The New Business Coup? Increasing Evidence that Large Health Care Corporations are Funding Threats to Democracy

Introduction: Health Care Corporations' Political Contributions: From Bipartisan to Trumpian

 At one time, leadership of large health corporations were circumspect in their financial support for US politicians and political causes. They provided some funds directly to politicians and political organizations, but often amounts given to different parties and organizations with different ideologies were balanced. Presumably, the goal was to promote access to whomever was in power at any given time. 

 

With the rise of Donald Trump, things changed. Many leaders apparently went all in for Trump and his Republican supporters.  In June, 2018  we discussed how CVS channeled money to a "dark money group," that promoted Trump administration policies, including repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates. In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians. In March, 2019, we discussed how in the 21st century, health care corporate CEOs' personal political contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

Some corporations paused some of their political giving after a mob whipped up by Trump at a January 6, 2021, rally violently stormed the US Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 election. However, within two months they started giving again in support of Republicans in Congress who voted not to certify the election (see this April, 2021, post, this July 7, 2021, post, and this September 7, 2021 post).

Now just after the anniversary of an insurrection that almost prevented the certification of the 2020 US presidential election results, there are new indications that leaders of big health care corporations are continuing to support Republicans in Congress who voted to overrule the results of that election.

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of the Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election 

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has updated their report on corporate sponsorship of the politicians who wanted to overturn the election.  The January 3, 2022 version is entitled "The Corporate Insurrection: How companies have broken promises and funded seditionists." It described the "717 corporations and industry groups have donated over $18 million to 143 of the 147 members of Congress who objected to the results of the 2020 presidential election, as well as the National Republican Senatorial Committee and the National Republican Congressional Committee."  It referred to the updated data about the largest corporate funders appearing in the current version of CREW's previous report.  The health care corporations that appear in this list of 80 are:

Pfizer                                        $71,000

Merck                                      $68,000

Eli Lilly                                   $42,000

Johnson & Johnson                   $38,500

Anthem                                   $32,500

Cigna                                       $30,000

CVS Health                            $30,000 

AstraZeneca                           $26,500

Humana                                $15,000

Blue Cross & Blue Shield         $15,000 

Keep in mind that these amounts only reflect corporate donations directly to members of Congress, their own leadership PACs, and to the national Republican campaign committees, which must be disclosed by law. They do not include any amounts given by corporate executives, or amounts given to various kinds of dark money organizations, which do not have to be disclosed according to law.  Thus they may seriously undercount the financial support given by health care corporations to support those who wanted to nullify the election. But at least these figures suggest that 5 large pharmaceutical/ biotechnology companies, 4 health care insurance companies, and one diversified pharmacy company continue to be strong supporters of legislators who were willing to do so.  

Furthermore, as noted in a January 5, 2022, article in Fierce Pharma, spokespeople for some of these corporations declared they were no longer worrying about whether politicians support democracy or tried to overturn an election, but only about whether the politicians support policies that would improve their corporate bottom lines.  For example, see this from Pfizer:

Pfizer’s PAC supports policymakers who value innovation and expanded access to breakthrough medicines and vaccines that change patients’ lives,

And see this from Eli Lilly: 

[the company] supports candidates across the political spectrum who understand the value of a vibrant pharmaceutical ecosystem to address unmet patient needs.

Billionaires Who Made Their Money from Health Care Corporations Who Supported the Attempt to Overturn the Election  

A January 6, 2022 article in Forbes listed the "more than 50 billionaires [who] donated in the second half of 2021 to legislators who voted against certifying the presidential election, according to an analysis of Federal Election Commission records."  Two the billionaires made their fortunes from health care corporations.  They were: 

- Phillip Frost, worth $2,500,000,000, described as "a long-time health care investor, inventor and founder, Phillip Frost now runs diagnostics-maker Opko Health." He "joined Key Pharmaceuticals in 1972, reformulated its asthma drug and sold the company in 1986 for $836 million." Also, he "founded Ivax, a generic drugmaker, in 1987. He sold it to Teva Pharmaceuticals for $7.6 billion in 2005"  Frost supported Sen Hawley (R-MO). 

- James Leininger, worth $1,500,000,000, described as having "made his fortune founding medical devices company Kinetic Concepts (KCI), which focuses on wound care." He also runs "Medcare Investment Funds, which manages $1 billion in assets." Leininger supported Rep Cloud (R-TX). 

 Discussion

 As we said before, most health care corporations publish high-minded aspirational statements that promise pluralism, support of the community, and of our representative democratic society. Data revealed recently and discussed in our previous three posts increasingly show that some leaders of  large health care corporations saw fit to direct contributions to politicians who promoted anti-democratic policies. Funding political leaders who would challenge election outcomes in the absence of very clear evidence of election irregularities seems to violate high-minded corporate pledges of inclusiveness.

Is it that health care corporate leadership just are more interested in making money than in bettering society, despite their aspirational mission statements? As we previously discussed, that is a plausible formulation.  For example, per the Washington Post in January, 2021,

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee.

Also, the quotes above support the idea that corporate leaders put their own bottom lines ahead of supporting the republican form of government that partially made their revenues possible.

On the other hand, maybe it is not just about money.  Again, as we said before, by virtue of being top corporate managers, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they would  be able to control as private persons, and to do so quietly and sometimes anonymously.  Corporate leaders may thus be able to promote their own interests through their corporations' political giving.  Those interests may go beyond just personal enrichment.   Some may also be interested in personal political power, or have other ways they might benefit from anti-democratic, authoritarian, even openly fascist national political leadership.  

Big industrialists have backed authoritarian and openly fascist regimes in other countries before, some to make more money, but in retrospect, some for darker reasons. (See, for example, this article on how German industrialists financially bailed out the Nazi party in 1932.)  

There was at least one previous instance in which US business leaders tried to effect a coup to oust a President they considered too left wing.  This was sometimes called the "business coup."  According to a Washington Post article from 2021, its sponsors included "included J.P. Morgan Jr., Irénée du Pont and the CEOs of General Motors, Birds Eye and General Foods."  Their goal was to depose President Franklin D Roosevelt and 

install a dictator who was more business friendly. After all, they reasoned, that had been working well in Italy

The plot failed because the former military officer they chose to lead it informed the government.  So far, the attempt by now former President Trump and his followers to do something similar has also failed. That does not mean, however, that the next attempt will not succeed.

