CA Supreme Court upholds "whistleblower" protection for Modesto physician - and on replacing the abuser-favoring connotations of "whistleblower" with "Corporate Integrity Advocate"

"Whistleblower" is a term commonly used to refer to insiders in an organization who do not "go along to get along" or look the other way with regard to corruption and malfeasance.

The connotation, of course, is that these individuals are "snitches" and "non-team players", in other words, the "bad guys."  They are then punished for their good deeds.

(More on the term "whistleblower" below.)

Here's one "whistleblower" who punished back:

California Supreme Court upholds whistleblower protection for Modesto physician

By Ken Carlson
February 20, 2014
http://www.modbee.com/2014/02/20/3201156/california-supreme-court-upholds.html

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a Modesto physician who challenged the termination of his hospital privileges has whistleblower protections.

Dr. Mark Fahlen, a kidney specialist, filed a March 2011 whistleblower lawsuit in Stanislaus County Superior Court after Sacramento-based Sutter Health canceled his privileges to care for patients at Memorial Medical Center.

Fahlen’s lawsuit claims that Sutter Central Valley Hospitals and Steve Mitchell, then the chief operating officer of Memorial, persuaded the Sutter Gould medical group to fire him and terminated his hospital privileges because of his complaints about insubordination and substandard care by hospital nurses.

At least they didn't threaten to plaster his complaints to his forehead as occurred in Ohio (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/07/hows-this-for-patient-rights-affinity.html).

His attorney said the court decision guarantees that physicians have the same protections as hospital employees if they report problems that threaten to harm patients.

That "guarantees protections" and "report problems that threaten to harm patients" have to appear in the same sentence at all is symptomatic of the most severe form of patient-be-damned dysfunction in this industry.

It’s “the biggest victory for patient rights since California’s health care whistleblower law was adopted in 1999,” said attorney Stephen Schear of Oakland. “In a hospital environment dominated by corporate giants too often more focused on protecting their marketing and brand name than patient health, today’s ruling will finally unshackle doctors from fear of retribution so they can protect patients.”

Ditto my prior comment.

In a case closely watched by the hospital industry, the American Medical Association supported Fahlen with a “friend of the court” brief. The California Hospital Association and groups such as Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Scripps Health and Dignity Health filed briefs on behalf of the defendants.

That is rather indicative of the mindsets of those who filed briefs on behalf of the defendants.

... After he was given staff privileges at Memorial in 2004, Fahlen complained to administrators that nurses refused or failed to follow his patient care instructions. According to facts in the case, Fahlen had six clashes with nurses about patient care from August 2007 to April 2008. He told supervisors and administrators that nurses were insubordinate and that their care was substandard.

One complaint was regarding a nurse’s refusal to transfer a patient to intensive care, delaying for five hours the appropriate level of care for the patient, the doctor said.

What if the patient had died, I ask?

Mitchell, the chief operating officer, blamed Fahlen for his conflicts with nursing staff and contacted Sutter Gould’s medical director about Fahlen’s conduct. Sutter Gould cut ties with Fahlen in May 2008, causing his malpractice insurance to be canceled. Fahlen decided to start his own practice and arranged a meeting with Mitchell to talk about his hospital privileges.

Mitchell wrote in an email to Memorial’s chief executive officer that Fahlen “does not get it,” meaning that he was going to lose his privileges. The CEO replied that it “looks like we need to have the medical staff take some action on his MedQuals!!! (or medical qualifications). Soon!”

According to the lawsuit, Mitchell told Fahlen at the meeting that he should resign and leave town, or the hospital would report him to the Medical Board of California. Fahlen charged that a subsequent in-house investigation, and an executive committee decision not to renew his privileges, occurred in retaliation for his complaints about patient care.

In other words, the doctor was a "disruptive physician" - a bad schoolboy who needed to be spanked - which was, of course, more important to the executives than maimed or dead patients.

Fahlen asked for a hearing, resulting in an October 2009 to May 2010 review by a six-physician committee at Memorial. The panel concluded that the evidence did not show he was incompetent or that his behavior had endangered patients. [But] Memorial’s board of trustees overruled the panel in early 2011.  [It's not hard to imagine that few if any on that board were themselves medical professionals - ed.]

It's more likely in my view that this physician was ultra-competent.

Sutter attorneys argued that the doctor first needed to exhaust other legal remedies before bringing the whistleblower lawsuit. The Supreme Court dismissed a previous expectation that doctors exhaust other remedies before filing suit with claims of retaliation. Such conditions would “seriously undermine the Legislature’s purpose to afford a whistleblower on a hospital medical staff the right to sue,” the Supreme Court’s opinion said.

Next, a typical circular argument:

Attorney Lowell Brown, who handles physician disciplinary cases for hospitals, said Thursday’s ruling will “change the rules of the game,” though additional court decisions will be needed to clarify issues. He predicted doctors will be reluctant to serve on hospital panels that review the competency or behavior of physicians.

“The doctor can claim the action is being taken because he or she is whistleblowing,” Brown said. “No one ever produces evidence that a sham peer review has taken place. What we will see is sham whistleblower complaints about peer reviews.”

Since sham peer review (see more at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/10/sham-peer-review-could-this-bad-faith.html) is done secretly and behind closed doors, with protections, it's pretty hard to produce "evidence" of the type required in court.

... Fahlen said the ruling means that “doctors no longer have to choose between speaking out for their patients or continuing with their careers.”

Again, this is an absolutely perverse choice foisted upon clinicians by corporatized, financialized medicine and its leadership.

------------

More on the term "whistleblower" itself.

My attitude about that term is clear - the people who use it are attempting an ad hominem attack in one word.  It is a bad term, with bad connotations, and does not actually describe what the individual is attempting to accomplish.

