For Whom the Door Revolves: Founder and Director of Multiple Biotechnology Companies Became Director of the NCI and Now Nominated to be Acting Commissioner of the FDA

Dr Scott Gottlieb, the first commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) appointed by President Trump, has announced his plans to depart.  At the time of his nomination, Dr Gottlieb's many conflicts of interest were well known (see this NY Times article, for example), as were his exceedingly friendly views of the pharmaceutical/ biotechnology industry (see this long ago post, for example).


President Trump's regime just announced a new acting commissioner, Dr Norman ("Ned") E Sharpless, another industry fan.


Founder and Director of Several Biotechnology Companies

G1 Therapeutics

As StatNews just reported, Sharpless "founded two biotech companies."  His fans cited as proof of the "breadth of his experience,"

the $105 million that G1 Therapeutics, a company Sharpless co-founded, raised in 2017 while developing the lung and breast cancer drug trilaciclib.

Apparently, his work in industry has made Dr Sharpless rich

According to public records, founding these companies may have paid off.  Sharpless reported selling more than 400,000 shares of G1 Therapeutics in October 2017 - which, at the time, were worth more than $9 million.

So far, I have seen no other recent reporting that goes into any detail about Dr Sharpless' connections to the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.  Nor did I see much reporting about these relationships from the time Dr Sharpless was appointed to head the National Cancer Institute in October, 2017, again by the Trump regime.

A little digging provided a bit more detail about his relationship to G1 Therapeutics.Crunchbase revealed that Dr Sharpless was a Co-Founder of G1 Therapeutics, a member of its Scientific Advisory Board, and a member of its board of directors.  A  press release from the UNC Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center did gush a bit about his ability to raise capital for G1 Therapeutics in May, 2017, a few months before he was appointed to head the NCI.

G1 Therapeutics, Inc., a clinical-stage oncology company in Research Triangle Park with ties to the University of North Carolina Lineberger Comprehensive Cancer Center, has raised approximately $108.6 million in an initial public offering of its stock. The company began trading on the NASDAQ Global Market under the ticker symbol 'GTHX' on May 17.

Furthermore,

Founded in 2008 with support from KickStart Venture Services, a UNC-Chapel Hill program that works to turn University research into new companies, G1 is developing novel therapeutics based on discoveries made by UNC Lineberger Director Norman E. Sharpless, MD, and Kwok-Kin Wong, MD, PhD, then at Dana-Farber Cancer Institute and now at the Perlmutter Cancer Center, NYU Langone Medical Center. The early research that led to the formation of G1 was supported by the University Cancer Research Fund.

'Congratulations to Dr. Sharpless and the entire G1 Therapeutics team for achieving this major milestone, making an impressive market debut and accelerating important advances in cancer therapies,' said Judith Cone, Vice Chancellor for Innovation, Entrepreneurship and Economic Development at UNC-Chapel Hill.

It was an advance in raising capital, although the eventual clinical value of the venture may not yet be clear.  Trilaciclib is apparently still under development and has not been yet subject to big randomized clinical trials.

Sapere Bio


StatNews also reported,

The second company that Sharpless-directed science helped spawn is Sapere Bio, also based in North Carolina

which is

developing a diagnostic text to measure a patient's 'molecular age.'

whatever that may be, and whatever use it may turn out to have, or not.


There is not much more information about Dr Sharpless' relationship with Sapere Bio.  In February, 2019, the WRAL Tech Wire stated,

Physician Norman 'Ned' Sharpless and Natalia Mitin, Ph.D., founded Sapere Bio in 2013. It was originally called HealthSpan Diagnostics, a reference to the period in your life when you’re healthy. The company grew out of the research of Sharpless, who at the time was director of the Lineberger Cancer Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Apparently, by the time this article was written, he was "no longer involved" with the company.


Consulting and Other Financial Relationships

Further web searching revealed that Dr Sharpless had to disclose other financial relationships with health care corporations in the past.  In 2017, he was one of multiple authors on a paper in The Oncologist (Patel NM et al. Enhancing next-generation sequencing-guided cancer care through cognitive computing. Oncologist 2017; 22: 1-7.)

Norman E. Sharpless: G1 Therapeutics, Unity Biotechnology, HealthSpan Diagnostics (C/A, IP,SAB, OI), Pfizer (H)

Where

(C/A) Consulting/advisory relationship; (RF) Research funding; (E) Employment; (ET) Expert testimony; (H) Honoraria received; (OI) Ownership interests; (IP) Intellectual property rights/ inventor/patent holder; (SAB) Scientific advisory board

The ProPublica Trump Town database also stated that Dr Sharpless was a former consultant to Unity Biotechnology and that

Compensation to be an advisor to Unity is solely through an option to purchase up to 50,000 shares of their stock. Roughly half of these options are unvested.

I cannot find anything more about Dr Sharpless' relationship to Unity Biotechnology, which is apparently yet another start-up biotechnology corporation with drugs in the development pipeline.
 
Again, it appears that Dr Sharpless may have ended these relationships when he became NCI director.  A disclosure in December, 2018, for a talk he gave at the American Society of Hematology included

Sharpless: Pfizer(relationship ended): Honoraria; G1 Therapeutics (relationship ended): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; G1 Therapeutics (divested): Equity Ownership; Healthspan Diagnostics (relationship ended): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Healthspan Diagnostics (divested): Equity Ownership; Unity Biotechnology (divested): Equity Ownership; Unity Biotechnology (relationship ended): Membership on an entity's Board of Directors or advisory committees; Unity Biotechnology (relinquished)

Summary

Dr Norman "Ned" E Sharpless is clearly an experienced academic physician, and hence is a welcome contrast with the many ill-informed ideologues lacking any experience or expertise in biomedical research, medicine, health care or public health recently appointed to important US government health care related positions (for the most recent example, look here).

However, while he held a major academic leadership position, Dr Sharpless had multiple important conflicts of interest, including founding and serving on the boards of directors of several for-profit biotechnology companies, as well as having other financial relationships with health care corporations.  He apparently had already become rich via these relationships before he became director of the US National Cancer Institute (NCI), although he apparently ended the relationships when he assumed the directorship.  As the head of the NCI, he was in a position to have some influence over US health care research policy affecting the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry.  Hence his appointment to that position was an example of the revolving door.

