The Demise of the Trump Foundation, an Extreme Example of Elite "Do-Gooding" to Prop Up the "Broken System" that Benefits Them

Big foundations often claim that they are out to improve society.  For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation claims to be

the nation’s largest philanthropy dedicated solely to health.

Its goal is to improve health care for all, that is,

help raise the health of everyone in the United States to the level that a great nation deserves, by placing well-being at the center of every aspect of life.

Yet, as we discussed here, large foundations with an interest in health rarely address the sorts of issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal, particularly problems with health care organizational leadership and governance, most particularly leadership that is ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt.  One explanation was provided by Anand Giridharadas, author of  Winner Take All: Elite Charade of Changing the World, as summarized in an August, 2018, op-ed ine New York Times.

His thesis was that society has handed over the responsibility for reform to those who benefit most from the status quo. Thus,charitable foundations, one vehicle for reform, are now largely run by people with business management background, and financial ties to big corporations.  The foundations thus largely propose minimal, if not fake reforms, representing change "the powerful can tolerate." So, 

American elites generally seek to maintain the system that causes many of the problems they try to fix — and their helpfulness is part of how they pull it off. Thus their do-gooding is an accomplice to greater, if more invisible, harm.

What their 'change' leaves undisturbed is our winners-take-all economy, which siphons the gains from progress upward.

In a recent interview with the Guardian, Giridharadas explained how his concerns evolved while he was a fellow of the Aspen Institute,

a thinktank that organizes exclusive ideas conferences for the wealthy and powerful, as part of a program designed to raise up a 'new breed of leaders' and solve 'the world’s most intractable problems'.

Aftr being selected as a fellow, along with a bunch of corporate leaders, he realized that the Institute was carrying out its view that

the people best-equipped to protect the interests of the poor are the rich and rich adjacent.

In a 2015 talk to an Institute audience, he

delivered an electrifying critique, arguing the 'change makers' and 'thought leaders' in America’s winners-take-all economy – once again, the very people he was speaking to – are less helping the world through their various philanthropic efforts than propping up the broken system that made them.

The 2015 audience was apparently "aghast," but it is not clear whether Giridharadas' insight led them to change their ways.   Instead, foundations continue to prop up the "broken system," but in often subtle ways.   It is likely that those that benefit from the current status quo continue to promote little reforms around the edges, while failing to face the real issues, because doing so could "could implicate powerful people, or perhaps even themselves."

Foundations may continue to fund projects that promote small incremental changes, while avoiding those that could lead to questions about aspects of the system that benefit its current top leaders, or suggest changes in the policies that allow this.  For example, as we wrote here, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation's is currently led by a former top pharmaceutical executive who had defended extremely high drug prices which presumably helped fuel her extravagant compensation.   Meanwhile, the Foundation has been accused of "ideological commitment to promote neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalisation."



Example: the Demise of the Trump Foundation

Now in 2018, three years after Giridharadas confronted the Aspen Institute with little effect, we witness a truly extreme example of a non-profit foundation supposedly set up to do good for society, instead propping up the system, and specifically the supposedly generous philanthropists who founded it.  However, rather than funding marginal reforms, this example demonstrates much more direct, crude efforts to prop up the system which supported the founders of the "charity" in question, that being the Trump Foundation, the creature of our current US dear leader.

Major questions were first raised about the Foundation in 2016, when the Washington Post published an article by David Farenthold entitled, "Trump Boasts About His Philanthropy.  But his Giving Falls Short of his Words."  The Post continued its investigation of the topic, leading to an investigation by the New York Attorney General.  This week, that investigation resulted in an agreement to shut down the Trump Foundation, as again reported Farenthold in the Washington Post.  In announcing this agreement, Barbara Underwood, the New York AG, said the investigation found

a shocking pattern of illegality involving the Trump Foundation — including unlawful coordination with the Trump presidential campaign, repeated and willful self-dealing, and much more.

Transactions Benefiting Trump and Family


Basically, the Foundation was alleged to have made transactions that resulted in direct personal benefit to Donald Trump and his family.  For example,

The largest donation in the charity’s history — a $264,231 gift to the Central Park Conservancy in 1989 — appeared to benefit Trump’s business: It paid to restore a fountain outside Trump’s Plaza Hotel. The smallest, a $7 foundation gift to the Boy Scouts that same year, appeared to benefit Trump’s family. It matched the amount required to enroll a boy in the Scouts the year that his son Donald Trump Jr. was 11.

One suspicious transaction could be construed as a bribe meant to forestall investigation of another shady Trump venture, Trump University.  Per an opinion piece in USAToday, the Foundation made a "donation" to

Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi's re-election campaign in September 2013, years before Trump decided to run for office. According to Florida campaign finance records, the Trump Foundation contributed $25,000 to And Justice for All, a section 527 political organization associated with Bondi.

Charitable foundations like the Trump Foundation, however, are prohibited from political activity. On its tax forms, the Trump Foundation claimed it did not transfer any money to a 527 organization or engage in any political activity, and did not report any contribution to And Justice for All. Instead, it reported a contribution to a similarly named nonprofit organization. The foundation cited 'coincidences and errors,' but it looked like a ham-handed attempt to hide the illegal political contribution.

In fact, something more sinister than improper political activity may have been going on. The Trump Foundation made its contribution three days after it was widely reported that Bondi's office was reviewing joining the New York attorney general's lawsuit against Trump University. Following the donation, Bondi's office decided not to join the suit or open an investigation. It is possible the contribution was meant to influence Bondi's decision, and it is possible that it worked. Whatever the intent, the payment was illegal, and the IRS ultimately sanctioned the foundation, levying a fine for the violation.

After the shut down of the Foundation was announced, Trump boasted on Twitter that at least his charity had not paid him directly, as reported by Politico,

The Trump Foundation has done great work and given away lots of money, both mine and others, to great charities over the years - with me taking NO fees, rent, salaries etc.

It seems like a distinction without a difference  

The Foundation Functioned as an Arm of the Trump Campaign

In recent years, the Foundation mainly worked to benefit Trump's presidential campaign. Per the Washington Post,

In 2016, state investigators allege, Trump effectively 'ceded control' of his charity to his political campaign. He raised more than $2 million at a fundraiser in Iowa that flowed into the foundation. Then, the state said, Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski determined when and where it would be given away.

'Is there any way we can make some disbursements . . . this week while in Iowa?' Lewandowski wrote in an email cited in Underwood’s lawsuit.

Trump gave away oversize checks from the foundation at campaign events in the key early-voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, pausing his campaign rallies to donate to local veterans’ groups.

Federal law prohibits charities from participating in political campaigns. As president, Trump has called repeatedly for that law to be repealed.

Again, the Foundation was acting directly to promote Donald Trump's interests.

The Foundation Had No Meaningful Governance Structure Beyond Trump's Whims

Finally, the Foundation seemed to have no meaningful governance structure that could counter its use as a family "piggy bank"

The attorney general’s investigation turned up evidence that Donald Trump Jr., Eric Trump and Ivanka Trump — all listed as officers of the charity — had never held a board meeting. The board hadn’t met since 1999. The charity’s official treasurer, Trump Organization executive Allen Weisselberg, told investigators that he wasn’t aware that he was on the board.

State investigators asked him what the foundation’s policies were to determine whether its payments were proper.

'There’s no policy, just so you understand,' Weisselberg said.

