Wall Street Journal Defends Hired WellPoint Executives' Lack of Accountability to the Company's Owners

The lack of accountability of the hired managers (or executives or bureaucrats) of health care organizations came into sharper focus thanks to a bizarre, in my humble opinion, Wall Street Journal editorial from last week. 

Background: Shareholder Campaign for Oversight of Hired Executives Use of Corporate Money for Political Purposes

In the background is the campaign by some of the owners, that is, shareholders of giant publicly held for-profit insurance company WellPoint to make its executives' attempts to involve the company in politics more transparent and accountable.  (See our previous post here.)  As noted more recently in Fortune (by way of CNN),

shareholders and major U.S. companies have been meeting behind the scenes to discuss improvements in oversight and disclosure practices. 'Companies need to remember that shareholders have a right to know how their money is being spent,' wrote Eric Sumberg, spokesperson for New York State Comptroller Thomas P. DiNapoli, representing the New York State pension fund, in an email. 'Transparency and full disclosure will help to deter high risk political spending that could hurt shareholder value.'

Aetna and WellPoint are two companies contending with shareholder proposals on political spending disclosure this year.

The Center for Public Accountability (CPA) rates the disclosures at Aetna and WellPoint as having 'room for improvement.' Both WellPoint and Aetna have disclosure practices that 'leave significant room for serious misrepresentation of the company's political spending through trade associations,' according to the Center's Political Accountability and Transparency Reports. According to the Center reports, both companies gave money to AHIP (American Health Insurance Plans). And $86 million in funds from AHIP were allegedly funneled to the Chamber of Commerce to lobby against health care reform, according to reports from Bloomberg and the National Journal.

Note that this money was supposedly used by WellPoint executives to undermine the Obama administration's health care reform proposals while the company was publicly supporting aspects of these proposals.

The Wall Street Journal Says Hired Executives Not Accountable to Shareholders

The Wall Street Journal's editorial page's denunciation of this campaign by corporate owners to assert their rights, and the accountability of hired managers opened thus,

The campaign to intimidate companies from exercising their free-speech rights is in high gear as shareholder proxy season arrives, and the most prominent early target is health-insurer WellPoint. The arc of this attack will be one of the election year's political leitmotifs, and it should be on the radar of every corporate boardroom.

In the favored new tactic of the left, unions and activists are using politicized shareholder resolutions to send a message to corporations: Drop support for free-market and conservative causes, or you'll take a political beating.

The Journal conveniently ignored that the campaign is not from outside the corporation, but from its very owners, and that the people they are supposedly trying to intimidate are actually supposed to be responsible to them.  In addition, it begged the question of how political spending by hired corporate bureaucrats unaccountable to the people who own the company could possible have anything to do with free markets.

If some owners do not think that executives should be spending company money on political causes (especially presumably causes that the executives favor, or that reflect the executives' self-interest), they have a perfect right to think so, and to act on their thoughts.


Then the  Journal went on to assail the shareholders' challenge to some members of the WellPoint board of directors.  After first defining Change to Win as a "union front group," -

Change to Win is now targeting WellPoint's annual meeting on May 16 when it will demand that shareholders vote against board members Julie Hill and Susan Bayh (wife of former Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh) because the company has refused to disclose or stop all of its political spending. Among the company's crimes? Corporate funding of, you guessed it, ALEC.

Now let us back up a minute. This is about a campaign by stockholders, that is, people who are owners, albeit fractional owners of WellPoint. It is some shareholders who want to vote against the particular board members.  WellPoint directors are supposed to have a fiduciary duty to represent the stockholders', that is, the owners' financial interests. If stockholders think members of the board of directors are not representing the stockholders' interests, the stockholders have a perfect right to vote against them. 

However, the Journal fulminated,

The union attack on WellPoint is notable for targeting two board members by name and the effort to make extra hay out of Susan Bayh's political profile. (Added frisson: Evan Bayh has worked as a consultant to the Chamber.) The ad hominem attack is right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook and is intended as a warning to other corporate directors that their personal reputation will be damaged if they don't force companies to stop donating to industry groups.

Note further that all stockholders are owners, whether they are also union members, or have green hair. Note further that the owners again have a perfect right to criticize or vote against board members who they believe are not properly exercising their fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders, that doing so has nothing to do with the ad hominem fallacy, and that this right is not nullified for stockholders with particular political opinions, or stockholders whom the Wall Street Journal does not like.

Summary

So we see the Wall Street Journal, supposed defender of capitalism, attacking a fundamental part of capitalism, the right of ownership, corporate ownership in this case. Instead, presumably, the Journal editorialists thinks that hired corporate executives ought to be completely unaccountable to the stockholders, and able to do whatever they want, including to do what is in their self-interest but not the owners' interests.

So this is how far the coup d'etat by hired executives/ managers/ bureaucrats has progressed. Supposed defenders of capitalism are now defending the rule of hired corporate insiders, completely disregarding the rights of owners. All we are lacking is a catchy name for rule by the hired managers/ bureaucrats/ executives. I am open to suggestions.

We have long criticized leaders of health care organizations who are ill-informed, unaware or hostile to health care professionals' core values, self-interested, or even corrupt.  We have discussed how bad leadership has advanced as leaders have become less accountable.  It appears that the lack of accountability of health care leaders, and their tendencies to put their own interests first, is part of a larger problem.  This is the take-over by most of society's important organizations by the managers, bureaucrats, and executives who were hired to run them.  For profit corporate hired leaders have become unaccountable to the corporations' owners.  Non-profit organizations' hired leaders have become unaccountable for the mission, or for their organizations' stakeholders. 

If we want health care, and democratic society to survive, we need to counter the managers' coup d'etat and make leaders accountable once again. 

Some of WellPoint's Owners (Stockholders) Allege Their Hired Executives Hid Political Contributions

We have frequently had reason to question the actions of WellPoint, the second largest for-profit health insurance company/ managed care organization in the US. 

Hidden Political Contributions

The Washington Post reported yet another one,

Health insurance giant WellPoint is the latest target of an increasingly aggressive campaign to force disclosure of corporate political and lobbying expenditures, including payments to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which has become more active in elections over the past decade.

The WellPoint campaign, set to be formally announced Thursday by a coalition of activist investor groups, demands the resignation of two WellPoint board members, including Susan Bayh, the wife of former senator Evan Bayh (D-Ind.), for allegedly failing to oversee 'high risk political spending.'

The shareholder coalition cited WellPoint’s reluctance to answer questions about a transfer of $86 million from the health insurers trade association to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce in 2010, when the Chamber was actively opposing President Obama’s health-care overhaul. WellPoint is a member of the association, America’s Health Insurance Plans.

'This is the most egregious clandestine campaign funding we have ever seen,' said Michael Pryce-Jones of the CtW Investment Group, a labor-affiliated organization that is part of the shareholders’ coalition, referring to the payments from the trade association to the Chamber of Commerce.

However,

At WellPoint, officials dismissed the notion that the company has been secretive about its political giving. On the contrary, spokeswoman Kristin Binns said, the firm discloses a great deal on its Web site.

'WellPoint complies with all disclosure requirements under federal, state and local laws,' she said, noting that the company publishes a 'very extensive' annual report on its political contributions.

But,

That report does not include details of the sort of special payment that the shareholders coalition said WellPoint made to the health insurers association.

So, to summarize, WellPoint management is accused of spending tens of millions on political lobbying while hiding the spending from the public and from the company's nominal owners, that is, its stock-holders, by laundering it through a third party.

WellPoint's Sorry Ethical Record

This is just the latest questionable behavior by WellPoint we have discussed. Previously, we have noted incidents in which the company  ...
 