Now about one and one-half year later, his position as acting commissioner of the FDA will give him much more influence over pharma and biotech.  This appointment is an even more strking example of the revolving door.

Both examples seem to have so far gotten lost in the continuing chaos generated by the Trump regime.

Yet, as we have said until blue in the face, and most recently less than a month ago...

The revolving door is a species of conflict of interest. Worse, some experts have suggested that the revolving door is in fact corruption.  As we noted here, the experts from the distinguished European anti-corruption group U4 wrote,

The literature makes clear that the revolving door process is a source of valuable political connections for private firms. But it generates corruption risks and has strong distortionary effects on the economy, especially when this power is concentrated within a few firms.

The ongoing parade of people transiting the revolving door from industry to the Trump regime once again suggests how the revolving door may enable certain of those with private vested interests to have disproportionate influence on how the government works.  The country is increasingly being run by a cozy group of insiders with ties to both government and industry. This has been termed crony capitalism. The latest cohort of revolving door transits suggests that regulatory capture is likely to become much worse in the near future.

Remember to ask: cui bono? Who benefits? The net results are that big health care corporations increasingly control the governmental regulatory and policy apparatus.  This will doubtless first benefit the top leadership and owners/ stockholders (when applicable) of these organizations, who are sometimes the same people, due to detriment of patients' and the public's health, the pocketbooks of tax-payers, and the values and ideals of health care professionals.  

 The continuing egregiousness of the revolving door in health care shows how health care leadership can play mutually beneficial games, regardless of the their effects on patients' and the public's health.  Once again, true health care reform would cut the ties between government and corporate leaders and their cronies that have lead to government of, for and by corporate executives rather than the people at large.

What Big Drug and Biotechnology Companies Will Not Tell Us - Transparency International on Corporate Reporting

Drug companies are entrusted to provide pure, unadulterated medicines.  Increasingly drug companies are now entrusted with doing research, including experimental studies, on human beings, and providing education to doctors and patients.  Ordinarily, trust requires confidence in transparency. However, a new report suggests that large multinational drug and biotechnology companies are not very transparent.

Transparency International just released a report on the transparency, or lack thereof, of the 124 biggest multinational corporations.  The report detailed how well these companies disclosed their internal anti-corruption programs, their subsidiaries, affiliates, and joint ventures, and their financial data broken down by the countries in which they operate.  In summary, the overall results for disclosing anti-corruption programs were mediocre, and for disclosing organizational structure and country-by-country financial data, they were dismal.

The report is highly relevant to health care.  It included the biggest multinational health care corporations, all drug and/or biotechnology companies: Abbott Laboratories, (based in the US), Amgen (US), AstraZeneca (UK), Gilead Sciences (US), GlaxoSmithKline (UK), Johnson and Johnson (US), Merck and Co (US), Novartis (Switzerland), Novo Nordisk (Denmark), Pfizer (US), Roche Holding (Switzerland), Sanofi (France), Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Israel).

The report has so far received little media coverage.  In the US, several news services provided brief  summaries.  Somewhat more substantial articles came from Reuters, the Wall Street Journal's Risk and Compliance Journal, and CNBC.  None gave specifics about health care.  Coverage from other countries, e.g., Germany by Deutsche Welle, and the UK by the Guardian, was more detailed but also did not specifically mention health care.

Therefore, I will summarize the rationale and assessment methods used by Transparency International for its three dimensions of transparency, and then show results from the 13 health care corporations.

Disclosure of Anti-Corruption Programs

The rationale for addressing this area was:

Global companies have legal and ethical obligations to conduct their business honestly. This requires
commitment, resources and the ongoing management of a range of risks – legal, political and reputational – including those associated with corruption. The implementation of a comprehensive range of anticorruption policies and management systems is fundamental to efforts to prevent and remediate corruption within organisations.

Transparency International believes that public reporting by companies on their anti-corruption programmes allows for increased monitoring by stakeholders and the public at large, thereby making companies more accountable

Evaluation of disclosure of anti-corruption programs was

based on 13 questions, which are derived from the UN Global Compact and Transparency International Reporting Guidance on the 10th Principle against Corruption. This tool, based on the Business Principles for Countering Bribery, which were developed by Transparency International in collaboration with a multi-stakeholder group, includes recommendations for companies on how to publicly report on their anticorruption programmes.

Note that the project addressed only reporting of anti-corruption programs, not their implementation or effectiveness.

For this and the other two dimensions of transparency, responses were converted into a 0% to 100% scale, with 100% being the best possible result.

Organizational Transparency

The rationale was:

As many of the recent corporate scandals have shown, acts of corruption are very often aided by the use of opaque company structures and secrecy jurisdictions.  But the use of offshore companies and their lack of transparency are posing increasing risks for global companies as well as for their shareholders, employees and local communities.

So,

Companies can mitigate the risks posed by lack of transparency and ownership arrangements by shedding more light on their corporate structures and by making basic financial information public on a country-by-country basis. This allows stakeholders to have a clearer understanding of the extent of a company’s operations and makes the company more accountable for its activities in a given country, including assessing whether it contributes financially in a manner appropriate to its level of activity.

The measurement strategy was,

Transparency International researchers consulted publicly available documents such as annual reports and stock exchange filings for information about company subsidiaries, affiliates, joint ventures and other holdings. The information sought included corporate names, percentages of ownership by the parent company, countries of incorporation and the countries in which the companies operate.

Country-by-Country Reporting

The rationale included:

The importance of country-by-country reporting was first recognised in the extractive sector as a way to ensure that revenues from natural resources are used to foster economic and social development rather than line the pockets of kleptocratic elites.

So,

country-by-country reporting ... [is] a recognised building block for corporate transparency and as a tool for countering tax avoidance.

In addition, country-by-country reporting provides investors with more comprehensive financial information about companies and helps them address investment risk more effectively.

The items measured were disclosure of revenue/sales, capital expenditures, pre-tax income, income tax, and community contribution in each country in which the company operated.

