Impunity for Health Care Leaders
It is notable on the other hand because it illustrates how the leaders of these organizations have virtual impunity. In very few cases has any person who authorized, directed, or implemented bad behavior faced any negative consequences. The executives of these organizations often have gotten to continue making millions of dollars while the financial costs of settlements are borne by the company as a whole, and hence by all the employees, no matter how poorly paid or uninvolved, and all stockholders, no matter how powerless they were to prevent the bad behavior.
The legal settlements that now seem to be the only effort made by the government to ensure fairness, honesty, and a level playing field in the health care "industry" seem to have no deterrent effect. Some of the most famous health care companies have been subject to successive settlements, each of which failed to deter the next bout of bad behavior. For example, we just posted about NINE separate settlements made by global pharmaceutical giant Pfizer Inc from 2002 to 2011, the largest for $2.3 billion. Yet a succession of Pfizer CEOs made tens of millions a year, and left with golden parachutes (see post here). Johnson and Johnson subsidiaries have settled with corporate guilty pleas to several misdemeanors, while the company CEO made tens of millions a year and served as an adviser to the President. (See summary of offenses here, CEO's compensation here, and his White House role here.)
With the rise of the "Occupy Wall Street" movement and its spin-offs, and the resurgence of the global financial crisis now threatening the Euro-zone in particular, the discussion of how the world's finance system has become fiercely dysfunctional that should have occurred after the crisis began in 2008 is now starting. That discussion has now focused on the relative impunity of the leadership of finance firms, a striking parallel to what has gone on in health care.
The Citigroup Settlement
The case that has created headlines is that of Citigroup, and a new settlement of allegations brought against it by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). A commentary by Jonathan Weil in Bloomberg explained it thus:
Five times since 2003 the Securities and Exchange Commission has accused Citigroup Inc’s main broker-dealer subsidiary of securities fraud. On each occasion the company’s SEC settlements have followed a familiar pattern.
Citigroup neither admitted nor denied the SEC’s claims. And the company consented to the entry of either a court injunction or an SEC order barring it from committing the same types of violations again. Those 'obey-the-law' directives haven’t meant much. The SEC keeps accusing Citigroup of breaking the same laws over and over, without ever attempting to enforce the prior orders. The SEC’s most recent complaint against Citigroup, filed last month, is no different.
As in most of the health care cases, Citigroup has been subject to multiple legal settlements, each of which apparently failed to deter the next bit of bad behavior. Also, while the SEC made the company promise in particular settlements not to misbehave again, the SEC never held the company accountable for these promises.
Other features of the Citigroup settlement paralleled many of those in health care. The company was never made to admit bad behavior. No top executive ever paid any penalty.
However,unlike many health care cases, the Citigroup case produced an uproar, partially because the presiding judge refused to accept the settlement without questions.
A Judge Questions the Settlement
Instead, the judge had caustic questions for both the SEC and Citigroup. For example, as reported by the Washington Post,
A federal judge Wednesday challenged the SEC’s plan to settle a fraud case against Citigroup for $285 million, saying that the deal would recoup only a fraction of investors’ losses and would leave the firm free to proclaim its innocence in private lawsuits over the remaining damages.
The judge used the Citigroup case to mock the SEC’s traditional way of doing business — allowing defendants to settle without admitting or denying wrongdoing.
The unproven allegations, U.S. District Court Judge Jed S. Rakoff said, 'are no better than rumor or gossip.'
'Does not the SEC of all agencies have an interest in establishing what the truth is?' Rakoff asked.
Also, he mocked the SEC practice of requiring promises of good behavior, that go unenforced,
SEC settlements routinely include court orders prohibiting defendants from committing similar violations in the future and exposing them to potentially severe consequences if they do. However, the agency has refrained from enforcing those injunctions against repeat offenders.
Citigroup was subject to two injunctions that predated the current case, SEC chief litigation counsel Matthew T. Martens said.
Rakoff suggested that the injunctions are 'just for show.'
The SEC lawyer said the agency takes past offenses into account when determining an appropriate penalty. Other SEC officials said after the hearing that past injunctions can be enforced only when the SEC catches a defendant in an ongoing violation.
The proposed settlement also calls for Citigroup to take remedial steps to reduce the risk of future violations; Rakoff asked if those were merely 'window dressing.'
This unusual hearing was covered by the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Bloomberg, and other major media outlets.
Finance's Own Parade of Settlements
Meanwhile, the NY Times did some in-depth reporting to show that the Citigroup case was hardly a fluke. There has been a parade of legal settlements of bad behavior by finance firms paralleling the parade we have discussed by health care organizations, although the former occurred without there being a "Finance Renewal" blog to comment on them. As written by Edward Wyatt,
Citigroup is far from the only such repeat offender — in the eyes of the S.E.C. — on Wall Street. Nearly all of the biggest financial companies, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America among them, have settled fraud cases by promising the S.E.C. that they would never again violate an antifraud law, only to do it again in another case a few years later.
A New York Times analysis of enforcement actions during the last 15 years found at least 51 cases in which 19 Wall Street firms had broken antifraud laws they had agreed never to breach.
In particular,
Of the 19 companies that the Times found to be repeat offenders over the last 15 years, 16 declined to comment. They read like a Wall Street who’s who: American International Group, Ameriprise, Bank of America, Bear Stearns, Columbia Management, Deutsche Asset Management, Credit Suisse, Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan Chase, Merrill Lynch, Morgan Stanley, Putnam Investments, Raymond James, RBC Dain Rauscher, UBS and Wells Fargo/Wachovia.
The NY Times article also found some experts willing to criticize the current effeteness of government regulation and law enforcement:
Senator Carl Levin, a Michigan Democrat who is chairman of the Senate permanent subcommittee on investigations and has led several inquiries into Wall Street, said the S.E.C.’s method of settling fraud cases, is 'a symbol of weak enforcement. It doesn’t do much in the way of deterrence, and it doesn’t do much in the way of punishment, I don’t think.'
Barbara Roper, director of investor protection for the Consumer Federation of America, said, 'You can look at the record and see that it clearly suggests this is not deterring repeat offenses. You have to at least raise the question if other alternatives might be more effective.'
Also,
some experts view many settlements as essentially meaningless, particularly since they usually do not require a company to admit to the accusations leveled by the S.E.C. Nearly every settlement allows a company to 'neither admit nor deny' the accusations — even when the company has admitted to the same charges in a related case brought by the Justice Department....
Summary
As we learn more about what has gone wrong with our political economy, the parallels with what has gone wrong with health care become more obvious. Of course, health care must operate within a larger environment, and there has been increasing overlap between the leadership of finance and of health care.
As the economy continues to sag, with rising unemployment and under-employment, increasing foreclosure, homelessness and poverty, and the decreasing likelihood of an even minimally comfortable retirement for many, it appears peoples' minds are increasingly focused on what has gone wrong, and particularly how ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted and corrupt leadership of financial firms has lead to this severe economic dysfunction.
I also hope that as the health care crisis continues to worsen, with rising costs, decreasing access, and degrading quality, peoples' minds will also increasingly focused on what has gone wrong, and particularly, as we have been saying for nearly seven years, how ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted and even corrupt leadership of health care organizations has lead to this severe health care dysfunction.
Maybe someone will now take seriously our calls for... true health care reform that requires competent, ethical leadership that upholds health care's core values within a governance structure of accountability, integrity, transparency, and honesty. Tackling the deep problems in health care will require tackling the deeper problems in the global political economy which helped to generate them.