• settled a RICO (racketeer influenced corrupt organization) law-suit in California over its alleged systematic attempts to withhold payments from physicians (see 2005 post here).
• subsidiary New York Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield misplaced a computer disc containing confidential information on 75,000 policy-holders (see 2007 story here).
• California Anthem Blue Cross subsidiary cancelled individual insurance policies after their owners made large claims (a practices sometimes called rescission).  The company was ordered to pay a million dollar fine in early 2007 for this (see post here).  A state agency charged that some of these cancellations by another WellPoint subsidiary were improper (see post here).  WellPoint was alleged to have pushed physicians to look for patients' medical problems that would allow rescission (see post here).  It turned out that California never collected the 2007 fine noted above, allegedly because the state agency feared that WellPoint had become too powerful to take on (see post here). But in 2008, WellPoint agreed to pay more fines for its rescission practices (see post here).  In 2009, WellPoint executives were defiant about their continued intention to make rescission in hearings before the US congress (see post here).
• California Blue Cross subsidiary allegedly attempted to get physicians to sign contracts whose confidentiality provisions would have prevented them from consulting lawyers about the contracts (see 2007 post here).
• formerly acclaimed CFO was fired for unclear reasons, and then allegations from numerous women of what now might be called Tiger Woods-like activities surfaced (see post here).
• announced that its investment portfolio was hardly immune from the losses prevalent in late 2008 (see post here).
• was sanctioned by the US government in early 2009 for erroneously denying coverage to senior patients who subscribed to its Medicare drug plans (see 2009 post here).
• settled charges that it had used a questionable data-base (builty by Ingenix, a subsidiary of ostensible WellPoint competitor UnitedHealth) to determine fees paid to physicians for out-of-network care (see 2009 post here). 
• violated state law more than 700 times over a three-year period by failing to pay medical claims on time and misrepresenting policy provisions to customers, according to the California health insurance commissioner (see 2010 post here).
• exposed confidential data from about 470,000 patients (see 2010 post here) and settled the resulting lawsuit in 2011 (see post here).
• fired a top executive who publicly apologized for the company's excessively high charges (see 2010 post here).
• California Anthem subsidiary was fined for systematically failing to make fair and timely payments to doctors and hospitals (see 2010 post here).

Yet despite this amazing recent record, WellPoint's top executives continue to prosper.  Earlier this month the Indianapolis Star reported that WellPoint Chair and CEO Angela,

Braly, 50, received 2011 compensation valued at $13.2 million, according to an Associated Press analysis of the Indianapolis company's annual proxy statement. That represents a 2 percent drop compared with 2010.

Braly, who has served as CEO for nearly five years, received a $1.1 million salary in 2011, a total that has stayed flat since 2008. Her compensation also included a performance-related bonus of nearly $1.9 million, stock and option awards totaling about $10 million and $216,279 in other compensation.

While her compensation dropped 2%,

WellPoint's earnings fell in the final three quarters of last year compared with 2010, capped by a 39 percent drop in the fourth quarter. In total, the insurer's earnings sank 8 percent compared with 2010.

The compensation above did not take into account that

Braly also made about $6.9 million last year mostly from previously awarded restricted stock units that had vested.

Summary

WellPoint CEO Angela Braly, like many of her fellow top hired managers of health care organizations, has become more wealthy every year despite her company's record of questionable conduct, and out of proportion to her company's financial results.

Based on illusory promises of greater efficiency that would benefit everyone, we have handed health care over to large, increasingly for-profit organizations, and we have handed control over these organizations to hired managers. We have made these managers accountable to no one, so they seem to run their organizations to benefit themselves first. Is it any surprise that organizations run to benefit top insiders do not much benefit patients' or the public's health?

Maybe the campaign by some of WellPoint's nominal owners to at least make what the company pays to influence politics transparent is a tiny first step to making the leadership of health care organizations accountable both to the organizations' owners (when they exist) and to patients and the public at large. Until they become so accountable, do not expect any improvements in health care cost, quality or access.

US Presidential Candidates' Financial Relationships with Health Care Organizations

As the leadership of the large field of Republican candidates for the US Presidency shifts, different candidates come in for increased media scrutiny.  Recently, reporting about former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum focused on his financial relationships with a health care organization. Senator Santorum, however, is only the candidate with ties to health care organizations to come into the spotlight most recently.  We will review the report on Santorum, and then summarize the publicly known relationships of the other candidates.

Republican Former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum and Universal Health Services

The relationship was first revealed by Bloomberg,

Santorum’s greatest financial gain came from $395,414 in director fees and stock options he listed in a recent financial disclosure.

The fees and options came from King of Prussia-based Universal Health Services Inc., a publicly traded health-care management company....

Senator Santorum started on his board service in 2006. He resigned in June, 2011, when he started his campaign for the presidency.

Note that while Santorum served on the board, the company was accused of ethical missteps:

The Justice Department accused the company in a 2010 lawsuit of submitting fraudulent reimbursement claims under the Medicaid health-care program for the poor. The government said the company falsely claimed to have provided inpatient psychiatric services to children at a detention facility in Marion, Virginia. Pantaleoni said the case has been settled.

The company has also risked losing certification to receive Medicare reimbursement for medical centers that it owns.

According to a release on the UHS website, the Rancho Springs Medical Center and Inland Valley Regional Medical Center in Riverside County regained their certification in November after the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services threatened to terminate their provider agreement in June 2010. The state of California had also threatened to revoke the group’s hospital license.

It wasn’t the first time UHS risked losing certification for one of its facilities. In late September 2008, CMS terminated participation in Medicare for the Two Rivers Psychiatric Hospital in Kansas City. It’s a decision that led to a court appeal and settlement requiring Two Rivers to retain an outside monitor for six months.

Thus, Senator Santorum was on the board of a for-profit hospital corporation until just before he became a presidential candidate. While he was on the board, the company allegedly committed unethical actions.

Republican Former Georgia Congressman Newton Leroy "Newt" Gingrich and the Center for Health Transformation and its Numerous Corporate Sponsors

A few weeks ago, we posted about Congressman Gingrich's operation of a health care consulting firm, the Center for Health Transformation. It had relationships with a long list of major health care organizations, including Allscripts, the American Hospital Association, AstraZeneca, Blue Cross Blue Shield, GE Healthcare, Gundersen Lutheran Health System, Johnson and Johnson, Pfizer, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers' of America, Siemens, and WellPoint. At a minimum, the Center helped some of these organizations try to influence health care policy to favor their vested interests in the guise of promoting health policy solutions.

The juxtaposition of the stories about Senator Santorum's and Congressman Gingrich's financial ties to health care organizations suggested we review whether other current candidates also had such ties. Some quick searching revealed that some others did. We will review the other current major candidates below, starting with the other Republicans, in alphabetical order.

Republican Former Utah Governor Jonathan Huntsman Jr

I could not find any publicly reported relevant relationships.

Republican Texas Congressman Dr Ronald E Paul

Dr Paul is a physician, an obstetrics-gynecology specialist. According to Wikipedia, he apparently practiced until his current stint in the Congress began in 1996. I could not find any publicly reported relevant relationships.

Republican Texas Governor James Richard "Rick" Perry and Merck

In September, 2011, Governor Perry's prominence in the campaign caused a reconsideration of his relationship to Merck. As MSNBC reported,

On the campaign trail, Perry had recently apologized for the executive order-which would have made Texas the first state in the country to mandate that all teenage girls, starting with 12-year-old sixth graders, be vaccinated with Gardasil.

Gardisil is made by Merck. Then candidate Representative Michele Bachmann noted that Governor Perry had received campaign contributions from Merck. As the Los Angeles Times reported,

In fact, Merck PAC — the company’s Washington, D.C.-based political action committee — has given Perry $28,500 since 2001, according to Texas Ethics Commission filings.

The bulk of that money came before 2007, when the governor signed an executive order mandating all sixth-grade girls in the state to receive the Gardasil vaccine against HPV.

However, Governor Perry had another tie to Merck, as noted by MSNBC,

Perry's order came after the drug company that manufactured the vaccine hired Mike Toomey, his former chief of staff, as one of the firm's top lobbyists in Austin.

Toomey, who is now running the main 'super pac' backing Perry's candidacy, was retained by pharmaceutical giant Merck & Co., maker of the Gardasil vaccine, which is designed to prevent the human papillomavirus, or HPV, an infection linked to cervical cancer in women.

His hiring was part of an aggressive lobbying push in Texas by the drug company, which also donated $16,000 to Perry's gubernatorial campaigns in the two and a half years prior to the executive order. Merck paid Toomey between $260,000 and $535,000 in lobbying fees between 2005 and 2010, according to state lobbying records.

Although Perry's GOP foes never brought up the connection during the debate, Democratic political operatives and a public watchdog group said Thursday his association with Merck is likely to be emerge as a prime example of Perry's 'crony capitalism,' should he win the GOP nomination.

Although there were no reports that Governor Perry personally financially benefited from a relationship with Merck, the company paid substantial amounts to his campaign and to an organization he ran, and to his former chief of staff. There seems to be at least a reason to think that these relationships had something to do with a decision he made that lead to increased sales of a Merck product, and which he now regrets.

Republican Former Massachusetts Governor Willard Mitt Romney and Bain Capital and Numerous Health Care Corporations

Today's Wall Street Journal summarized the investments made by Bain Capital, a venture capital and private equity firm lead by Governor Romney,

The Wall Street Journal, aiming for a comprehensive assessment, examined 77 businesses Bain invested in while Mr. Romney led the firm from its 1984 start until early 1999, to see how they fared during Bain's involvement and shortly afterward.