Results for Health Care Corporations

Company                      Total  Anti-Corruption P  Org Structure  by-Country

Abbott Laboratories    40             81                           38                3
Amgen                          37             85                           25                0
AstraZeneca                37             88                           19                3
Gilead Sciences           26             54                           25                0
GlaxoSmithKline          52            96                           50               11
Johnson and Johnson  26           65                           13                0
Merck and Co               42           77                            50                0
Novartis                        38            77                           38                1
Novo Nordisk               39            81                           38                0
Pfizer                             35            92                           13                0
Roche Holding              33            62                           38                1
Sanofi                            38            77                           38                0
Teva Pharmaceutical  35            85                            19                0

Again, only one company, GlaxoSmithKline, achieved an overall score of barely better than 50%.  All the others had lower scores.  Only two companies achieved a 50% score on disclosure of organizational structure, and only one achieved a score of better than 10% for disclosing country-by-country results.  The Transparency International report noted that the health care companies got particularly bad scores for disclosing organizational structure, averaging 31%, the third worst performance by economic sector.


Summary

 The drug and biotechnology companies generally did a fairly good job disclosing what their anti-corruption programs were supposed to do.  However, note that the Transparency International report did not assess how well these programs were implemented or enforced.  That this concern is not academic is underscored by some of these companies disreputable track records.  Some have long histories of legal actions, including billion dollar plus legal settlements, some of which were of allegations of fraud or kickbacks, and some have been convicted of crimes.  See the records of, for example: Abbott Laboratories (look here and here), Amgen (here), AstraZeneca (here), GlaxoSmithKline (here), Johnson and Johnson (here), Merck (here), Novartis (here), Novo Nordisk (here), Pfizer (here), Roche (here), Sanofi (here), and Teva (here).

Moreover, the companies did not do a good job disclosing their organizational structures, and hardly any bothered to report any financial results broken down by country.

We have frequently discussed health care corporations' deceptive marketing, induction of conflicts of interest, including those of supposed "key opinion leaders" who often are marketers in academic or professional clothing, and manipulation and suppression of clinical research.  There has been an ongoing procession of legal settlements involving health care corporations, often involving allegations of, and sometimes convictions for fraud, kickbacks, bribery, or other crimes.  There have even been some cases in which drug companies have failed to assure that their products are pure and unadulterated, their most basic mission.  Thus many are distrustful of drug and biotechnology companies, and large health care organizations in general.

So, as Transparency International's report noted, to rebuild trust,

integrity must be central to these efforts. Those efforts, in turn, can only become fully credible if they are undertaken with a sustained commitment to ethical behaviour and transparency across companies’ operations.

In my humble opinion, a basic premise of true health care reform would be that health care organizations become sufficiently transparent to restore basic trust in them. 

A Little Sunshine Peeking Through the Clouds? - the Sunshine Act is Finally Implemented, Sort of

"Conflicts of interest" is probably the most frequently used Health Care Renewal tag.  We believe conflicts of interest are a major causes of health care dysfunction.  Therefore, I felt that one of the truly reformative aspects of the US Accountable Care Act (ACA, "Obamacare") could be the "Sunshine Act," a provision championed by Iowa Senator Grassley (R) and his staff investigator, Paul Thacker, that would require public reporting of most financial interactions among health care corporations and health care professionals and hospitals.

The roll-out of Sunshine Act implementation occurred this week, and not unexpectedly, was very rocky.   As reported by the Wall Street Journal,

it hasn't been a smooth process. First, CMS delayed the public reporting of the data by a year to give companies more time to prepare. The Open Payments online system has experienced technical problems, including a data mix-up that resulted in some doctors being linked to payment records for other doctors with the same surname. The preview function for doctors had a cumbersome registration process, some doctors said, and was taken offline at times in recent weeks.

The first batch of data is incomplete. CMS in August said it removed about one-third of the payment records from the physician-preview database because it said some of the state medical-license numbers that companies reported for doctors didn't match a database that the agency was using for verification, among other problems. CMS now is releasing those records but without identifying the physicians tied to them. It will update the database to include the physicians' names for those records next year. Also, CMS isn't immediately releasing payments related to proprietary research-and-development; those will be reported at a later date.

 But why should we have expected anything else, given the parties involved?

Drug, Device and Biotechnology Companies

As reported by the NY Times,

all manufacturers of drugs, medical devices and medical supplies that have at least one product covered by Medicare or Medicaid must report payments or gifts they make to doctors and teaching hospitals. This can be as seemingly trivial as a bag of bagels — all payments above $10 are included — or as lofty as a research grant. It also includes meals, travel expenses and speakers’ fees. Group-purchasing organizations, which serve as middlemen between health care providers and manufacturers, also must disclose doctors’ ownership and investment interests in their companies.

Presumably such reporting actually was quite burdensome to the companies.

Furthermore,company executives might not be exactly thrilled about putting all this information out there.  As we have frequently discussed, to serve their own interests, such companies make all sorts of payments to physicians, other health care professional, and hospitals and other non-profit health care organizations.  In particular, payments to health care professionals may foster companies' marketing and public relations goals.

While some payments are made for technical and clinical consulting, many are to support "education" that may serve marketing or public relations.  In particular, many payments are for "drug talks," that is, talks sponsored by the drug companies, usually through speakers' bureaus, and given probably not as part of formal, accredited continuing medical education.  Since the publication of "Dr Drug Rep" in the New York Times in 2007, it became evident that such talks emphasize content provided by the pharmaceutical companies, and are intended to be corporate marketing exercises.  From that case we also learned that physicians who deviate from the marketing message do not last long on speakers' bureaus.  (See posts here and here.)

In addition, pharmaceutical companies often pay physicians deemed to be "key opinion leaders," whose opinions are promoted supposedly for their brilliance and erudition.  However, as noted here and here, the companies buying their services think of KOLs as sales people.    Evidence about key opinion leaders actually performing like marketers has come from documents revealed during litigation (e.g., see this recent example of a huge monetary settlement made of charges that GlaxoSmithKline, a major multinational drug company committed fraud among other things, and in the course of its unethical activities used key opinion leaders as marketers).   Also, see the Neurontin marketing plan (see post here), and the Lexapro marketing plan (see post here) for examples of how corporate managers view key opinion leaders as marketers.

Pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and device companies protest that much of the money they pay goes to support research.  But the clinical research they sponsor has been shown to be frequently subject to manipulation designed to increase the likelihood of results favorable to these companies' products.  When manipulation fails to provide sufficiently favorable results, corporations may simply  suppress it.  Academic institutions desperate for more external funding, and physicians whose continued gainful employment at such institutions requires external funding may not be too quick to protest manipulation and suppression by those paying the bills.