 

IMHO, all citizens need to wake up and  protect our republic.  Furthermore, all medical and public health professionals specifically need to take action to wake up and protect our republic specifically from self-interested health care corporate leaders.  Imagine what health care and public health might be like were they to exert near absolute control facilitated by an authoritarian they installed in office 

 

 

More Large Health Care Corporations Are Again Funding Politicians Who Threatened Representative Democratic Governance

Introduction: Health Care Corporations' Political Contributions: From Bipartisan to Trumpian

 At one time, leadership of large health corporations were circumspect in their financial support for US politicians and political causes. They provided some funds directly to politicians and political organizations, but often amounts given to different parties and organizations with different ideologies were balanced. Presumably, the goal was to promote access to whomever was in power at any given time. 

 

With the rise of Donald Trump, things changed. Many leaders apparently went all in for Trump and his Republican supporters.  In June, 2018  we discussed how CVS channeled money to a "dark money group," that promoted Trump administration policies, including repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates. In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians. In March, 2019, we discussed how in the 21st century, health care corporate CEOs' personal political contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

Some corporations paused some of their political giving after a mob whipped up by Trump at a January 6, 2021, rally violently stormed the US Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 election. However, within two months they started giving again in support of Republicans in Congress who voted not to certify the election (see this April, 2021, post, and this July 7, 2021, post).

Now yet another report shows continuing support by large health care corporations for Republican legislators who supported the nullification of the election.

 Health Care Corporate Funding of Politicians Who Would Overturn an Election

On August 17, 2021, Popular Information published The January 6 Corporate Accountability Index.  It promised to be results of a comprehensive monitoring efforts of corporate pledges to make changes in their political giving to the "147 Republicans who voted to overturn the election, setting the stage for the riot." It included several categories of pledge violations.  Its results included some of the companies who went back on their pledges as described in our April and July posts.  It also included many more companies that did not make it to previous reports.  The relevant results by category were as follows

Corporations that pledged to suspend donations to the 147 Republican objectors but directly donated to those Republicans

Not included in previous reports: none

Included in previous reports: Cigna, Eli Lilly

Corporations that pledged to suspend donations to all 147 Republican objectors but violated the spirit of the pledge

Not included in previous reports: 

"After January 6, Genentech [part of the "Roche group'] said it would suspend contributions to Republican objectors. Genentech donated $15,000 to the NRCC and $15,000 to the NRSC on June 30."

"After January 6, Sanofi said it would suspend contributions to Republican objectors. Sanofi donated $15,000 to the NRSC on 3/17."

Corporations that pledged to suspend all PAC donations and then directly donates to the 147 Republican objectors

Not included in previous reports:

DaVita 

Included in previous reports: Abbott Laboratories, Gilead, Novo Nordisk

Corporations that pledged to suspend all PAC donations and then indirectly donated to the 147 Republican objectors

Not included in previous reports:

Baxter International

Included in previous reports: United Healthcare

Corporations that pledged to reevaluate their donation criteria after January 6 and directly donated to GOP objectors

Not included in previous reports:

Amgen, Laboratory Company of America

Corporations that pledged to reevaluate their donation criteria after January 6 and then indirectly donated to the 147 Republican objectors

Not included in previous reports: none

Included in previous reports: CVS

Discussion

As we said before, most health care corporations publish high-minded aspirational statements that promise pluralism, support of the community, and of our representative democratic society.  For example, Sanofi Pasteur claims:

Sanofi’s social impact strategy aims to build a healthier, more resilient world by ensuring access to healthcare for the world’s poorest people

However, the new data revealed above, and data discussed in our two previous posts showed that leaders of  more and more large health care corporations saw fit to direct contributions to politicians who promoted anti-democratic policies. Funding political leaders who would challenge election outcomes in the absence of very clear evidence of election irregularities seem s to violate high-minded corporate pledges of inclusiveness like those above.   

Is it that health care corporate leadership just are more interested in making money than in bettering society, despite their aspirational mission statements? As we previously discussed, that is a plausible formulation.  For example, per the Washington Post in January, 2021,

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee.

On the other hand, maybe it is not just about money.  Again, as we said before, by virtue of being top managers corporations, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they would  be able to control as private persons, and to do so quietly and sometimes anonymously.  Corporate leaders may thus be able to promote their own interests through their corporations' political giving.  Those interests may go beyond just personal enrichment.   Some may also be interested in personal political power, or have other ways they might benefit from anti-democratic, authoritarian, even openly fascist national political leadership.  Big industrialists have backed authoritarian and openly fascist regimes in other countries before, some to make more money, but in retrospect, some for darker reasons. (See, for example, this article on how German industrialists financially bailed out the Nazi party in 1932.)

Leaders of large corporations now appear willing to wield large amounts of political power leveraged by the organizations they control.  Yet until recently they may have been able to do so without disclosure to society at large.  That society may be greatly affected by this power, but when it can be wielded quietly, have had little say in who has it and its uses.  

We as health care professionals, policy makers, patients and members of the public at large deserve to know how health care corporate leadership is directing money to political causes, and how they benefit from doing so. If they are not doing this in our interests, our we need to make sure things change.

Leadership of Big Health Care Corporations Go Back to Financially Supporting the Opponents of Democratic Governance

At one time, leadership of large health corporations were circumspect in their financial support for US politicians and political causes. They provided some funds directly to politicians and poltical organizations, but often amounts given to different parties and organizations with different ideologies were balanced. Presumably, the goal was to promote access to whomever was in power at any given time. 

With the rise of Donald Trump, things changed. Many leaders apparently went all in for Trump and his Republican supporters.  In June, 2018  we discussed how CVS channeled money to a "dark money group," that promoted Trump administration policies, including repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates. In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians. In March, 2019, we discussed how in the 21st century, health care corporate CEOs' personal political contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

 

Some corporations paused some of their political giving after a mob whipped up by Trump at a January 6, 2021, rally violently stormed the US Capitol to try to prevent the certification of the 2020 election. However, within two months they started giving again in support of Republicans in Congress who voted not to certify the election (see this April, 2021, post).

Now two new reports show continuing support by large health care corporations for Republican legislators who also supported the nullification of the election, and legislation that might decrease voting by citizens who oppose Trump

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of Voter Suppression

In April, 2021, Public Citizen published "The Corporate Sponsorship of Voter Suppression." It detailed support from direct corporate contributions and corporate political action committees (PACs) from 2015 through March, 2021, to state legislators who authored, sponsored or voted for 245 bills that could have made it more difficult for citizens to vote in elections. 

The 25 companies contributing the largest amounts of money to these legislators included UnitedHealth Group ($411,200 total); Pfizer ($308,085); and Centene Corp ($205,200).  Companies that gave somewhat less included Merck ($180,000),  CVS ($174,000), Anthem ($138,150) Eli Lilly ($124,000) and Cigna ($109,225).

