What Revolving Door? - An Unprecedented Endorsement of a Political Appointment by the "Gold Standard" Medical Journal

An Unprecedented Endorsement 

It's deja vu all over again.  In the spring of 2015, the New England Journal, the most prestigious US medical journal, published a remarkable series of opinion pieces extrolling physician-industry collaborations, and minimizing the significance of resulting conflicts of interest.  More remarkable was the extent that the articles' argument were bolstered by logical fallacies (look here).

Doubling down, the New England Journal of Medicine appeared to make its first ever endorsement of a nominee for federal office.  On October 28, 2015, the NEJM published an editorial with the almost campaign slogan like title, "Califf for the FDA," which enthusiastically endorsed the current presidential nominee to be Commissioner of the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). (1)   It began, [with italics added for emphasis]

Robert M. Califf, M.D., has been nominated to be the next head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA); he currently serves as Deputy Commissioner for the Office of Medical Products and Tobacco. We think his confirmation as commissioner should proceed as quickly as possible. Because the FDA oversees the safety and, in some spheres, the efficacy of products that constitute about 25% of our economy, the country needs a strong and experienced leader who can keep the FDA focused on its mission.

And the editorial concluded,

Califf's experience, his proven leadership abilities, his record of robust research to guide clinical practice, and his unwavering dedication to improving patient outcomes are unsurpased qualifications for the post of commissioner of the FDA; we strongly endorse his nomination and urge the Senate to act favorably on it. 

I have never seen this journal, known primarily for publishing research and scholarly opinion on medicine and health care, publicly render an opinion about a nomination for a federal position, let alone such an enthusiastic one.  A quick search of the journal revealed that it had taken no position and made no comment about the nominations of the last three US FDA Commissioners, (Dr Margaret Hamburg, Dr Andrew von Eschenbach, Dr Lester Crawford, and Dr Mark McClellan, look here) who were nominated by one Democratic and one Republican President.

Dismissing Concerns about Conflicts of Interest

This fervid endorsement came in the face of some controversy about the nomination, particularly about Dr Califf's previous ties to industry (see this post ).  He has participated in many industry sponsored clinical research projects.  For example, a 2013 JAMA disclosure statement included 13 commercial research sponsors of his work.  It also noted his consultative relationships with 32 commercial firms.  We discovered he also had a "board level" conflict of interest, having been a director of Portola Pharmaceuticals, for which he received over $250,000 in 2014 (see this proxy statement).  He also had been paid for "educational activities" in previous years, possibly including "drug talks," at least per one blogger.  So in my humble opinion, the nomination of Dr Califf could potentially become one of the most significant health care revolving door cases to affect US government.


Such consideration may have influenced Senator Bernie Sanders (I - Vermont), who is currently running for President.  In early October he announced he would oppose the Califf nomination.

Furthermore, since our post but before the publication of the NEJM editorial, there have been new revelations.   Dr Califf twithdrew as authors from several papers that had been accepted for publication, seemingly violating norms for declaring authorship of scholarly works, (see the Boston Globe here).   Dr Califf was revealed to have been a board member of and consultant to Faculty Connection LLC, which advises academic researchers "who want to work with industry" about regulatory submissions (see Intercept.com here)

Yet the Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine dismissed concerns about Dr Califf's industry relationships,

a few concerns have been expressed about his associations with industry, and these concerns may have caused some to withhold support for his nomination.

Like Califf, we believe that our actions should be driven by data, not innuendo. Since 2005, Califf has reported, as an investigator, the outcomes of seven clinical trials sponsored solely by industry in primary publications in major general medical journals. Of these trials, four had a negative outcome (i.e., not favoring the intervention), two favored the intervention, and one, with a factorial design, had a mixed outcome. Given this performance, it is impossible to argue that Califf has a pro-industry bias.

This opinion may yet carry the day.  The New York Times reported that

Dr Robert M Califf ... coasted through a confirmation hearing on Tuesday, with  most members of a Senate committee - including some who have been skeptical about his ties to the pharmaceutical industry - seeming set to support his candidacy.

