"Government-Run Health Insurance" Run by Corporations? - Two Medicaid Examples

In the US, there seems to have been a constant argument between right- and left-wingers over "government-run" health insurance.  The right tends to disparage all aspects of "government-run" health care, and in the case of insurance, uses the alleged faults of the two big US government health insurance programs as examples.  (Medicare is a federal government health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Medicaid is federal-state program for the poor.) 

For example, per the Associated Press via BusinessWeek, from a currently prominent Republican hopeful for President, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty,

The former Minnesota governor was the latest politician to participate in the Health Policy Grand Rounds program that Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center has organized for its staff during the past two presidential campaign cycles. Using Medicare and Medicaid as examples, he criticized the notion that government-run health care will produce efficiency and said the answer lies in empowering consumers.

Republican Congressman Darrell Issa (California) wrote in 2010:

an expansion of the federal bureaucracy at that rate will greatly increase the incidence of waste, fraud and abuse in health care. Already Medicare, which accounts for 14% of all federal spending, is rife with waste, fraud and abuse. Even Attorney General Eric Holder has said, 'By all accounts, every year we lose tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds to fraud.'

A recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that federal subsidy programs cost taxpayers about $100 billion every year in improper payments, with Medicare and Medicaid accounting for more than half of that.

The left may advocate for government-run, "single-payer" insurance programs, perhaps using the alleged benefits of Medicare and Medicaid as examples.

Scholarly articles about health care policy may refer to Medicaid as a government "single-payer" system.  (For example, see: Robinson JC. The commercial health insurance industry in an era of eroding employer coverage. Health Aff 2006; 25:1475-1486. Link here.)

In any case, I suspect most of us think of Medicaid as an example of "government-run" health care insurance, regardless of whether we believe that is a good or a bad thing.

Yet the reality may be more complex. Two recent stories, one a follow-up on an old Health Care Renewal post, provide some dots to connect.

Connecticut HUSKY Medicaid Program

In 2007, we posted about how the state of Connecticut was going to end participation in the HUSKY state Medicaid program for poor children by four insurance companies/ managed care organizations.  They apparently refused to provide information about payments to physicians and denial of payments for prescription drugs to the state.  The two largest organizations involved were Anthem Health Plans (a subsidiary of WellPoint), and Health Net.  At the time, we noted that this case provided an example of the lack of transparency exhibited by major health organizations.

Late last year, the Connecticut Mirror documented more criticism of the HUSKY program based on a report that showed that participating companies were making big profits from it (but perhaps not from other state Medicaid programs): 

The three managed care companies in the state's HUSKY insurance program for low-income children and families recorded profits of $18.8 million last year, according to figures released by the state Department of Social Services.

In one part of HUSKY, the insurers made margins of at least 20 percent and spent less than 72 percent of their revenues on medical care.

The figures released this month drew criticism from members of the Medicaid Care Management Oversight Council, who are in the midst of considering moving HUSKY out of managed care.

In more detail, the relevant numbers were:

AmeriChoice, part of UnitedHealthcare, spent 62 percent of its revenue on medical care and posted a 22.9 percent profit margin in the HUSKY B program.

By contrast, the federal health reform law sets minimum medical care ratios for insurers of 80 percent or 85 percent, depending on the type of plan. The provision does not apply to Medicaid plans, but was cited as a benchmark in the council's discussion.

None of the insurers met those benchmarks in HUSKY B, which covers children whose family income does not qualify for Medicaid. Last year, it covered between 13,000 and 16,000 children, many whose families earned below 300 percent of the federal poverty level.

Aetna spent 70.5 percent on medical care and made a 20 percent margin, while Community Health Network of Connecticut, a non-profit with far more enrollees than the other insurers, spent 71.8 percent of its revenues on medical care and made a 20.6 percent margin.

Margins were lower, and medical care ratios higher, in HUSKY A, a Medicaid program that enrolled as many as 358,088 children and adults in 2009.

Community Health Network reported a 95.1 percent medical care ratio and a -0.3 percent margin. AmeriChoice spent 86.3 percent of its revenue on medical care and achieved a 3.5 percent margin, while Aetna had an 83.9 percent medical care ratio and 6.5 percent margin.

Overall, the medical care ratio was 90.7 percent for both HUSKY programs and all three insurers. The overall margin was 2.3 percent.

The insurers involved defended themselves by noting to participate in HUSKY they also had to participate in another program, Charter Oak Health Plan, "on which they lose money."

Last month, it looked to be the end of managed care in these Medicaid programs, again as reported by the Connecticut Mirror:

The Malloy administration announced plans Tuesday to move the HUSKY and Charter Oak health programs out of managed care and increase care coordination in the state's other Medicaid programs, an effort officials said would save money while giving the state more control over health programs that serve more than 500,000 people.

This article also noted:

In the current system, the state pays three managed care companies set fees for each HUSKY and Charter Oak member every month, and the companies use the money to pay medical claims. Critics say it gives the managed care companies an incentive to deny care since they get to keep the money not spent on medical costs.

So let us deal directly with the cognitive dissonance generated by these articles. In the ongoing US health reform debate, Medicaid is usually discussed as a "government-run" health care (insurance) program. Yet these news articles from Connecticut suggest at least in that state, part of Medicaid was out-sourced to mostly large, national, for-profit health insurance companies/ managed care organizations. Furthermore, as noted just above, these corporations seemed to be mainly calling the shots in how their part of Medicaid was run. So is this "government-run" health care (insurance)?

But wait, there is more....

Minnesota Medicaid Controversy

Last month, the Politics in Minnesota web-site ran a report on an unlikely reformer:

Dave Feinwachs is no stranger to the Capitol.

For three decades he was the general counsel to the Minnesota Hospital Association. In that capacity, he negotiated with state agencies and testified regularly before legislative committees on health care issues.

But early last year, Feinwachs said, he was ordered by his superiors at the hospital association not to provide any further testimony at the Capitol. The reason for the muzzle: his vocal insistence that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) should contribute money to help salvage the state�s General Assistance Medical Care program for indigent adults.