AHIMA's  Kim Baldwin Stried-Reich has a similar view, and a suggestion for replacement of that term with a more descriptive and non-abusable term:

"Changing Perception of ‘Whistleblowers’"

From  http://journal.ahima.org/2014/03/01/hipaa-whistleblower-protections-promote-information-governance/

... According to Kim Baldwin Stried-Reich, the former Speaker of the AHIMA House of Delegates, the new amendment to the HITECH-HIPAA Omnibus rule demonstrates both the increasing importance and value HIM professionals have today in ensuring both integrity and compliance with rules, regulations, and laws governing access and disclosure of health information within their organizations. Baldwin Stried-Reich is a privacy and compliance officer with the Lake County Physicians Association, in Waukegan, IL.

She notes that while the new provision provides specific protections against disclosures reported to an oversight agency by whistleblowers and workforce members who are victims of a crime, she’s not so sure this new rule will encourage individuals, such as HIM professionals to speak-up and speak-out when or if they see evidence of systematic and ongoing non-compliance with federal mandates.

One reason for this is the widespread use of the word “whistleblower,” which often carries negative connotations. She prefers the term “corporate integrity advocate.”

"Corporate Integrity Advocate" clearly and unequivocally describes what the individuals - including those who write for blogs such as this one - are trying to accomplish.

It is also a term that is rather hard for malfeasance-doers to use as ad hominem..

“Perhaps if Health and Human Services had utilized another term, such as ‘corporate integrity advocate’ more individuals would understand what the intent of this new law is and that it is meant as an avenue individuals can choose to pursue if their professional integrity and ethics are not in alignment with the corporation’s any longer,” Baldwin Stried-Reich says.

"Not in alignment with the lack of the corporation's integrity and ethics" is a more direct, and likely more accurate, way to put it.

A relevant example of this is evident in the settlement that Shasta Regional Medical Center (SRMC) entered into with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) following an investigation concerning the breach of PHI after senior-level executives intentionally disclosed protected information to the media on at least three separate occasions.

The Shasta case demonstrates how and why corporate integrity advocates or whistleblowers are needed to facilitate change within their organizations when it is warranted, Baldwin Stried-Reich explains.

That example is but the tip of the iceberg.  There are many posts on this blog alone dealing with the issues of whistleblowers Corporate Integrity Advocates (see the query link http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/whistle-blowers).

The term "whistleblower" needs to be retired ASAP.

-- SS

Mark Leavitt, Head of CCHIT: Behind the Times and Uninformed on Health IT Realities?

Signs that a leader who alleges himself or herself to be objective and a scientist is, in fact, neither objective nor scientific include:

• Resorting to ad hominem attacks when questioned or criticized.
• Deficient familiarity with the current literature.
• Opining that others' concerns expressed in that literature could be "laughed off."
  
• Years-behind view of the situation on the ground.

The head of CCHIT, Mark Leavitt, has penned the following at iHealthBeat (emphases and comments in red italic mine):

June 19, 2009 - Perspectives

Health IT Under ARRA: It's Not the Money, It's the Message

by Mark Leavitt

... Estimates by the Congressional Budget Office suggest the total incentive payout could reach $34 billion, although with expected savings the net cost is half that. Add to that another $2 billion that the Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT can use on various initiatives in support of the goal of having an EHR for every American by 2014.

[Note the catchy marketing slogan, which carries the implicit message "what manner of people would oppose Mother and Apple Pie?" - ed.]

But more important than the money itself is the message implicitly conveyed along with it. Will incentives be perceived as an intrusive, carrot-and-stick manipulation of health care providers' business decisions? Or will health care providers interpret ARRA as the correction of a reimbursement anomaly, welcoming the opportunity to modernize their information management and transform the care they deliver.

[Cybernetic Miracle™ Alert - note the grandiose term "transform", as opposed to "facilitate" or "improve" - ed.]

Some of the early signs have been worrisome. Before ARRA, most surveys concluded that cost was the No. 1 barrier to EHR adoption. But as soon as it appeared that the cost barrier might finally be overcome, individuals with a deeper-seated "anti-EHR" bent emerged. Their numbers are small, but their shocking claims -- that EHRs kill people, that massive privacy violations are taking place,

[As an information scientist, I'm almost embarrassed to post this link and this link, the results of just a few minutes' work with public resources. Thorough, robust searches in Dialog's suite of databases, Current Contents, Lexis Nexis, SciFinder etc. would show far more - ed.]

that shady conspiracies are operating --

[i.e., HIT industry lobbies - ed.]

make stimulating copy for the media. Those experienced with EHRs might laugh these stories off, but risk-averse newcomers to health IT, both health care providers and policymakers

[i.e., those who take due diligence and fiduciary responsibilities seriously - ed.]

are easily affected by fear mongering.

That is, Bah! to the apostates' narratives --

-- even though many of these narratives are in the peer-reviewed biomedical science and biomedical informatics literature ...

Bah!

I'm really tired of amateurish political rhetoric and marketing puffery masquerading as substantive debate on critical issues as above. However, being experienced with EHRs, their design, implementation and lifecycle, and concerned with widespread irrational exuberance over health IT (a facilitative tool that carries risk to patients and medical organizations if not done well) I am not at all "laughing these stories off", and will critique the above in a quite serious manner.

Indeed, "laughing off" stories from credible sources and personnel (e.g., many AMIA members) about potential harm from an experimental technology affecting patients seems the height of hubris, or blindness of a kind mediated by incomplete knowledge or conflicts of interest.

First, binary thinking. It seems those who critique health IT's drawbacks are "individuals with a deeper-seated anti-EHR bent." That is, they don't buy into the consensus of the industry "experts" and must therefore be biased and wrong.