So, thanks to the investigations that have swirled around Donald Trump and company since he began his campaign for the presidency, we have seen an amazingly blatant example of a non-profit charitable foundation used not to improve society, but to support the "broken system," and particularly the advantageous position of the charity's founder within the system.


Further Discussion

This example may be extreme, but it may not be unique.  Vox just published an opinion piece entitled,"The Trump Foundation shows just how preposterously light our oversight of charity is." It noted,

As the political theorist Rob Reich explains in his new book Just Giving, we really don’t expect much from foundations as a matter of public policy.

They don’t have to have a website or some other way for interested charities to contact them about funding. They don’t have to make their giving strategy publicly available or accessible in any way. They do have to fill out 990-F tax forms, which are public and provide some information on their assets, spending, and grant recipients. But those take the form of long, difficult-to-parse tax documents, and crafty philanthropists can get around these requirements by starting up offshore foundations. And there are basically no requirements to speak of beyond filing a 990-F and spending at least 5 percent of assets every year.

'Foundations are often black boxes, stewarding and distributing private assets for public purposes, as identified and defined by the donor, about which the public knows very little and can find out very little,' Reich writes.

Maybe the revelations about the Trump Foundation will inspire a more skeptical look at "do-gooder" foundations.  We need to know the extent to which they are devoted to the interests of rich insiders rather than of society at large.  Per Giridharadas, shining more light on their obscure operations might inspire them to start

listening to more of society’s losers, and fewer winners. 'The powerful are very good at disseminating their own bullshit,” he says. 'They don’t need the intellectual reputation laundering of ideas festivals to make their heavily marketed bullshit smell even sweeter.'

'I sincerely believe,' he says, 'that had more of the institutions of this country – and particularly those involved in thinking and ideas, not just conferences but all kinds of things – been more skeptical of elite fantasies and more mindful of what was actually going on in other people’s lives in this country, I think it’s very possible we wouldn’t have orange Mussolini in the White House.

We also could have had real health care reform.

Fake Reform Foisted on Us by Those who Benefit Most from the Current Dysfunction

Introduction - No Funding for You

To better understand health care dysfunction, I interviewed doctors and health professionals, and published the results in Poses RM.   A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of American health care.  Eur J Int Med 2003; 14(2): 123-130. (link here).  In that article, I postulated that US physicians were demoralized because their core values were under threat, and identified five concerns:
1. domination of large organizations which do not honor these core values
2. conflicts between competing interests and demands
3.  perverse incentives
4. ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted or even corrupt leadership
5.  attacks on the scientific basis of medicine, including manipulation and suppression of clinical research stuides

After that my colleagues and I have tried to raise awareness of these and related issues, now mainly through the Health Care Renewal blog.  We also set up FIRM - the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine,  a US non-profit organization, to try to provide some financial support for the blog.

Since we were mostly health care academics, we assumed we could get some financial support for the blog and FIRM from foundations with interests in improving health care.  Had we not identified important causes of health care dysfunction that had been largely anechoic, but once identified could be addressed, thus presumably improving health care costs, quality, and access?  It seemed reasonable at the time.

However, we failed to find any prominent foundations willing to help.  We have occasionally gotten small amounts of money from a few small foundations, but not recently.  Meanwhile we have not seen any major health care foundations supporting any iniatives by anybody meant to address any of the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  In particular, while outright health care corruption seems one of the most outrageous issues we discuss, we have never found a foundation willing to take that on - at all.

 We should not have been surprised.  We later discovered that the leaders of many health care foundations had conflicts of interests which likely decreased their enthusiasm for even considering issues such as ... conflicts of interest and their risk of generating health care corruption.  (See below for further discussion.)  Recently, however, we have found some enlightenment on how such foundations, and other change agents and do gooders working the health care sphere, have managed to ignore such important problems

Why Expect Those Who Profit from Current Dysfunction to Lead Real Reform?


Last week, the New York Times published an essay by Anand Giridharadas, author of  the just published Winner Take All: Elite Charade of Changing the World.  The author's thesis was that society has handed over the responsibility for reform to those who benefit most from the status quo.

'Change the world' has long been the cry of the oppressed. But in recent years world-changing has been co-opted by the rich and the powerful.

He posited,

America might not be in the fix it’s in had we not fallen for the kind of change these winners have been selling: fake change.

Fake change isn’t evil; it’s milquetoast. It is change the powerful can tolerate. It’s the shoes or socks or tote bag you bought which promised to change the world. It’s that one awesome charter school — not equally funded public schools for all.

He suggested that the very wealthy seduce us with their dedication to change, even while sponsoring

world-changing initiatives funded by the winners of market capitalism do heal the sick, enrich the poor and save lives. But even as they give back, American elites generally seek to maintain the system that causes many of the problems they try to fix — and their helpfulness is part of how they pull it off. Thus their do-gooding is an accomplice to greater, if more invisible, harm.

What their 'change' leaves undisturbed is our winners-take-all economy, which siphons the gains from progress upward.

They have

a strong interest in convincing the public that they can help out within the system that so benefits the winners.

After all, if the Harvard Business School professor Michael E. Porter and his co-author Mark R. Kramer are right that 'businesses acting as business, not as charitable donors, are the most powerful force for addressing the pressing issues we face,' we shouldn’t rein in business, should we?

This is how the winners benefit from their own kindness: It lets them redefine change, and defang it.

In a 2017 essay in Medium which previewed the ideas that would appear in the book, Giridharadas had summarized the problem thus

change-makers [focus] on the difference they make to those they choose to help. Yet they risk avoiding the causes of the disease and remedies that would actually cure it. And they avoid these things in part because facing them could implicate powerful people, or perhaps even themselves.

This is a powerful idea.  As a society, at least in the US, we have abandoned true reform, including reform of health care, for faux reform controlled by those who would lose the most were true reform to take place instead.  We have handed the problem of excessive drug prices over to the executives of pharmaceutical companies who benefit most from currently outrageous pricing.  We have handed the problem of a dysfunctional health care insurance system over to executives of insurance companies who benefit most from high cost commercial insurance plans that cover as little as possible.  We have allowed corporations accused of unethical and criminal practices to make lax legal settlements that pretend they will be able to improve themselves without penalties accruing to the managers on whose watch the bad behavior occurred.  And we have let health care foundations led by top health care corporate managers and their cronies to sell change that matters. 

Broadening Understanding of the Conflicts of Interest Affecting Leadership of Health Care Foundations

Gridharadas has given us a broader view that explains why many big foundations fail to fulfill their glorious mission statements.

Example: the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation

For example, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation boasts,

The inspired vision of our founder, General Robert Wood Johnson II, was to improve health and health care in America, especially for those most in need. Energized by our legacy of taking on challenging issues, we are dedicated to building a Culture of Health that provides everyone in America a fair and just opportunity for health and well-being.

Has the foundation ever really addressed ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted or even corrupt health care leadership, or attacks on the scientific basis of medicine, including manipulation and suppression of clinical research studies?

Should we expect anything more - or less - from a foundation whose current 15 person board of trustees is chaired by:
- a retired corporate vice president and general counsel of Johnson & Johnson

and which otherwise includes:

- a retired corporate compliance officer and vice president, Technical Resources, of Johnson & Johnson

-   a surgeon who was  founder of the for-profit Columbia/ HCA, now HCA hospital system

- a retired vice president of government affairs and policy responsible for federal, state, and international relations for Johnson & Johnson.

- a retired vice president, chief information officer, and a member of and the first woman to serve on the Johnson & Johnson Executive Committee.