Feinwachs says he abided by the prohibition on testimony before legislative committees, but apparently it was not enough to keep him in the good graces of his employer. In November he was fired as the group�s principal attorney. Feinwachs will not discuss the reason for his termination, citing potential litigation. But it almost certainly had something to do with his ongoing zealous campaign to force greater transparency and accountability on the state�s HMOs - primarily Blue Cross & Blue Shield, HealthPartners, Medica and UCare - which receive roughly $3 billion annually to run health plans for many of the state�s poorest residents.

So here we go again. This article suggested that Minnesota had out-sourced a very large part of its Medicaid program.

Furthermore, it also appears that the state government knows little about what happens to the money it hands over:

In the next two years, Minnesota is slated to funnel about $6 billion to the state�s HMOs to provide health care for 550,000 of the state�s poorest residents. To put that figure in perspective, it is nearly 20 percent of the state�s expected 2012-13 general fund revenues - and nearly identical to the state�s projected $6.2 billion deficit. In coming up with a solution to Minnesota�s financial crisis, Feinwachs and others believe, legislators must at least have a clear accounting of this massive pot of health care dollars.

HMOs, meanwhile, are not exactly yearning for scrutiny, especially as they launch a pitch to administer even more of the state�s health care spending.

In addition, there is reason to believe that Minnesota may be paying a significant amount for administration:

Feinwachs believes that the administrative overhead collected by HMOs could be in the neighborhood of 16 percent. He concedes, however, that this is no more than a 'guesstimate' pieced together from the limited information that is publicly available.

Then, there is reason to suspect that the private (and nominally not-for-profit) HMOs that Minnesota pays to run Medicaid have resisted accounting for how the money they got was spent:

Past attempts to bolster accountability and transparency for HMOs have largely run into a brick wall. For instance, when legislators considered requiring the health plans to chip in on a plan to restore the General Assistance Medical Care program last year, they were told by officials from the Department of Human Services that such a move would be illegal. Efforts to provide more financial disclosure have been rebuffed by the argument that such information is proprietary and not subject to the state�s data practices rules. The complexity of Minnesota�s patchwork of publicly funded health care plans, which very few individuals clearly understand, has also helped forestall changes.

'We can�t let the complexity of data and information beat us down, and I think that�s what happened in the years past,' Hosch said. 'The systems almost seem like they�re deliberately complex in order to confuse us.'

Apparently in these parlous financial times, Mr Feinwachs got some attention. Last week, the state Governor announced his willingness to dig into the results of the state's out-sourcing of Medicaid, per the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

It's high time that Minnesota started treating its nonprofit health plans for what they are -- some of state government's largest vendors.

Reforms announced this week by Gov. Mark Dayton's office are a promising first step toward scrutinizing health plan contracts for savings and finding new ways to rein in Minnesota's soaring medical costs.

Managing care for more than 500,000 low-income, disabled and elderly Minnesotans enrolled in state public health programs is a $3.1 billion-a-year business for health plans in Minnesota, with the state and federal government jointly footing the bill.

Over the past decade, the state's portion of this outsourced care has increased from 5 percent to 11 percent of the state budget, according to Dayton's office.

The state also has more than 249,000 people -- typically the sickest of the sick -- in a fee-for-service public program. That spending is also ripe for a cost-savings review.

On Wednesday, Dayton announced plans to do what good business leaders do in difficult financial circumstances. His administration is going to start driving harder bargains with health plans.

Key parts of the plan include making the contracting system more competitive, making financial information more transparent, and doing deeper auditing of plans' books to analyze administrative and medical expenses.

So again in Minnesota, it appeared that the state had out-sourced a large proportion of its Medicaid program, covering apparently two-thirds of the state's Medicaid patients. It appears that knowledge of the out-sourcing of most of Medicaid was relatively anechoic, and that even the state's former Governor Pawlenty was unaware of it (see his comments in introduction to this post). Despite the amounts of money and the numbers of people involved, up to now the state government had apparently very little information about how billions of dollars were being spent by private, albeit nominally non-profit health insurance companies/ managed care organizations.

Summary

Two cases from two states suggest that some proportion of Medicaid, perhaps a very large proportion, has been out-sourced to private corporations, both nominally non-profit and for-profit.

In fact, a Washington Post article last year suggested that 70% of Medicaid patients are in managed care plans, most of which are likely out-sourced, not run by state Medicaid agencies.

Our two cases above further suggest that government officials may know little about how the money given to these corporations was spent, and how the corporations managed the supposedly "government-run" health insurance.

So much for the notion that the US Medicaid program is "government-run" health insurance.  Whether one believes that government bureaucrats are good or bad at running health care, it seems that most Medicaid patients' care is managed by corporate, not government bureaucrats.

The likelihood that a substantial proportion of Medicaid patients actually get their health care coverage from corporations, be that non-profit or for-profit, raises some important questions.
- What proportion of the government funds provided these corporations goes to health care versus administration, overhead, etc?
-  What then is the proportion of all Medicaid money spent on health care versus administration, overhead, etc at the federal, state, and corporate levels?
-  What proportion of the revenue of major health insurers/ managed care organizations actually comes from tax-payers via Medicaid?
-  To what extent do health insurers/ managed care organizations influence clinical care through their role implementing Medicaid?
-  How transparent are their finances and their implementation of Medicaid?
-  How well are they supervised and regulated by national and state government?

Meanwhile, it appears that there is far more overlap between government and corporate health insurance and managed care than most of us realized.  That suggests the usual debate between the foes and proponents of "government-run" health care (insurance) was vastly too simplistic.  Maybe some of those involved in the debate should have known that.   

Meanwhile, the concerns I discussed in 2002 that "health care has become dominated by large, bureaucratic organizations" appear increasingly well-founded.  This domination seems to be increasingly facilitated by collaboration - or should that be collusion? - among government and private bureaucracies.  The danger, as we have repeatedly discussed, is that the leaders of these bureaucracies may feel increasing loyalty to the managers' and executives' guild, and decreasing pressure not to fulfill their own and their cronies' self-interest.  We need at least to have some frank discussions about the increasing corporatism of health care and all of society, and what to do about it. 