I, in fact, am a health IT proponent, but simply abhor poor HIT such as at my series here, or HIT sold to my organization in an unusable (but "Certified") state as in the Civil Complaint here (PDF). I believe the rush to national EHR by 2014 is premature, will waste massive amounts of money, and will cause disruption to an already strained healthcare system with resultant adverse effects. I believe far more research remains to be done before our social and technical understanding of "how to do clinical IT well" justifies mass government-mandated cybernetic re-engineering in healthcare. (See literature list below.)

On the issue of ad hominem attacks against questions and critique, I documented those at Healthcare Renewal at "Open letter to Mark Leavitt, Chairman, Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology on Penalties For Use of Non-Certified HIT" at this link. Both I and another physician, David Kibbe, MD, MBA, Health IT Consultant at American Academy of Family Physicians, were subjected to "nonlinear" commentary.

It also seems Dr. Leavitt is unfamiliar with or deliberately downplaying a growing body of literature on health IT risks and failures. [Health IT failure never, ever puts patients at risk, as I wrote here, of course - ed.]

Examples of this growing body of "unknown" or "ignored" or "downplayed" literature include:

1. The article "Health IT Project Success and Failure: Recommendations from Literature and an AMIA Workshop", Bonnie Kaplan and Kimberly D. Harris-Salamone, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association 2009;16:291-299. DOI 10.1197/jamia.M2997 - and the references cited.

There are more than 70 references at the end of this article (See fulltext at link above), and my comments on the findings and recommendations of the multi-working group informatics workshop that created it are in the post "Health IT Project Success and Failure: Recommendations from Literature and an AMIA Workshop" at this link.

2. This corpus of literature below. These are just examples and not a comprehensive listing:

Joint Commission: Sentinel Events Alert on HIT, Dec. 2008.

National Research Council report. Current Approaches to U.S. Healthcare Information Technology are Insufficient. Computational Technology for Effective Health Care: Immediate Steps and Strategic Directions, Jan. 2009

The National Programme for IT in the NHS: Progress since 2006, Public Accounts Committee, January 2009. Summary points here.

Common Examples of Healthcare IT Difficulties (my own 10-year-old website). S. Silverstein, MD, Drexel University College of Information Science and Technology.

Health Care Information Technology Vendors' "Hold Harmless" Clause - Implications for Patients and Clinicians, Ross Koppel and David Kreda, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2009; 301(12):1276-1278

Finding a Cure: The Case for Regulation And Oversight of Electronic Health Records Systems, Hoffman and Podgurski, Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 2008 vol. 22, No. 1

Failure to Provide Clinicians Useful IT Systems: Opportunities to Leapfrog Current Technologies, Ball et al., Methods Inf Med 2008; 47: 4–7,

IT Vulnerabilities Highlighted by Errors, Malfunctions at Veterans’ Medical Centers, JAMA Mar. 4, 2009, p. 919-920.

Unexpected Increased Mortality After Implementation of a Commercially Sold Computerized Physician Order Entry System, Han et al., Pediatrics Vol. 116 No. 6 December 2005, pp. 1506-1512

Role of Computerized Physician Order Entry Systems in Facilitating Medication Errors. Ross Koppel, PhD, et al, Journal of the American Medical Association, 2005;293:1197-1203

Hiding in Plain SIght: What Koppel et al. tell us about healthcare IT. Christopher Nemeth, Richard Cook. Journal of Biomedical Informatics. 38 (4): 262-3.

Workarounds to Barcode Medication Administration Systems: Their Occurrences, Causes and Threats to Patient Safety, Koppel, Wetterneck, Telles & Karsh, JAMIA 2008;15:408-423

The Computer Will See You Now, New York Times, Armstrong-Coben, March 5, 2009,

Bad Health Informatics Can Kill. Working Group for Assessment of Health Information Systems of the European Federation for Medical Informatics (EFMI).

Electronic Health Record Use and the Quality of Ambulatory Care in the United States. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167:1400-1405

Predicting the Adoption of Electronic Health Records by Physicians: When Will Health Care be Paperless? Ford et al., J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13:106-112

Resistance Is Futile: But It Is Slowing the Pace of EHR Adoption Nonetheless, Ford et al., J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:274-281

High Rates of Adverse Drug Events in a Highly Computerized Hospital, Nebeker at al., Arch Intern Med. 2005;165:1111-1116.

"Dutch nationwide EHR postponed: Are they in good company?", ICMCC.org, Jan. 24, 2009

“Avoiding EMR meltdown.” About a third of practices that buy electronic medical records systems stop using them within a year, AMA News, Dec. 2006.

"The failure rates of EMR implementations are also consistently high at close to 50%", from Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Health Information Management Research – iSHIMR 2006

"Industry experts estimate that failure rates of Electronic Medical Record (EMR) implementations range from 50–80%.", from A Commonsense Approach to EMRs, July 2006

Adverse Effects of Information Technology in Healthcare. This knowledge center presents a collection of information on the adverse effects of information technology in its application to healthcare. It also references sources of information on information security, and related media reports.

Pessimism, Computer Failure, and Information Systems Development in the Public Sector. Shaun Goldfinch, University of Otago, New Zealand, Public Administration Review 67;5:917-929, Sept/Oct. 2007

The literature at my HIT website's "Other Resources" page (link)

The teachings of the field of Social Informatics about new Information and Communications Technologies (ICT's) and the unanticipated negative consequences they cause. An introductory essay entitled “Learning from Social Informatics” by R. Kling at the University of Indiana can be found at this link (MS-Word file). The book “Understanding And Communicating Social Informatics” by Kling, Rosenbaum & Sawyer, Information Today, 2005 (Amazon.com link here) was based on this essay.

3. The warnings of HIT dangers from the U.S. Joint Commission, the EFMI, as linked above, and others; doubts about cost savings from Wharton and Stanford professors (surely no amateurs).