Among the findings: 22% either filed for bankruptcy reorganization or closed their doors by the end of the eighth year after Bain first invested, sometimes with substantial job losses. An additional 8% ran into so much trouble that all of the money Bain invested was lost.

Of the 10 firms that produced the biggest returns for Bain, four were involved in health care, PhysioControl, Waters, Dade, and Wesley Jessen VisionCare. Dade, a medical diagnostics company, went bankrupt in 2002.

Furthermore, in 2007, the Boston Globe (via the Deseret News) reported on Governor Romney's private equity career, including his involvement with a company that had its ethical challenge,

Bain Capital's 1989 purchase of Damon Corp., a Needham medical testing firm that later pleaded guilty to defrauding the federal government of $25 million and paid a record $119 million fine.

Romney sat on Damon's board. During Romney's tenure, Damon executives submitted bills to the government for millions of unnecessary blood tests. Romney and other board members were never implicated.

More than a decade later, when Romney was in pursuit of the Massachusetts governorship, his Democratic opponent Shannon O'Brien accused him of lax oversight at Damon and failing to report the fraud.

Romney replied that he had helped uncover the illegal activity at Damon, asking the board's lawyers to investigate. As a result, he said, the board took 'corrective action' before selling the company in 1993 to Corning Inc.

But court records suggest that the Damon executives' scheme continued throughout Bain's ownership, and prosecutors credited Corning, not Romney, with cleaning up the situation. Bain, meanwhile, tripled its investment.

Romney personally reaped $473,000.

Thus, Governor Romney was on the board of a device company, albeit many years prior to when he became a presidential candidate. While he was on the board, the company allegedly committed unethical actions.

Democratic President Barack Obama, Michelle Obama, and the University of Chicago Medical Center

The issue of then Democratic Senator Barack Obama's wife's role at the Medical Center was first discussed in 2008, with some follow up in 2009. As the Washington Post reported in 2008,

Shortly after Barack Obama joined the U.S. Senate in 2005, the medical center promoted Michelle Obama to vice president of community and external relations, and more than doubled her salary. She is now on leave from the $317,000-a-year post, in which she sought to bridge the gap between the wealthy institution and its poorer neighbors. The hospital declined to discuss the budget for her program or her input into budgetary decisions.

She was particularly involved in one program that became controversial,

A few years ago, executives at the prestigious University of Chicago Medical Center were concerned that an increasing number of patients were arriving at their emergency room with what the executives considered to be non-urgent complaints. The visits were costly to the hospital, and many of the patients, coming from the surrounding South Side neighborhood, were poor and uninsured.

Michelle Obama, an executive at the medical center, launched an innovative program to steer the patients to existing neighborhood clinics to deal with their health needs.

That effort, in time, inspired a broader program the hospital now calls its Urban Health Initiative.

The Post noted,

The medical center markets its initiative as an effort to improve patient health for the poor and at the same time free its resources for emergencies and complicated procedures. The Urban Health Initiative also could save the hospital substantial amounts of money, by removing the nonpaying poor patients from its emergency room.

However, after Senator Obama became President, his wife became the First Lady and quit her job at the medical center, the program became even more controversial. In March, 2009, the Chicago Weekly reported on the extensions of the Urban Health Initiative

or UHI, which has garnered a lot of criticism recently, such as accusations that it comes 'dangerously close' to the illegal practice of 'patient dumping.' Additionally, the emergency room structure that it will leave in its wake will likely result in a decline in the quality of care provided to Medicaid, Medicare, and uninsured patients.

Ultimately, the Wall Street Journal reported that:

More than 190 doctors at the University of Chicago Medical Center signed a letter to trustees protesting plans to reduce the number of beds available to emergency patients as 'unnecessarily risky' and a threat to patient safety.

At that time, this admission appeared,

Dr. Madara, the hospital's chief executive, said in an interview last week that the hospital is seeking to admit more patients to its 'programs of distinction' such as oncology and advanced surgery, and treat fewer in the ER, and that these moves will mean more privately insured patients at the hospital.

Note that "programs of distinction" may also mean programs that provide the most revenue. Ultimately, the Chicago Tribune reported that the plan was halted by the university president, and a few months later, Dr Madara, the CEO resigned (again per the Tribune).

Thus, while he was a Senator, current President Obama's wife earned a substantial salary from a non-profit academic medical center and hospital system. A program she ran was then and later alleged to have compromised patient safety and perhaps acted unethically.

Summary

We have frequently discussed how large health care organizations seek to influence discussions of health policy to further their vested interests. At times, they have organized stealth health policy advocacy initiatives to comprehensively push their aims. For example, we discussed how commercial health insurance companies have tried, often succesfully, to influence health policy as recounted by former CIGNA public relations leader Wendell Potter in his book Deadly Spin.

It appears that the more one looks, the more one finds evidence of the web of influence of large health care organizations. Pulling together a variety of journalistic efforts over more than three years, it now appears that the majority of the current credible contenders for the presidency of the US have or had financial relationships with health care organizations.

Often these relationships appear significant enough to be called conflicts of interest were the people who had them communicating about health policy in a venue that requires conflict of interest disclosure, like a major medical journal. One candidate until very recently was on the board of directors of a for-profit hospital corporation, and hence had a fiduciary duty to that company and its stock-holders. One candidate until very recently ran a health care consulting company whose clients included major drug, device, and insurance companies. One candidate previously was on the board of a medical device company. One candidate's spouse previously was a top executive of a academic medical center and hospital system.

While the current candidates may now now be writing articles for medical or health care policy journals, by virtue of their candidacies they now receive enormous attention. Anything they say about health care policy is likely to be influential. Yet there is reason to be concerned that many of their views on health policy were influenced by their financial relationships. In particular, would a candidate who at one time got a major part of his or his family's livelihood from a big health care organization be likely to strongly challenge the status quo that allowed that organization to prosper?

In my humble opinion, there needs to be complete reconsideration of how health care policy is made. In particular, we must define how much of the discussion is driven by vested economic interests, and make sure such interests and their relationship to those in the discussion becomes clear. It is just as important for health policy analysts, pundits, and decision-makers to disclose in detail their conflicts of interest as it is for clinical researchers and educators. Maybe the Institute of Medicine would be willing to take up this issue as they took up conflicts of interest affecting research and education.

They Think We are "Imbeciles," and They Run Health Care Organizations

Arrogance seems to fuel many of the problems with health care leadership that we discuss, particularly hostility to the mission, often driven by self-interest; a sense of entitlement to lavish compensation out of proportion to any measure of performance; and a lack of accountability shading into impunity.  Some recent stories hint at some of the origins of such arrogance. 

The Occupy Wall Street movement drew attention to the plight of the poor and middle class, who had lost income, retirement benefits, jobs, houses, and access to health care while the richest, especially corporate executives, got richer.  The less fortunate's anger was not directed indiscriminately at the successful or the rich, but those who got wealthy by gaming the system, or flaunting the rules that lesser mortals had to obey.  Perhaps not surprisingly, some of those most vulnerable to such criticism have responded with contempt. 

Anonymous or Indirect Defenses of the One Percent

The initial defense of the plutocrats came from some of their political supporters, who denounced their "demonization" (see this opinion piece by Barbara Ehrenreich in September, 2011) or decried the rise of "mob rule" (see this by Paul Krugman in October).  Then several articles documented the anonymous complaints of finance insiders about:

a bunch of whiny people who are lazy and incompetent and have nothing to do with their time

from a Reuters article in October.

a ragtag group looking for sex, drugs and rock 'n' roll

from a NY Times article in October.

The Plutocrats Strike Back

However, increasingly those in the one percent are willing to be open. In late December a Bloomberg article documented the sentiments of a number of finance and other corporate leaders.

- Jamie Dimon, CEO of JP Morgan Chase, complained:

Acting like everyone who's been successful is bad and because you're rich you're bad, I don't understand it.

- Bernard Marcus, founder of Home Depot:

Who gives a crap about some imbecile? Are you kidding me?

- John A Allison IV, Chairman of BB&T:

'Instead of an attack on the 1 percent, let’s call it an attack on the very productive,' Allison said. 'This attack is destructive.'

- Stephen Schwarzman, CEO of the Blackstone Group:

'You have to have skin in the game,' said Schwarzman, 64. 'I’m not saying how much people should do. But we should all be part of the system.'

- John Paulson, President of hedge fund Paulson & Co:

has also said the rich benefit society.

'The top 1 percent of New Yorkers pay over 40 percent of all income taxes,...'

- Tom Galisano, founder of Paychex Inc:

If I hear a politician use the term ‘paying your fair share’ one more time, I’m going to vomit

- Ken Langone, founder of Home Depot:

I am a fat cat, I’m not ashamed

Considering how Paul Krugman explained the generation of the global financial collapse by

people who got rich by peddling complex financial schemes that, far from delivering clear benefits to the American people, helped push us into a crisis whose aftereffects continue to blight the lives of tens of millions of their fellow citizens.