- and another retired retired corporate vice president of Johnson & Johnson

Example: the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation

The Gates Foundation boasts

We see equal value in all lives. And so we are dedicated to improving the quality of life for individuals around the world.

Yet in 2006, Transparency Internationa published a report on health care corruption, which asserted that corruption is widespread throughout the world, serious, and causes severe harm to patients and society.

the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries.

Also,

Corruption might mean the difference between life and death for those in need of urgent care. It is invariably the poor in society who are affected most by corruption because they often cannot afford bribes or private health care. But corruption in the richest parts of the world also has its costs.

Has the Gates Foundation ever addressed health care corruption and the conflicts of interest that are risk factors for corruption?  Should we expect more, or less from foundation that is now run by a multi-millionaire former pharaceutical executive as foundation CEO?

As we noted here, Dr Susan-Desmond Hellmann, the CEO of the Gates Foundation was previously President of Drug Development at Genentech, Dr Desmond-Hellmann had defended the then sky high pricing of bevacizumab.  Of course, Dr Desmond-Hellmann, as a top executive, personally profited from such pricing.  In her last year at Genentech while the company was still independent, her total compensation was over $8,000,000.  As we discussed in 2014, while she was the Chancellor of UCSF, questions arose about her committment to public health when it was revealed she and her husband had large stock holdings in the tobacco company Altria.  Yet she continued to dismiss the importance of her many apparent conflicts of interest.And there have been many accusations that the foundation she runs is more about promoting corporate interests in health care than actually promoting health, see the 2016 Global Policy Forum report per this Guardian article, this article in the Independent that accused the foundation of having a

ideological commitment to promote neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalisation

and  a PLoS Medicine article [Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Med 8(4): e1001020.  doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020.  Link here. ]

'There is a revolving door between the Gates foundation and pharmaceutical corporations. Many of the foundation’s staff had held positions at pharmaceutical companies,' the report adds.

For more details about Dr Desmond-Hellmann, look here.  

As we noted, in 2012,  the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria as struggled with corruption issues, but even after these wake up calls, the Gates Foundation, one of its major donors, has done nothing to address corruption beyond its doors.  Likewise, while the Health Alliance International  has also struggled with corruption, the Doris Duke Foundation has shown no interest in health corruption initiativies (look here).

Other Foundations

As we noted in 2011, uninterested in health care conflicts of interest and corruption are the Ford, Rockefeller, Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation which were noted to have significant holdings in Coca-Cola, Kellogg, PepsiCo, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, McDonalds, Nestle, NovoNordisk, YumBrands, Pizza Hut, KFC, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi-Aventis, while the Ford Foundation held shares in a tobacco company, Lorillard, and the Kellogg and Rockefeller Foundations "were indirectly invested in tobacco corporations through conglomerate equity funds...."

So health care interested foundations, which may derive financial benefit, and may be led or governed by people who mightily benefited from the dysfunctional health care status quo, are likely to continue fake reform to appear socially responsible, but avoid challenging their and their cronies sources of wealth.

Conclusion

Giridharadas suggested in an interview in New York Magazine,

What all that does is create this moral glow. And under the haze created by that glow, they’re able to create a probable monopoly that has harmed the most sacred thing in America, which is our electoral process, while gutting the other most sacred thing in America, our free press. And they do it under the cover of changing the world.

Unfortunately, he apparently has not come up with what to do about this problem.  The best conclusion I can reach derives from the end of a review of his book by Joseph Stiglitz in the New York Times,

Democracy and high levels of inequality of the kind that have come to characterize the United States are simply incompatible. Very rich people will always use money to maintain their political and economic power. But now we have another group: the unwitting enablers. Despite believing they are working for a better world, they are at most chipping away at the margins, making slight course corrections, while the system goes on as it is, uninterrupted.

So I say first, beware of fake reform pitched by those who benefit most from the current dysfunction, call it out, and whatever you do, do not continue enabling it.

Abort, Retry, Fail - Billionaire Bill Gates Opines, Sans Evidence, on ... the Efficacy of Hepatitis C Treatment?

If you needed advice about the technical characteristics of computer operating systems you probably would not go to your doctor for it.  So why would you seek the opinion of a software company mogul about the efficacy of pharmaceuticals?

Software Mogul Bill Gates on the Pricing and Efficacy of Antiviral Drugs for Hepatitis C 

Nonetheless, per Bloomberg, last week Bill Gates pontificated about drugs for the treatment of hepatitis C.  When apparently asked about the priorities of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Mr Gates said

market forces were working properly in hepatitis C, invoking Gilead Sciences Inc.’s treatments Sovaldi and Harvoni, which have been criticized by insurers and politicians as too expensive at $1,000 a pill or more for 12 weeks of treatment, before discounts and rebates.

While Gilead is the market leader, it’s now facing competition from Merck & Co. and AbbVie Inc., forcing prices lower.

'Curing hepatitis C, this is a phenomenal thing, and now you have multiple drug companies competing in terms of the quality and the price of that offering,' he said.

More broadly, Mr Gates defended the high prices of drugs in the US, partly because:

The drug companies are turning out miracles....

Not a Wonder Drug, According to the Clinical Research Evidence

Mr Gates, it seems, has not done a critical review of the data on the new antiviral treatments for hepatitis C.  In fact, starting in March, 2014, we have posted about the lack of good evidence from clinical research suggesting these drugs are in fact so wondrous.  The drugs are now touted as "cures," at least by the drug companies, (look here), and physicians are urged to do widespread screening to find patients with asymptomatic hepatitis C so they can benefit from early, albeit expensive treatment.

However, as we pointed out (e.g., here and here)
-  The best evidence available suggests that most patients with hepatitis C will not go on to have severe complications of the disease (cirrhosis, liver failure, liver cancer), and hence could not benefit much from treatment.
-  There is no evidence from randomized controlled trials that treatment prevents most of these severe complications
-  There is no clear evidence that "sustained virologic response," (SVR), the surrogate outcome measure promoted by the pharmaceutical industry, means cure. 
-  While the new drugs are advertised as having fewer adverse effects than older drugs, it is not clear that their benefits, whatever they may be, outweigh their harms.

Furthermore, health care professionals and researchers with heftier credentials in clinical epidemiology and evidence based medicine than mine have since published similar concerns.  These included
- a report from the German Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (the English summary is here)
- an article in JAMA Internal Medicine from the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review (1)
- a report from the Center for Evidence-Based Policy (link here)
- an article in Prescrire International (2)

These publications and your humble scribe noted that the clinical trials or other types of clinical research about new hepatitis C treatment published in the most prominent journals had numerous methodologic problems that all seemed likely to make the new drugs look better, perhaps intentionally.  (See posts here,  here, and here.)

Why Do Rich People Who Run Foundations Tout Expensive Drugs?


Yet there is something about hepatitis C and the newer treatments of it that seems to inspire rich people who run foundations to sound like marketers for Gilead, sans evidence to support their viewpoints.  About one year ago, former US President Bill Clinton, now a leader of the well-publicized Clinton Foundation and of the now apparently independent Clinton Health Access Initiative, said something similar, as we posted here:

Clinton pointed to new hepatitis C drugs, Sovaldi and Harvoni, which are sold by Gilead Sciences for more than $80,000 for a 12-week program of treatment. Those medications often cure a disease that can cause liver disease and eventually lead to transplants or death, which are expensive, too. But the sticker price on the drug has caused a backlash by payers and patients.