In the June 20, 2009 Wall Street Journal article "The Myth of Prevention", Abraham Verghese, Professor and Senior Associate Chair for the Theory and Practice of Medicine at Stanford, echoed several Wharton professor's doubts about the cost savings and ultimate value of electronic medical records, touted as the cybernetic savior of healthcare:

... I have similar problems with the way President Obama hopes to pay for the huge and costly health reform package he has in mind that will cover all Americans; he is counting on the “savings” that will come as a result of investing in preventive care and investing in the electronic medical record among other things. It’s a dangerous and probably an incorrect projection.

There are also reports of problems from FDA-like agencies of other countries such as Sweden's, whose report entitled "The Medical Products Agency’s Working Group on Medical Information Systems: Project summary" (available in English translation at this link in PDF) stated:

It is becoming more common that electronic patient record systems and other systems are interconnected, for instance imaging systems or laboratory systems. It is obvious that such systems should not be regarded as “purely administrative”; instead they have the characteristic features that are typical for medical devices. They sort, compile and present information on patients’ treatments and should therefore be regarded as medical devices in accordance to the definition.

Since the electronic patient record system often replaces/constitutes the user interface of “traditional” medical device systems, the call for 100% accuracy of the presented information is increased. Patient record systems have crucial impact on patient safety, and this has been proven to be the case after a series of incidents [including deaths - ed.] that has been reported to the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare.

On wonders if Dr. Leavitt would include the Swedish Medical Products Agency, who incidentally have a cooperation agreement with our own FDA, under the category of "fearmongers."

Finally, stories of HIT mayhem of which Dr. Leavitt seems blissfully unaware are making their way to appropriate political circles. The whistleblowers are afraid to speak out publicly due to fear of job loss or retaliation. However, when the case examples do come out, it may be Dr. Leavitt who will be found to be "fear mongering" about those who care more about patients and their rights than about information technology.

Health IT Under ARRA: It's Not the Money, It's the Message. Indeed.

And Dr. Leavitt's message about those who think critically about health IT seems quite ill informed and mean spirited.

Finally, to get past the ad hominem and other logical fallacy nonsense I believe will be coming my way, I'll just admit to any and all of it. I'm an SOB, I'm a disgruntled curmudgeon, I'm an HIT dilettante, my uncle was in the mafia, I kick little cygnet swans in the park to be mean to Chucky, the cob (father) , and Princess, the pen (mother). /sarc

:-)

The Mute Swan family of Towamencin Twp., PA. Click to enlarge. The cygnets have really grown this past month (major cuteness warning if you click this picture from June 1!)

Now that we're hopefully past the expected ad hominem, perhaps the real issues can be addressed.

As a final piece of advice to Dr. Leavitt, I can add that dismissing concerns of others, Dogbert-style, is not a way to win friends and influence people.

Humor and a little humility work much better.

-- SS

Open letter to Mark Leavitt, Chairman, Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology on Penalties For Use of Non-"Certified" HIT

A remarkable Bill (ASSEMBLY, No. 3934, STATE OF NEW JERSEY, 213th LEGISLATURE) has appeared in NJ that would prohibit the sale or use of healthcare IT not "certified" (i.e., feature-qualified) by the industry-founded and connected group "Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology" (CCHIT). The Bill calls for monetary civil penalties for such sale or use:

A civil penalty or civil fine is a term used to describe when a state entity or a governmental agency seeks monetary relief against an individual as restitution for wrongdoing by the individual.

I previously wrote about CCHIT in a series of linked posts that start here: A very troubling post about the CCHIT (Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology).

I have now written the following open letter to Mark Leavitt, MD, PhD, Chairman, Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology.

To: "Mark Leavitt"
Date: Sunday, June 07, 2009 02:10PM
Cc: Robert O'Harrow, Jr., Washington Post, and various AMIA working group mailing lists (CIS - clinical info systems, POI - people & organizational issues, OS - Open Source, and ELSI - Ethics, Legal & Social Issues)

June 7, 2009

Mark Leavitt, MD, PhD
Chairman, Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology
www.cchit.org
[6/8/09 - contact info from www.markleavitt.com removed per critique in response below -ed.]

Re: NJ HIT Bill at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A4000/3934_I1.HTM by Assemblyman Harb Conaway, Jr., District 7, and Upendra Chivukula, District 17

Dear Mark,

The NJ Bill at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A4000/3934_I1.HTM by Assemblyman Harb Conaway, Jr., District 7, and Upendra Chivukula, District 17, calls for making it a violation of law to sell HIT not "certified" by CCHIT . Penalties are called for. The bill states:

... No person or entity, either directly or indirectly, shall sell, offer for sale, give, furnish, or otherwise distribute to any person or entity in this State a health information technology product that has not been certified by the Certification Commission for Healthcare Information Technology.

As used in this section, "health information technology product" means a system, program, application, or other product that is based upon technology which is used to electronically collect, store, retrieve, and transfer clinical, administrative, and financial health information.

b. A person or entity that violates the provisions of subsection a. of this section shall be liable to a civil penalty of not less than $1,000 for the first violation, not less than $2,500 for the second violation, and $5,000 for the third and each subsequent violation, to be collected pursuant to the "Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999," P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.).

I and others find this bill remarkable. It really calls into focus the HIT community's concerns about CCHIT and its political connections, especially pursuant to the article " The Machinery Behind Healthcare Reform: How an Industry Lobby Scored a Swift, Unexpected Victory by Channeling Billions to Electronic Records " of May 16, 2009 in the Washington Post by Robert O'Harrow Jr.

I therefore seek answers to the following questions:

1. Do you approve of the proposals in the bill at http://www.njleg.state.nj.us/2008/Bills/A4000/3934_I1.HTM ?

2. Did you, or anyone in a governance or leadership position at CCHIT, play a role in sponsorhip of this bill, through financial contributions, lobbying, advocacy for its proposals, and/or other means to prohibit sale of non-CCHIT certified HIT?