Yet they have paid no price. Their institutions were bailed out by taxpayers, with few strings attached. They continue to benefit from explicit and implicit federal guarantees — basically, they’re still in a game of heads they win, tails taxpayers lose. And they benefit from tax loopholes that in many cases have people with multimillion-dollar incomes paying lower rates than middle-class families.

Thus the responses by the very rich above only represent some or more arrogance.

The Plutocrats as Health Care Leaders

One wonders how much this arrogance carried over into health care. We have noted previously how the leadership of finance has increasingly overlapped the leadership of health care, and how top executives increasingly seem to identify more with each other than with their employees, customers, or other stakeholders. Therefore, it should be no surprise that all but one of the group above also had or have leadership roles in health care organizations.

- Jamie Dimon is on the board of trustees of the New York University Langone Medical Center. 

- Bernard Marcus formerly served as the chair of the board of the CDC Foundation.

- John A Allison IV is a member of the board of visitors of Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center, per his BB&T Corp official biography.

- Stephen Schwarzman's Blackstone Group includes the Blackstone Healthcare Group, which invests in various health care corporations (as of 2010, Nycomed, Gerresheimer, Stiefel Laboratories, and Catalant per this press release), and all of whose members serve on one or more boards of directors of health care corporations (per the press  release, Arthur Higgins serves on the boards of Zimmer, Eco Labs, and Resverlogix Corp; Lodewijk J R de Vink serves on the board of Roche; Doug Rogers serves on the boards of Codevax, Charles River Laboratories, and Computerized Medical Systems.)

- John Paulson is on the board of trustees of New York University,

- Kenneth G Langone, is vice chair again of the board of trustees of New York University, and chair of the board of trustees of the NYU Langone Medical Center.

I submit that linking their sentiments above to their leadership roles in health care should be highly disconcerting.  Do we want people running medical centers who are proud to be "fat cats?"  Do we want people running medical centers who do not understand why people who have lost income, retirement funds, jobs or their homes might be upset?  Do we want people running health care corporations who do not think the poor and middle-class have any skin in the economic game?   Do we want people running health care foundations who think that those who complain about the current economic situation are "imbeciles?"

Summary

The problems of health care increasingly seem to be a part of the larger problems with the global political economy.  The problems we have been discussing that affect health care leadership seem to have come out of the culture of what now many are calling the larger plutocracy. 

So it now seems that true health care reform will require a larger reform of the political economy.  However, we still need leaders who understand the health care context, uphold health care professionals' values, and put patients first.  We do not need leaders who are ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or corrupt.  We need governance that is accountable, honest, transparent, ethical, and again puts patients first. 

John Wiley and Sons Director Apologizes for Pepper Spray - An Example of the Proximity of the One Percent to the Leaders of Academic Medicine

The title of this post has not been hacked.  All will be revealed soon.

Review: the University of California - Davis Pepper Spray Incident

We just discussed the now infamous pepper spraying of peaceful student protesters at the University of California.  We noted our previous concerns about the leadership of the university Chancellor who presided over this incident because she had previously seemed disconnected from the prime mission of the university (but instead pushed its role as a developer and marketer of biotechnology) (see this post), and defended the nearly one million dollar compensation for the medical center CEO at a time when the university's finances became increasingly fragile (see this post).

Since then, the Chancellor, Linda P B Katehi, vaguely apologized for the incident at a student rally where many speakers called for her resignation (see, for example, this story in the San Francisco Chronicle).

A University Chancellor in Proximity to the One Percent as Director of John Wiley and Sons

There is a certain irony to all this.  While the overriding theme of the "occupy" movement has been to advocate for the "99 percent" of Americans who feel increasingly powerless, the original protest at UC-Davis was not so much against the plutocratic one percent, as against "tuition increases and state cuts in higher education," (per the Chronicle)   Yet the person who is now at the focus of the Occupy UC-Davis group's wrath is closer to the one percent than most protesters realized.

A quick search on Google revealed that Chancellor Katehi started a new part time job in 2011.  She is now a member of the board of directors of John Wiley and Sons, Inc, a $2.8 billion market market capitalization "global  publisher of print and electronic products."  Note that this position on not listed on her official bio on the UC - Davis web-site as of 23 November, 2011, nor on her official curriculum vita (from 2010) available on that web-site. 

As a board member, she can expect over $100,000 yearly as compensation, based on fees paid in 2010 reported in the 2011 company proxy statement.  Since last year, the board approved compensation for the five highest paid executives ranging from over $1.8 million to over $5.3 million.  So a position on the board certainly put Ms Katehi in the proximity of the one percent.

Furthermore, as we have noted previously, compliant, if not crony board members have been blamed for the huge increase in the compensation of top corporate executives who now make up the majority of the "one percent."  Since most board members seem to be current or retired high-ranking executives, their enthusiasm for raising their fellow hired executives' compensation should not be surprising.  Note that Ms Katehi is effectively the "CEO" of UC- Davis.

A Conflict of Interest

In some cases, board members' disinclination to challenge the executives they are supposed to be supervising may arise from conflicts of interest.  Note regarding the current example that John Wiley and Sons is a leading publisher of text books and professional journals in medicine, the life sciences, and many other subjects relevant to the curriculum of many of the schools and departments at UC-Davis, and particularly to the medical school and academic medical center.  More importantly, as we noted here, John Wiley and Sons' Wiley-Blackwell subsidiary includes a medical education and communications unit. 

On its website, this entity promises:

Our Global Corporate Sales Team of more than 100 people is dedicated to serving the publishing and communication needs of your industry. Through our extensive range of clinical and professional publications, we can develop a customized communications plan to support your promotional strategy, maximizing the impact of your brand.

Whether you are looking for global or localized campaigns, for strategic or tactical support, our publishing teams are knowledgeable at all levels and are easy to reach in your time zone by phone, email or in person.

We provide an expert service, competitive pricing, dedicated project management and the flexibility to provide peer-reviewed support for your brand from pre-launch to maturity, achieving strong credibility.

Among the services provided are "continuing professional development," including "conferences and training schemes," and establishing "advisory boards to provide direction on issues surrounding new products or developing brands. We draw on our close relationships with industry leaders...." Thus, like other medical education and communication companies (MECCs), this subsidiary can use a variety of tactics to infiltrate marketing messages into what appears to be medical education. 

By accepting a position on the board of directors of an academic and medical publisher that also runs a MECC, Ms Katehi has taken on fiduciary responsibility for the company, and thus seems to have a potentially intense conflict of interest, particularly affecting her leadership of a medical school and academic medical center (see our first discussion of what then appeared to be a "new species" of conflict of interest due to academic medical leaders' membership on a board of a health care corporation here.) 

Summary

I can only speculate that proximity to the one per cent, and the conflict of interest induced by fiduciary responsibility for the stewardship of an academic and medical publisher and a medical education and communication company might have left Ms Katehi feeling distant from protesters who claimed "we are the 99 per cent," and hence more inclined to support clearing them from the campus by whatever means.

In any case, it turns out that Occupy UC -Davis took on a more appropriate opponent than they realized. 

This case illustrates how the complex web of relationships among the top leaders of society, including leaders of health acre organizations, is more sticky and pervasive than was heretofore apparent. 

In any case, it underlines our repeated call....  To reform health care, we must reverse the managers' coup d'etat, and restore leadership of health care organizations that puts the mission, and the health of patients and the population first, and is accountable to corporate owners (when applicable) and to patients and the public.  But that will mean now going up against those who have made themselves the richest and most powerful people in the country and the world, who will not lightly give up their oligarchy.

What the Pfizer (IV)? - One Board to Rule Them All

The recent in-depth investigation by Fortune reporters of 10 years of dysfunctional leadership at Pfizer, the "world's largest research-based pharmaceutical company," raises many issues about leadership and governance in health care (see our post here).  We then discussed lack of transparency in Pfizer's communication about management performance here, and how bad management was rewarded with outsize compensation here.  To continue what has become a lengthy series, let us now discuss the board of directors who were responsible for "stewardship" or governance of what turned out to be a very troubled company.

Let us focus on the membership of the boards that appointed the two CEOs Fortune described as failed.

Henry A "Hank" McKinnell - 2001

In 2001, the board appointed Henry A "Hank" McKinnell CEO.    Mr McKinell was forced to retire in 2006. The Fortune article described Mr McKinnell as a "desperate CEO" by 2002 because he could find no way to replenish the company's fading drug pipeline; who then became an absent CEO who "left a power vacuum" and then triggered internal political warfare by setting up a "bitter contest" over succession planning.