Vox just summarized some of the relevant evidence:

Research for decades has shown that relations with industry — from industry-sponsored education to encounters with pharmaceutical-company sales representatives, and even drug samples provided by those companies — can bias a doctor's judgment in all sorts of ways. It can color the medical education they give to future doctors, cause them to inappropriately prescribe drugs, to push for the FDA approval of medicine, or for drugs to be included on their hospital formularies. Industry-funded studies are also four times more likely to lead to favorable and positive results than independent research.

The side-effects of this 'Bad Pharma' behavior range from waste in the health system, to mistreatment of patients, and even avoidable patient death.

So is it any surprise that industry may not have been enthused or comfortable about complying with the Sunshine Act?  Instead of admitting that, of course, they have complained, as reported by the NY Times,

the website is being questioned by the industry, which says that technical problems and data inaccuracies limit its value.

But it seems that industry may have created the sorts of data problems about which they now complain.  Note that when ProPublica made this first assessment of the database,

Many drug and device companies attributed payments to multiple subsidiaries, rather than reporting them under the name of a single parent company. Johnson & Johnson, for instance, submitted payments under at least 15 subsidiaries. The device maker Medtronic reported payments by at least six subsidiaries. So did the drug maker Novartis. On first blush, that makes it tough to calculate how much each company spent overall.

Similarly, companies reported payments associated with particular drugs in different ways. The expensive drug Acthar, which is marketed for a variety of different conditions, is listed under at least eight different name variations. The diabetes drug Januvia is reported as both 'Januvia' and 'Januvia Diabetes.' There is one drug simply listed as 'KNEES' and another as 'Foot and Ankle.'

So it appears that the companies reported data in a confusing, perhaps deliberately confusing manner, obfuscating the relationships between companies and subsidiaries, and between essentially similar drugs with different names.  It is hard to believe that all, or even most of these problems were due to mishandling by the government.  So it is a little hard to take the companies' criticisms of the quality of the data seriously.

Physicians and Organized Medicine

"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

On the other hand, news articles suggested some physicians were also unhappy with the data release.  For example, per the WSJ article,

Some doctors disputed details of the payment data. The database shows John LeDonne, a surgeon from Baltimore, as having received about $78,200 in payments for food and beverage for the five-month period from medical-device maker Dr. LeDonne acknowledged he performs paid consulting work for health-care companies including Teleflex, but that he rarely received free meals. He said the total payment amount was in the right 'ballpark,' but should not have been classified in the food-and-beverage category. 

That seems to be a bit of quibble.  The amount he received, and its source, seem more important than whether it was labelled "consulting," or "food and beverage" payments.

More importantly, a few doctors were worried, as reported by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, that the information may reflect negatively on them,

 'Overwhelmingly, the interaction between industry and physicians is positive,' said Dr. Robert Harbaugh, chairman of neurosurgery at Penn State and president of the American Association of Neurological Surgeons.

Maybe Dr Harbaugh should realize that there already are a lot of reasons to think about the negative aspects of physician - industry paid interactions, as summarized above. And Vox reported,

 Dr. Thomas Stossel, known as Harvard's 'pro-industry professor,' says 'doctors' work with industry is necessary and beneficial.' He worries that the Sunshine Act could make it embarrassing and difficult for doctors to do work like developing medical devices or designing clinical trials, and that industry may start avoiding working with American doctors because of the time and investment disclosure will require.  

Dr Stossel did not provide evidence to explain the necessity or benefits of the work for industry, nor why doctors could not design clinical trials outside of industry relationships. 
Doctors also complained about data quality, but I am not aware that the medical profession rushed to help with improving the data for the Sunshine Act.  Obviously, there are some physicians who have personally profited quite a lot from their relationships with drug, device, and biotechnology companies but who may not be comfortable having the figures booted around in public, e.g., per the WSJ,

Among individual physicians, Stephen Burkhart was one of the top recipients of non-research payments from industry. The San Antonio orthopedic surgeon received $7.4 million in non-research payments or transfers of value for the five-month period, mostly from device manufacturer Arthrex Inc. for payments identified as 'royalty or license.'

Dr. Burkhart couldn't be reached for comment. Arthrex said in a statement that it has 'financial relationships with a number of orthopedic surgeons and teaching hospitals,' like many manufacturers, for their advice and expertise.

Chitranjan Ranawat,a New York orthopedic surgeon, received about $4 million in nonresearch payments or transfers of value, mostly from DePuy Synthes unit for 'royalty or license,' according to the database. 

 Dr. Ranawat couldn't be reached for comment.

And those were payments made in a five month period.  Maybe the doctors have a reason to be uncomfortable.

Furthermore, ProPublica reported that 21% of the $3.5 billion in payments, approximately $735 million, reported by the system were for "promotional talks," a la "drug talks" as noted above.  Since "Dr Drug Rep," such talks have gotten something of a bad reputation, but are obviously lucrative, so those who got paid to give them may not be happy with their detailed disclosure.

The US Department of Health and Human Services

The Sunshine Act was but a small part of the huge ACA, most of which the US DHHS, and particularly the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) was charged with implementing, but probably with proportionately insufficient funding and time.  So no wonder that the Sunshine Act never seemed to find a vocal champion within DHHS.

Most likely money concerns, and the constant din of outside criticism of "government bureaucrats" by those demanding more "business-like" government lead CMS to outsource the work on the Sunshine Act database, as described by another ProPublica article,

While the payments database is a far cry from Healthcare.gov — and less complex – it's reasonable to expect some glitches. CGI Federal, the company that led what turned out to be the botched launch of Healthcare.gov, is also responsible for the release of the payment data.

Massachusetts also outsourced operation of its Health Connector to CGI Federal, with equally bad results.  The state had to terminate the contract (look here.)

So if lackadaisical bureaucrats outsourced the Sunshine Act to contractors of questionable competence, what result should have been expected?

Why the present administration, and the bureaucrats it supposedly commands, seemed so uninterested in this particular aspect of the ACA is not clear, but perhaps we should peer around some revolving doors for the answer.  (For example,  John Podesta, a current White House adviser, worked for non-profits funded by drug company Eli Lilly and device company Synthes [look here]; and Nancy-Ann DeParle, former White House "health czar," had previously served on the boards of of Boston Scientific, Cerner and Medco [look here], and now is involved in health care investments made by private equity, and is on the board of CVS [look here]).