Read More

The Rise of the Corporate Physician - the End of the (Health Care) World As We Know It?

In discussing how concentration and abuse of power threatens health care professionals' values and professionalism, we have discussed how ostensibly academic institutions value faculty more for their earning power than their academic abilities.  We have discussed how financial relationships between physicians and drug, biotechnology, device and other companies risk abuse of entrusted power.  But up to now, I have been comforted by the hope that physicians in small independent practices who do not have such conflicts of interest are trying to uphold their professional values, even as they were buffeted by the perverse incentives imposed by managed care organizations/ health insurance companies and government insurance (e.g., US Medicare whose payments are controlled by the RUC).

However, a recent article in SmartMoney suggests that the end of the independent physician is nigh:

Remember the solo family doctor? In places like Springfield, it has become increasingly likely that she's collecting a paycheck from a large regional hospital�and practicing medicine according to the hospital's strict playbook. The experience in Springfield is just a needle prick compared with what's going on nationwide. At least one in six doctors�more than 150,000 nationwide�now works as an employee of a hospital system. And with about half of recent medical school graduates deciding to work for hospitals and many established doctors looking to unload their practices amid the tough economic climate, what was a trickle of change has turned into a torrent. Jim Pizzo, a Chicago-area hospital consultant, says the blistering pace of these mergers is leading some colleagues to joke that there are two types of physicians today: 'Those employed by hospitals and those about to be.'

So we are seeing physicians who practiced solo or in physician-lead, physician-run group practices becoming employees of large health care organizations. And here on Health Care Renewal, we know how most large health care organizations are run.

This appears to be an unintended consequence of our recent US health care "reform" law:

But hospital executives also believe that buying doctors' practices could yield a big payday, thanks to a different provision in the health care law. The law will encourage doctors and hospitals to share some payments when treating each patient; as collaborative teams, they could earn bonuses for holding down costs and meeting quality markers. 'The real question for everyone is how that pie�that money�is going to get split up,' Goertz says; hospitals think they'll have the upper hand if they employ the doctors that they're sharing their banana cr�me with. And that's touched off a flurry of mergers everywhere�from Seattle to Roanoke, Va.

The name of these supposedly collaborative organizations, which are turning out to simply be hospital systems which have purchased physicians' practices and now employ physicians, is "accountable care organizations," which now appears ironic at least.

The article detailed some of the adverse effects to be expected when accountable care organizations become hospital systems with employed physicians providing patient care.

Increased Costs with Decreased Care

Ruth Taylor, a 44-year-old woman in Bozeman, Mont., started seeing Robert Hathaway as her doctor during college, and she stuck with him through everything from routine blood tests to a kidney transplant. Taylor, a professional nurse with warm blue eyes, describes Hathaway as a 'classic small-town doctor' who knew all his patients by name and socialized with them at local basketball games; he was accessible and thorough�even catching a health problem of hers that other doctors had missed. But after Hathaway sold his practice to the local hospital, Taylor says, things began to sour. She was more likely to be assigned to see the physician assistant rather than Hathaway himself. And when she went in for a comprehensive physical (also run by the assistant) in late 2008, she was charged $360, more than double what she'd paid for a workup in previous years.

Imposition of Dysfunctional Health Care Information Technology

On this blog, Dr Scot Silverstein frequently posts about how poorly designed and implemented commercial health care information technology may have harms that outweigh any benefits, and how these systems are rarely objectively evaluated. Employed physicians are likely to be required by their new executive overlords to use commercial health care IT that benefits the managers and their strategies, but may not benefit patient care:

Last spring Hospital Sisters tried to shift all of its Springfield medical offices to electronic medical records simultaneously. But there wasn't enough tech support to deal with all the problems physicians ran into on day one, and wait times spiked at the system's walk-in locations. Nenaber, a soft-spoken 64-year-old with wire-rim glasses, sounds acquiescent about the situation. 'We're getting the hang of these things,' he says slowly, sitting at his desk overlooking a gas station and a strip-mall parking lot. But his practice is still waiting for its electronic payoff

Increasing Prices by Providing Care in the Hospital

Now that the acquisition spree is in full swing, some experts worry that price increases could become the dominant narrative for patients. When hospitals run medical practices, federal law allows them to add substantial 'facility fees' to patients' bills to cover overhead expenses. The new bosses also often rip equipment like X-ray machines and MRIs out of the physician's office, preferring to have patients get those tests from radiologists at the hospital. That, too, can cost patients. A consumer with a high-deductible Aetna plan, for instance, would pay up to $1,400 for an MRI of her back at the University Medical Center at Princeton, N.J., according to data that the insurer makes available to its members. The same scan would cost about a third as much at nearby Radiology Affiliates of New Jersey, a nonhospital facility. Based on a review of insurance databases and state regulatory records, that's a fairly typical price gap

Increasing Prices by Market Domination

Price increases also have the potential to bleed outward�affecting not only the patients of the absorbed doctor, but also the cost of health care citywide. That's because when hospitals sit down at the bargaining table with insurers, they're almost always able to negotiate higher payment rates for their big groups of doctors than a lone physician with little bargaining power

Despite the usual spin provided by the would-be monopolists:

Fast-growing hospital systems, including Hospital Sisters and Bozeman Deaconess, say that their growth will eventually make care more efficient and bring costs back down, since they'll be able to cut back on unnecessary care and duplicate tests

I am sure that the 19th century robber barons made the same pitch about increasing efficiency. Of course, the efficiency mainly benefits the insider managers.