In 2001, the board is as listed below.  (I include their current positions, any former positions as chairman, CEO, president or the equivalence, and current leadership positions in health care or finance.)  -

- Michael S Brown -

Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences, Texas Southwestern Medical Center...  Director of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals

- M Anthony Burns -

Chair of the Board, former CEO of Ryder System Inc ...  Director of JP Morgan Chase and Co...  Trustee of the University of Miami

- Robert N Burt -

Chairman of the Board and CEO of FMC Corporation...  Director of the Rehabilitation Institute of Chicago and Evanston Hospital Corp

- W Don Cornwell -

Chairman of the Board and CEO of Granite Broadcasting Corporation...  Director of CVS Corporation

- William H Gray III -

President and CEO of the College Fund/UNCF...   Director of JP Morgan and Co...  Trustee of the University of Miami

- Constance J Horner -

Guest Scholar at the Brooking Institution...  Director of the Prudential Insurance Company of America

- William R Howell -

Chairman Emeritus and former CEO of JC Penney Company Inc... 

- Stanley O Ikenberry -

President of the American Council on Education...  Former President of the University of Illinois...  President of the Board of Overseers of Teachers' Insurance and Annuity Association - College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF)

- Harry P Kamen -

Former Chairman of the Board and CEO of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company...  Director of Banco Santander Central Hispano SA, BDirect Capital ...  Metropolitan Life Insurance Company

- George A Lorch -

Chairman Emeritus and Former CEO of Armstrong Holdings Inc...

- Alex J Mandl - 

Chairman of the Board and CEO of Teligent

- Henry A McKinnell -

CEO of Pfizer...  Director of Moody's Corporation

- Dana G Mead -

Retired Chairman and CEO of Tenneco Inc...  Director of Zurich Financial Services

- John F Niblack -

President of Pfizer Global Research and Development

- Franklin D Raines -

Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae... 

- Ruth Simmons -

President of Brown University... Director of Goldman Sachs Group Inc, Metropolitan Life Insurance

- Michael I Sovern -

Chairman of the Board of Sotheby's Holdings Inc...  President Emeritus of Columbia University 

- Jean-Paul Valles -

Chairman and Former CEO of Minerals Technology Inc

- William C Steer Jr -

Former CEO of Pfizer...  Director of Metropolitan Life Insurance Company...  Director of New York University Medical Center....  Member of the Board of Overseers of Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center

The box score is...  Of 19 directors, 17 were current or former chairpeople or CEO/ Presidents of large organizations. 

Eight  had leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities, or other influential non-profit health care organizations.  1 had a leadership position at a potentially competing pharmaceutical company.  1 had a leadership position at a pharmacy corporation.

Furthermore, 10 had leadership positions in financial services corporations, including some that were implicated in the global financial collapse, and/or required massive federal bail-outs to avoid collapse.

Jeffrey Kindler 2006


In 2006, the board appointed Jeffrey Kindler CEO.  Mr Kindler was forced to resign in 2010. The Fortune article also described Mr Kindler as "suddenly desperate" after two failures of drugs in development; someone who "just couldn't make up his mind," about acquisitions and spin-offs; "anguished" about research, leading to a "messy" overhaul; and putting "destructive" trust in a subordinate with previously described problems with "character, integrity and divisiveness" leading to loss of the loyalty of the executive team.

The board in 2006 appears below, with information formatted as above.  Note that all were members in 2001, although some members from 2001 were no longer there. 

- Michael S Brown -

Distinguished Chair in Biomedical Sciences at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas...  Director of Regeneron Pharmaceuticals.

- M Anthony Burns -

Chairman and CEO Emeritus of Ryder System Inc....  Life trustee of the University of Miami

- Robert N Burt -

Retired Chairman and CEO of FMC Corporation...

- W Don Cornwell -

Chairman of the Board and CEO of Granite Broadcasting Corporation....  Director of CVS Corporation.

- William H Gray III -

Chairman of the Amani Group...  Director of JP Morgan Chase and Co, Prudential Financial Inc

- Constance J Horner -

Former Guest Scholar at the Brookings Institute...  Director of Prudential Financial Inc

- William R Howell -

Chairman and CEO Emeritus of JC Penney Company Inc...  Director of Deutsche Bank Trust Corporation and Deutsch Bank Trust Company Americas.

- Stanley O Ikenberry -

President Emeritus University of Illinois...  President, Board of Overseers TIAA-CREF

- George A Lorch -

Chairman and CEO Emeritus of Armstrong Holdings Inc....  Director of HSBC Finance Co and HSBC North America Holding Company.

- Henry A McKinnell -

CEO of Pfizer...   Director of Moody's Corporation.

- Dana G Mead -

Chairman of Massachusetts Institute of Technology Corporation.  Former Chairman and CEO of Tenneco Inc...  Director of Zurich Financial Services.

- Ruth J Simmons -

President of Brown University...  Director of Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

- William C Steere Jr -

Chairman and CEO Emeritus of Pfizer...  Director of Metlife Inc and Health Management Associates...  Director of New York University Medical Center...  Member of the Board of Overseers of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center.

The new box score is similar to the old one, as expected, since none of the directors in 2006 was new since 2001.  Of 13 directors, 11 were current or former chairpeople or CEO/ Presidents of large organizations.

Five had leadership positions at teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, medical schools or their parent universities, or other influential non-profit health care organizations. 1 had a leadership position at a potentially competing pharmaceutical company. 1 had a leadership position at a pharmacy corporation. 1 had a leadership position at a for-profit hospital operating company.


Furthermore,  9 had leadership positions in financial services corporations, including some that were implicated in the global financial collapse, and/or required massive federal bail-outs to avoid collapse.

Summary

The board that acquiesced to huge compensation for very dysfunctional leadership arguably provided dubious "stewardship" of the company and the interests of its stockholders.  The composition of the board suggests some reason for this.  The board itself was mainly composed of current and former CEOs, and hence may have felt more in common with the executives whom it was supposed to supervise than the stockholders.  Many board members had conflicts of interests, also leading organizations that were supposed to be dealing at least at arms length with Pfizer.  Many of the board members were likely influenced by the corporate culture of the financial services industry, since they were in leadership roles there as well.  That culture, which let unaccountable, hugely remunerated executives gamble with other peoples' money, personally benefit when the gambles went well, and unload their losses on others, including tax-payers when their gambles failed, seems to have infected health care.

We have often discussed how conflicted, overpaid, and/or unaccountable leadership can damage non-profit health care organizations, like hospitals and academic medical institutions.  I would suggest it can also damage for-profit health care corporations, sapping their ability to create new and useful products, and undercutting shareholders.

I submit that all health care organizations would benefit from leadership and stewardship that cares more about patients' and the public's health, and the values of health care professionals than it does about the welfare of CEOs; that is accountable for and receives incentives proportionate to its effect on health and health care; and that is free from conflicts of interest and corruption.  True health care reform would reform health care leadership and governance. 

Director of Bristol-Myers-Squibb to Run Weill Cornell Medical School

How the New York Times reported on a change in leadership at one New York medical school has made one issue of interest to Health Care Renewal a bit less anechoic. Here is the beginning of the story:

A Harvard University researcher and professor with strong ties to the pharmaceutical industry has been selected as the new dean of Weill Cornell Medical College in Manhattan, as Cornell University seeks to greatly expand its research programs and obtain more federal and private financing, college officials said Wednesday.

The new dean, Dr. Laurie H. Glimcher, 60, who has ties to the pharmaceutical giants Merck and Bristol-Myers Squibb as well as to scientific and biotechnology companies, said she wanted to use her experience to forge partnerships with both the public and private sectors.

Dr Glimcher's "ties" to Bristol-Myers-Squibb are particularly striking:

Bristol-Myers Squibb, where she has been on the board since 1997, paid her $244,500 in compensation in 2010, including fees and stock awards, according to its 2011 proxy statement. She received $1.4 million in deferred share units, by far the most of any director.

A "New Species" of Conflicts of Interest

A long time ago, in 2006, we first blogged about a "new species of conflict of interest" which we thought
might prove to be even more important than other conflicts of interest afflicting health care that were then starting to be discussed.  This new species  involved health care organizational leaders who were simultaneously members of the boards of directors of for-profit health care corporations.  We posited these conflicts would be particularly important because being on the board of directors entails not just a financial incentive.  It ostensibly requires board members to "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders" [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.]   Thus, for example, the conflict posed by the president of a university, to whom a medical school and academic medical center report, who also is the director of a pharmaceutical company, would be extreme.