This occurred despite one more major revelation that appeared since the editorial was published, but before the hearing.  A large pharmaceutical company clinical trial which Dr Califf ran had been criticized as biased in favor of the company's drug by the FDA's own staff and consultants. (see POGO here).  And it occurred despite calls by various organizations for the nomination to be turned down, including by Public Citizen and the AIDS Healthcare Foundation (see Medscape here).

Missing the Main Point

However, the NEJM editorial seemed to miss the main point.  It revolved around the claim that

It is impossible to argue that Califf has a pro-industry bias.

This was based apparently on an informal evaluation by Dr Drazen of seven of Dr Califf's 1200 publications.  So at best this was about the question of pro-industry bias in research publications. 

However, the controversy is about Dr Califf's nomination as the head of the US government agency that oversees the pharmaceutical, device and biotechnology industries, among others, and tries to assure the safety and effectiveness of drugs, biologics and medical devices, among other responsibilities.  The overriding issue is about the risk that his decision making in these capacities could be biased.  The real issue is the revolving door, not bias in research.

As we have repeated very recently, the revolving door can be veiwed as a species of conflict of interest.   Government officials who can look forward to extremely lucrative employment in health care industry may be much more inclined to seem friendly to the industry while in office.  Government officials who were previously paid by industry, and who benefited from financial interactions with industry, are likely to maintain their industry mindset and be mindful of their industry friends.  But the concern here is not that this risks biasing future research.  The risk is that a person who previously enjoyed close ties, including close financial ties to industry is at risk of putting the interests of industry over those of citizens and patients while running a US government agency charged with regulating that industry and protecting the health and safety of those citizens and patients.

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.

  Dr Drazen's editorial never directly addressed that issue.  It is one that should still be a concern.

Mission-Hostile Management?

Finally, the effect of the Califf nomination on the FDA has generated considerable public comment.  The effect of the New England Journal of Medicine's unprecendented editorial endorsement of the nomination has generated almost no discussion.  Only on the 1BoringOldMan blog was there note of the past industry ties of the current NEJM editor inspired their own controversies, and asked "since when is the editorship of the NEJM a position from which to weigh in on such matters?" (look here).

Using the editorship to so weigh in could not only obfuscate the debate about the nomination.  It could threaten the mission of a proud medical institution. The NEJM claims a

reputation as the 'gold standard' for quality biomedical research and for the best practices in clinical medicine.

It claims its editorials are

thoughtful, carefully reasoned analyses and interpretations [which] help you crystallize your own opinions on current topics and findings

Yet the blanket and unprecedented endorsement of the current FDA nominee appears otherwise.  We have previously argued that the earlier NEJM opinion pieces on conflicts of interest were based on logical fallacies more than "thoughtful, carefully reasoned analyses and interpretation."  In the Editor's apparent haste to defend industry-physician relationships, he risks the reputation and mission of once what was really a gold standard.

 Reference

1.  Drazen JM. Califf for the FDA.  N Engl J Med 2015;  DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1513828 (link here)  

The Real Dark Side of Health Care: Health Care Corruption

The editors of the prestigious Annals of Internal Medicine just stated they they were shocked, shocked to find out that physicians occasionally express disrespect for patients when the patients cannot hear or see them.  The occasion was an editorial signed by three editors whose title included the phrase, "shining a light on the dark side of health care."(1)  The editorial referred to an anonymous narrative that recounted two incidents from the past.(2)

Two Alleged Incidents of Physicians' Expression of Disrespect for Patients

The first incident, discussed second hand, was of a obstetrician who made a sexist comment about a patient, who was under anesthesia, presumably unconscious, and being prepared for surgery.  The second incident, presumably less recent, was of an obstetric/gynceology resident who, after performing an emergency procedure that saved a woman from potentially fatal acute hemmorhage, performed an impromptu dance routine that appeared to disrespect the patient's ethnicity, until stopped by the anesthesiologist who issued a profance rebuke.

The names of the people involved, the hospitals in which these incidents occurred, and even the years when they happened are unknown.  The Annals did not publish anything suggested their veracity was corroborated.

There was no apparent harm to or direct effect on any patient as a result of either incident.  Of course, both alleged incidents suggested very disrespectful expression by the two physicians.  Their actions appeared unprofessional.