By the way, of course, the hospital systems own public relations machines and lobbyists are now busy attacking any restrictions on such concentrations of power, while the hospital managers figure out how to game the system to increase their market domination before the regulators notice:

As more patients face such disruptions, regulators are taking notice. In October, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Health and Human Services met with doctors, insurers and other health officials to discuss the referral and pricing problems that could arise from 'accountable-care organizations'� those new groups of hospitals and doctors that will share financial incentives. The Federal Trade Commission will offer guidelines on what's permissible by midyear. But hospitals are already lobbying for accountable-care groups to be exempt from antitrust and antifraud rules, even as they scoop up more and more medical practices. Under current regulations, officials in Washington must green-light all mergers involving companies valued at more than $63 million. But by buying up tiny medical practices one at a time, critics say, hospitals stay below the threshold and avoid getting much attention. And by the time regulators settle on more-formal legal guidelines, those mergers may be hard to undo, says Cory Capps, a Washington economist specializing in health care antitrust issues.

Excess and Unnecessary Utilization via "Leakage Control"

With big hospital systems now owning physician practices, and practicing physicians directly answering to executives, the push will be on to maximize use of the most lucrative services. Once the hospital systems have made employees out of the physicians, it is easy to pressure their own employed physicians to refer patients to the hospital units that can bill most lucratively:

By their own admission, most hospitals are eager to keep patient referrals under the same corporate umbrella, to save on costs and share medical records but also to boost revenue. The hospitals say they wouldn't force an internist, for example, to refer a patient with heart problems to their own cardiologists, but critics say there's certainly financial pressure. Under a little-noticed regulation that took effect in 2007, hospitals are allowed to pay doctors less if they don't do enough internal referrals.

Doctors in Bozeman and Springfield who granted interviews said they didn't feel pressure to be 'team players' with referrals. But some of those who've left large health systems tell a different story, including Mark Callenberger, an orthopedist in Merritt Island, Fla. Callenberger says that the hospital group where he used to work urged him to direct more patients to the MRI machine owned by the hospital. The doctor preferred a more advanced machine at a private practice that he says offered clearer pictures. But after he ignored the recommendations, Callenberger says, the hospital told his office manager to schedule patients at the hospital's MRI anyway, leaving him to perform surgery using 'crummy images.' (The hospital declined to comment on Callenberger's case but says its doctors can use whatever facilities they choose.) Patients may never know about these power struggles, because doctors aren't required to disclose how they choose specialists. And while patients who ask can always see a specialist outside the network, in practice few are likely to challenge their doctors' judgment, says Bruce A. Johnson, a Denver health care lawyer. 'Face it, when we're really sick,' says Johnson, 'if the doctor tells us to jump off a roof, we'll probably consider doing it.'

Note that we discussed (here and here) the example of a for-profit hospital system with a large number of physician employees pushed to choke off "leakage" of patient referrals outside the system.

Summary

The overarching problem is that employed physicians now must answer to managers and executives who may put financial goals, and their own enrichment, ahead of physicians' values, and specifically will choose increased revenue over providing the best possible care to individual patients:

. Executives here are also hoping to push the needle further�standardizing everything from how long patients wait on hold to the ease of parking at the doctor's office (valets, luxury-restaurant style, are one solution under consideration).

Still, Mikell acknowledges, 'doctors don't want follow-the-directions, cookbook medicine.' And for many physicians, the idea of following new rules triggers a much larger unease at giving up their independence�a feeling of loss, both for the businesses they built and for their patients. Back in Bozeman, Blair Erb, the sole cardiologist in town, is a picture of resignation as he prepares to sign a contract with Deaconess. 'I feel defeated,' Erb says, looking around at the office furniture he and his wife, Liz, chose from a catalog years ago. The weathered ranchers and bundled-up women that come through his door mostly express disbelief when they hear that this frank-talking Tennessee native will sell his practice. His staffers say they're not looking forward to the questions the hospital's medical records system will soon prompt them to ask patients. (Do you wear a bike helmet regularly? Do you have a smoke detector?) 'We'll try to retain as much professional independence as possible,' Erb says, gazing at the hospital building, whose bulk he can see through his window. 'But the fact of the matter is, we'll have a new master.'

So I for one do not welcome our new executive overlords.

We have posted about numerous examples of health care organizational leaders who put their own enrichment ahead of the mission. Now even ostensibly non-profit hospital systems are increasingly competing against for-profit systems. We have seen, as noted above, an example of a for-profit system that seems to betting everything on a business strategy to reduce "leakage" of patient referrals.  We can expect that non-profit hospital systems will have to act more like for-profit systems, and the perverse financial incentives given the managers of all hospital systems will lead to pressure on physicians to forgo their responsibilities to provide the best care to individual patients in favor of actions that will bring in the most money in the shortest time.

We seem to be witnessing the rise of the corporate physician, the rise of a physician who must first answer to managers who never committed to putting patient care first, who may have no sympathy for physicians' core values, who may receive huge incentives to maximize short-term revenue no matter what. Such a rise of corporate physicians would be unprecedented in the US, and I believe in any developed country.

The rise of the corporate physician would require patients to put their trust in corporations, rather than individual doctors, in the era of the global financial collapse, in the new gilded age.

We may be seeing the end of health care world as we know it. The upcoming brave new world of health care may be worse that we can imagine.

What is to be done? - I rarely have ventured into specific policy suggestions, but I think that the consequences of the well-intended "accountable care organization" blunder may be so severe that I must so venture now. We must derail the movement towards "accountable care organizations." Any movement to make organizations more accountable cannot do so by making most professionals into employees answering to the sorts of ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted or even corrupt leaders that we have been writing about for more than six years on Health Care Renewal.  We need to make it impossible for for-profit companies to employ physicians to take care of patients.  Maybe we need to think about making it impossible for for-profit companies to provide patient care at all, and for for-profit companies to sell health insurance.  Meanwhile, we need to ensure the accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty of leaders of health care organizations.

If we do not reverse the current trends, anyone who wants good health care may have to look for it somewhere other than in the US.

Read More

More Legal Theater: Actavis Convicted, CareSource Settles

The march of legal settlements, and guilty pleas and verdicts continues.  The latest on parade, in alphabetical order, are:

Actavis

As reported by the (Austin, Texas) American-Statesman:

In what state officials describe as a record-setting verdict, a Travis County jury found Tuesday that a global drug manufacturer misrepresented prices to the state's Medicaid program and said the company should pay the state and federal government $170.3 million.