In 2006, these apparently major conflicts of interest were highly anechoic, and generally otherwise not considered to be newsworthy or fit for discussion in the medical and health care literature.  This, however, is starting to change.  By 2010, the New York Times published a report, albeit in one of their blogs, on a controversy at the Unviersity of Michigan about whether its president's position on the Johnson and Johnson board had influenced her backing of anti-smoking measures, given that Johnson and Johnson makes smoking cessation products (see post here).

Now, mention of this sort of particularly intense conflict of interest went into the lead paragraph of a story in one of the world's most respected newspapers.

A Conflict Cutting Both Ways: The Bristol-Myers-Squibb Settlement

In addition, the Times story connected another dot:

While she has been on the board, the company has paid hundreds of millions of dollars to settle federal and shareholder complaints that it had inflated sales figures, although Dr. Glimcher herself was not found liable.

That underlines the point that people who simultaneously are leaders of both non-profit health care institutions (like medical schools and hospitals) and for-profit health care corporations ought to simultaneously be held accountable for the actions of both, which may put them in uncomfortable positions.

Actually, the Times article seemed to soft-pedal what the 2007 Bristol-Myers-Squibb settlement was actually about. As we discussed in this post, the settlement was actually in the amount of $515 million, and the government allegations that lead to the settlement were actually about more than inflated sales figures. From the 2007 Department of Justice news release:

First, the Government alleged that, from approximately 2000 through mid-2003, BMS knowingly and willfully paid illegal remuneration to physicians and other health care providers to induce them to purchase BMS drugs.

Second, the Government alleged that, from 2002 through the end of 2005, BMS knowingly promoted the sale and use of Abilify, an atypical antipsychotic drug, for pediatric use and to treat dementia-related psychosis, both 'off-label' uses. The Food and Drug Administration has approved Abilify to treat adult schizophrenia and bi-polar disorder, but has not approved the use of Abilify for children and adolescents or for geriatric patients suffering from dementia-related psychosis. Indeed, the FDA has mandated that the package for Abilify carry a 'black box' warning concerning its use in the treatment of dementia-related psychosis.

Third, the Government alleged that both BMS and Apothecon set and maintained fraudulent and inflated prices for a wide assortment of oncology and generic drug products with the knowledge that federal health care programs established reimbursement rates based on those prices. By reporting false and fraudulent prices that were substantially higher than commonly and widely available prices in the marketplace, BMS and Apothecon created a 'spread' between the reimbursement rates for federal health care providers and the actual prices for the drugs charged to its customers. The larger the spread on a drug, the larger the profit or return on investment for the provider. Because reimbursement from federal programs was based on the fraudulent, inflated prices, the United States alleged that BMS and Apothecon caused false and fraudulent claims to be submitted to federal health care programs.

Finally, the Government alleged that BMS knowingly misreported its best price for the anti-depression drug, Serzone. 

Dr Glimcher has been on the BMS board since 1997, so the actions that lead to these allegations and then the settlement clearly occurred on her watch. Nonetheless, the Times noted:

Dr. Glimcher, an immunologist with a strong interest in osteoporosis, defended her outside interests, saying they presented no conflict as long as they were transparent. She said she wanted to 'leverage the strengths of everyone,' whether scientists, pharmaceutical companies or biotechnology companies. 'There should be no silos between all of these different strengths,' she said.

How simple transparency would remove a conflict created by a fiduciary duty to the Bristol-Myers-Squibb stockholders, and reinforced by a yearly pay-check of $244,500, she did not say.  Neither did she say how transparency about her service on the board would eliminate her responsibility for actions taken by the BMS management that occurred on her watch.

Dubious Enthusiasm from the Former Chairman of Bailed-Out Citigroup

The conflict did not seemingly dim the enthusiasm of the Weill Cornell board for her candidacy. As the Times reported:

Sanford I. Weill, the former chairman of Citigroup who with his wife was the benefactor for whom the college was named in 1998, said Wednesday that Dr. Glimcher had come to his attention through a good friend, Jim Robinson, a co-founder of the technology venture-capital firm RRE Ventures and a former chairman of Bristol-Myers Squibb and chairman and chief executive of American Express.

'He recommended that I meet Laurie Glimcher when he heard we were going to look for a new dean,' Mr. Weill said.

That would be the Sanford Weill who built up Citigroup into a bank that was too large to fail, and which was prevented from failing by a huge government bailout (see this post). In his epic, The Sellout, about the global financial collapse, this is how Charles Gasparino described Weill (p. 144):

But in reality, Will never really ran anything. He was a visionary, to be sure, but one whose vision was so myopically focused on building the empire had lusted for for so long and on its share price that he ignored just about everything else.

Weill's record would suggest that his judgment about Dr Glimcher may be open to question.

Even More Conflicts of Interest

To add a bit more icing to the conflict of interest cake, Dr Glimcher has other financial relationships to which the Times vaguely alluded. The latest (2011) Bristol-Myers-Squibb proxy statement listed the following:
- scientific advisory board memberships: Health Care Ventures, Inc, (which invests in new pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies) Nodality Inc, (which develops diagnostics and pharmaceuticals), Abpro Inc (which makes antibodies and proteins), and Theraclone Sciences Inc, (which also is developing antibodies for therapeutic purposes)
- board of directors membership: Waters Corporation (maker of laboratory equipment used in life sciences and pharmaceutical discovery, research and development, and commercialization.)

One hardly knows how she would find the time to do anything besides fulfill these responsibilities. No wonder that the Times article said:

Cornell University’s president, Dr. David J. Skorton, said he believed Dr. Glimcher had the skills to carry out the medical school’s plan to double its research capacity and to help the university compete to develop a new high-tech campus proposed by the Bloomberg administration.

Dr Glimcher certainly seems as tied into the world of commercial pharmaceuticals and biotechnology as much as any ostensible academic might be. Indeed, as posted here, Dr Glimcher was quoted in a defense of the then current policy and conflicts of interest at Harvard:

Dr. Glimcher says industry money is not only appropriate but necessary. 'Without the support of the private sector, we would not have been able to develop what I call our ‘bone team’ in our lab,' she said at a recent student and faculty forum to discuss industry relationships. Merck is counting on her team to help come up with a successor to Fosamax, the formerly $3 billion-a-year bone drug that went generic last year.

So at that time Dr Glimcher thought it was perfectly proper and appropriate for her to be paid by Merck to develop new drugs for that company while she was ostensibly a full-time faculty member at the Harvard Medical School (not to mention a full-time board member of one of Merck's competitors.)

Summary and Some Questions

So to summarize, Cornell Weill Medical School just named a new dean who has been a leader (as member of the board of directors) of Bristol-Myers-Squib for 14 years, on whose watch there the company paid a huge settlement and entered a corporate integrity agreement for allegations of kickbacks and fraud, and who has also been a leader of a biotechnology company, and advisor to a biotechnology and pharmaceutical venture capital fund and to three other biotechnology companies.  She declared she has no conflicts because she has revealed these relationships, and seemingly has been hired mainly to raise money from the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.

So maybe some intrepid journalist and/or student will ask her:
- Given that they now will be reporting to a member of the board of Bristol-Myers-Squibb, should Cornell students and faculty favor its products or policies that it supports?  Should they worry if they do not?  Should they worry about saying or writing anything that might not be seen as supportive of it?  Should they consider themselves to be now in the Bristol-Myers-Squibb medical school?
On the other hand,
- Does Dr Glimcher feel responsible for the actions of BMS management that lead to its settlement and corporate integrity agreement?  If not, how can she have a fiduciary responsibility to its stockholders?

But I will not hold my breath waiting for answers.

At least one hopes that putting these issues in the New York Times will provoke some discussion about whether academic institutions should knowingly seek leaders who must serve so many masters.  Maybe they would do better if they sought leaders who would be notable for their whole-hearted devotion to patient's interests and to the integrity of teaching and research rather than for their cozy ties to other top health care leaders.

What the Pfizer (II)? - Lack of Transparency About Dysfunctional Leadership

The recent in-depth investigation by Fortune reporters of 10 years of dysfunctional leadership at Pfizer, the "world's largest research-based pharmaceutical company," raises many issues about leadership and governance in health care (see our post here).  To continue what is likely to become a lengthy series, let us discuss the most obvious one, is the discrepancy between what appeared in Fortune and what Pfizer chose to make public about its leadership.

This discrepancy is most apparent when one compares official descriptions of executive performance with what the Fortune reporters found.  To illustrate, consider the official descriptions of the performance of former Pfizer CEOs Hank McKinnell and Jeffrey Kindler in the respective years in which they were forced out.

"Hank" McKinnell -2006

Mr McKinell was forced to retire in 2006.  The Fortune article described Mr McKinnell as a "desperate CEO" by 2002 because he could find no way to replenish the company's fading drug pipeline; who then became an absent CEO who "left a power vacuum" and then triggered internal political warfare by setting up a "bitter contest" over succession planning.