Of course, the sort of conflicts of interest that were supposed to be revealed by the Sunshine Act are highly beneficial to the parties directly involved, whatever embarrassment they may cause.  Given the power of those parties, plus the lukewarm, outsourced effort by government perhaps influenced by government officials with their own "revolving door" conflicts of interest, is it any wonder that the Sunshine Act implementation was "rocky?"

Summary

Nonetheless, because of the Sunshine Act, we do now know a bit more about conflicts of interest involving drug, device, biotechnology and related companies on one hand, and physicians, other health care professionals and hospitals on the other.

Maybe throwing even veiled sunshine on some of these relationships will inspire some people to rethink whether they want to continue them.  There are other reasons they should do so.

We have called endlessly for full, detailed disclosures of all conflicts of interest, for honesty's sake if for no other reason.  We have also called for severe curtailment of all conflicts affecting clinical decision making, health care education, clinical and health care research, and health policy making.  But Health Care Renewal can easily be dismissed as a voice crying out in the wilderness.  However, we are really not alone.

The 2009 Institute of Medicine report set relatively tough standards for managing conflicts of interest affecting clinical research and teaching, which unfortunately since have largely been ignored.  It did call for senior institutional officials to disclose their conflicts of interest, and for institutional boards of trustees to form conflicts of interest committees that would exclude conflicted individuals, but otherwise did not address conflicts of interest affecting academic leaders or institutional trustees.  The 2013 Pew Charitable Trusts Conflicts-of-Interest Policies for Academic Medical Centers suggested restrictions on conflicts affecting faculty, trainees, and students, but again did not mention senior institutional leaders or boards of trustees.  Implementing even some of these recommendations would be true health care reform.

Maybe more publicity about the web of conflicts of interest that drapes of over health care will lead to some further steps in the needed direction. 

Long After the Start of the "War on Terror," a Conflict of Interest about an Anthrax Scare Comes to Light

In May, David Willman writing for the Los Angeles Times broke a story of a somewhat new variant on the conflict of interest theme, one that has not gotten a lot of attention, but should.

The issue was medical, with a twist, - how to best treat a bioterror attack with anthrax engineered to be resistant to multiple drugs, an event that luckily is not known to ever have occurred.  The story came from the bad old days of the "war on terror," but only has now come to light years later.

The Alarm Raiser

The story opened thus,

Over the last decade, former Navy Secretary Richard J. Danzig, a prominent lawyer, presidential advisor and biowarfare consultant to the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, has urged the government to counter what he called a major threat to national security.

Terrorists, he warned, could easily engineer a devastating killer germ: a form of anthrax resistant to common antibiotics.

In particular,

Danzig began warning about antibiotic-resistant anthrax after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the mailings of anthrax-laced letters that fall.

The powdered anthrax in the letters killed five people but was not resistant to common antibiotics. Asked what gave rise to his concern about resistant strains, Danzig cited conversations with 'people whose technical skills exceed mine.' One of them, Dr. Robert P. Kadlec, a bioterrorism advisor in the Bush White House, said he and others were concerned that terrorists could develop such a weapon.

Danzig has sounded the alarm in published papers and in private briefings and seminars for biodefense and intelligence officials.

In a 2003 report funded by the Pentagon, "Catastrophic Bioterrorism — What Is To Be Done?" he wrote that it would be 'quite easy' for terrorists to produce antibiotic-resistant anthrax. He has expanded on that theme over the years, including in a 2009 paper for the Pentagon.

In the 2003 report, published while raxi [raxibacumab, an anthrax anti-toxin] was in development at Human Genome, Danzig said a drug to combat resistant strains of anthrax should be produced 'as soon as possible' and that stockpiling such a treatment, 'even if expensive and in limited supply' would deter an attack.

John Vitko Jr., a top Homeland Security official during the Bush and Obama administrations, said he turned frequently to Danzig for advice on biodefense matters — and read and 'paid attention to' his 'Catastrophic Bioterrorism' report.

Note that while Danzig is a lawyer, and certainly not a physician or biomedical researcher, he had major credibility in the defense field, particularly in anti-terrorism, so his recommendations had great influence.

He served as a Pentagon appointee during the Carter administration and as undersecretary and then secretary of the Navy under President Clinton. He has a long-standing interest in biowarfare.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Danzig advised then-Sen. Barack Obama on national security and bioterrorism. After Obama's election, Danzig was named to the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, in addition to his consulting positions with the Defense Department and Homeland Security.

So apparently at least partly due to Mr Danzig's persistent warnings, the government took action,

 In 2004, President Bush signed into law Project BioShield, which provided billions of dollars for biodefense drugs.

The contracts are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, based on advice from federal agencies and consultants. Homeland Security must certify the need for a drug before the government can buy it.

 Danzig, through his seminars, writings and consulting duties, has helped frame the discussion over whether a given biological threat is 'material' and whether the government should stockpile medicines to defend against it.

Also,

Speaking of Danzig's broader role as a government advisor, Vitko said: 'Richard's got incredible insights into this and I think has made major contributions'

He called Danzig one of 'the major bio player' and said his views had informed a range of policy considerations, including 'how many countermeasures do you need, of what kind.'

It was in response to advice from Vitko and his staff that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in 2004 declared anthrax a 'material threat,' the certification required for the government to buy drugs to fight it.

The drug the government bought was raxibacumab, or raxi, an anthrax anti-toxin made by Human Genome Sciences Inc.  

In 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized its first order of raxi — 20,000 doses at a cost of $174 million.

That year, Ridge's successor, Michael Chertoff, signed a second, more specific declaration, adding 'multi-drug-resistant' anthrax to the government's list of material threats.

Asked the basis for the second declaration, Vitko said: 'I think the concern was more forward-looking, and saying, 'How could the threat evolve, and are we prepared for that?''

Since 2009, the Obama administration has ordered an additional 45,000 doses of raxi for $160 million.

There was just one catch.

The Undisclosed Conflict

Mr Danzig had a largely undisclosed conflict of interest.  He was on the board of directors of Human Genome Sciences Inc, the company whose drug his constant warnings and exhortations lead the government to buy.

When Human Genome named Danzig to its board on May 24, 2001, the company's chief executive said his high-level federal experience would 'serve us well.'

He thus was on the board on September 11, 2001, and later when the events on that day and soon after apparently induced him to start sounding the alarm about resistant anthrax, and he stayed on the board as he continued sounding alarms, and after the government started buying his company's drug.