The verdict concluded a nearly three-week trial in state district court, where lawyers for the Texas attorney general's office argued that Actavis Mid-Atlantic LLC and co-defendant Actavis Elizabeth LLC artificially inflated the costs of medications to obtain more money. Medicaid reimbursed pharmacies at higher rates because of the falsely reported prices, officials said.

Actavis is apparently part of a multinational corporation based in Iceland that claims to have 10,000 employees. The company was taken private in 2007, and has not supplied financial reports since 2006 (see here), so the effect of the apparently large fine on its financial health is unclear, but I would guess not too severe.

Despite their conviction, Actavis leadership responded predictably, failing to admit any problem occurred:

Actavis officials said in a statement that they are disappointed by the verdict and 'are exploring our legal options.'

'Actavis remains, as always, committed to offering high-quality, lower-cost alternatives for health consumers, including the millions of Americans who participate in the Medicaid program,' said John LaRocca, the company's vice president and chief legal officer.

CareSource

As reported by the Columbus Dispatch,

A Dayton-based managed health care company agreed today to pay $26 million to settle allegations that it defrauded Ohio's Medicaid program.

CareSource, which provides managed care benefits to Medicaid recipients in Ohio and other states, was accused of failing to provide required screenings, assessments and case management for special-needs children and adults and submitting false data to make it appear as they had which allowed them to be reimbursed for services.

Once again, the amount of the fine was small in relation to the size of the company, which is actually a not-for-profit organization, and the magnitude of its revenues. According to a follow-up article in the Columbus dispatch:

The settlement is a fraction of the $2.3 billion the state paid the company last year.

The Attorney General said it was fraud:

'Medicaid program dollars need to be used to do what they are intended to do -- and that is to provide health care to some of our most vulnerable citizens,' Attorney General Mike DeWine said in a statement released by his office.

'The defendants in this case defrauded the state's Medicaid program by failing to provide critical health care services, which is both unconscionable and unacceptable.'

Again, company leaders denied there was a problem:

CareSource officials denied the allegations, saying they agreed to the settlement simply to end the matter.

'Because we are a mission-driven organization and because it is the right thing to do, we have always dealt with our relationship with the state of Ohio and the management of Medicaid funds with the highest integrity,' said Pamela Morris, chief executive officer of CareSource, in a statement.

State government officials also seemed unconcerned:

A spokesman for the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, which oversees Medicaid, said CareSource will continue working for the state. 'The allegations are a cause for concern, but we are comfortable with the relationship and the terms of the settlement,' said Benjamin Johnson.

Summary

The continued march of legal settlements, and guilty pleas and convictions provide some measure of the current amorality of health care corporate leadership.  But I do not expect that these frequent legal proceedings will induce leaders to become more ethical.
These two cases, one involving a Icelandic, multinational generic pharmaceutical company, the other a US based managed care company, showed how corporate misdeeds lead to an elaborate, theatrical, but ultimately ineffective ritual. The prosecution denounces the vileness of the deeds and the severe consequences. The corporation pays a fine that seems big to those down on the farm, but in reality is a tiny fraction of revenues. Despite the prosecutorial assessment of the severity of the offense, no charges against any individuals are pursued. The corporation denies anything bad happened, but reaffirms its commitment to a somewhat vague mission. Since nothing bad happened, the corporation does not punish any employees who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior. Finally, those in government who have to continue to work with the corporation plod on without fuss.

The impression is that no one in government is really serious about deterring corporate misdeeds.  Although there have been promises of a tougher approach that will actually hold corporate leaders  personally accountable for the misdeeds that occurred on their watch, the theater continues.

As long as the penalties to the corporation are relatively small, and can be diffused among stock-holders or owners, employees, and patients, clients or customers, as long as there is no compulsion to change how the corporation operates, and as long as no individual suffers any consequences, why should corporate leaders not continue to do what the government may call "unconscionable," but which results in net financial gains and no personal penalties?  (Note that we posted here about the large and increasing compensation given to CareSource's CEO, which had grown far faster than its revenues, and seemed to contrast with its stated mission to help the underserved.)

So I say again: 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.

Meanwhile, the continued unwillingness of government leaders to take on corporate leaders suggests how corporatist the US has become.  Government for the corporations, by the corporations, and of the corporations, bodes no good for the people whose rights are increasingly being displaced.   

Read More

Big Door Keeps On Turning - Bi-Directional Interchanges Among Government and Corporate Health Care Leadership

Recently we noted some complex examples of the health care "revolving door," cases of health care corporate leaders who came from government heading back into government.  The first was reported by Politico:

California Rep. Mary Bono Mack has hired PhRMA�s former chief spokesman as a senior adviser, adding another Republican lawmaker to the list of those who have recruited staff members with K Street ties.

Ken Johnson will serve as a senior policy and communications adviser to Bono Mack, chairwoman of a House Energy and Commerce subcommittee. Johnson has deep ties to the committee, having worked for former Republican Rep. Billy Tauzin when he headed the Energy and Commerce Committee.

When PhRMA hired Tauzin months after the Louisiana congressman helped pass the industry-supported Medicare drug benefit, Johnson followed. So it was not surprising that Johnson did not stay on with PhRMA last year after Tauzin stepped down.

In 2009, Tauzin made more than $4.5 million and Johnson pulled in more than $500,000, according to tax records.

Note that Mr Johnson went from an influential government position to a position representing the pharmaceutical industry, and then back to government
In the same vein and in the same article was:

House Speaker John Boehner hired the medical device industry�s chief lobbyist as his policy director.

Meanwhile, the Minneapolis Star-Tribune noted:

Minnesota health executive Lois Quam has signed to lead the multibillion dollar Global Health Initiative at the U.S. State Department.

A State Department spokesman confirmed Wednesday that Quam will be executive director of the initiative.

In 2009, President Barack Obama committed $63 billion over six years to the program aimed at helping developing nations fight disease, improve nutrition and provide more aid for prenatal and postnatal care.