The 2006 Pfizer proxy statement  explained how the Board of Directors' Compensation Committee assessed Mr McKinnell's performance,

The Committee does not rely solely on predetermined formulas or a limited set of criteria when it evaluates the performance of the Chairman and CEO and the Company's other elected officers.

In 2005, the Committee considered management's continuing achievement of its short and long-term goals versus its strategic imperatives, including Dr. McKinnell's objectives which are shown below:

• Achieve specific revenue, EPS, operating cash flow per share, and merger-related synergy goals
• Effectively communicate strategy and financial results to increase shareholder value
• Deliver more new medicines more quickly to patients, through industry- leading R&D productivity and significant in-licensing activity
• Adapting to Scale
• Promote new directions in health and wellness
• Shape a positive environment for better healthcare
• Developing People, Talent, and the Organization

The Compensation Committee then assessed McKinnell's performance thus:

Financial and merger synergy goals

Overall, the financial targets, which reflected a significant stretch for the organization given the dynamic business environment and the loss of exclusivity for certain key products, were exceeded.

Communicate effectively

However, given the performance of the Company's stock price in 2005 when compared to prior years, the Committee felt that the goal of effectively communicating strategy and financial results to increase shareholder value was not met.

More medicines more quickly

All R&D productivity and licensing goals were met or exceeded, with, notably, five products under priority review at the FDA — an industry first. As the R&D organization continues to establish the industry standard in productivity, the Committee determined that performance against this objective significantly surpassed expectations.

Adapting to scale

In 2005, initiatives related to Adapting to Scale resulted in twice the cost reduction that had been estimated for the year, giving a very strong start to the Company's efforts to reduce the cost base and streamline the organization.

So,

the Committee believes that overall performance significantly surpassed the expected outcomes for this objective.

Promote new directions

In promoting new directions in health and wellness, Pfizer's newly launched Healthy Directions program for U.S. based colleagues far exceeded expectations.... the Committee determined that these goals were significantly exceeded.

Shape a positive environment

The Company is also leading efforts to rebuild trust in the industry and large companies in general.

So,

Overall, the Committee believes that the Company surpassed expectations of performance against this particularly challenging objective.

Developing people, talent, and the organization

With respect to the final objective for 2005 — Developing People, Talent, and the Organization — the Committee recognized that senior leadership of the Company has been instrumental in developing and implementing new People & Talent strategies related to long-term development planning for key talent, enhancing leadership skills for all 'people managers', and enabling Pfizer to become a global leader in attracting, developing, and engaging a diverse workforce that delivers superior business results. As a result, the Committee determined that the goals of this objective were surpassed.

So, according to the Committee, Mr McKinnell's performance was excellent in all areas but one.

Accordingly, based apparently on this stated "General Compensation Philosophy,"

The Committee believes that compensation paid to executive officers should be closely aligned with the performance of the Company on both a short-term and long-term basis....

So the present value of Mr McKinnell's total compensation was estimated to be $15,880,989.

Jeffrey Kindler - 2010

Kindler was forced to resign in 2010. The Fortune article also described Mr Kindler as "suddenly desperate" after two failures of drugs in development; someone who "just couldn't make up his mind," about acquisitions and spin-offs; "anguished" about research, leading to a "messy" overhaul; and putting "destructive" trust in a subordinate with previously described problems with "character, integrity and divisiveness" leading to loss of the loyalty of the executive team.

However, in the company's 2010 proxy statement, the Compensation Committee made this general assertion:

The Committee believes that Mr. Kindler's leadership was a significant factor in the continued progress made by Pfizer in 2009 in strengthening the foundation for future growth and long-term success.

Then, Mr Kindler, like Mr McKinnell, was assessed against specific performance standards thus:

Financial Results

Despite the unprecedented challenges in the global macroeconomic environment and other challenges, the Company exceeded the target goals for 2009 set by the Committee for annual incentive purposes

Enhancing the Product Portfolio

Under Mr. Kindler's leadership and oversight, during 2009 we improved the product portfolio (early stage through late stage),...

People Management

In 2009, we met or exceeded each of our people management goals,...

Business Model Implementation

the Company remains on track to meet the various research and development goals announced in March 2009. Mr. Kindler also further strengthened the Company's leadership team through strategic hiring and the redeployment of key senior leaders across the Company.

Wyeth Transaction

During 2009, we devoted significant attention to the acquisition of Wyeth. Under Mr. Kindler's leadership, we finalized negotiations, gained regulatory approval and closed the $68 billion acquisition of Wyeth, all in an expeditious manner. During the year, Mr. Kindler oversaw a detailed review of Wyeth and its businesses and the development of an integration plan,...

So,

With the completion of the acquisition under Mr. Kindler's leadership, Pfizer is one of the largest biopharmaceutical companies in the world, as well as a more diversified company in the health care industry.

Industry Leadership

During 2009, Mr. Kindler was actively involved, through both Pfizer and external organizations, in developing and advancing U.S. and global public policies that serve the overall interests of our Company and our shareholders

In summary,

In view of Mr. Kindler's accomplishments noted above and the fact that he achieved all of his objectives and exceeded most of them, the Committee believes that Mr. Kindler successfully led the Company toward the achievement of its strategic goals during 2009....

Based on the same general compensation philosophy noted above, Mr Kindler's total compensation in 2009 was $14,898,038.

Summary

Anyone who depended on these proxy statements to assess the performance of the Pfizer CEOs in 2006 and in 2010 would have likely concluded that both CEOs exhibited exemplary performance. These impressions would have apparently been sharply discrepant with the realities inside the company at those times.

Like the children of Lake Woebegone, we have frequently noted how almost all CEOs seem to appear "above average" or better to their boards of directors or trustees. The case of Pfizer in 2006 and in 2010 shows a board of directors which painted a grossly optimistic view of CEO performance to the public. In both years, these views would almost immediately clash with the fates of the particular CEOs. Now, based on the Fortune investigative report, these views seem even more overblown if not absurd.

This case, which again concerns the "world's biggest research driven pharmaceutical company," suggests one should be very skeptical about evaluations of executive performance in proxy reports. Proxy reports now appear to be a very cloudy window through which to view how corporations are really run. However, in the US, proxy reports have legal standing and are supposed to be sources of definitive information for stockholders and anyone else interested in the corporations that produce them.

Thus, the large organizations that dominate US health care may be even less transparent than they appear. True health care reform requires true transparency, and meaningful deterrence of propaganda disguised as fact.

Executives Get Rich Despite Ethical and Legal Questions about For-Profit Hospices

We recently posted about some shocking allegations suggesting that the for-profit corporations that now dominate hospice care may prey on vulnerable patients to increase their revenues, and may specifically recruit patients who are not terminally ill for hospice, and then neglect to attend to their treatable medical problems.  The post was based on a Bloomberg investigative report.

The Bloomberg report focused on two large for-profit hospice providers, Vitas, a subsidiary of Chemed, and VistaCare, a subsidiary of Gentiva. We have repeatedly seen a pattern in numerous other health care organizations, non-profit as well as for-profit: despite questionable corporate behavior that appears to violate the values of health care professionals, executives receive rich compensation overseen by complacent corporate stewards. So, using publicly available information, I compared and contrasted the two for-profit hospice corporations' health care missions, behavior with respect to core values, executive compensation, and board composition.

Stated Mission

Chemed (including Vitas Hospice Care)

Vitas Mission and Values

VITAS Values
Patients and families come first.
We take care of each other.
I’ll do my best today and do even better tomorrow.
I am proud to make a difference.

VITAS Mission
We are a growing family of hospices providing the highest quality human services, products and case management to terminally ill and other appropriate patients and their families with measurable advantages for the patient, the family, the medical community, the employee and the stockholder.

Gentiva (including VistaCare, part of Odyssey Healthcare)

Gentiva's "about us" web page declares:

We are committed to clinical excellence and determined to continually raise the bar in home healthcare by setting new industry standards for quality care and personalized service. That’s why thousands of patients every day choose us for their home healthcare needs.

Gentiva's hospice website declares:

Our hospice services allow patients to make the most of each day, at home surrounded by friends and family in a familiar, comfortable environment. Because at Gentiva, we believe that every moment matters.

So both organizations affirmed "warm and fuzzy" commitments to put patients first and to quality of care.

Behavior

Chemmed

The Bloomberg article noted that the Vitas subsidiary of Chemed is being sued for elder abuse and wrongful death based on allegations that the company put a patient who did not appear to be terminally ill in hospice care, and then failed to adequately treat the infection that appeared to eventually cause her death.