'Who wants to let somebody's liver rot? Nobody,' Clinton said. 'Who's got $80,000 to spend? Not many. And if you're a small businessperson and you're in a small pool [of employer-based insurers], are you going to fire somebody who needs that treatment? These are all practical problems, and we can solve them.'

So what is going on here?  In a general sense, it may be that people who have become very rich, and have held very high level executive positions, start to believe they are expert on everything, especially in a country increasingly dominated by market fundamentalism/ neoliberalism in which money is touted as the ultimate measure of everything important.  But more specifically, Mr Gates may also be spending too much time with the top brass of his foundation, who may be all too used to hawking expensive drugs.

Former Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Executives Running Supposedly Charitable Foundations

In particular, the current CEO of the Gates Foundation is Dr Susan Desmond-Hellmann.  When Dr Desmond-Hellmann's appointment as Chancellor of UCSF was announced in 2009, I suggested that she was a very unusual choice because of aspects of her track record in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology business.  During her previous service as President of Drug Development at Genentech, Dr Desmond-Hellmann had defended the then sky high pricing of bevacizumab.  Of course, Dr Desmond-Hellmann, as a top executive, personally profited from such pricing.  In her last year at Genentech while the company was still independent, her total compensation was over $8,000,000.  As we discussed in 2014, while she was at UCSF, questions arose about her committment to public health when it was revealed she and her husband had large stock holdings in the tobacco company Altria.  Yet she continued to dismiss the importance of her many apparent conflicts of interest.

Also, in 2011, prior to the hiring of Dr Desmond-Hellmann, as we discussed here, a PLoS Medicine article by Stuckler et al(3) suggested a revolving door between the leadership of the Gates Foundation and of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies,

Members of personnel also move between the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. For example, in April 2010, a former Merck senior vice president, Richard Henriques, became the chief financial officer of the Gates Foundation. At least two other members of the Gates Foundation leadership have transferred from the leadership of GlaxoSmithKline to sit on the Foundation’s board of directors, including Kate James, the chief communications officer, and Tachi Yamada, until February 2011, the head of the Foundation’s global health program. Similar patterns were observed with the other foundations studied.

Foundations Promoting the Biotechnology and Pharmaceutical Agenda

Dr Desmond-Helmann has continued to use her bully pulpit at the Gates Foundation to promote high-tech medicine that uses the newest, most expensive drugs.  For example, in an interview in December, 2015 in the Washington Post, she promoted "precision public health" which would emphasize the supposed "innovation, that speed, that ability to use big data" characteristic of precision medicine brought to public health.  However, "precision medicine" has so far not been proven to fulfill its promise to benefit patients.

In addition, in May, 2016, a Wall Street Journal article noted that she has led the Gates Foundation to invest in commercial biotechnology firms,

Dr. Desmond-Hellmann cited a $52 million investment by the foundation in CureVac, a German biopharmaceutical company, as the type of partnership that could produce new tools against epidemics. CureVac is developing vaccine technologies based on messenger RNA that would instruct the body to produce its own defenses against infections. The funding, which the foundation announced in 2015, is for construction of a manufacturing facility; the foundation said it would provide additional funding to develop vaccines for several infectious diseases.

Are these investments the best way to provide better global health care?  An aside in the Bloomberg article suggests they may be more about making money.

The foundation reported in May that it had received an unexpected boost to its endowment when a stake in a small biotechnology firm, Anacor Pharmaceuticals Inc., sold for $86.7 million -- about 17 times the fund’s original investment. While the foundation had invested in Anacor to encourage the company’s work in neglected diseases, Anacor shares took off after its toenail fungus drug was approved.

I am sure that toenail fungus is not a major public health problem anywhere, much less in the developing world.

The tragedy here is that the Gates Foundation, which appears to be the largest private foundation in the US (and the world), has a huge impact on global health, and yet its leadership is squandering its moral authority in the pursuit of the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology agenda.  A review of a new book out about the foundation in November, 2015 in the Intercept noted that the book's author

spends much more time discussing whether the Gates Foundation is protecting the patents of pharmaceutical companies and whether it is making common cause with Monsanto to spread genetically modified crops in Africa

In January, 2016, the  Global Policy Forum put out a report that, per a Guardian article,  accused

organisations like the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Rockefeller Foundation and others are promoting solutions to global problems that may undermine the UN and other international organisations, says the report by the independent Global Policy Forum, which monitors the work of UN bodies and global policymaking.

Futhermore, the report asserted,

 Through their multiple channels of influence, the Rockefeller and Gates foundations have been very successful in promoting their market-based and bio-medical approaches towards global health challenges in the research and health policy community – and beyond.

More specifically, an article in the Independent accused the foundation of having a

ideological commitment to promote neoliberal economic policies and corporate globalisation

The report, per the Guardian, also accused the foundation of conflicts of interest,

The report also questions why the Gates foundation invests heavily in companies like Monsanto and Bayer. 'In addition to its grant-making activities, the Gates foundation has recently stepped up its support for the biotechnological industry directly.'

Also, similar to the PLoS Medicine article cited above(3)

'There is a revolving door between the Gates foundation and pharmaceutical corporations. Many of the foundation’s staff had held positions at pharmaceutical companies,' the report adds.

More dramatically, per the Independent,

the Gates Foundation 'often appears to be a massive, vertically integrated multinational corporation, controlling every step in a supply chain that reaches from its Seattle-based boardroom … to millions of end-users in the villages of African and south Asia.'

Furthermore, per the Intercept book review article, the larger problem is that the Gate Foundation and its CEO are largely unaccountable,

Bill and Melinda Gates answer to no electorate, board, or shareholders; they are accountable mainly to themselves. What’s more, the many millions of dollars the foundation has bestowed on nonprofits and news organizations has led to a natural reluctance on their part to criticize it. There’s even a name for it: the 'Bill Chill'  effect.

I would note parenthetically the foundation's board of trustees only includes Bill and Melinda Gates, Mr Gates' father, and Mr Warren Buffet.  Most large foundations have considerably larger boards of trustees, with at least some diversity in family membership and backgrounds.

In an interview with the Financial Times in March, 2016, Dr Desmond-Hellmann made a hash of addressing the accountability issue:

Accountability is another concern. To whom do these multibillion-dollar foundations answer?

For once, Dr Desmond-Hellmann’s confident responses falter. In reply to a suggestion that trans­parency is not the same thing as accountability — putting everything online means you can see what the foundation is doing, but does not mean that it is being held to account — she seems uncharacteristically stuck for words.

'The way that people can hold us accountable is to look at what we achieved as a foundation through our collaborations,' she says, quickly regaining her poise.

So even the foundation's CEO cannot say to whom, and how she is accountable.


Conclusions

So maybe Bill Gates' seemingly ill-informed apologia for the extremely high drug prices charged in the US, and his lack of understanding of the evidence about the efficacy, or lack thereof, of some of these high priced drugs is a small humorous story that indicates just the tip of the iceberg.  It appears that in our current market fundamentalist, neoliberal world, foundations may be more about promoting the commercial interests of their board members and officers than about improving the lot of humanity.  Yet for the most part they may succeed in obfuscating what they are doing through the haze of marketing and public relations.

True health care reform would first make transparent the web of institutional and individual conflicts of interest that seems to tie together nearly all big health care organizations, and open discussion of how to make health care organizations better serve health care rather than the narrow financial interest of their top leaders.

