designed to gather important scientific data, and St Jude Medical does not admit liability or wrongdoing by entering into this agreement. The company entered into a settlement agreement to avoid the potential costs and risks associated with litigation. This settlement brings the previously reported postmarket-study investigation to a close.

So it all gets so tiresome. The continuing march of legal settlements like this do provide evidence of how professionalism and evidence-based medical practice are under threat. However, as we have said ad infinitum, such settlements are likely to do nothing to alleviate that threat.

To repeat the conclusion of our last post about St Jude Medical, the usual sorts of legal settlements we have described do not seem to be an effective way to deter future unethical behavior. Even large fines (and the one described above would be peanuts to a large health care corporation) can be regarded just as a cost of doing business. Furthermore, the fine's impact may be diffused over the whole company, and ultimately comes out of the pockets of stockholders, employees, and customers alike. It provides no negative incentives for those who authorized, directed, or implemented the behavior in question. My refrain has been: we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.