Two health care related trade groups also gave significant funds to these legislators: the Virginia Dental Association ($223,000) and the  Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers Association of America/PhRMA ($200,000).   

Note that the data did not include personal contributions from corporate leaders, and could not include corporate money directed to dark money organizations that ended up supporting these legislators.

Health Care Corporate Sponsorship of the Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election

In June, 2021, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) published "This Sedition is Brought to You By..." It detailed contributions from corporate PACS and trade groups to those in the US Congress who voted against certifying the results of the 2020 election and the two main party organizations that supported them, the National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) and National Republican Congressional Committee (NRCC) since the vote not to certify.  

The largest contributions from health care corporate PACs included those tied to Fresenius Medical Care Holdings ($76,000); CVS ($45,000); Cigna ($42,500); Johnson & Johnson ($30,000); Pfizer ($20,000); and Humana ($15,000).

Note that the data also did not include contributions from corporate leaders, and could not include corporate money directed to dark money organizations that ended up supporting these legislators. 

Discussion

Most health care corporations profess to missions that are pluralistic and support the community and society as a whole.  For example, Pfizer's mission statement includes:

We partner with governments, non-profits, and other organizations to ensure that more people around the world have access to the medicine and resources they require.

UnitedHealthCare's mission statement includes:

UnitedHealthcare is dedicated to helping people live healthier lives and making the health system work better for everyone

Merck's mission statement includes:

We demonstrate our commitment to patients and population health by increasing access to health care through far-reaching policies, programs and partnerships

However, leaders of some large health care corporations saw fit to direct contributions to politicians who promoted anti-democratic policies. Funding political leaders who would restrict voting rights in ways likely to impact already disadvantaged groups, and challenge election outcomes without strong evidence of irregularities would seem to violate high-minded corporate pledges of inclusiveness like those above.    

Is it that health care corporate leadership just are more interested in making money than in bettering society, despite their aspirational mission statements? As we previously discussed, that is a plausible formulation.  For example, per the Washington Post in January, 2021,

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee.

However, there are problems with this formulation.  As we wrote before,  it is obvious why a pharmaceutical company might want to defeat legislation that would lower its prices or raise its taxes.  It is not obvious why it would want to consistently support actions by one party, or by people at one end of the political spectrum, even if some such people seem generally "pro-business."  After all, for years big corporations and their executives openly gave money to both US parties and their candidates, apparently in the belief that this would at least allow more visibility for the corporations' priorities no matter who was in power.

Maybe it is not just about money.  Again, as we said before, by virtue of being top management of a corporation, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they may be able to control as private persons, and to do so anonymously.  It may be that top corporate leaders are not just interested in making more money.  Some may also be interested in personal political power, or have other ways they might benefit from anti-democratic, if not openly fascist national political leadership.  Big industrialists have backed authoritarian and openly fascist regimes in other countries before, some to make more money, but in retrospect, some for darker reasons. (See, for example, this article on how German industrialists financially bailed out the Nazi party in 1932.)

At least health care professionals, policy makers, patients and the public at large deserve to know how health care corporate leadership is directing money to political causes, and how they benefit from doing so. 

 

    

A Few Leaders of Big Health Care Corporations Hesitate in Their Support of Extreme Politics and Insurrection, But Will Anything Really Change?

 Some recent but not well publicized articles suggests how big health care corporations are still enabling some of the worst aspects of health care and larger political economic dysfunction.

Introduction - Health Care Corporate Political Donations Become More Partisan and Ideological

A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away big health care corporations in the US had an apparently straightforward philosophy of political giving.  They gave contributions more or less equally to both major political parties.  Apparently the theory was that the corporate giving would be remembered favorably by whoever won elections and got governmental power.  Corporate contributions raised major concerns about their ability to purchase access and influence policy far beyond those of less wealthy groups and the public at large.  At least, however, it was overtly non-partisan, and ostensibly not ideological.

However, things changed, and health care (and larger corporate) political giving became more partisan, and and more ideological. As we discussed here, 

- In June, 2018, we first noted how the huge pharmacy chain CVS, had been secretly making contributions to America First Policies, an ostensibly non-profit organization.  CVS claimed that it helped fund AFP because it supported tax reform.  Actually, AFP acted to promote Trump administration policies. AFP encouraged repeal of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and building a wall on the US southern border.  These seemed at odds with CVS claims about its social responsibility.  

- In September, 2018, we noted that big health care corporations often make high-minded public pledges about supporting patients' and the public's health, and sometimes social responsibility, but have been found to be covertly supporting policy initiatives that seemed to subvert these goals, using "dark money."  The dark money groups they used to channel this money often had explicitly partisan leadership and direction, usually right-wing and Republican.

 

- In October, 2018, we discussed important but incomplete revelations about corporate contributions to such dark money groups that mainly favored again right-wing ideology, the Republican party, and Trump and associates.

- In November, 2018, we noted that health care corporations funneled funds through dark money organizations to specifically attack designated left-wing, Democratic politicians.

- In March, 2019, we discussed a study of the personal political contributions of CEOs of large corporations.  In the 21st century, the CEOs' contributions were increasingly partisan, that is individual CEOs gave predominantly or exclusively to one party, and for the vast majority, to the Republican party. 

- In October, 2020, we discussed the apparent relationship between the support to Trump provided by large pharmaceutical corporations and his inclination to outsource his coronavirus pandemic management to them. 

Corporate leadership's enthusiasm for Trump, his policies, and his associates seemed to arise from  economic interests of the corporations and the self-interest of their top management, but without consideration of how Trump and associates' actions may have harmed larger corporate, social, or national interests.  As discussed in a Washington Post article on January 8, 2021:

Business groups big and small largely stuck by Trump as he broke one norm after another over the past four years, including insulting immigrants, appearing to empathize with white supremacists in Charlottesville and clearing a Black Lives Matter protest in Washington for a photo op. They stuck by him still after he pressured the Ukrainian president in a bid to help his own election chances, after his impeachment, after he intentionally downplayed the effects of the novel coronavirus and last week after he was recorded pressuring the Georgia secretary of state to overturn the election results.

Even Trump supporters admitted the corporate leaders' extreme compartmentalization:

'It isn’t going to affect tax rates. How about monetary policy? Allow me to stay pure to my turf,' Art Laffer, a supply side economist who is close with White House economic officials and speaks to the president, said in a brief interview.