Graphic Interlude

A "blue screen of death"

 References

1. Ollendorf DA, Tice JA et al. The comparative clinical effectiveness and value of simeprevir and sofosbuvir in chronic hepatitis C viral infection. JAMA Intern Med 2014. Link here.
2. Sofosbuvir (Sovaldi), active against hepatitis C virus, but evaluation is incomplete. Prescrire Int 2015; 24: 5- 10. Link here.
3.  Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Med 8(4): e1001020.  doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020.  Link here.

Abort, Retry, Fail? - Lancet Avoided Much Recent Unpleasantness in Reporting on New Gates Foundation CEO (Including Her Defense of $55,000 a Year for Bevacizumab)

The April 26, 2014 issue of the prestigious journal Lancet used two full pages and two separate articles by the same author to discuss the ascension of the Gates Foundation new CEO, Dr Susan Desmond-Hellmann.(1-2)

Two Somewhat Redundant Lancet Articles

Dr Desmond-Hellmann trained as an oncologist, spent time working on AIDS and Kaposi's Sarcoma in Uganda, but then spent much of her career as a pharmaceutical/ biotechnology executive, as described in the first article,(1)

After returning from Uganda, Desmond-Hellmann joined the nascent Taxol development programme at Bristol-Myers Squibb, before being poached by Arthur Levinson, the then Head of Research and Development at Genentech. Levinson was convinced Genentech had a strong pipeline of anticancer therapies, and brought Desmond-Hellmann on board to help guide them through to approval. The pipeline went stratospheric, and took Desmond-Hellmann with it. By 2009 she had been promoted to President of Product Development, having overseen the introduction of two of the first gene-targeted therapies for cancer, bevacizumab and trastuzumab.

After Genentech was bought out by Roche, Dr Desmond-Hellmann became Chancellor of the University of California, San Francisco,

Over the next 5 years, Desmond-Hellmann instituted wide-ranging reforms at UCSF, including aggressively cutting administrative waste and putting a greater emphasis on partnerships with the biotech and pharmaceutical sectors, coming in for some criticism in the process. 'Some of the press suggested one of Sue's goals was to take UCSF out of the public system', says [current UCSF interim Chancellor Sam] Hawgood. 'Nothing could be further form the truth. She was very proud of the public mission of UCSF, and had no intent to alter that.' Mindful of how damaging perceived conflicts of interest could have been to her credibility during her time at UCSF, Desmond-Hellmann says she 'specifically avoided being on pharma and biotech boards'.

The article suggested we should expect nothing but great things from Dr Desmond-Hellmann at the Gates Foundation,

it is Desmond-Hellmann's ability to forge partnerships and her wide network of contacts, rather than her knack for cutting administrative overheads, that will have seemed most attractive to the Gates Foundation as it looks to speed up the process of translating research into results.

The second article used remarkably similar wording(2), e.g., regarding her career in the pharmaceutical business,

Soon after joining the Taxol team, Desmond-Hellmann was leading it; the kind of progress that was bound to catch the eye of Genentech's then Head of Research and Development Arthur Levinson. What happened next is part of pharmaceutical folklore, as Desmond-Hellmann helped to mastermind one of the most profitable drug-development pipelines in history, including the approval of two of the first targeted cancer therapies, for Genentech.

Also, regarding her career at UCSF,(2)

 Desmond-Hellmann from embarking on a programme of structural reforms to cut administrative inefficiency and forge closer links with private industry, something that still stirs up controversy. 'There definitely were concerns, and there remain concerns in academia, about conflicts of interest, privatisation. I think what helped most was that I was clear in my actions that I did and do value that UCSF is a public institution, and I think my actions spoke and speak for themselves', she says. But Desmond-Hellmann is robust in her defence of the importance of public—private partnerships for driving innovations that ultimately benefit society.

Finally, regarding expectations for her performance in the future,

'There are a lot of people who are looking to the foundation, and in the world of philanthropy there's a lot of visibility to the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, so I certainly feel accountable and responsible for doing a good job.' But, she asserts, 'I'm up for it'. With a track record that ranges from clinical research, global health, and the sharp end of commercial drug development, she seems to be made for it.

So Lancet, a very well known journal which normally is very parsimonious about its use of the printed page, used two full pages for two very similar articles about the new Gates Foundation CEO.  Both articles made the same points,
-  Dr Desmond-Hellmann had a brilliant career in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology business, and was responsible for the development of several important cancer drugs
-  Dr Desmond-Hellmann made major reforms at UCSF, including pushing for some sort of privatization, and for public-private partnerships, while dismissing concerns about any resulting conflicts of interest
 -  Dr Desmond-Hellmann is likely to be very successful as Gates Foundation CEO.

What the Articles Did Not Say

When Dr Desmond-Hellmann's appointment as Chancellor of UCSF was announced in 2009, I suggested that she was a very unusual choice because of aspects of her track record in the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology business.  Yet the Lancet's two articles on her prospects as new Gates Foundation CEO ignored these considerations, and ignored or downplayed aspects of her track record as UCSF Chancellor.  In particular,

Defending $55,000/ Year Bevacizumab

As I noted in 2009, Dr Desmond-Hellmann's defense as a Genentech executive of the sky high prices the company was charging for its new drugs was well documented in an article in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute)(3)

And cancer biologics, though among the most costly drugs, are still only a tiny fraction of total GDP, said Genentech's Susan Desmond-Hellmann, president for product development, at AACR.

Hellmann and others argue that with these drugs’ potential to alleviate the huge societal burden of cancer, biologics are worth the cost.

The industry has responded to concerns about costs by putting more resources into patient assistance programs. When Genentech received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval for bevacizumab in lung cancer last October, it also announced a cap on expenditures for the drug for patients with family incomes less than $100,000 a year. In 2005, the median household income was $46,326.

Originally announced as $55,000, the cap actually doesn't kick in until after a patient has received 10,000 mg. At the wholesale acquisition cost, 10,000 mg is about $55,000, said Genentech spokesperson Edward Lang.

What the companies have not done so far is reduce prices. The reason, industry representatives say, is the need to recoup massive research and development costs, including high manufacturing costs for biologics. These costs have long kept biotech companies from making much of a profit overall, Hellmann said. She noted that profit levels of publicly held biotech firms have 'hovered close to zero' throughout the life of the industry.

Whatever the company's nominal profit levels, its executives, including Dr Desmond-Hellmann, have made extremely good money.   According to Genentech's 2008 proxy statement, (the last available, since the company has been bought out by Roche), Dr Desmond-Hellmann's total compensation was $8,361,348 in 2007 and $7,820,142 in 2006. In 2007, her total compensation was equal to 0.3% of the firm's total net income.

Of course, since 2007, and especially since 2009, the problem of hugely expensive pharmaceuticals as a driver of health care costs, especially in the US, has become all too apparent.  The Lancet articles were completely silent about this aspect of Dr Desmond-Hellmann's track record, and what implications it might have for her new role of a foundation that spends $3 billion a year, mainly ostensibly to improve the health of poor people.

Since she began as Chancellor of UCSF in 2009, other aspects of Dr Desmond-Hellmann's track record came to light that might have a bearing on how she will conduct herself as Gates Foundation CEO. 

Investments in Tobacco Stocks

As I posted in 2010, then NY Times reporter Duff Wilson discovered that Dr Desmond-Hellmann and her husband (also a physician), had stock holdings in Altria, the parent company of tobacco company Phillip Morris USA, worth between $100,000 and $1,000,000.  When this made public, they abruptly sold the stock.  The head of the UCSF tobacco control center then said,  “I do find that kind of shocking, but at least she got rid of it,...”