Quam, of St. Paul, is a former UnitedHealth Group executive who co-founded a health consulting firm last year. She is married to Matt Entenza, a former state lawmaker who ran unsuccessfully for governor in 2010.

The appointment reunites Quam with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. Quam was a senior adviser to Clinton's health care task force in the 1990s.

Note that Ms Quam went from government leadership (in the Clinton administration's abortive attempt at health care reform via an elaborate version of managed care), to corporate leadership (in one of the largest commercial managed care organizations, some of whose exploits are discussed here), then back to government (now leading global health.  As an aside, UnitedHealth has been developing its global presence for years, e.g., see this post about its forays into the UK.)

We last discussed the "revolving door," that is, the easy interchange among leadership in government and health care corporations here.  The brief news items above shows how the door spins continuously, resulting not only in former government leaders ending up in influential, and well-recompensed positions in the health care industry, but also in industry leaders ending up in influential government positions.  In two cases above, people who started out in influential government positions transitioned to health care corporate positions, and then back to government. 

As we noted earlier, the continually revolving door is a sign of the increasingly corporatist nature of the US.  Government and the biggest corporations now seem to see themselves as natural allies, partially because their leadership increasingly forms a cozy combined group.  The big problem, of course, is such an alliance leaves out everybody else, from small business, to individual professionals, to the people at large. 

As I noted earlier, if we want health care to put the needs of individual patients first, we ought to consider ways to make both government and corporate health care leaders more responsive to the people rather than to their combined self-interest. 

Read More

Former NIH Director Spins Through Revolving Door, Ends Up at Sanofi-Aventis

A bit of news that got little attention this month was a new job for the former head of the US National Institutes of Health (NIH).  Dr Elias Zerhouni had left the NIH in October, 2008.  Here is the Reuters version of the story of his hew career:

French drugmaker Sanofi-Aventis (SASY.PA) replaced its head of research and development with a leading academic and former top U.S. health official on Tuesday to raise its game in medical innovations.

The company said Elias Zerhouni would lead R&D of drugs and bring R&D for vaccines under his control too as Sanofi reshapes its portfolio and looks to vaccines as one area for growth to offset sales losses from mounting generic competition.

The appointment of Zerhouni, a professor of radiology and biomedical engineering, comes as Sanofi battles to buy U.S. rare disease specialist Genzyme.

Chief executive Chris Viehbacher brought in Zerhouni in February 2009 as his scientific adviser, shortly after taking charge of the group which he has been transforming to include the development of drugs based on biotechnology.

Zerhouni's Embrace of Corporate Health Care

Although Zerhouni ostensibly left the NIH to return to academia at Johns Hopkins University, note that by February, 2009, four months after his resignation was announced, Zerhouni was already advising the Sanofi CEO. 

Soon after he joined the corporate health care world in earnest.  In April, 2009, he was proposed for membership on the board of directors of Actelion Ltd, a Swiss biotechnology company.  On December 8, 2009, he was elected to the board of Danaher Corp, a diversified technology corporation which makes medical devices.  At some time he had become President of the Zerhouni Group, which advertised itself as a resource to "pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, trade organizations, sovereign wealth funds, government agencies, and research entities around the globe."

Zerhouni at the NIH: His Response to the Conflict of Interest Scandal

There is more than a little irony inspired by Zerhouni's quick circuit through the revolving door.

Zerhouni became director of the NIH in 2002, and announced his departure in October, 2008. In December, 2003, David Willman published his landmark article in the Los Angeles Times on severe conflicts of interest affecting NIH scientists and leaders.  It revealed that formerly stringent conflict of interest policies at the Institutes were rescinded by then director Dr Harold Varmus in 1995, during the Clinton administration, and increasingly since 1998, disclosure of NIH personnel's conflicts of interest had been reduced.  Thus, in 2002, Zerhouni had taken charge of an agency already deeply affected by conflicts of interest affecting many of its leaders, even though that was not yet public.  He initially did nothing about the situation. 

Willman published another series of articles revealing even more breathtaking conflicts of interest in December, 2004.  (See our post here.)   By then, a Los Angeles Times editorial said there was the "appearance of corruption" at the NIH, and called for Dr Zerhouni's resignation. 

Only after the second series of articles did Dr Zerhouni swing into action (see post here).  In February, 2005, he announced that he would now hold the NIH to a "higher standard."  Yet new conflict of interest stories kept surfacing and their handling kept provoking concern (e.g., see this post from 2007, and this post from 2008), and concerns about how NIH deals with conflicts of interest affecting the extramural researchers it funds persist to this day (e.g., see this post). 

By the late 1990s, the NIH, like many other government agencies, seemed to have become extremely cozy with the world of big corporations.  Dr Zerhouni did nothing to obvious to reduce the local version of this coziness until it had become a public scandal.  His actions let questions about the relationships of the NIH, once a pristine example of a government run biomedical research agency, with big health care business persist to this day. 

So it should perhaps be no surprise that he so quickly transitioned from the government that is supposed to be"of the people, by the people, for the people" to top leadership positions in corporate health care.

Other US Government Health Care Agency Leaders Transit the Revolving Door

Meanwhile, the previous commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration, Dr Andrew von Eschenbach, is Senior Director for Strategic Initiatives at the Center for Health Transformation, a group whose membership includes some of the biggest health care organizations, many of which have had their own moments in the sun on Health Care Renewal.  For example, see Charter Members, AstraZeneca, Sutter Health, and Wellpoint; and Platinum Members, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck.  Dr Eschenbach is also on the board of directors of Histosonics Inc. 

Also, the previous director of the Centers for Disease Control, Dr Julie Geberding, became President of Merck Vaccines in late 2009. 

Conclusions

So the revolving door just keeps spinning, its revolutions suggesting how closely tied together big government and big corporations have become in what is now the health care business.  Whatever the motivations of Doctors Zerhouni, von Eschenbach, and Geberding were, the message to every person in a leadership position in health care in the US government has to still be: you too can earn big corporate compensation soon after you leave here.  Who knows how much that siren song will lead current government leaders to avoid antagonizing the leaders of big health care corporations during their government "service."  That is, of course, not what we want them to be thinking about if government agencies ae to serve the people, not the CEOs of big corporations. 