3. Did anyone with governance or leadership roles in CCHIT's founding or affiliated organizations (e.g,, HIMSS, CITL, and others) or business associates of such people, play a role in the bill's sponsorhip, through financial contributions, lobbying, advocacy for its proposals, and/or other means to prohibit sale of non-CCHIT certified HIT?

4. Did anyone (person or company) in the HIT industry, broadly speaking, who could directly profit from such a bill becoming law play a role in sponsorhip of, or advocacy for this bill?

I believe candid and transparent answers to these questions are important in giving the HIT community confidence that CCHIT primarily serves the public interest, not interests of an HIT lobby.

-- SS

6/8/09

Dr. Leavitt has candidly responded. I take his word on these issues at face value, having done business with him a bit over a decade ago (supporting the purchase of his company's EHR, Logician, for Christiana Care over the opposition of the IT department which preferred another vendor):

From: "Mark Leavitt"
Date: 06/08/2009 02:51AM
cc: cis-wg@mailman.amia.org, poi-wg@mailman.amia.org, os-wg@mailman.amia.org, els-wg@mailman.amia.org, oharrowr@washpost.com,sreber@cchit.org
Subject: RE: Bill to make illegal the sale or use of non-CCHIT "certified" systems

Scot,

Here are the answers to your questions:

1. No, I do not approve of this legislation -- which I'm reading for the first time in your email. Our goal, stated in almost every presentation I've given, and to which I've adhered in my leadership of the Commission, has always been to unlock positive incentives for health IT adoption. The bill does not fit that model at all, and it is a bad idea.

2. Neither I personally, nor CCHIT as an organization, have lobbied, advocated, sponsored, or had anything to do with that bill. We were unaware of it until it started showing up on listserves Friday. The bill has never been mentioned in any of our Trustee, Commission, or staff meetings.

3. Trustees, Commissioners, and Work Group members serve in a volunteer capacity at CCHIT. We require disclosure of conflicts of interest, but we do not monitor all activities in their 'day jobs' or other volunteer roles. "HIMSS, CITL, etc" are not affiliated with CCHIT, and we don't know about all their advocacy activities. I'm not privy to the information you seek.

4. This question presumes that I would know everything that "anyone in the HIT industry, broadly speaking" has done regarding the bill. Naturally I do not have that knowledge either.

Now that I've responded, the AMIA listserve members can stop reading here, while I go on to chat with Scot.

Scot, in 15 years of medical training and practice followed by 25 years of healthcare informatics, I've encountered very few people -- and certainly no university professors -- who acted so disrespectfully toward me. Being a veteran of health IT, it's easy to find people who have worked with me or know me well, and to ask them about my integrity. Or to talk to some of the other 50 or so Commissioners who've served or the hundreds of work group volunteers. Shouldn't an informatics scientist do a modicum of research before undertaking a potentially harmful procedure such as attacking a person's or organization's reputation? Reading a news article by Mr O'Harrow does not qualify as due diligence. Would you let your informatics students get away with that before recommending a major, potentially disruptive or destructive IT project?

From your own blogging I see that your "early medical mentor, cardiothoracic surgery pioneer Victor P Satinsky, MD, believed in public embarrassment as a tool to fight bureaucracy and discrimination ." Well, that helps me understand. And your blogging about your frustration when you sought employment with a commercial EHR vendor http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/02/nextgen-and-vendordoctor-dialog-yet.html explains even more. Knowing that, I forgive you for your tone and for inappropriately disclosing my home address and cell phone to everyone on these lists. I would be pleased to engage in a civil, rational debate with you along the lines of "EHRs -- do the benefits outweigh the risks?" C'mon out to the farm here sometime -- you know the address, and the dog's friendly -- or we could do it on the web.

Finally, my apologies to everyone on the mailing lists that Dr. Silverstein chose to include in his investigative journalism broadcast. If you object to his use of AMIA mailing lists for this kind of activity, you could let him know.

Mark Leavitt, MD, PhD
Chairman, CCHIT

My response was simple:

To: "Mark Leavitt"
Date: 06/08/2009 05:24PM
cc: cis-wg@mailman.amia.org, poi-wg@mailman.amia.org, os-wg@mailman.amia.org, els-wg@mailman.amia.org, oharrowr@washpost.com,sreber@cchit.org
Subject: RE: Bill to make illegal the sale or use of non-CCHIT "certified" systems

Mark,

I thank you for the answers to my questions.

> Knowing that, I forgive you for your tone and for inappropriately disclosing my home address and cell phone to everyone on these lists.

Mark, that information came from your page at http://www.markleavitt.com/ which I found on a google seach for "Mark Leavitt." Image attached. I believed that to be your professional contact info.

As to the rest of your response, you appear to attempt to discredit my arguments through ad hominem. I refer you to this page:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/ad-hominem.html

Translated from Latin to English , "Ad Hominem" means "against the man " or "against the person."

An Ad Hominem is a general category of fallacies in which a claim or argument is rejected on the basis of some irrelevant fact about the author of or the person presenting the claim or argument. Typically, this fallacy involves two steps. First, an attack against the character of person making the claim , her circumstances, or her actions is made (or the character, circumstances, or actions of the person reporting the claim ). Second, this attack is taken to be evidence against the claim or argument the person in question is making (or presenting). This type of "argument" has the following form:

1. Person A makes claim X.
2. Person B makes an attack on person A.
3. Therefore A's claim is false.

The reason why an Ad Hominem (of any kind) is a fallacy is that the character, circumstances, or actions of a person do not (in most cases) have a bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim being made (or the quality of the argument being made).

Ad hominem, sadly, is not debate.

Neither is appeal to authority .

Scot

Truth be told, I actually offered no arguments in my email message. I was asking very probing questions with concern they would be ignored, or responded to with "spin" as here, and their tone offended him. Fair enough.

I was a bit disappointed, however, by the "The lady doth protest too much, methinks" ad hominem embellishments to an otherwise candid and convincing response.