The goals of tobacco companies seem completely antithetical to those of a medical school, especially one with a tobacco control center, and incidentally seem antithetical to those of the Gates Foundation, which has a tobacco control initiative, with a stated goal:

to reduce tobacco-related death and disease in developing countries by preventing the initiation of new smokers, decreasing overall tobacco use, and reducing exposure to secondhand smoke.

The Lancet articles were silent on this issue.  

Questions Whether Industry Partnerships Threaten the University Mission

In 2011, I posted about Dr Desmond-Hellmann's vigorous push to create public-private partnerships, which seemed meant to turn UCSF into a de facto drug company research and development contract shop.  At the time, I noted that many of her arguments seemed to be based on logical fallacies, and that she never provided any good evidence for her claims of marvelous new "innovations" that would result from such supposed partnerships.  The Lancet articles did not mention any substantive concerns about this issue.

Dismissing Concerns about Conflicts of Interest

In 2012, I posted about how Dr Desmond-Hellmann also dismissed concerns that public-private partnerships could lead to damaging conflicts of interest, again employing several logical fallacies.  In particular, she implied that medical academics should no longer just do research to advance knowledge, but had become responsible for getting their "discoveries to society," and therefore would have to "start a company or work with a company to commercialize a product."  She did not seem to acknowledge the possibility that academics could make discoveries, but perhaps other people would be better at turning these discoveries into useful products.  The Lancet articles were silent on these issues.

Minimizing Concerns about Conflicts of Interest due to Membership on the Board of Corporations with Health Care Agendas

As noted above, Dr Desmond-Hellmann stated that she demonstrated her sensitivity to the issue of conflicts of interest affecting academic health care by avoiding membership on boards of directors of "pharma or biotech" companies.  These, of course are not the only sorts of for-profit corporations who have health care agendas.  This statement appears to have been carefully worded to avoid dealing with Dr Desmond-Hellmann's membership since 2010 on the board of directors of Procter & Gamble (see the company's 2013 proxy statement.)   While Procter & Gamble is no longer a major pharmaceutical company, it has a Global Health and Grooming unit, whose products include over the counter pharmaceuticals (e.g., Pepto-Bismal, Metamucil, Prilosec OTC).  Also, while Procter & Gamble does not make it very obvious, it has also owned MDVIP, a company that employs physicians to provide concierge medical services, since 2010, although as Cincinnati.com just reported, it will soon sell this unit to private equity.   So while perhaps Dr Desmond-Hellmann could claim that while she was UCSF Chancellor she was not on the board of directors of any pure pharmaceutical or biotechnology company, she was certainly on the board of a major international company that sells pharmaceuticals and other health care related products, and employs physicians to provide direct patient care.  (Presumably, she will be staying on the P&G board while she is Gates Foundation CEO.)  The Lancet did not mention this issue. 

Privatizing UCSF

Also, the Lancet articles seemed to contradict other reports that Dr Desmond-Hellmann made a serious attempt to privatize at least some aspects of UCSF, but that this effort failed. (Note that quote by Dr Hawgood from the first article above.)    

However, in 2012, I posted about a prevalent conspiracy theory that University of California managers were trying to take the university private.  However, it seemed to be more of a theory, because at least one news report included statements that Dr Desmond-Hellmann wanted to take UCSF out of the state university system.  This week, an article in the San Francisco Business Times suggested that this was a serious plan, in that Dr Desmond-Hellmann

ran into opposition when she  proposed in early 2012 that some of UCSF's functions be separated from the rest of the UC system.

The autonomy coming from the separation, Desmond-Hellmann argued at the time, would have meant that the sole graduate-level-only campus in the 10-campus UC system would no longer subsidize UC undergrad programs. It also would have translated into UCSF having more control over the money it generates from its medical center and other operations.

However, the same article noted that the current University of California President,

dismissed as 'loose talk' a more than two-year-old plan for UCSF to weaken its ties to the larger UC system. 'UCSF is firmly part of the system and will remain so,...'

The current president seemed to thus acknowledge that this plan existed, however "loose" it may have been.  Clearly, the Lancet articles suggested rather that Dr Desmond-Hellmann did not have any privatization plans, whatever the criticisms people could have made of them.  

Summary

We have often discussed the anechoic effect, how it seems taboo to discuss certain unpleasant facts and issues relevant to the health care system, especially those that might lead to questions about the abilities of the current leadership of large health care organizations.  This taboo seems to particularly affect public discourse within the health care system, such as is found in medical and other scholarly health care journals.

The Lancet is one of the largest circulation and most prestigious medical journals.  The Gates Foundation is one of the biggest foundations working in the health care sphere.  In their latest letter, Bill and Melinda Gates stated,

Our foundation is teaming up with partners around the world to take on some tough challenges: extreme poverty and poor health in developing countries, and the failures of America’s education system.

Yet when the Lancet devoted two full pages to often repetitive discussion of the new leader of the Gates Foundation, it avoided discussion of several issues that might have lead to questions about whether her future leadership would really be about challenging "poor health in developing countries," rather than promoting the interests of large pharmaceutical/ biotechnology and other health care related companies, as she had apparently tried to do before.  That such an important medical journal would publish such incomplete health news reporting suggests the operation of the anechoic effect.

I hope the questions that ought to be raised about Dr Desmond-Hellmann's priorities as CEO of the Gates Foundation will eventually be put to rest.  It would be more reassuring, however, if they could be confronted directly rather than obfuscated.  As long as big health care journals remain so deferential to big health care leaders, concerns we have raised before about whether health care is now primarily lead by a small in-group of executives and managers who may put private interests ahead of entrusted responsibilities remain acute.

As we have said many, many times, true health care reform would ensure that leaders of big health care organizations really put patients' and the public's health ahead of private interests. 


References

1.  Holmes D. New CEO takes the reins at the Gates Foundation.  Lancet 2014; 383: 1440.  Link here.
2.  Holmes D. Susan Desmond-Hellmann taking charge at the Gates Foundation.  Lancet 2014; 383: 1455.  Link here.
3.  McNeil C. Sticker shock sharpens focus on biologics.  J Nat Cancer Instit 2007; 99: 910-914.  Link here.

ADDENDUM - Material about MDVIP as subsidiary of Procter & Gamble added 5 May, 2014 PM. 

Will the Freeze of the Global Fund Finally Put Health Care Corruption on the Agenda?

In February, 2011, we posted about problems with corruption affecting the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria. At the time, the Fund promised to better detect fraud and corruption affecting its grants programs. We later posted about how after an internal debate, the Fund promised to make more information public about any losses to fraud and corruption.

Now it has made more such information public, but it also appears that further problems with corruption have lead to the freezing of the Fund.

The New Findings of Corruption

First, as reported by Bloomberg on 1 November,

A $22 billion disease-fighting fund backed by Microsoft Corp. (MSFT) founder Bill Gates found that money intended for people with life-threatening illnesses was used for home renovations in India and diverted to a person linked with money laundering and so-called blood diamonds in Nigeria.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria is seeking to recover as much as $19.2 million from grants in eight countries, the Geneva-based organization said in a set of reports today. As much as $1.3 million was misused by the head of a non-governmental AIDS organization in India to buy a car and renovate his apartment, one report said. In Nigeria, money was siphoned to a person arrested in 2003 for money-laundering and smuggling diamonds that are mined and sold to support war.

This amount was in addition to previous amounts disclosed before:

The organization said last year it was seeking the recovery of $44.2 million in four nations for 'grave misuse of funds.'