In addition, the 2010 Chemed Annual Report noted that the company is now the subject of two ongoing investigations.

The first involves:

In May 2009, VITAS received an administrative subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice requesting VITAS deliver to the OIG documents, patient records, and policy and procedure manuals for headquarters and its Texas programs concerning hospice services provided for the period January 1, 2003 to the date of the letter.

In addition,

In February 2010, VITAS received a companion civil investigative demand ('CID') from the state of Texas Attorney General’s Office, seeking related documents. In September 2010, it received a second CID and a second administrative subpoena seeking related documents.

The second involves:

In April 2005, the Office of Inspector General ('OIG') for the Department of Health and Human Services served VITAS with civil subpoenas relating to VITAS’ alleged failure to appropriately bill Medicare and Medicaid for hospice services.

This is still active,

In March 2009, we received a letter from the government reiterating the basis of their investigation.

Gentiva

The Bloomberg article noted that VistaCare, part of Odyssey Healthcare, which is a Gentiva subsidiary, is being sued by a former employee who alleged that her job was to entice patients who did not have terminal conditions into hospice, and that the company used other unethical tactics to enroll more patients.

Also, according to the 2010 Gentiva Annual Report, the company's Odyssey subsidiary is currently operating under a corporate integrity agreement:

On July 6, 2006, Odyssey entered into a five-year Corporate Integrity Agreement (“CIA”) with the Office of Inspector General of Health and Human Services. The CIA imposes certain auditing, self-reporting and training requirements that Odyssey must comply with. If Odyssey fails to comply with the terms of its CIA, it could subject us to substantial monetary penalties and/or suspension or termination from participation in the Medicare and Medicaid programs.

There are also numerous ongoing investigations and regulatory actions ongoing, including:

On February 14, 2008, Odyssey received a letter from the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General’s office notifying Odyssey that the Texas Attorney General was conducting an investigation concerning Medicaid hospice services provided by Odyssey, including its practices with respect to patient admission and retention, and requesting medical records of approximately 50 patients served by its programs in the State of Texas.

Also,

On May 5, 2008, Odyssey received a letter from the DOJ notifying Odyssey that the DOJ was conducting an investigation of VistaCare, Inc. ('VistaCare') and requesting that Odyssey provide certain information and documents related to the DOJ’s investigation of claims submitted by VistaCare to Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE, from January 1, 2003 through March 6, 2008, the date Odyssey completed the acquisition of VistaCare. Odyssey has been informed by the DOJ and the Medicaid Fraud Control Unit of the Texas Attorney General’s Office that they are reviewing allegations that VistaCare may have billed the federal Medicare, Medicaid and TRICARE programs for hospice services that were not reasonably or medically necessary or performed as claimed. The basis of the investigation is a qui tam lawsuit filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas by a former employee of VistaCare. The lawsuit was unsealed on October 5, 2009 and served on Odyssey on January 28, 2010. In connection with the unsealing of the complaint, the DOJ filed a notice with the court declining to intervene in the qui tam action at this time. The Texas Attorney General also filed a notice of non-intervention with the court. These actions should not be viewed as a final assessment by the DOJ or the Texas Attorney General of the merits of this qui tam action.

Also,

On January 5, 2009, Odyssey received a letter from the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit notifying Odyssey that the Georgia State Health Care Fraud Control Unit was conducting an investigation concerning Medicaid hospice services provided by VistaCare from 2003 through 2007 and requesting certain documents

Also,

On February 2, 2009, Odyssey received a subpoena from the OIG requesting certain documents related to Odyssey’s provision of continuous care services from January 1, 2004 through February 2, 2009. On September 9, 2009, Odyssey received a second subpoena from the OIG requesting medical records for certain patients who had been provided continuous care services by Odyssey during the same time period.

Also,

On February 23, 2010, Odyssey received a subpoena from the OIG requesting various documents and certain patient records of one of Odyssey’s hospice programs relating to services performed from January 1, 2006 through December 31, 2009.

Also,

In April 2003, the Company received a subpoena from the OIG. The subpoena sought information regarding the Company’s implementation of settlements and corporate integrity agreements entered into with the government, as well as the Company’s treatment on cost reports of employees engaged in sales and marketing efforts. In February 2004, the Company received a subpoena from the U.S. Department of Justice ('DOJ') seeking additional information related to the matters covered by the OIG subpoena. In early May 2010, the Company reached an agreement in principle, subject to final approvals, with the government to resolve this matter. Under the agreement, the Company will pay the government $12.5 million, of which $9.5 million was recorded as a charge in 2010 with the remaining $3 million covered by a previously-recorded reserve.

Also,

On July 13, 2010, the SEC informed the Company that the SEC had commenced an investigation relating to the Company’s participation in the Medicare Home Health Prospective Payment System, and, on July 16, 2010, the Company received a subpoena from the SEC requesting certain documents in connection with its investigation. Similar to the Senate Finance Committee request, the SEC subpoena, among other things, focused on issues related to the number of and reimbursement received for therapy visits before and after changes in the Medicare reimbursement system, relationships with physicians, compliance efforts including compliance with fraud and abuse laws, and certain documents sent to the Senate Finance Committee.

In addition to the allegations detailed by the Bloomberg article, there are an impressive number of investigations going on.  In addition, Gentiva has already recently settled apparently two different legal actions.  Thus, many questions have been raised about the companies' ethics, and the extent that they really uphold the warm and fuzzy values portrayed by their marketing.

Executive Compensation and Board Composition

Chemed

Based on the 2011 Chemed proxy statement, the company CEO, K J McNamara, got $5,848,230 total compensation in 2010. The four other most highly paid executives got from just over $1 million to over $2.5 million. Mr McNamara's compensation included over $150,000 for use of company aircraft. Other executives had use of the aircraft, of a company apartment, and of a company car, and company paid golf club memberships, and one got over $64,000 in housing costs. None apparently has any background in direct health care.

Of the "independent" directors, one, Andrea R Lindell, is now the retired Dean and Professor of the College of Nursing at the University of Cincinnati, and retired Associate Senior Vice President of the Medical Center. She retired in 2011, but has been director of Chemed since 2008. None of other directors apparently has any direct health care background. They include five who are currently or were formerly in financial services, and one attorney. The majority hold or held executive positions at least at the Senior Vice President level for a variety of organizations.The independent directors generally got somewhat over $100,000 in compensation in 2010.

Gentiva

Based on the 2011 Gentiva proxy statement, the company CEO, Tony Strange, got $5,472,327 in total compensation in 2010.  Three senior vice presidents and "C" level officers got over $1.3, $2.1, and $3.1 million respectively.  One, the Chief Clinical Officer, has a nursing diploma and nursing experience (see management biographies here.)  No others have apparent experience in direct clinical care.

Of the "independent" directors, one, Dr Sheldon M Retchin, is a physician, and is now CEO of the Virginia Commonwealth University Health System and Vice-President for Health Sciences at Virginia Commonwealth University.  None of other independent directors apparently has any direct health care background. The majority hold or held chief executive positions at a variety of different kinds of firms. The independent directors generally got somewhat over $145,000 in compensation in 2010.

Thus, despite the fact that the two companies provide direct clinical care to the most vulnerable of patients, their top leadership has very little background in direct patient care.  Only two directors, one of each company, are involved in health care, but their involvement may involved conflicts of interest.  Despite the apparent contrast between the companies' high-minded missions and the ethical questions besetting them, their top executives are compensated at a level sufficient to make them quite wealthy.

Summary

The pattern repeats again.  Not only has the compensation given to health care leaders got so large that it is per se a cause of increased health spending, but also, and more importantly, such compensation often provides perverse incentives that perpetuate mismanagement, raising costs and lowering quality. This situation appears to be enabled by governance by individuals who are often fellow members of the CEOs' club, and hence who may feel more sympathy with the executives they are supposed to supervise than the stockholders whose financial interests they are supposed to protect, or the public whom the companies' products and services are supposed to benefit. Moreover, these individuals often have conflicts of interest which may mitigate against objective scrutiny of the executives they are supposed to oversee. Finally, these individuals often may come from corporate cultures which do not espouse the values that we in health care are supposed to uphold. (See this post and its links for other examples of the sorts of people who are supposed to provide stewardship to health care organizations.)


So to reiterate-

I strongly believe that there needs to be much more investigation, academic, journalistic, and perhaps legal, of the identity, nature, and culture of the leaders of health care, and their relationships. A few bloggers cannot do it all. Obviously, the anechoic effect mitigates against medical and health care academics looking into their own leaders. However, failing to understand who is leading our march to the brink of health care failure ought not to be something such academics would want on their conscience.

Finally, and obviously, health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.