During his 11-year tenure on the board, which ended in August, Danzig collected at least $1,054,255 in director's fees and by cashing in grants of Human Genome stock and stock options, according to Fred Whittlesey of Compensation Venture Group, who reviewed the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings for The Times.

Nearly half of Danzig's compensation came from the stock options, of which he had been granted 184,000 by the end of 2011, Whittlesey said.

Danzig did not seem to think that serving on the board of the company which made the primary drug directed at the perhaps hypothetical disease about which Danzig was sounding the warning constituted any sort of conflict of interest.

Danzig said in an interview that he believed his position at Human Genome posed no conflict.

He said he had tried to improve policymakers' understanding of biodefense issues, including the threat of antibiotic-resistant anthrax, but never lobbied the government to purchase raxi.

'My view was I'm not going to get involved in selling that,' Danzig said. 'But at the same time now, should I not say what I think is right in the government circles with regard to this? And my answer was, 'If I have occasion to comment on this, it ought to be in general, as a policy matter, not as a particular procurement.'

'I feel that I've acted very properly with regard to this'' he said.

He also apparently did not feel he needed to disclose his board membership to most of the people he was trying to persuade to be alarmed about resistant anthrax, and to pursue a treatment, such as that made by the company on whose board he sat.

 A number of senior federal officials whom Danzig advised on the threat of bioterrorism and what to do about it said they were unaware of his role at Human Genome.

Dr. Philip K. Russell, a biodefense official in the George W. Bush administration who attended invitation-only seminars on bioterrorism led by Danzig, said he did not know about Danzig's tie to the biotech company until The Times asked him about it.

Also,

 Vitko said he knew nothing of Danzig's involvement with Human Genome until a Times reporter asked him about it.

'I'm surprised I didn't,' Vitko said. 'I'm not aware of it.'

Five other present or former biodefense officials who conferred with Danzig said they, too, had been unaware of his position with the company. Danzig, they said, made no mention of it in their presence during group discussions he led or in smaller meetings.

Furthermore,

A Times search found seven papers Danzig had written on bioterrorism since 2001. In only one of those did he disclose his tie to Human Genome.

As an advisor to the federal government, Danzig is required to file confidential forms annually, revealing any outside affiliations but not his related compensation. Danzig said he had noted his position with the biotech firm on the forms.

Asked whether he mentioned his corporate role during contacts with government officials, Danzig replied: 'If I thought any of it posed a potential conflict that might cause somebody who knew about it to discount my views, I would tell them.'

Some people disagreed with Danzig's failure to perceive a conflict of interest

 'Holy smoke—that was a horrible conflict of interest,' said Russell, a physician and retired Army major general who helped lead the government's efforts to prepare for biological attacks.

The Take-Over by a Familiar Corporation

By the way, Human Genome Science was eventually bought out by a bigger company which has had its own sets of issues regarding conflicts of interest, GlaxoSmithKline,

 Human Genome was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline in August [presumably 2012] for $3.6 billion.

It may yet stand to make even more money from raxi,

 Because raxi loses its potency after three years in storage, the government's supply will expire as of 2015, according to federal documents and people familiar with the matter. 

Summary

This appears to be a variant on the "key opinion leader" (KOL) theme writ large.  Mr Danzig clearly functioned as a very major key opinion leader about bioterrorism.  Like many KOLs we have previously discussed, he had financial interests that favored the company whose drugs his key opinion leadership seemed to be favoring.  His influence seems to have lead to huge purchases of these drugs. Like many KOLs who are physicians or health care academics, Mr Danzig seems utterly blind to the possibility that his multiple efforts to emphasize the importance of the supposed disease for which his company made a drug could somehow be viewed as a conflict of interest, or to why failure to tell his audiences about his major relationship to this company might have appeared just a small bit dishonest.  We have seen many medical/ health care KOLs who deny that somehow their opinions could have been influenced by their financial relationships, or that their audiences deserved at least to be aware of these relationships.  Yet, of course, Mr Danzig is not a doctor, and he was trying to influence government purchasers of drugs, not physician prescribers of it.

It does seem that the leadership of health care organizations, particularly but certainly not limited to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, have no lack of imagination about how to construct financial relationships with influential people who could help sell their products, whether or not they acknowledge what amounts to their marketing roles.

Given that this story involved influencing the government, it will be interesting to see at this late date whether it results in any legal action.  After all, as David Willman pointed out,

 Federal law bars U.S. officials, including consultants, from giving advice on matters in which they or a company on whose board they serve have 'a financial interest.'

It will also be interesting to see if it gets any more attention.  Only a few blogs have noted it, but at least they included The Scientist.


Yet our country has an unfortunately very long history of corporate leaders getting close to political leaders who then may overlook the legal niceties when their friends' interests are at stake.  Nonetheless, true health care reform would require all those who have decision making power over patients, health policy, or the public health to be completely transparent about their conflicts of interest, and would ban the more serious variants of conflicts of interest, even if that might cost some already rich people a bit of money.  I am not holding my breath, however, about when this might happen.

"Conspiracy Theory" Proven - Taking UCSF Private

Students and faculty at the University of California have come up with a vivid, and prescient example of how the hired executives and bureaucrats have taken over higher and health care education. 

"Run in the Interests of the Administration"

Two weeks ago, the Orange County Register reported:

Over the past few months, the University of California has raised undergraduate tuition by 18 percent, awarded raises of as much as 23 percent to a dozen high-ranking administrators and announced a possible 81 percent tuition increase over the next three years.

Students haven't taken the news well.

At campus rallies across the state, thousands of students and their faculty supporters have decried the actions, staging raucous rallies and 'Occupy'-style sit-ins that in some cases have ended in clashes with law enforcement. They've also descended en masse on UC regents' meetings, disrupting proceedings and even forcing officials to retreat to a private room.

Behind the angry chanting and acts of civil disobedience is a growing sense that the 10-campus UC system is no longer a public institution accessible to the middle class, but rather a sprawling bureaucracy of hospitals and auxiliary research institutions buffeted by an ever-expanding roster of administrators.

The problem, as the student activists see it, is that none of these functions translates directly into expanded course offerings or improved student-to-faculty ratios, even as their tuition dollars help sustain the system.