It is not clear how much money the Fund has lost to corruption in total. According to an AP report, via CBS News,

Earlier probes by the fund's internal watchdog, the inspector general's office, had detected about $53 million in losses, according to fund documents, some unpublished, provided by senior officials.

The fund's board chairman Simon Bland told The Associated Press it has now reviewed about one-seventh of $14 billion in grants disbursed.

Whether similar amounts of corruption affected the other six sevenths of grants is unclear.

The Freeze on Grants

This week, several reports that the Fund would stop funding new grants appeared in the media. As reported by BusinessWeek,

The world’s biggest disease-fighting fund canceled its next round of grants as the global financial crisis crimps donations and threatens its ability to curb the spread of the world’s deadliest infections.

The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, which has spent or committed to spending $22 billion since 2002 on preventing and treating disease, will only have enough money to pay for essential services for existing programs through the end of 2013, the Geneva-based fund said in a statement today. It will not make new grants until 2014,...

The reason for this freeze on grant making was,

The fund faces 'accelerating deterioration' in its finances for the next three years because of economic distress in donor nations, combined with corruption in some of the poor countries it helps,...

A NY Times article implied that one reason for the financial shortfall was that some donor nations withheld money due to their concerns about corruption:

Several countries, including Djibouti, Mali, Mauritania and Zambia, lost their grants or had new safeguards put in place after officials were accused of stealing. The Global Fund’s own inspector general exposed the fraud and earlier this month was trying to recover about $20 million that had been stolen; that amount is less than 1 percent of the $13 billion that has been disbursed.

There have been reports of friction between Dr. Kazatchkine and the inspector general, John Parsons. They each report separately to the board.

Some major donors, including Germany and Sweden, expressed their dismay by freezing their donations.

Also, CBS News reported,

Germany, the European Commission and Denmark withheld hundreds of millions of euros in funding pending reviews of the fund's internal controls. Germany — the fund's fourth-largest donor- has since restored its funding.

Summary and Comment
In summary, the uncovering of specific instances of corruption that wasted the assets of the Global Fund, and the concerns of international donors about the effects of corruption on the Fund have been some of the causes of a freeze in funding that will preclude new initiatives at least until 2014. This is a dramatic illustration of how corruption can undermine health care.

We wondered previously whether the realization that corruption was subverting the Fund's activities would lead the Fund to actively address corruption.  In fact, the Fund seems to have investigated previous corruption affecting its work more aggressively than have many other health care organizations.  However, the Fund did not appear to have instituted any initiatives to prevent, forestall, or challenge corruption.  In that, it is typical of nearly every health care organization in the world.

Transparency International defines corruption as "abuse of entrusted power for private gain."  By that definition, many of the cases discussed on Health Care Renewal are about corruption.  For example, if a pharmaceutical company pays physicians as part of a deceptive marketing campaign that exaggerates the benefits or minimizes the harms of a drug, and that campaign increases sales and hence executive compensation, one could argue that the case involves corruption of both of physicians and of company management.  We have discussed many such cases on Health Care Renewal.  One striking example was the stealth marketing campaign for Neurontin as described in posts here, here, here and here.

Thus, there are many examples of corruption affecting health care professionals and academics, and all sorts of health care organizations, hospitals, health care insurers, pharmaceutical and device companies, health care information technology companies, medical education and communication companies, contract research organizations, etc, etc, etc  In 2006, Transparency International's Global Corruption Report asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries."  As we summarized here, the report discussed the scale and diversity of health care corruption, and the severity of its adverse effects.

However, at least for a generation, there has been almost no opposition to such corruption.  In fact, as we have noted, health care corruption, and the problems and leadership and governance that lead to it, have been nearly anechoic.  Specifically, there is almost no teaching or research on corruption in health care academics (including medical and public health schools, and programs in health care research and policy.)  There is almost no mention of corruption by health care professional associations.  There are almost no initiatives to fight corruption on the part of health care charities and donors.  There is almost no interest in corruption among patient advocacy organizations.  (See previous discussion here.)

Why do they all ignore such a huge problem?  Most likely it is because of institutional and individual conflicts of interests.  Most of the these organizations are substantially funded by health care corporations, including corporations most involved in corruption, (and parenthetically, by financial firms whose corruption was likely a major cause of the global financial collapse / great recession, the other ostensible cause of the freeze of Global Fund grants.)  Many prominent health professionals and academics, and health care organizational leaders themselves have individual financial relationships with such companies.  For example, a majority of US medical school department chairs have significant financial relationships with health care corporations (see post here).  We have shown how top medical school leaders may simultaneously serve on the boards of directors of health care corporations (see post here).  People who are personally profiting from relationships with health care corporations are unlikely to question such relationships.  The leaders of organizations which depend on funding from such corporations are unlikely to question whether conflicts of interest might lead to corruption.  People whose colleagues, friends, family members, or supervisors are personally benefiting from conflicts of interest may hesitate to challenge such relationships.

So will the freeze of new grants at the Global Fund at least get health care corruption on the agenda?  One can only hope.  I personally hope that there are enough honest and unconflicted people remaining who will raise their voices above a murmur, even if that might discomfit those around them.

Of course, one reason we started Health Care Renewal was to make these issues less anechoic. So hear we go again.


PS - If anyone in our vast audience does know about any additional anti-corruption or conflict of interest, or pro-accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty and ethics initiatives, courses, meetings relevant to health care, please let me know and I will do my best to disseminate the information.

"The 'Third Rail' that No One Wishes to Analyze" - Conflicts of Interest Affecting Health Care Foundations

On Health Care Renewal we discuss what we think are important issues affecting health care that seem to be rarely mentioned in the medical and health care literature and the "main-stream media."  In particular, we focus on problems in health care leadership and governance, how they threatened the core values of health care professionals, and how these threats contribute to rising costs, and declining access and quality. 

One of our preoccupations has been why these problems remain so anechoic.  A new article in PLoS Medicine [Stuckler D, Basu S, McKee M. Global health philanthropy and institutional relationships: how should conflicts of interest be addressed? PLoS Med 8(4): e1001020. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001020.  Link here. ] seems to have uncovered another missing link to the anechoic effect. 

Private Foundations and Their Influence on Global Health

The article noted the importance of the influence of private foundations on global health:

While corporate involvement in and government aid for health has been extensively analyzed and critiqued in the public health literature, less attention has been paid to the impact of private donors on public health. Over the past decade, the bulk of new health aid designed to reach the Millennium Development Goals has come from individuals and corporations. The influence of this private philanthropy on global health is profound and transformative.

So,

Private foundations operate outside the typical boundaries of democracy; unlike government ministries, private foundations cannot be influenced in the same way by the communities affected by the foundations' actions. In the interests of public health, and particularly because poor communities affected by foundations do not automatically have a feedback mechanism to influence the decisions of private funders, we argue that it is appropriate to subject private foundations to the same scrutiny received by public institutions.

In this paper, we examine the scope of potential conflicts of interests that exist among the private foundations that are major funders of global health.

I would add that private foundations may have an outsize influence not only on global public health policy, but also on health care policy within particular countries, including the US.   This may arise because of the perception that they are more independent and nearer the cutting edge than are government and industry sources of funding. For example, here in the US, the Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundations have been widely perceived by health care, services and policy researchers as especially influential and respectable sources of funding, possibly partially because of the perception that they have less self-serving agendas than do government agencies and for-profit health care corporations.