One observer described their thinking thus:

'Their attitude was: ‘Let’s take the big tax cuts and hold our noses for the obvious xenophobia and authoritarianism.’ It was a classic Faustian bargain,' said Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), a member of the House Ways & Means Committee. 'They should have known from the beginning.'

However, the Trump administration's actions and policies often seemed to directly contradict the stated values, visions and missions of health care corporations.  For example, Pfizer declares its values to be:

customer focus, leadership, quality innovation, collaboration, respect for people, integrity, and performance

How would the value "respect for people" align with Trump's hostility toward immigrants, or sympathy for white supremacists?  How would the value "integrity" align with Trump's pressure on the Ukraine to influence his election, or his pressure on officials in the state of Georgia to alter the election results in his favor?  

Nonetheless, until very recently, hardly anyone seemed to notice that large health care corporations had changed their political giving so as to make its effects antithetical to the corporations' declared principles and values.  

Trump's Attempt to Overturn the 2020 Election Inspire A Few in Corporate Leadership to Rethink Its Political Support for Him and His Associates

Yet things apparently changed after Trump's attempts to overturn the election, including claims that he actually won despite obvious evidence to the contrary, baseless legal challenges to the election results that were almost all dismissed by the courts, and an attempt by Trump supporters in Congress to challenge and possibly override the election results in congressional proceeding.  That crossed a line.

Within days, corporate leaders who had generally been quiet about Trump administration's actions and policies that ran counter to their organizations' stated goals and mission began to speak up.  Several hundred signed a statement:  

Congress should certify the electoral vote on Wednesday, January 6. Attempts to thwart or delay this process run counter to the essential tenets of our democracy.

Most of those who signed lead financial firms, but the list did include Albert Bourla, CEO of Pfizer, a firm that had been one of Trump's favorites (see above).

Then, Trump's exhortation to his supporters at a rally to march on the Capitol while congress was debating Trump's supporters' challenge to the election results, which led to an insurrection and armed occupation of the Capitol building,  which was eventually beaten back by law enforcement with significant casualties led some corporate leaders to rethink their positions. 

The next day, per the Washington Post:

The mob scenes at the Capitol attracted harsh and unusual criticism from business groups, including the chief executive of one of the nation’s largest banks saying he is 'disgusted' and a manufacturing trade group calling it 'sedition' and suggesting that President Trump must be removed from office immediately.

It was a stunning series of rebukes for a president who had received widespread support from corporate America for most of his turbulent term, especially for his efforts to cut government regulations and reduce corporate tax rates.

But what occurred Wednesday seemed finally to be too much. Trump staged a rally in Washington a short walk from where Congress was counting the electoral college votes, with Trump whipping up his followers with fabrications about election results and urging them to march to the Capitol to protest. Later, Trump appeared to sympathize with the mob and support the violent actions.

 The National Association of Manufacturers soon after released an extraordinary statement from its president, Jay Timmons, saying Vice President Pence 'should seriously consider working with the Cabinet to invoke the 25th amendment to preserve democracy.'

At that time, one more CEO of a pharmaceutical company that had been one of Trump's favorites spoke up:

Alex Gorsky, the chief executive of Johnson & Johnson, said in a statement that he is 'devastated by this assault on what our country has stood for since its founding: free, fair and peaceful elections.' He said it is time to stand for unity, 'not face-to-face in conflict — and to chart our path to a better and healthier future.'

Furthermore, some large corporations, including health care corporations, announced a review or freeze on political donations through their corporate political action committees (PACs). Per the New York Times, January 11, 2021:

A flurry of companies have since reviewed political giving via their corporate political action committees.... Blue Cross Blue Shield, Boston Scientific... are taking a similar, targeted approach to donation freezes.

On January 12, 2021, StatNews summarized responses by health care corporations:

 The list, so far, is short: the Blue Cross BlueShield Association, an insurer federation, said this week it would pause contributions specifically to candidates who effectively voted to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election.  Drug manufactures Gilead Scientific and Amgen, as well as BIO, the biotech lobbying group, said they would pause contributions to all candidates regardless of how they voted on election certification, according to spokespeople.  UnitedHealth Group and Boston Scientific, the medical device giant, said the same.

Others, like CVS Health and the insurance lobby group America's Health Insurance Plans, were more cautious, saying they would review their future giving.

However,

Many other health care corporations and lobby groups... have not responded publicly.

The article also noted:

Many of the GOP lawmakers who voted against certifying the Electoral College results are those whom the drug industry and other health care sectors have long viewed as allied.  

The list included Republicans in Congress whom may be regarded as extreme supporters of Trump, eg Rep Devin Nunes (R-CA), and Rep Andy Harris (R-MD).

I found one other report of a big health care corporation which changed its political donation policy in response to the attempt to overturn the election.  Per the Kansas City Star, January 13, 2021:

Cerner Corp. will suspend political donations to Sen. Josh Hawley and other politicians who it determines helped to incite the violent mob that attacked the U.S. Capitol building last week.

The North Kansas City-based healthcare IT firm is the latest to seek distance from Hawley, a Missouri Republican, and others who have supported baseless allegations of voter fraud in the November presidential election. 

A company spokesperson said:

'Effective immediately, Cerner PAC will suspend contributions to any candidate or official who took part in or incited violence last week in Washington, D.C.,' the statement said. 'Focusing on the health and well-being of the American people transcends partisan politics, and we will continue working with all elected leaders to advance policies that put the patient at the center of their care.'

I found another report of a big industry group which planned a "review" of its giving.  The American Hospital Association announced on January 14, 2021:

The tragic events last week at the U.S. Capitol were an assault on our democracy. This prompted the AHA to begin an immediate review of our political giving practices to ensure they are guided by our Association’s vision and mission, as well as the democratic values we share as a nation.

But that was it, a total of six large health care corporations and three industry groups announced a pause or review of political contributions (apparently limited to those from corporate PACs) to some of the politicians who voted to challenge the election results.  The Potter Report, authored by health care insurance whistle blower Wendell Potter, noted: 

There’s been a lot of talk this week about big corporations such as Amazon, Verizon and Comcast deciding to stop giving money to House and Senate Republicans who voted to overturn last year’s election. 

Guess which giants aren’t on that list? America’s big for-profit health insurers. 

Over the past two election cycles, Big Insurance has donated to just about all the 147 House and Senate Republicans who voted against certifying the election. That includes Cigna and Humana, where I once worked, and Centene and CVS/Aetna. Plus, the industry’s lobbying group, the American Health Insurance Plans (AHIP).