'The university is now being run in the interest of the administration,' said UC Irvine student activist Anne Kelly, a Ph.D. candidate in earth system science. 'They're promoting their own internal growth, asking us to sacrifice with higher tuition – but administrators have had raises.'

In higher education, as well as in health care education and in health care in general, the pattern is the same: rising costs without any obvious increase in quality or quantity of services. As in health care, however, the pain never seems to extend to administrators/ managers/ bureaucrats/ executives. Worse, as their numbers grow, these insiders seem to run organizations more for their own benefit, and less for the mission.

One Manager Per Faculty Member

Furthermore, UC faculty have data:

The students' growing frustration is fueled by UC employment data that show that almost three-fourths of UC's 152,500 employees last year were designated 'non-academic personnel,' according to an annual UC employment report.

In the report, UC characterizes the growth in its non-academic staff as the inevitable byproduct of 'an increasingly complex university system that 'requires greater professionalization of its staff, who must meet higher technical and competency standards.' Non-academic personnel includes everyone from custodians and food-service workers to accountants and plant operators. [The question begged is whether it was the managers and executives that caused this complexity - Ed.]

UC Davis horticulture researcher Richard Evans, who has independently analyzed UC personnel data, offered a different take on the data, publishing a tongue-in-cheek piece for UC faculty in 2010 entitled 'Soon every faculty member will have a personal senior manager: Is this a good way to spend money?'

'Data available from the UC Office of the President shows that there were 2.5 faculty members for each senior manager in the UC system in 1993,' Evans wrote in his piece. 'Now there are as many senior managers as faculty. Just think: Each professor could have his or her personal senior manager.'

In his analysis, Evans compared the number of UC employees classified as either 'senior management' or 'managers and senior professionals' with the number of tenure-track UC faculty members.

As of spring 2011, UC employed 8,144 senior managers, managers and senior professionals, and 8,521 tenure-track faculty members, according to the latest available UC data.

This pattern is similar to that seen in some data we discussed a long time ago about the ever rising numbers of administrators/ managers/ bureaucrats/ executives in health care.  In 1988, Alain Enthoven advocated in Theory and Practice of Managed Competition in Health Care Finance, a book published in the Netherlands, that to decrease health care costs it would be necessary to break up the "physicians' guild" and replace leadership by clinicians with leadership by managers (see 2006 post here). Thus from 1983 to 2000, the number of managers working in the US health care system grew 726%, while the number of physicians grew 39%, so the manager/physician ratio went from roughly one to six to one to one (see 2005 post here). Health care went from being controlled by clinicians to controlled by a growing volume of managers.  Most of these managers were generic, in that they had little if any knowledge of, experience in, or sympathy to the values of health care. These generic managers have used the same techniques advocated for the management of supermarkets or automobile manufacturers to manage health care organizations, despite all the obvious differences in context, goals, values, and people involved.

A "Conspiracy Theory" About the Privatization of the University

At the University of California, the Register reported that there is a "conspiracy theory" about the next step to increase the domination of the managers:

The salaries and size of UC's administrative staff, in particular, have fueled conspiracy theories among students and faculty that the system has deliberately sought to 'privatize' itself – in other words, to compete with private universities on all fronts, from the scope of its non-instructional programs to executive compensation to the amount of tuition that students pay.

Three years ago, the head of a UC faculty group advanced the privatization theory in a multi-part series called 'They Pledged Your Tuition.'

Of course, the administrators denied, sort of, anything so far-fetched:

For its part, UC denies all such allegations, saying that while the university has arguably become privatized, outside influences beyond its control are entirely to blame.

"It is not something we advocate, not something we want,' Klein said. But, 'he added, 'times have changed; the economic model has changed.'

Not Just a "Conspiracy Theory" - UCSF Chancellor Advocates Privatization

It only took two weeks, however, for the notion of administrators taking the university private to go from "conspiracy theory" to official plan. Yesterday, the San Francisco Chronicle reported,

UCSF Chancellor Susan Desmond-Hellmann told the regents, delicately, that she wants out.

Under her proposal, UCSF's medical school, hospital, clinics and research facilities would remain a public university connected to UC, the chancellor assured the regents. But the tendrils connecting the two entities should be thinner than they are today.

Desmond-Hellmann said she envisions a relationship like those of UC Hastings College of the Law, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, which contract with UC for health and pension services. While ultimately accountable to the regents, they are autonomous with their own boards of directors.

Referring to 'alternative governance models' and 'examining UCSF's financial relationship with UC,' the chancellor and campus executives talked of their ambition to become the world's leading innovator in the health field - a goal better achieved, they hinted, without the rest of the university weighing it down.

To Health Care Renewal readers, that UCSF would be proposed as the first part of the University of California to privatize should not come as a shock. After all, Chancellor Desmond Hellmann came not from academia, but from the world of for-profit biotechnology. She was a former president for drug development for Genentech.

Two and one half years ago I suggested that "hiring a lavishly compensated top executive from a biotech firm known for its high drug prices to run a public health sciences university does considerably blur the line between academic medicine and the health care industry." Furthermore, three months ago I noted that Dr Desmond Hellmann seemed be advocating that the university's focus turn to product development, so that it would start to emulate a contract research organization. Now it appears that Dr Desmond Hellmann wants to traverse the line between government and the private sector, so that the organization could "make a ton of money," and "focus on spinning innovations into business deals," according to the San Francisco Chronicle.

What any of this has to do with the university's fundamental mission to discover and disseminate knowledge, and with this health care university's mission to take the best possible care of its patients is not clear.

Summary

Turning UCSF into a private, quasi contract research organization might conceivably yield some good research and drug development. Why a formerly academic organization would be better at this than a purpose-built CRO is hardly proven. Whether UCSF recast as a CRO would yield better research, leading to better patient outcomes than would have resulted if it continued as a state government sponsored health care university is also hardly proven.

Turning UCSF into a quasi CRO, however, would likely be very much in the self-interest of its administrators/ managers/ bureaucrats/ executives who would be freed from any constraints on their incomes, and the disclosure of same that were previously obligated by the messy representative democracy to which they formerly had to answer.

On the other hand, it is hard to conceive of how such a privatization would be good for students or patients. In fact, it is not the least bit clear why a medical, nursing, or other health professional student would want to study within what would basically be a contract research organization. It is also unclear whether patients seeking care from such an organization could trust it to put their interests, rather than the organization's revenue and the self-interest of its administrators/ managers/ bureaucrats/ executives first.

