In perusing this year's crop of proxy statements from some of the biggest US health care corporations, I noted that some provide some narrative, qualitative justification for their top leaders pay. I was struck by three similar statements:
Johnson and Johnson
We recently discussed the contrast between Johnson and Johnson CEO William Weldon's gargantuan compensation and his detached response to the findings of an inspection of one of his company's factories that lead to its shutdown and the recall of its products. According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, Mr Weldon's total compensation approved in 2010 was $19,847,026. The proxy statement included this overview of his performance:
The Board believes that Mr. Weldon generally exceeded expectations despite substantial economic, political, regulatory and competitive challenges as well as significant patent expirations. As referenced in the table above, the Company delivered solid financial results and positioned itself for future growth.
Under "strategic results" was this statement:
Mr. Weldon played an effective role in helping shape health care policy around the world and has been very involved with efforts on U.S. Health Care Reform. Mr. Weldon’s personal involvement with key leaders and organizations has ensured the interests of the Company are well represented.
We recently discussed the contrast between Pfizer Inc CEO Jeffrey Kindler's sizable compensation and the number and size of lawsuits alleging unethical conduct that the organization has settled, and its criminal conviction as a "racketeering influenced and corrupt organization" (RICO). According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, Mr Kindler's total compensation in 2009 was $14,898,038. The proxy statement included an Executive Compensation Discussion and Analysis. Its summary of Mr Kindler's performance was:
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.
It also specifically addressed Mr Kindler's "industry leadership":
During 2009, Mr Kindler was actively involved, through both Pfizer and external organizations, in developing and advancing US and global public policies that serve the overall interest of our Company and our shareholders, as well as doctors and patients. These efforts included constructive participation in the US legislative process to advance Pfizer's goals of achieving a more rational operating environment....
We recently discussed the contrast between UnitedHealth Group CEO Stephen J Helmsley's large total compensation and the profit he recently made from the sale of stock options and various questions raised about his company's ethical performance. According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, his 2009 total compensation was $8,901,916. The company's 2010 proxy statement stated his compensation was based upon a variety of factors, including:
Positive participation and leadership of the Company in the health care reform and modernization debate
We have noted how health care organization may be gripped by "compensation madness," caused by "insiders hijacking established organizations for their personal benefit." One could view the statements above as just one form of post-hoc justification for compensation madness. It is possible that timid, if not crony boards are simply getting more inventive in their rationalizing CEOs' imperial pay scales. On the other hand, those justifying the compensation of three extremely well-compensated health care corporate CEOs may really believe what they wrote about their CEOs roles in health care reform.
We have posted little about the US health care reform effort because so much of it seemed irrelevant to the concerns mentioned on Health Care Renewal. Health care reform legislation did little to address problems with health care leadership, governance and ethics, and how they challenge health care professionals' values and lead to higher costs, declining access, poor health care quality and disgruntled health care professionals (see this summary). Maybe one reason this was so was that the top leaders of health care organizations did a good job pushing their personal and organizational priorities into the reform legislation, meanwhile discouraging any provisions that might threaten the way they were leading their organizations, and how much they were making while doing so.
There a many reasons for the popular dissatisfaction with the recently enacted US health care reform legislation. The influence of the leadership of top health care corporations in promoting their, rather than the populace's goals, ought to be a topic of further inquiry. Meanwhile, it may be that the "superclass" has struck again.