I am sure that the career transitions of Doctors Zerhouni, von Eschenbach, and Geberding were perfectly legal.  If we want government health care agencies to put the peoples' interests ahead of those of the CEOs of big health care corporations, should not, however, the law be changed to at least slow down the revolving door?

Read More

Synthes and its Subsidiary Plead Guilty, Boss Remains Billionaire.

In December, 2009, we updated the story of Swiss-based medical device company Synthes and the marketing by its Norian division of a bone cement.  At that time, US authorities charged the company with use of an unapproved product in about 200 patients, three of whom suffered untimely deaths.  At that point, four US based Synthes executives had pleaded guilty to charges related to this affair. 

Last week, another shoe dropped.  As reported by the Associated Press,

A medical devices company will admit criminality and pay the maximum $23 million fine for illegally testing bone cement on about 200 spinal patients, three of whom died in surgery, U.S. prosecutors said Monday.

Norian Corp. trained surgeons to conduct unapproved clinical tests of its bone cement from 2002 to 2004, subverting U.S. Food and Drug Administration safeguards, prosecutors said. The trials were stopped after the third patient death, they said.

The cement, which is used to fill in bone defects, is approved for use in the arm but not the load-bearing spine, authorities said. The surgeries often involved older patients with compression fractures, they said.

The results are:

Norian will plead guilty to conspiracy to impede FDA functions, a felony, and 110 misdemeanor counts of interstate shipping of misbranded Norian XR. Synthes will plead guilty to the same misdemeanor shipping count.

As part of the agreement, Norian will be sold to an outside buyer, the parent company said.

Imposing divestiture of the offending subsidiary was unusual, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer:

Forcing a divestiture of a business unit in a plea agreement was precedent-setting for the U.S. Attorney General's Office in the Philadelphia area, spokeswoman Patricia Hartman said Monday.

Officials with the Office of the Inspector General in DHHS said the divestiture should send a message to other health-care companies that Synthes' behavior had grave consequences.

'Criminal conduct can result in a company getting rid of part of their business,' Greg Demske, a top official with the Inspector General, said Monday. 'This is an egregious case, and it made us firm in our belief that we should draw a line here,' he said.

If it remained a subsidiary of Synthes, Norian would be excluded from participating in Medicare and other government-funded health care programs, which would be potentially devastating to its business. According to a divestiture agreement released Monday by the U.S. Attorney in Philadelphia, Synthes has to sell Norian by May 24.

The assets of Norian would not be allowed to be transferred to another part of the Synthes 'corporate family' as part of the divestiture, Demske said.

Synthes will update the government monthly on its plans to divest Norian, and if it fails to sell the company by the May deadline, it can be fined $10,000 a day.

So does this case signal a new toughness by US authorities in cases of bad behavior by health care corporations?

According to the Wall Street Journal, Synthes officials were not exactly quaking in their boots because of these penalties, as their spokesperson said Synthes "does not expect this settlement to have any significant financial impact." Synthes would only be liable for fines of "about $24.3 million in total." That pales in comparison to the "company['s] posted total sales of $3.4 billion last year." As for the divestiture of Norian, the WSJ reported, "a spokesman said Monday that the Norian unit is mostly active in product development and isn't actively selling products. That business has fewer than 100 employees,...."

In fact, company leadership did not seem to realize that they did anything wrong, despite the company and four executives pleading guilty to crimes, actions involving the death of three patients,

'Synthes remains committed to operating in accordance with the highest legal and ethical standards, and bringing closure to this matter will permit the company to focus on its mission to improve patient care,' the company said.

Furthermore, while this is one of the few cases in which some company executives actually may have to pay penalties (after pleading guilty to at least misdemeanors), the big fish appeared to get away. As we discussed last year, an unindicted "person no. 7" was alleged to have set up the scheme to "test" the bone cement in a clinical series. Person No. 7 was at that time identified as the company CEO. That CEO, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer last year, was one Mr Hansjorg Wyss, noted to have a fortune estimated at $5.7 billion, making him the richest man in Philadelphia, and the 83rd richest man in the world, according to Forbes magazine.  (See this post.)   The settlement of this case would apparently have no impact on his immense wealth.

So although this case has some unusual wrinkles, and may yet yield some negative consequences for some of the people involved in the direction and implementation of the wrong-doing, it would appear to leave unscathed the person who has personally profited the most from the company, and its actions, including its less savory actions.  There is progress here, but only a little.

Once again, it appears that in the eyes of the law, top corporate leaders are different from you and me.  They appear immune from the penalties that lesser individuals may suffer.  They have impunity to continue to amass wealth even wealth that results from actions that were deemed illegal.   Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

Read More

Wright Medical Settles, ... But Wait, There is Less

Everyone loves a parade, and so the parade of legal settlements by prominent health care organizations continues.  The latest to march into view is Wright Medical Group, as reported by Bloomberg:

Wright Medical Technology Inc. agreed to pay $7.9 million to resolve U.S. criminal and civil investigations into whether it paid kickbacks to induce doctors to use its hip and knee devices.

Prosecutors in Newark, New Jersey, today charged Wright with conspiring to violate a federal anti-kickback statue through consulting contracts with orthopedic surgeons. The U.S. agreed to drop the case in 12 months if a monitor agrees that Wright has reformed the way it hires consultants.

Wright, based in Arlington, Tennessee, also agreed to a $7.9 million civil settlement with the Justice Department and inspector general of the Health and Human Services Department to resolve fraudulent-marketing claims. The company entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement.

Here we go again. A company is accused of giving kickbacks, aka bribes, to individual doctors, in this case orthopedic surgeons, to get them to use the company's products. Such payments clearly violate medical ethics (especially doctors' obligations to put the interests of patients ahead of their personal financial interests), leading to decision making not in the best interests of the patients. However, the penalty to the company itself is minuscule, only a fraction of the company's revenue, according to Google Finance, in 2009, just under $500 million. As we have noted endlessly before, financial penalties to corporations are diffused among all shareholders and employees, and possibly customers and patients.