Such are the risks of directness and disruptive innovation, however.

-- SS

6/9 Addendum:

Additional views on the NJ Bill are at ePatients.net at "David Kibbe & Mark Leavitt:Openness vs. Opacity" and "Dossia, Microsoft HealthVault & Google Health: Illegal in NJ?". There are some now-familiar themes regarding CCHIT civility in those posts.

6/10 Addendum:

As a result of a link sent by a commenter, I am adding the post "The Kibbe/Leavitt Rumble in the High Tech Jungle!" to the list of interesting views in the 6/9 addendum above.

BusinessWeek on Health IT: "The Dubious Promise of Digital Medicine"

While I would have used the title "The Dubious Promise of Digital Medicine When Led By Amateurs in the Health IT Industry", the following Business Week article is one of the better and more realistic appraisals of the current state of Health IT.

Business Week, April 23, 2009
The Dubious Promise of Digital Medicine
Chad Terhune, Keith Epstein and Catherine Arnst

Recommended reading for anyone interested in improving healthcare via information technology. (Full disclosure: MedInformaticsMD was a contributor to the article.)

I will be commenting in upcoming posts on the article's points and HIT industry's customary, self serving and unscientific counterpoints. The article's thrust is that a HIT remains an experimental technology with a mixed history, which like any societal-level experiment (HIT representing a form of social engineering) carries individual and public risk. The risk is that when misled, any social experiment can and will lead to serious unintended consequences, which in this case ultimately means patient harm.

The first counterpoint that struck me in the article was this one:

Allscripts CEO Glen Tullman [a non-clinician businessman and an advisor to the Obama campaign on HIT] ... compares the skeptics of health info tech to doctors who questioned the introduction of the stethoscope in the 19th century: "There have been Luddites in every industry."

This profoundly unscientific, ad hominem dismissal represents the poster example of what I call a cross-occupational invasion of medicine by the IT industry. The attitude represents the antithesis of medical and scientific culture.

It simpy dismisses with a wave of the hand a growing body of authoritative literature going back decades. A small sample of that literature can be seen here, and anyone in HIT is grossly negligent to dismiss, or worse, not to be aware of such findings. There's really not much more to say on this issue.

This is an example of the attitudes of HIT industry leaders who believe they will "revolutionize" medicine via IT. Health IT with appropriate leadership can do quite well for healthcare. In the wrong hands, I'm sorry to say, the opposite is true.

It is, in fact, Mr. Tullman and like minded others in the IT industry, who make similar statements about those with the ultimate responsibility and liability for patient care, physicians (as Koppel and Kreda point out, the vendors have none), who are the Luddites. They are Luddites through their dismissal of the best thinking in modern IT and in biomedical information science.

On second thought, it might be more accurate to say they leverage their Luddism and willful ignorance in an opportunistic manner. Caveat emptor.

-- SS

Response from author of "The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial"

In response to my earlier post "Merck scientific debate hits bottom" I received the following from one of the authors of the VIOXX seeding trial paper The ADVANTAGE Seeding Trial: A Review Of Internal Documents, Ann Intern Med 2008", Dr. David Egilman, MD, MPH.

I posted Dr. Egilman's opinions below at his request. My own thoughts follow.

Dr. Egilman also posted numerous documents to and from Merck's lawyer at this link. (The tone of some of those documents towards Dr. Egilman is particularly disturbing, such as the one here.)

------------------------------------------------------

From: David Egilman, MD, MPH
To: Healthcare Renewal

I am one of the authors of the "Seeding" paper.

Merck executive Dr. Jonathan M. Edelman, Executive director, Global Center for Scientific Affairs wrote:

There's no doubt that the ADVANTAGE clinical trial had a legitimate scientific purpose. That purpose was to assess the gastrointestinal tolerability of VIOXX compared to naproxen – a commonly used arthritis medicine with known tolerability problems – in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis in a primary care setting, and for the first time allowed patients taking concomitant aspirin to participate.

Dr. Edelman's claim that ADVANTAGE was the first trial that permitted aspirin use with Vioxx is incorrect. Study 058, which was part of Merck's application for new drug approval submitted in November 1998, permitted the use of up to 325 mg of aspirin per day. ADVANTAGE only permitted up to 100 mg per day. Study 058 was a 30 week trial. ADVANTAGE was only a 12 week trial. Study 058 involved patients older than 80, comparing Vioxx to namebutone (another NSAID) and was completed in April 1998, about 10 months before ADVANTAGE enrolled a single patient. Study 078, the ghost-written Alzheimer’s trial also permitted aspirin, began in April 1998 and was scheduled to be completed by April 2000 before the end of the ADVANTAGE trial. More patients took low dose aspirin in the Vigor trial than the Advantage trial.

Further, ADVANTAGE was not designed to test the effect of aspirin on anything. Although aspirin was permitted, the examination of aspirin effects was not included as part of the study objective which Merck described: "[t]o assess the tolerability of rofecoxib (VIOXX) compared with naproxen for treatment of osteoarthritis." On the other hand, Merck Study 136 was designed to test the effects of concomitant aspirin and NSAID use. This study revealed that Vioxx offered no GI protection to low dose aspirin users who constituted the majority of potential Vioxx users.

By November 1998, when Merck sought FDA approval for an OA indication and three months before the ADVANTAGE trial enrolled any patients, Merck had already informed the FDA it had sufficient studies to prove Vioxx was efficacious for osteoarthritis patients. Merck's osteoarthritis trials (that it used to get FDA approval for use of VIOXX in osteoarthritis patients) had compared Vioxx to 3 other NSAIDS. The VIGOR trial, which tested Vioxx and naproxen in rheumatoid arthritis patients, started at the same time as ADAVANTAGE and used twice the dose of Vioxx than was used in ADVANTAGE. VIGOR was, therefore, a more valid scientific trial to determine relative safety of the two drugs.