 The Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, which represents a lot of nonprofit insurers and for-profit Anthem, says it’s suspending donations to those Republicans. And UnitedHealth says it will 'pause' its political donations. But let’s see how long these 'pauses' actually last. 

So far, we haven’t heard a peep from AHIP or the other big for-profits, all of which have made huge profits during the pandemic, thanks largely to having lawmakers on both sides of the political aisle in their pockets. 

Big Insurance donated more than $9 million to House and Senate candidates during the 2020 cycle. Among their favorites? Ted Cruz and Josh Hawley, who led the effort to overturn the election. All the big for-profits donated to Cruz, and all but CVS/Aetna donated to Hawley. 

Note that no health care corporation announced changes in the donations by its top management.  Certainly none even mentioned political contributions through dark money groups (like those that CVS had been revealed to be making, see above).  So the attempt at overturning the election to keep Trump in office, first by quasi-legal maneuvering, then by an armed insurrection, had little effect on continuing underwriting by big health care corporations of the politicians who acquiesced to or actively supported this assault on the fundamentals of our representative democracy 

Two Months Later, Health Care Corporations "Back to Bankrollling Insurrectionists"

Within months, some of the few health care corporations who paused donations again seemed ready to cozy up to anti-democratic politicians.  As reported by the Daily Beast, March 24, 2021:

After the Jan. 6 insurrection, more than 120 corporations swiftly vowed to suspend campaign donations to Republicans who objected to certifying the 2020 election....

But it took less than two months for Pfizer to break that pledge. Their PAC gave $15,000 to the National Republican Senatorial Committee, led by one of eight GOP Senators who voted to decertify election results—Rick Scott of Florida—on Feb. 23.

In total, The Daily Beast identified four companies that appear to have gone back on their suspension of donations to GOP election objectors: AT&T, Cigna Health, Ford Motors, and Pfizer.

[Note that I had not earlier found notice that Cigna Health, a for-profit insurance company, had suspended donations.]

Summary

So as far as I can tell, while Trump is out of office, the big health care corporations that provided plentiful financial support for his initial election and attempts at remaining in office, through electoral and anti-democratic means, are back to supporting the political party that has become his personal sandbox.

 It is increasingly evident that big health care corporations, despite their protestations of social responsibility and non-partisanship, now are actively supporting one wing, an extreme one, of the political spectrum.  This raises big questions: cui bono? Who benefits?

It is obvious why a pharmaceutical company, for example, might want to defeat legislation that would lower its prices or raise its taxes.

It is not obvious why it would want to consistently support actions by one party, or by people at one end of the political spectrum, even if some such people seem generally "pro-business."  After all, for years big corporations and their executives openly gave money to both US parties and their candidates, apparently in the belief that this would at least allow more visibility for the corporations' priorities no matter who was in power.

Now, the most obvious theory is that the new practice of secret donations only in right-wing, Republican, pro-Trump, and/or anti-democratic directions, which must be orchestrated by top corporate management, and which are not disclosed to employees or smaller corporate shareholders, are likely made to support the top managers' self interest more than the broad priorities of the corporations and their various constituencies. By virtue of being top management of a corporation, particular individuals can control political funds far beyond what they may be able to control as private persons, and to do so anonymously.  This could present many temptations, but the rationales for particular managers directing their corporations' fund to particular politicians or organizations remain unknown.  

Thus not only is more investigation needed, at the very least, "public" corporations ought to fully disclose all donations made to outside groups with political agendas.  This should be demanded by at least the corporations' employees and shareholders, but also by patients, health care professionals, and the public at large. Furthermore, it is not unreasonable to ask that all organizations disclose all political funding which allows their leaders and managers to leverage their own political intentions.

Meanwhile we are left with the suspicion that top health care corporate management is increasingly merging with the Trumpist movement in one giant corporatist entity which is not in the interests of health care, much less government by the people, of the people, and for the people.

 

ead more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248457745.html#storylink=cpy

 

Read more here: https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article248457745.html#storylink=cpy

 

 

For Coronavirus Pandemic Management, In Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer Trump Trusts: Public Health at Risk ... Due to Corruption?

In 2003 we found that health care professionals felt one reason for US health care dysfunction was that it was increasingly "dominated by large, bureaucratic organizations which do not honor ... [its] core values"(1)  These organizations included big health care corporations like pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device companies, and large non-profits like hospital systems.  Since then, the power of the largest health care organizations has only increased.  Now we learn how President Trump seems to have ceded control of the management of the coronavirus pandemic to a few big pharmaceutical companies.

In "Massive Companies" Like Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer, Not the FDA, We Trust?

The first US presidential debate included a performance by the president which was likened to something out of professional wrestling. In addition, as reported by StatNews on September 29, 2020:

Throughout a turbulent, disorganized, and hostile debate, Trump highlighted his government’s efforts on vaccine development, pledging, dubiously, that the country is 'weeks away from a vaccine' and contradicting high-level officials within his own government who have suggested it will be months, at least, before a vaccine is available.

And

Trump viewed vaccines and his government’s vaccine moonshot, known as Operation Warp Speed, as the centerpiece of a pandemic response and his campaign rhetoric.

Yet Trump continued to undercut two officials central to that effort: Moncef Slaoui, Warp Speed’s director, and Robert Redfield, the director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They are 'both wrong' for standing by published timelines for vaccine distribution, Trump said, which show vaccines will be widely available to the U.S. public by mid-2021.

 So

At one point, Trump even appealed to drug companies’ trustworthiness on vaccine safety, asking Biden at one point: 'You don’t trust Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer?'

This mirrored what he had said a few days before.  Per the New York Times on September 23, 2020, in the context of threatening to counter efforts by the FDA to impose strict efficacy and safety standards on coronavirus vaccines, apparently so he could speed them to market and then claim a major victory against the pandemic, Trump said

he had 'tremendous trust in these massive companies' that are testing the vaccines, adding, 'I don’t know that a government as big as' the federal government could do as well.

In "massive companies," like Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer we trust? 

Trump Has Benefited from the Actions of Leaders of Massive Corporations, Including Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer

Making pandemic management policy under the motto of  "in massive companies we trust" fits with Trump's coziness with big corporate leadership, particularly that of  Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer. 

Health Care Corporations, Their Executives and Board Members Supported Trump's Political Causes

Trump's campaign has benefited from massive support from big corporations, including pharmaceutical companies, specifically Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer

Large health care corporations have funded dark money organizations that  strongly supported Trump and his agenda.  For example,Johnson and Johnson made large donations to the US Chamber of Commerce, which at that time "mostly endorses Republican candidates" and had contributed to a campaign to support Trump's appointment of US Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh (look here).  

Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer are members of pharmaceutical trade organization PhRMA, which also acts as a political funding organization.  According to Sludge on April 6, 2020:

[The] Job Creators Network has been funded by Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA)

And,

The Job Creators Network was founded in 2011 by billionaire Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus, a major GOP donor who spent more than $7 million through outside groups to help elect Trump in 2016. Marcus has said that he plans to spend part of his fortune to help re-elect Trump in 2020.

We have noted that prior to the 2018 election, health care corporate CEOs often gave large political donations heavily biased in favor of Republicans.  For example, the CEO of Pfizer, Ian Read, gave $145K to Republicans, but only $26K to Democrats (look here).

Also, Trump appointed Robert (Woody) Wood Johnson IV, heir of the family which founded Johnson and Johnson, and major Johnson and Johnson shareholder, as ambassador to the UK.   The New York Times reported in July, 2020, that Johnson's support of Trump included using his official position to tout Trump's golf resort in Scotland as a site for the British Open. Johnson's monetary support for Trump's causes included

$1.2 million to the Republican National Committee and the Trump Victory fund, as well as another $1 million to America First Action, a super PAC supporting Mr. Trump’s re-election.

Health Care Corporations, Their Executives and Board Members Patronized Trump's Properties to His Personal Benefit

The biggest owner of the Trump Organization is President Trump, so he personally profits from revenue to it. Health care corporate managers and owners, including those of Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer, and health care corporate lobbyists, including one who worked for Pfizer, patronized Trump Organization properties directly or indirectly.  For example, according to the Observer in 2013,

Johnson & Johnson heiress Libet Johnson loved the Trump International Hotel and Tower [in New York]—so much so that it’s nearly impossible to keep track of [all the condominiums she owned in it]. So difficult, in fact, that we lost count.

 

Lobby, Trump International Hotel, Washington, DC

Big corporate donors, including Pfizer, supported the Trump Inauguration Committee, which then spent considerable sums at the Trump International Hotel in Washington DC, to Trump's personal benefit (see Newsweek, January, 2019).  Prominent Pfizer lobbyist Kenneth M. Duberstein is a long-time member of Trump's Mar A Lago resort in Florida (New York Times, 2017).

Trump's Coziness with Managers and Owners of Massive Corporations, Including Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer

Health Care Corporate Executives Got Access to Trump

Trump has spent a lot of time meeting with top executives and owners of big corporations, including health care corporations. For example, as reported by Becker's Hospital Review in April, 2020, 27 health care executives were appointed to Trump's economic revival task force (during and after the pandemic), including Albert Bourla, the CEO of Pfizer, and Alex Gorsky, the CEO of Johnson and Johnson.

Back in 2017, Johnson and Johnson CEO Gorsky was appointed to Trump's Manufacturing Council.  He temporarily left that position after Trump refused to disavow the right-wing extremists who marched in Charlottesville, but then was put "on the guest list Tuesday for dinner at [Trump's] Bedminster [golf club]."  After that, Trump seemed to be promoting Johnson and Johnson products, particularly Spravato touted as a treatment for opioid dependence (look here).

Health Care Corporate Executives and Lobbyists Appointed to Government Leadership Positions Affecting Health Care

We have noted that many of Trump's political appointments to leadership positions in government that affect health care came through the revolving door from health care corporations and lobbying firms that worked for them.  For example, the current Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) is a former top Eli Lilly executive.

 

Several top positions as DHHS were filled by former lobbyists for big pharma and other health care corporations (look here). Particularly, Daniel Best went from Pfizer to DVS and then to DHHS as a Senior Advisor (look here.)

Also, Dr Scott Gottlieb, a former commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administation (FDA) under Trump soon became of member of Pfizer's board of directors (look here).

Should Trump Trust Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer?

Trump's affinity for Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer may be based on personal relationships and perceived political common interests, as well as on how he has politically and personally benefited from the actions of their leaders and owners. That affinity should not be sufficient for him to trust them to run a coronavirus pandemic response.  Arguing against placing so much trust in them are their corporate track records of misbehavior.  

On Health Care Renewal, we have been tracking ethical misadventures by big health care organizations for a long time.  The records of Johnson and Johnson and Pfizer stand out, but not in a good way.  To summarize what we have discussed about each...

Johnson and Johnson

Derived from our previous blog posts - 

 2010
- Convictions in two different states for misleading marketing of Risperdal
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax

2011
- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe by DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses  (see this link for all of the above)
- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by subsidiary Scios (see post here)

2012 
  - Testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
-  fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
-  announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising again about Risperdal (see this post).

2013
-  settled case by shareholders alleging that management made misleading statements and withheld material information about manufacturing problems (see this post)
-  Janssen subsidiary pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding Risperdal, and settled for a total of $2.2 billion allegations that it promoted the drug for elderly demented patients and adolescents without an indication, and despite evidence of its harms (see this post).
 -  DePuy subsidiary agreed to settle with multiple plaintiffs for $2.5 billion allegations that it sold defective mental-on-metal artificial hip, and hid evidence of its harms .
-  Janssen subsidiary was found by two juries to have concealed harms of its drug Topamax (see this post for this and above case).
-  Ethicon subsidiary's Advanced Surgical Products and two of its executives agreed to settle charges by US FDA that is sold mislabeled products used to sterilize equipment such as endoscopes (see this post).
- fined by European Commission for anticompetitive practices, that is, collusion with Novartis to delay marketing generic version of Fentanyl (see this post).

2014 
- DePuy subsidiary settled Oregan state charges that it marketed the ASR XL metal-on-metal hip joint prosthesis without disclosing its high failure rate (see this post).

2015
-  found by jury to have concealed harms of Risperdal.
-  Ethicon subsidiary found by jury to have concealed harms of its vaginal mesh device.
-  McNeil subsidiary pleaded guilty to marketing adulterated Tylenol. (see this post for three items above.)

2016
- subsidiary Aclarent settled allegations that it sold its Stratus device for unapproved uses.  Two former executives of that subsidiary also were found guilty of distributing misbranded and adulterated devices (see this post)  

2018
- settled allegations that subsidiary Actelion used illegal kickbacks to market Tracleer for an inflated price (see this post)

2019
- found by Oklahoma judge to have launched a deceptive marketing campaign for opioids (see this post)

And we recently learned that Johnson and Johnson settled allegations of deceptive marketing of surgical mesh in lawsuits in multiple states (per the AP, May 202, here)

Pfizer

 From this post:

The company's track record from 2000 to 2017 is staggering.

Since 2000, Pfizer's troubles started, according to the Philadelphia Inquirer, with the following...