The Editorial Reaction

As noted above, the editorial called the incidents examples of medicine's "dark side."  It further said they may make "readers' stomachs churn," referred to "medicine's dark underbelly," and "repugnant behavior," and characterized the narrative as "disgusting and scandalous," and having the potential to "damage the profession's reputation."  The editorial characterized the the behavior of the obstetrician in the first incident as "highly disrespectful," and said it "reeked of misogyny and disrespect," while the second "reeked of all that plus heavy overtones of sexual assault and racism." 

That is certainly extreme language.  The editors appeared shocked, shocked that any physician could ever express disrespect for a patient, even when the patient could not possible be aware of that.  Nonetheless, of course, the behavior alleged to have occurred was certainly inappropriate and unprofesional, and cannot be condoned.

The Media Reaction

The two articles got considerable publicity, and media coverage also made the incidents out to be extremely sordid, using words like,"disturbing," "astonishing," "unsavory," (albeit also "boorish,") (LA Times); "criminal," "vulgarity," (MedPage Today); "appalling," "troubling," (NY Times); and  "misogynistic," "abhorrent," (US News and World Report).  I must note that some of the news coverage did reflect doubts that the two Annals of Internal Medicine articles represented some horrendous catastrophe, raising issues such as the humanness of doctors, so that some may be "prone to sociopathy and criminality;" the stress of some medical emergencies leading to letting off steam, or poor attempts at humor; and doubts about the representativeness and validity of the two alleged anecdotes.

Nonetheless, it seemed to me that the Annals articles and the media coverage did suggest an impending crisis due to the sordid behavior of perhaps numerous doctors, and at least the tone of the media coverage they provoked suggested the need for immediate action.

Was the Outrage Justified?

However, first keep in mind that these two incidents involved two individual doctors, one a trainee.  There are approximately 800,000 physicians in the US.  They are human.  Is it any surprise that some are "bad apples," and that others occasionally behave badly?  There is nothing in the two articles to suggest that these incidents reflected more organized, systemic actions.

Furthermore, the articles seemed to ignore the fact that mechanisms, perhaps not flawless, are already in place to address unprofessional behavior by physicians, even if no one involved in the published narrative may have used them.  In the US, physicians are subject to discipline from state licensing boards.  They may be reported to those boards for unprofessional behavior.  The boards can sanction physicians in a variety of ways, up to and including permanent loss of license.  Both alleged incidents apparently occurred in teaching hospitals.  Attendings and residents at teaching hospital must answer to department chairs, medical school deans and hospital staffs.  So mechanisms for policing such behavior exist, even if they may have not been used in this case.  A look at state medical board websites reveals that that physicians are often sanctioned for bad behavior that disrespects or even endangers patients. 

Finally, the Annals of Internal Medicine used very strong language, involving churning stomachs, reeks of misogyny, sexual assault, and racism, dark underbellies, etc.  Was this a proportionate response to two anonymous cases that did not involve allegations of direct patient harm?

The Real Dark Side

Readers of Health Care Renewal know that we often discuss systemic problems in health care, often involving the leadership of large health care organizations, that may produce real harms to patients' and the public's health, but for which no good policing mechanisms seem to exist.  Worse, these problems seem to be a taboo topic in health care policy discussions, and in medical journals, like the Annals of Internal Medicine.

In my humble opinion, the Annals' editorial outrage would ring less hollowly if it was accompanied by even greater outrage at such more extreme problems. 

Let me start with a recent example.

Example: the Anechoic AllTrials US Launch

Very recently we discussed how the launch of new US AllTrials initiative got almost no notice.  Specifically, even though a sponsor of the initiative is the American College of Physicians, that organization's publication, the Annals of Internal Medicine, did not comment on it.  (A search of the journal using the term AllTrials produced no results.)