We are now a good 30+ years into our ill-fated American experiment about the effects of turning medicine commercial and making health care a commodity. So far, it has yielded the highest costs in the world, but declining access, mediocre quality, and demoralized professionals. Turning one of our once proud and  prestigious state government sponsored academic medical institutions into a private contract research organization would be a powerful symbol of our final national health care decline.

Let us hope that the students and faculty whose "conspiracy theory" about privatization proved true will now mount a more effective protest before UCSF falls into the muck.

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

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

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

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

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

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

A "New Species" of Conflicts of Interest

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

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

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

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

In addition, the Times story connected another dot:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dubious Enthusiasm from the Former Chairman of Bailed-Out Citigroup

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

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

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

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

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

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

Even More Conflicts of Interest

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary and Some Questions

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

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

But I will not hold my breath waiting for answers.

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

Say It Ain't So - Howard Dean Runs Through Revolving Door to Become Biotechnology Booster

The revolving door now accommodates the whole political spectrum.  A Salon article documented the transit of one Howard Dean, former darling of the left-wing of the Democratic party:

Howard Dean has long cultivated an image as the plainspoken doctor who speaks for the left wing of the Democratic Party, a role he still plays as a pugnacious pundit on TV. But since his term as chairman of the Democratic National Committee ended in January 2009, Dr. Dean has taken on a less-noticed role: paid advocate for interest groups that would find few fans among the progressive voters once energized by Dean's 2004 presidential bid.

Dean may not be the worst of the 'buckrakers,' those prototypical capital characters who exploit their name and connections without regard for principle. But his recent political forays seem to have diverged from his trailblazing left-liberal past.

As senior strategic advisor at McKenna Long & Aldridge, a heavyweight Washington lobbying firm, Dean played a prominent role representing the biotech industry during the healthcare bill debate, staking out a position on biopharmaceutical drugs that was decried by consumer groups.

'Gov. Dean was very helpful to us,' biotech CEO Jim Greenwood told a trade publication 'As a physician clearly focused on healthcare, a Democrat leader and clearly to left of center, his efforts were impactful.' Greenwood is the head of the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO), a trade group that lobbies for the industry in Washington.

In particular,

Dean arrived in the comfortable K Street offices of McKenna Long & Aldridge shortly after his term as DNC chair ended in January 2009. He had been passed over by President Obama for the secretary of health and human services Cabinet post, and he needed a paying job.

In announcing his appointment, the firm said Dean would 'provide guidance to clients, particularly in the areas of healthcare and alternative energy resources.'

Dean has been careful not to register as a lobbyist, a designation that would prompt legal disclosure requirements. Both McKenna and the governor's spokeswoman declined to reveal which clients he has worked for.

Dean took on a very public role during the 2009 healthcare reform battle, specifically going to bat for the biotech industry -- whose trade association is a client of McKenna.

At stake was how the government would regulate a growing class of drugs called biologics or biopharmaceuticals and their generic competitors. The industry argued for a longer period -- at least 12 years -- in which expensive brand-name biologics would face no competition from less costly generics. Consumer groups argued that, to keep costs down, the period of exclusivity should be just five years.

Dean jumped into the fight on the side of the industry, writing an Op-Ed in the Hill in 2009 arguing that a 'commonsense and fair approach' would be to bar generics for 'at least 12 years.'

'If we discourage investment, we jeopardize the development of the next generation of breakthrough medicines and cures,' he wrote, echoing a key industry talking point.

Dr Dean also apparently did some paid health policy advocacy on behalf of other clients:

In January, he waded into another high-stakes healthcare fight, this one being waged in New York state between foreign medical schools and their American competitors. The issue was whether foreign-trained doctors would have access to hospitals in New York for their residencies. Dean wrote an Op-Ed in the Albany Times-Union, 'N.Y. needs its foreign-trained doctors,' that repeated talking points of foreign medical schools, which, Dean's bio blurb noted, are clients of McKenna Long & Aldridge.

While the firm won't say whom Dean has worked for, his bio page on McKenna's website offers some clues.

Dean also took on a few other jobs for corporate health care. For example,

He currently serves on the board of advisors at Vatera Health Partners, a New York-based venture capital fund whose mission is 'to support and grow emerging biopharmaceutical companies.'

It's not clear from the public record how long he has served in the position. But his presence on the Vatera board indicates that he has a personal financial stake in the biopharmaceutical industry.

Also, he is now

serving on the board of Extendicare, a Canadian long-term care company.

Dr Dean's new job did not sit well with a former colleagues on the left side of the US political spectrum who had a distinctly different position on the issue of biologic exclusivity:

'It was devastating to have him involved because of his reputation,' says James Love, director of Knowledge Ecology International, a public interest group that fought for a shorter period of exclusivity. 'He's considered to be independent of industry and on the left, so it was really shocking to us when we first saw this. But there it was.'

The Salon article ended on this disillusioned note:

Dean is indeed uniquely positioned: Between his former followers and his current clients, between his idealist liberal past and the cynical culture of K Street, between independence and cooptation.

We have discussed how other government officials and political leaders transited the revolving door to work for corporate health care (e.g., starting here, and more lately here). However, this most recent case seems to present the most vivid contrast between previous reputation and later employment.  Actually, while Dr Dean was clearly an advocate for changing health care, he was not a supporter of some ideas usually labeled left-wing," such as a single payer system (see here).  However, the Washington Times reported that when he was running for President in 2004, the Club for Growth Political Action committee ran an television advertisement calling him the proprietor of a:

tax-hiking, government-expanding, latte-drinking, sushi-eating, Volvo-driving, New York Times-reading … Hollywood-loving, left-wing freak show

The transformation of Dr Howard Dean from a target of the Club for Growth to a paid helper and talking points echoer of the Biotechnology Industry Organization illustrates that nowadays the revolving door accommodates all kinds of politicians. The door remains legal, but its continuing rapid spin raises more and more concern that even the ostensibly most left-wing politicians may act to avoid offending any future lucrative corporate employer. So the coziness between government and the medical-industrial complex is increasingly revealed, and the ability of current government officials and politicians to represent the people rather than corporate CEOs is increasingly in doubt.

True health care reform would have to somehow reduce the resultant corporatism.