- In 2002, Pfizer and subsidiaries Warner-Lambert and Parke-Davis agreed to pay $49 million to settle allegations that the company fraudulently avoided paying fully rebates owed to the state and federal governments under the national Medicaid Rebate program for the cholesterol-lowering drug Lipitor.
- In 2004, Pfizer agreed to pay $430 million to settle DOJ claims involving the off-label promotion of the epilepsy drug Neurontin by subsidiary Warner-Lambert. The promotions included flying doctors to lavish resorts and paying them hefty speakers' fees to tout the drug. The company said the activity took place years before it bought Warner-Lambert in 2000.
- In 2007, Pfizer agreed to pay $34.7 million in fines to settle Department of Justice allegations that it improperly promoted the human growth hormone product Genotropin. The drugmaker's Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. subsidiary pleaded guilty to offering a kickback to a pharmacy-benefits manager to sell more of the drug.

Thereafter,

- In 2009, Pfizer paid a $2.3 billion settlement of civil and criminal allegations and a Pfizer subsidiary entered a guilty plea to charges it violated federal law regarding its marketing of Bextra (see post here).
- Pfizer was involved in two other major cases from then to early 2010, including one in which a jury found the company guilty of violating the RICO (racketeer-influenced corrupt organization) statute (see post here).  In that year the company was listed as one of the pharmaceutical "big four" companies in terms of defrauding the government (see post here).
- In early 2011, Pfizer's Pharmacia subsidiary settled allegations that it inflated drugs costs paid by New York (see post here).
- In March, 2011, a settlement was announced in a long-running class action case which involved allegations that another Pfizer subsidiary had exposed many people to asbestos (see this story in Bloomberg).
- In October, 2011, Pfizer settled allegations that it illegally marketed bladder control drug Detrol (see this post).
- In August, 2012, Pfizer settled allegations that its subsidiaries bribed foreign (that is, with respect to the US) government officials, including government-employed doctors (see this post).
- In December, 2012, Pfizer settled federal charges that its Wyeth subsidiary deceptively marketed the proton pump inhibitor drug Protonix, using systematic efforts to deceive approved by top management, and settled charges by multiple states' Attorneys' General that it deceptively marketed Zyvox and Lyrica (see this post).
- In January, 2013, Pfizer settled Texas charges that it had misreported information to and over-billed Medicaid (see this post).
- In July, 2013, Pfizer settled charges of illegal marketing of Rapamune (see this post.)
- In April, 2014, Pfizer settled allegations of anti-trust law violations for delaying generic versions of Neurontin( see this post).
- In June, 2014, Pfizer settled another lawsuit alleging illegal marketing of Neurontin (see this post).
- In 2015, a settlement by Pfizer of a shareholders' lawsuit stemming from charges of illegal marketing was announced (see this post).
- In October, 2015, a  UK judge found that the company had threatened health care professionals for using a generic competitor (see this post).
- In February, 2016, Pfizer settled a lawsuit for $785 million for overcharging the US government for Protonix (look here).
- In August, 2016, Pfizer made a $486 million settlement of allegations it bilked shareholders by concealing research showing the harms of Celebrex (look here for this and next two items)
- In December, 2016, Pfizer fined $106M in UK for using monopoly on production of generic phenytoin to overcharge National Health Service
- In November, 2017, Pfizer made $94 million settlement of allegations of fraud to delay generic competition

Note that other companies involved in Trump's crash project to develop a coronavirus vaccine, preferably in time to influence the 2020 election, Astra Zeneca and Merck, also have questionable track records. 

Summary

Health care is increasingly dominated by large organizations who may threaten the values of health care professionals.  Now in a pandemic the US President seems determined to trust in a few large pharmaceutical corporations rather than public health experts and health care professionals.  His trust may be based on his personal affinity for the leadership of such corporations, and the cozy relationships they have cultivated with him. Worse, it may be based on how he has politically benefited and personally profited from their actions.  To the extent that Trump has ceded control of the pandemic to large corporations because he has politically benefited and personally profited from them, his actions appear to fit the ethical definition of corruption, as defined by Transparency International:

the abuse of entrusted power for private gain

Meanwhile, the pandemic has been steadily worsening, and as of this week, the president himself, along with key political allies have been infected. 

Thus, at a crucial time, the country is increasingly being run by a cozy group of insiders with ties to both government and industry.  Top health care (and other) corporate management is increasingly merging with the current administration in one giant corporatist entity. This merger is not in the interests of peoples' or the public's health, especially in a time of pandemic.  Instead, benefits will go to the top leadership and owners/ stockholders (when applicable) of these organizations, who are sometimes the same people.  At times the actions of the current administration, and in particular, its maximum leader, may be abuse of power for private gain, apparently corruption, and in this instance, health care corruption.  This fits a pattern of wholesale corruption and conflicts of interest at the top of the administration that we have often decried, most recently here.

To unrig the system, we need wholesale, real health care reform that would make health care leaders accountable for what their organizations do, and 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.

However, before thinking about true health care reform, we need top accomplish wholesale government reform. We need to excise the deception, crime and corruption at the heart of our government and restore government by the people, of the people, and for the people. 

Reference

1.  Poses RM. A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of American health care.  Eur J Inte Med 2003; 14: 123-130.  Link here.

Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index 2019: Political Corruption in the US Worsens, and Results are Largely Anechoic

Transparency International has just released its 2019 version of the Corruption Perceptions Index.  This version emphasized public sector corruption.  Once again, it appears the US has a worsening corruption problem.  Once again, the results are largely anechoic.

Summary of the 2019 CPI

Methods

Per the TI summary

The CPI scores 180 countries and territories by their perceived levels of public sector corruption, according to experts and business people.

The CPI uses a scale from 0 to 100.  100 is very clear and 0 is highly corrupt.

Results

TI provides CPI results for 180 countries.

The US had a score of 69, tied with France for 23rd best.  The score has declined since 2015 (when it was 76).

TI designated the US as a country to watch, with the following explanation:

With a score of 69, the United States drops two points since last year to earn its lowest score on the CPI in eight years. This comes at a time when Americans’ trust in government is at an historic low of 17 per cent, according to the Pew Research Center.

The US faces a wide range of challenges, from threats to its system of checks and balances, and the ever-increasing influence of special interests in government, to the use of anonymous shell companies by criminals, corrupt individuals and even terrorists, to hide illicit activities.