This request for and subsequent approval meant that Merck could claim VIOXX was as effective for pain as naproxen. Beginning long before the Advantage trial Merck claimed Vioxx was safer than all NSIADS including naproxen.

While ADVANTAGE was the first study that compared Vioxx to naproxen in OA patients, Merck had completed trials comparing the two drugs in other pain patients.

It is for these reasons that the President of Merck Research Laboratories (MRL) Dr. Scolnick characterized ADVANTAGE as "intellectually redundant."

Merck wrote:

ADVANTAGE was a double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trial with a legitimate scientific purpose designed to answer previously unanswered questions about the use of VIOXX in osteoarthritis in a primary care setting. It was not a seeding study.

Merck’s personnel called it a seeding trial internally but in an apparent effort to hide its true purpose wrote:

“I eliminated the reference to seeding. It may be a seeding study, but let’s not call it that in our internal documents.”

Merck apparently tried to make it look like a typical science-based clinical trial to mislead IRBs and journals. All seeding trials make some claim to some usually trivial scientific purpose. For example the question of whether or not Vioxx works better on people as a function of height is a scientific question. It is of course a trivial question. In this case Merck had studies that compared Vioxx to naproxen for pain control before the Advantage trial had started. Merck also had a larger trial that tested GI toxicity.

Merck wrote:

ADVANTAGE was important because although the earlier VIOXX clinical trial program provided extensive data on efficacy and safety, it did not include naproxen as a comparison Medication.

This is not correct. Merck had a study that compared Vioxx to naproxen for pain control before the Advantage trial started. This was presented to the FDA in the original New Drug Application and was published in October 1999.

Merck wrote:

The ADVANTAGE clinical trial was designed, conducted, analyzed, interpreted and published by the scientific department of Merck's U.S. Human Health (USHH) organization, Clinical Development (CDP), in conjunction with participating investigators. CDP was part of the Medical and Scientific Affairs department of USHH and was separate from the marketing department within USHH.

A more complete picture is:

USHH was the marketing division of Merck. It included sub-divisions including sales, marketing and a medical/scientific group called CDP. CDP performed “medical” studies that could be used by marketing to increase product sales. These studies were only conducted if favorable results could increase sales. They were not done to obtain new indications for drug use and Merck did not publish or provide the FDA with some of these studies (example 106).

Mr. David Anstice, a marketing executive with no apparent scientific training or background was the President of Merck's USHH division. In contrast Dr. Edward Scolnick, a physician/scientist of international renown, was the President of Merck’s research division which was called Merck Research Laboratories. Mr. Anstice the person ultimately responsible for the Advantage trial testified:

Q. I understand that. All I'm saying is, this is the study [Advantage trial] that was initiated and conducted by marketing, right?
A. Yes, by doctors in marketing.

A picture being worth a 1000 words I provide the Merck graphic for the organization of the Advantage trial:



Here is the power point description of marketing’s role in the Advantage trial:



While the marketing division of USHH set the study “objectives” CDP was in charge of the technical aspects of study implementation.

Further proof that ADVANTAGE served little scientific purpose is the fact that Merck had already claimed that Vioxx was safer than and as effective as all NSAIDS including naproxen prior to the initiation of the ADVANTAGE.

Merck did not rely on any ADVANTAGE results to make any claim about Vioxx efficacy or safety to the FDA. The lack of scientific purpose behind ADVANTAGE is demonstrated by the fact that Merck had withheld the ADVANTAGE results from its application to the FDA that requested a label change that would allow them to claim Vioxx was safer than naproxen. Merck only produced the results after the FDA made numerous oral and written requests for the safety data discovered during the trial.

Merck claims Advantage produced important scientific information:

In the end, ADVANTAGE showed a different gastrointestinal profile between VIOXX and naproxen that was unaffected by concomitant use of aspirin. This was an important medical result for physicians. In addition to measuring the GI tolerability of VIOXX, investigators also monitored patients for adverse events, which were required to be submitted to the FDA. Therefore, in ADVANTAGE, Merck was further evaluating any potential risks of VIOXX.

In fact the trial that Merck performed to test the effect of concomitant aspirin and Vioxx use (136) showed that aspirin use thwarted Vioxx’s GI advantage. (Gastroenterology. 2004 Aug;127(2):395-402.) The conclusion Merck reached based on the Advantage result was wrong precisely because Advantage was not designed to test this question. This conclusion was based on data mining.

Merck wrote:

We also want to underscore that the scientific purpose of ADVANTAGE was properly disclosed to physicians-investigators, participants, and institutional review boards, and Merck's business interests were clearly understood.

Merck never disclosed the marketing purpose of the trial which included the fact that Marketing “set objectives.”

Merck accuses the authors of "bias.”

In this open letter to the editors of The Annals of Internal Medicine, Merck would like to put in perspective the latest article by four authors who served as paid consultants to plaintiffs' lawyers in the VIOXX litigation against Merck. We are troubled by the biased article, which contains numerous inaccuracies, and wonder about the motivation behind this attack on Merck's scientific excellence and integrity.

Merck writes that the authors were “plaintiff witnesses” and “cherry picked” documents. As far as I know, all litigation ended about a year ago. None of the authors were paid on a contingency basis, the authors received no compensation from plaintiffs to work on the papers we have written and none of the authors are working on any Vioxx litigation at this time.

If money motivation equates to bias then it is Merck and its representatives who suffer from this problem. The same cannot be said of Merck or its representatives because while the authors have nothing to gain Merck’s future earnings depend, in some measure, on its reputation for honesty.

Merck does not explain how any theoretical bias impacted on the paper. They have not come forward with contradictory documents or testimony.

The authors agree that all the documents should be made public so readers can decide for themselves if we “cherry picked.” Merck, and Merck alone, continues to block the release of the documents.