Do we really expect that this penalty will change anything, or deter future bad behavior by this or any other company?

But our government continues to treat the corporate employees who authorize, direct, or implement bad behavior like this as essentially above the law. In this case, like in many others we have discussed previously, no one who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior will have to pay any sort of penalty or suffer any sort of negative consequences.  Does anyone in their right mind believe that Wright Medical really is

pleased to announce these agreements and look[ing] forward to working with the independent monitor as we continue our commitment to the highest standards of ethical and legal conduct

That was a quote from Wright Medical CEO Gary D Henley. He may be pleased to announce the agreements, since they really amount to such a tiny pinprick of a penalty. After all, Mr Henley will be able to to continue to use Wright Medical's revenues, virtually unaffected by this penalty, to justify his compensation (per the 2009 proxy statement, $2,036,517 in 2009, and his continuing accumulation of wealth, e.g., 436,601 shares of stock, currently valued at $13.86/ share according to Google Financial.)

I leave an assessment of what the company's previous commitment to "the highest standard of ethical and legal conduct" was to our dear readers.

We will not have true health care reform until we end the unholy alliance between big government and big health care organizations, that is, health care corporatism. Then, maybe, we can make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

Read More

Novartis Settles..., But Wait, There's More

Back in January, 2010, we posted about Novartis' settlement of charges that it promoted its anti-seizure drug, Trileptal, (Oxcarbazepine) for off-label uses, agreeing to plead guilty to one charge of violating the US Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.  This week, the full story of the settlement just came out, and yes, but wait, there's more.  Per the New York Times article by Duff Wilson, the story is not only about Trileptal:

The Swiss drug giant Novartis is paying $422.5 million to settle criminal and civil investigations into the marketing of the antiseizure medicine Trileptal and five other drugs, federal officials said on Thursday.

The other drugs were:

Diovan, a hypertension drug that is the company�s top-selling product, at $6 billion last year; Sandostatin, a drug to treat a growth hormone disorder that had worldwide sales of $1.2 billion last year; Exforge, a hypertension drug that sold $671 million; Tekturna, a blood pressure medicine that sold $290 million; and Zelnorm, a medicine for irritable bowel syndrome and constipation that was later withdrawn from the United States market.

And the issue was not solely off-label marketing:

Federal prosecutors accused Novartis of paying illegal kickbacks to health care professionals through speaker programs, advisory boards, entertainment, travel and meals. But aside from pleading guilty to one misdemeanor charge of mislabeling in an agreement that Novartis announced in February, the company denied wrongdoing.

While the allegations were much more broad than those originally announced, the penalties were the usual suspects:

The settlement includes a $170 million criminal fine and $15 million in criminal forfeiture by Novartis Pharmaceuticals, its United States subsidiary.

Also,

Novartis settled the investigation into the other drugs for $237.5 million.

However,

Prosecutors said top management at Novartis had approved illegal marketing from July 2000 to June 2004. No individual, however, was named or charged.

Back in June, we posted about how US law enforcement was supposedly going to start getting tougher with the people who authorized, directed or implemented wrong doing by health care organizations. Back then, federal officials said that executives would be held accountable, and forced to leave their jobs or even be disbarred from working in the industry.

However, here we are, four months later, and even a case that mushroomed from involving allegations of off-label promotion of one drug to off-label promotion of six drugs, allegations of kickbacks to physicians, and allegations that top management knew about what was going on results in no negative consequences to any individuals.

So it still seems that if misdeeds, such as promotion of drugs for off-label uses, and giving kickbacks to doctors disguised as honoraria for talks, consulting fees, and meals and travel payments, are done under the auspices of a large health care organization, no one is ultimately responsible for them.  The organization may have to pay what appears to be a big fine, but one that pales against the profits to be made from the misdeeds.

So, if an ordinary person commits fraud, he or she is likely to have to pay a big fine and go to jail.  If a physician commits fraud, he or she is likely to have to pay a big fine and go to jail, and incidentally to lose his or her medical license.  But if a corporate executive authorizes a fraudulant practice, he or she is likely not to pay any penalty (but may well have already collected a big bonus).

We have repeated endlessly that by limiting penalties to only modest increases in the costs of doing business for organizational malfeasance in health care, we just encourage more bad behavior.  But with each new example like this, I agree more that the fundamental problem has become corporatism, (or Corpocracy, as Robert A G Monks put it).  Government and corporate leaders find that they have more in common with each other than with the little people.  Or as Barry Ritholtz just blogged:

The new dynamic, however, has moved past the old Left Right paradigm. We now live in an era defined by increasing Corporate influence and authority over the individual. These two 'interest groups' � I can barely suppress snorting derisively over that phrase � have been on a headlong collision course for decades, which came to a head with the financial collapse and bailouts. Where there is massive concentrations of wealth and influence, there will be abuse of power. The Individual has been supplanted in the political process nearly entirely by corporate money, legislative influence, campaign contributions, even free speech rights.

This may not be a brilliant insight, but it is surely an overlooked one. It is now an Individual vs. Corporate debate � and the Humans are losing.

Furthermore,

There is some pushback already taking place against the concentration of corporate power: Mainstream corporate media has been increasingly replaced with user created content � YouTube and Blogs are increasingly important to news consumers (especially younger users). Independent voters are an increasingly larger share of the US electorate. And I suspect that much of the pushback against the Elizabeth Warren�s concept of a Financial Consumer Protection Agency plays directly into this Corporate vs. Individual fight.

But the battle lines between the two groups have barely been drawn. I expect this fight will define American politics over the next decade.

Keynes vs Hayek? Friedman vs Krugman? Those are the wrong intellectual debates. Its you vs. Tony Hayward, BP CEO, You vs. Lloyd Blankfein, Goldman Sachs CEO. And you are losing . . .

Read More