The Possibility of Conflicts of Interest

The authors noted increasing concern about conflicts of interest affecting the activities of for-profit corporations involved in public health and health care:

because tensions can arise between the profit motives of corporations and the promotion of public health. Whereas corporations make products that can improve health (such as pharmaceuticals and vaccines) and relationships between public health institutions and for-profit corporations can be seen as positive opportunities for corporations to improve public health, corporations also make products that damage health (such as tobacco or unhealthy foods). And because some corporations have a vested interest in the activities of public health bodies, there have been documented attempts to influence the public health agenda by establishing associations with health care institutions

Thus the authors thought it also made sense to address conflicts of interest affecting private foundations operating in the global health space. They performed a case-study of the largest global health foundation, the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, while also briefly discussing four other large global health foundations, the Ford Foundation, W. K. Kellogg Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and Rockefeller Foundation.

Stock Holdings

The article noted that the Gates Foundation had substantial investments in food and pharmaceutical companies:

The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's corporate stock endowment is heavily invested in food and pharmaceutical companies, directly and indirectly .... The Foundation holds significant shares in McDonald's (9.4 million shares representing about 5% of the Gates' portfolio), and Coca-Cola (>15 million shares, over 7% of the Foundation's portfolio, not counting Berkshire Hathaway holdings). In 2009 the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation sold extensive pharmaceutical holdings in Johnson & Johnson (2.5 million shares), Schering-Plough Corporation (14.9 million shares), Eli Lilly and Company (about 1 million shares), Merck & Co. (8.1 million shares), and Wyeth (3.7 million shares).

Also, the Foundation indirectly invests in food and pharmaceutical companies through its holdings of Berkshire Hathaway:

Berkshire Hathaway's largest investment is in Coca-Cola. It owns an additional 8.7% of Coca-Cola (Warren Buffett's firm is the largest shareholder in Coca-Cola, having stock worth >$10 billion dollars) and 6.3% of Kraft (Buffett is also the largest shareholder of Kraft). Berkshire Hathaway also has significant ownership in GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Johnson & Johnson, and Procter & Gamble, and is one of the main global investors in the latter two pharmaceutical companies.

The article also noted that the Ford, Rockefeller, Kellogg and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation had significant holdings in Coca-Cola, Kellogg, PepsiCo, Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, McDonalds, Nestle, NovoNordisk, YumBrands, Pizza Hut, KFC, Johnson & Johnson, and Sanofi-Aventis, and that the Ford Foundation held shares in a tobacco company, Lorillard, and the Kellogg and Rockefeller Foundations "were indirectly invested in tobacco corporations through conglomerate equity funds...."

This admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have financial holdings that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food, pharmaceutical, and even tobacco companies.

Conflicts Affecting Foundation Leadership

The article noted that:

Several of the [Gates] Foundation's members of the management committee, leadership teams, affiliates, and major funders are currently or were previously members of the boards or executive branches of several major food and pharmaceutical companies ... including Coca-Cola, Merck, Novartis, General Mills, Kraft, and Unilever....

In addition,

Further overlaps between Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation leadership, other private foundations, and circular flows of personnel with food and pharmaceutical companies were observed .... Such patterns of interlinked board directorships, common among corporations and nonprofit organizations, were similarly found in the other private foundations studied.

Examples provided in an appendix were:

Anne Fudge, the chairman of the Gates Foundation’s US Program Advisory Panel is also on the board of directors of Rockefeller Foundation (in addition to General Electric, Novartis, Unilever, and Harvard University, among others).

Furthermore,

Members of personnel also move between the Foundation and pharmaceutical companies. For example, in April 2010, a former Merck senior vice president, Richard Henriques, became the chief financial officer of the Gates Foundation. At least two other members of the Gates Foundation leadership have transferred from the leadership of GlaxoSmithKline to sit on the Foundation’s board of directors, including Kate James, the chief communications officer, and Tachi Yamada, until February 2011, the head of the Foundation’s global health program. Similar patterns were observed with the other foundations studied.

Again, this admittedly case-based data suggested that the major private foundations active in global health may have leaders who have financial relationships that could possibly influence their actions in favor of the vested interests of food and pharmaceutical companies.

Program Initiatives Possibly Related to Conflicts

The article asserted:

The bulk of the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation's financial transfers in global health have been to programs developing medical technologies....

In particular,

Overall, about 42% of all funding was spent on health care delivery or increasing access to drugs, vaccines, and medical commodities, while an additional one-third was allocated to technology development (mainly for vaccines and microbicides) or basic science research.

Specific programs were related to companies in which the the Gates Foundation or its leaders had financial interests:

The Foundation has established partnerships with the Coca-Cola Company, which, in the words of the Foundation, are intended to 'create new market opportunities for local farmers whose fruit will be used for Coca-Cola's locally-produced and sold fruit juices'.

Also,

many of the Foundation's pharmaceutical development grants may benefit leading pharmaceutical companies such as Merck and GlaxoSmithKline....

and

Johnson & Johnson has entered a clinical partnership to develop new HIV-prevention technology, noting 'the work between Johnson & Johnson and the Gates Foundation is a strong, strategic, comprehensive relationship'.

While there are many needs in global health, and many approaches to addressing these needs, this limited case-based data suggested that a strong focus of the Gates Foundation was on approaches that revolve around drugs, devices and biotechnology, again which would tend to favor the vested interests of the pharmaceutical companies which the Foundation holds in its investment portfolio and with which some of its leaders have or had financial relationships.

Discussion

While the data from this case-study were limited, they do suggest that major private foundations that support global health, and by extension, health care, services, and policy research may have institutional conflicts of interest, and their leaders may have personal conflicts of interest. It is possible that these conflicts have steered global health policy to favor vested interests, particularly towards approaches that depend on drugs and devices, perhaps instead of more effective ones using less technology.

Furthermore, it is possible that that these conflicts of interest have helped create the anechoic effect.  Conflicts of interest could have pushed the foundations in directions that favored specific vested interests, and away from others that may threaten such interests.  Many of the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal may threaten such interests.  Private health foundations have been notably uninterested in addressing how problems in leadership and governance of health care organizations can threaten core values, They have been particularly uninterested in addressing specific tactics used when leadership is ill-informed, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt, e.g., deceptive practices used to promote products and services, and promote policies favorable to vested interests, including, of course, deliberate creation of conflicts of interest (such as the cultivation of key opinion leaders).

In fact, a particular version of the anechoic effect surrounds the private foundations themselves, as described by Stuckler et al:

Although the philanthropic activities of wealthy individuals and corporations have attracted controversy in the past (Text S1), their charitable mission often means that they face less scrutiny than governments; critical analysis of foundations can be seen as 'biting the hand that feeds us.' As a result, within the global health community, private donors are sometimes viewed as the 'third rail' that no one wishes to analyze.

We have often commented on the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest in health care. Now we see them affecting even the most respected private health care foundations which were previously regarded as independent. The web of conflicts of interest may benefit those personally involved, but to the detriment of patients' and the public's health. Unfortunately, as the web has gotten more complex, it stifles awareness of the problem by the unconflicted, much less their ability to respond.

At a minimum, I urge that private health care foundations fully disclose their institutional conflicts of interest, and the conflicts of interest of their leaders. If they wish to maintain their previously sterling reputations, they ought to consider divesting themselves of financial holdings that generate institutional conflicts, and of leaders who have financial relationships that generate personal conflicts.

Hat tip: to Ed Silverman on the PharmaLot blog.