Merck would not allow us to cite documents that showed that Advantage investigators were accused of fraud and at least one was convicted. Some of this data was deleted from the published paper but readers and editors were never informed of these problems.

It should be noted that eight Vioxx patients had heart attacks during the ADVANTAGE trial compared to one patient on naproxen. Merck never informed any of these patient volunteers of the cardiovascular risks of Vioxx before or after the trial although the informed consent stated that Merck would pay for treatment of drug related side effects. Unfortunately for some, this would have been funeral costs.

Merck wrote:

It is unfortunate that the authors and journal editors chose not to contact Merck before finalizing these publications. Had any of these individuals contacted Merck, factual errors could have been avoided.

I contacted Merck's main trial lawyer Ted Mayer and provided Merck an opportunity to comment on another paper related to the Advantage trial before it was submitted for publication. I did not send a pre-publication copy to plaintiff lawyers. Mr. Mayer provided comments and i included his comments in the final version.

Merck then complained about my contact to Mr. Mayer to Judge Higbee and requested that she sanction me for contacting their lawyer and then insisted that I make no further contact with them.

-- David Egilman

-----------------------------------------

My own thoughts on all of this are as follows:

The lessons of the Annals article are clear. The scientific community and the public are simply fed up with cavalier practices in the biomedical industry. While the article may affect remaining VIOXX litigation as pointed out here, it also should have an necessary "cleansing effect" on drug R&D.

It was not clinicians and scientists outside the industry who earned it the public's animosity. It was, and continues to be, the industry itself. As Roy Poses observed, there cannot be evidence based medicine if the evidence is distorted by commercial zealotry. I think the public recognizes this.

Further, marketing personnel have no place in pre-approval, pre-marketing scientific studies such as clinical trials. If they have a scientific role, it is perhaps in post-marketing studies, especially post-marketing surveillance for adverse effects. The latter is a function the pharma industry performs poorly.

Even in that latter domain, there must be honesty and transparency, characteristics with which the biases of marketing and its leaders (e.g., towards maximizing sales) may interfere.

Merck's responses to this new Annals article seem the antithesis of science. Instead, the responses appear to be right out of the political and legal warfare playbook (where logical argument prevails - except when presenting logical fallacy is to the advantage of the protagonists) ...

The response has been this:

• ignore the arguments and evidence [in this case, emails and documents from Merck itself],
  
• issue an ad hominem attack,
  
• issue slogans ("litigation in the name of science"),
  
• present a Red Herring as a distraction,
  
• issue accusations of bias,
  
• issue accusations of cherry picking,
  
• issue accusations of the authors taking evidence "out of context", etc.

and finally:

• produce no context or new evidence of your own, hoping the above tactics will make that unnecessary.
  

All that's seemingly missing are ... puppets.

Merck seems to expect the "courtesy" of being allowed to be a participant in any issues written about its conduct, as if the authors of this paper are its employees who under employment policies must permit any pubs they produce to be reviewed internally for approval. I believe the company's executives forget that their authority ends at the front gate.

It is also an odd and even arrogant request, especially considering the way the authors' evidence (Merck's own emails and documents) was essentially ignored in the responses, and the insinuations promulgated against the authors as serving plaintiff's lawyers -- which also implies that scientific integrity and the interest of patients is not their motivation.

As I mentioned in my earlier post, this is classic ad hominem and is insulting to authors in my opinion, as well as insulting to any clinician or scientist. Why would anyone want to provide a company that acts in this manner the courtesy of pre-publication involvement in investigative journalism?

Another issue I find interesting is noted in the limitations section of the paper where it is stated that:

... we did not identify, despite an exhaustive and systematic search strategy, documents detailing discussions between the marketing and research divisions, nor could we identify documents describing contracts between Merck and collaborating companies.

As well as the Annals editor's obervations that:

... despite the large body of documents searched by the authors, they discovered few details about exactly how Merck's marketing division carried out ADVANTAGE.

This is surprising. From an information science standpoint, it would not be unreasonable to believe there might be more related to this trial of a major drug in emails or powerpoints or other documents. This document sparsity could mean that the documents did not exist, but it also raises a speculative question about the document corpus produced in Discovery.

Could "inconvenient documents" have selectively been eliminated from the corpus of documents before it was released, and therefore not be present in the corpus of documents the authors searched? Could the documents the authors did find represent ones that were "missed" by some weeding out effort?

Finally, I believe the entire tenor of Merck's responses - ignoring evidence, stating the trial was "published in a peer reviewed journal" as a Red Herring and a justification of its legitimacy while ignoring Sox & Rennie's (the Annals editors) accompanying commentary Seeding Trials: Just Say "No" , belitting the authors, etc. - is very disturbing.

From "Seeding Trials: Just Say No":

No one told Annals the true purpose of ADVANTAGE. We learned about it when we received a letter to the editor from Dr. David Egilman, who was a consultant to the plaintiffs' attorneys in the civil suits against Merck. He had access to publicly accessible trial documents, which included Merck employees' e-mail messages that disclosed the true intent of the ADVANTAGE trial ... The article provides clear evidence that the intent of ADVANTAGE was to increase prescriptions of Vioxx (the study outcome of greatest interest to Merck seems to have been Vioxx prescribing rates) ... The documents do tell us that deception is the key to a successful seeding trial.

When I review NIH grant applications, if I suspect deception I will mention it to the study section leaders, and I can assure that if deception is verified higher up the chain, that application will not get funded (at the very least). I can also assure that legitimate medical journals do not willingly publish studies involving deception.

Merck's responses to the Annals article seem to represent a belief that the public (laypeople and physicians) are stupid and gullible.

This is not science, and is not a path to a return to the corporate greatness and respect that Merck once enjoyed and had earned.

Finally, a Red Herring of my own:



-- SS