While President Trump campaigned on a promise of 'draining the swamp' and making government work for more than just Washington insiders and political elites, a series of scandals, resignations and allegations of unethical behaviour suggest that the 'pay-to-play' culture has only become more entrenched. In December 2019, the US House of Representatives formally impeached President Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

The report emphasized that many countries, including the US, had increasing problems with political integrity:

This year, our research highlights the relationship between politics, money and corruption. Unregulated flows of big money in politics also make public policy vulnerable to undue influence.

Countries with stronger enforcement of campaign finance regulations have lower levels of corruption, as measured by the CPI. Countries where campaign finance regulations are comprehensive and systematically enforced have an average score of 70 on the CPI, whereas countries where such regulations either don’t exist or are poorly enforced score an average of just 34 and 35 respectively.

Sixty per cent of countries that significantly improved their CPI scores since 2012 also strengthened their enforcement of campaign finance regulations.

In addition, when policy-makers listen only to wealthy or politically connected individuals and groups, they often do so at the expense of the citizens they serve.

Countries with broader and more open consultation processes score an average of 61 on the CPI. By contrast, where there is little to no consultation, the average score is just 32.

A vast majority of countries that significantly declined their CPI scores since 2012 do not engage the most relevant political, social and business actors in political decision-making.

Countries with lower CPI scores also have a higher concentration of political power among wealthy citizens. Across the board, there is a concerning popular perception that rich people buy elections, both among some of the lowest-scoring countries on the CPI, as well as among certain higher-scoring countries, such as the United States.

The Anechoic Effect Lives

At least the 2019 CPI got some attention in 2020, as did the 2017 version (look here).  I found articles briefly summarizing the US results in a few US media outlets: Bloomberg (behind a paywall), the Associated Press (here, via the New York Times), and Forbes. There was also one op-ed, again in the WaPo.

This was some improvement from how previous relevant results from TI research were covered earlier.   There was virtually  no coverage of a 2013 survey that showed 43% of US respondents believed that US health care was corrupt.

One could argue even so that the current coverage of the 2019 report was inadequate given the importance of the topic and the apparent worsening of the US corruption problem.  This lack of coverage inspired me to write this post, in the hopes of making the issue just a little less anechoic

Discussion

We have argued again and again that health care corruption is an important reason for US (and global) health care dysfunction.  As we wrote in 2019,  Transparency International (TI) defines corruption as

Abuse of entrusted power for private gain

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

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

Also,

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

The report got little attention.  Health care corruption has been nearly a taboo topic in the US, anechoic, presumably because its discussion would offend the people it makes rich and powerful. As suggested by the recent Transparency International report on corruption in the pharmaceutical industry,

However, strong control over key processes combined with huge resources and big profits to be made make the pharmaceutical industry particularly vulnerable to corruption. Pharmaceutical companies have the opportunity to use their influence and resources to exploit weak governance structures and divert policy and institutions away from public health objectives and towards their own profit maximising interests.

Presumably the leaders of other kinds of corrupt organizations can do the same. 

When health care corruption is discussed in English speaking developed countries, it is almost always in terms of a problem that affects some other places, mainly  presumably benighted less developed countries.  At best, the corruption in developed countries that gets discussed is at low levels.  In the US, frequent examples are the "pill mills"  and various cheating of government and private insurance programs by practitioners and patients.  Lately these have gotten even more attention as they are decried as a cause of the narcotics (opioids) crisis (e.g., look here).  In contrast, historically the US government has been less inclined to address the activities of the leaders of the pharmaceutical companies who have pushed legal narcotics (e.g., see this post). 

However, Health Care Renewal has stressed "grand corruption," or the corruption of health care leaders.  We have noted the continuing impunity of top health care corporate managers.  Health care corporations have allegedly used kickbacks and fraud to enhance their revenue, but at best such corporations have been able to make legal settlements that result in fines that small relative to their  multi-billion revenues without admitting guilt.  Almost never are top corporate managers subject to any negative consequences.

We have been posting about this for years at Health Care Renewal, while seeing little progress on this issue.  Now the problem appears to be getting worse in the US.  We have argued that a major reason is the miasma of corruption now surrounding the top of the US government, specifically the Trump administration (see again this 2019 post).

Now the TI discussion of its 2019 Corruption Perceptions Index points to increasing problems of public sector corruption in the US. Many of the issues it cites have been discussed on Health Care Renewal, including: problems in "campaign finance regulation" and "perception that rich people buy elections" (see our discussion of dark money); and "policy-makers [who] listen only to wealthy or politically connected individuals and groups" (see our discussion of the revolving door and regulatory capture).

The op-ed by Hough in the Washington Post included this parallel discussion:

First, successful anti-corruption policy centers on transparency and accountability. Reports such as this one by the UNDP make a strong case that clear lines of accountability improve the quality of governance, and sharpen attempts to fight corruption. Openness and transparency also need to be default settings. These are both areas where the U.S. could improve. The tone set by Donald Trump, whether by refusing to publish his tax returns or personally profiting from his position as president is indicative of a much broader problem. Neither transparency nor accountability are ever absolute, but analysts find plenty of scope for the U.S. to improve.

Second, the more opaque and complex the relationship between money and power, the more difficult it is to pinpoint and counteract corrupt relationships. Again, getting this right is not an exact science — and there’s no perfect system for funding political activity. But campaign finance, along with lobbying, are what corruption scholar Michael Johnston calls influence markets — areas where the wealthy can trade money for influence on policy outcomes. In other words, the rules and regulations let rich benefactors buy themselves a hearing. Yes, there are countries in worse positions, but that doesn’t hide the fact that the U.S. is also far from a model pupil.

And third, fewer Americans now trust either the politicians that rule them or indeed the institutions that help shape public life. Successful anti-corruption is built around integrity management, which requires public servants to act in appropriate ways — but also be seen acting in such ways. The highest ethical and moral standards — and transparency about potential conflicts of interest and recognizing when personal and public interests clash — would let U.S. citizens begin to believe that a cleanup of American government was underway.

In summary, there is growing evidence of a worsening corruption problem in the US.  As of today, responses to it have been ineffective.  Political corruption, especially at the top of the US government, makes addressing health care corruption increasingly difficult.

So we welcome any additional attention to health care corruption, or the larger corruption within the US government that is making health care corruption even harder to address.

But even if we can take that step, when the fish is rotting from the head, it makes little sense to try to clean up minor problems halfway towards the tail. Why would a corrupt regime led by a president who is actively benefiting from corruption act to reduce corruption? The only way we can now address health care corruption is to excise the corruption at the heart of our government.

It is now over three years since Trump was inaugurated, and there has been no real progress.  The fish is still rotting, and so is health care.  What will it take to make something happen?