However, the AllTrials initiative means to tackle the problem of suppressed clinical research.  We have long discussed how research may be systematically suppressed when its results do not please its commercial sponsors.  Particularly, trials of drugs or devices that do not produce favorable results may be suppressed by their sponsors, usually the companies that make the drugs or devices.  Such suppression breaks trust with and therefore hugely disrespects the patients who volunteered to participate in the trials, who believed they were contributing to science and public health.  Suppressing data that drugs and devices may be ineffective and harmful may endanger patients by letting them be treated by such drugs and devices in the illusory belief that they are safe.  Yet where is the outrage about such dishonest behavior by large and powerful health care organizations that disrespects, and more importantly, endangers patients?

Health Care Corruption

When a pharmaceutical, biotechnology, or device company withholds results of a clinical trial to makes its product look better and enhance its revenue, that is an example of health care corruption.

Transparency International defines corruption as

Abuse of entrusted power for private gain

When health care corporations run clinical trials, we entrust them to do honest research and be worthy of the trust of their research subjects.  Withholding the results to enhance revenue is therefore abuse of that entrusted power for private gain.

Health Care Corruption as a Taboo Topic

This blog focuses on the US, and we  now have in our archives some amazing stories that document various forms of health care corruption in the US, including numerous allegations of misbehavior by large health care organizations ending in legal settlements, and examples of outright fraud, bribery, kickbacks and other crimes.  Some large and profitable health care corporations have made numerous such settlements over recent years.  (For example, see the track record to date of Pfizer Inc here and that of Johnson and Johnson here.)

Much of this bad behavior was meant to sell drugs, devices, or clinical services, often in situations in which their benefits did not outweigh their harms.  For example, we just discussed the latest settlement by Amgen of allegations that it promoted an epoetin (Aranesp) "off-label" for cancer patients not on chemotherapy.  Such "misbranding" was not merely a technical violation, since it has been shown that use of the drug in this situation increases mortality.   Such bad behavior thus likely harmed numerous patients.

Furthermore, efforts to police these kinds of corruption have been weak and scattered.  Most cases have ended with legal settlements that at most involve fines to corporations, yet the fines are rarely big enough to significantly affect their overall revenues.  While the corporations themselves may be thus punished, the people who actually authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior are usually unscathed.  So as we have discussed frequently, such attempts at justice are unlikely to deter future bad behavior.

In fact, people more distinguished than yours truly have been warning about health care corruption for years. In particular, in 2006, the Transparency International Global Corruption Report focused on health care corruption, and asserted in its executive summary, " the scale of corruption is vast in both rich and poor countries."  It also noted how diverse is health care corruption:

In the health sphere corruption encompasses bribery of regulators and medical professionals, manipulation of information on drug trials, the diversion of medicines and supplies, corruption in procurement, and overbilling of insurance companies. It is not limited to abuse by public officials, because society frequently entrusts private actors in health care with important public roles. When hospital administrators, insurers, physicians or pharmaceutical company executives dishonestly enrich themselves, they are not formally abusing a public office, but they are abusing entrusted power and stealing precious resources needed to improve health.

It further stated how serious the consequences of corruption may be for patients and public health:

Corruption deprives people of access to health care and can lead to the wrong treatments being administered. Corruption in the pharmaceutical chain can prove deadly....

The poor are disproportionately affected by corruption in the health sector, as they are less able to afford small bribes for health services that are supposed to be free, or to pay for private alternatives where corruption has depleted public health services.

Corruption affects health policy and spending priorities.

Occasionally, something is published about health care corruption in the US in the medical literature.

- In 2009, qualitative interviews by Pololi et al in the Journal of General Internal Medicine produced many striking anecdotes suggesting corruption in US academic medicine. Four of the interviews were with faculty whose leaders allegedly used deception for personal and professional gain (i.e., “a situation of major unethical use of funding,” “fraudulently creating data for a research project,” “we’re lying to the people who are doing our school evaluations, we’re putting things on paper that we do that we don’t do,” “that’s what I think he felt he had to do—hide money, lie about money, or at least cook the books a little bit.”)(4)  These results produced few echoes, particularly not any strident editorials about the need to address corruption.
- In 2011, an article in the Lancet suggested that "there is more corruption in the G8 countries than in the whole of Africa," but for any health care professional to acknowledge that would be "professional suicide" (see this post).(3)
- Finally, in 2013, a Transparency International survey showed that 43% of Americans believe their health care system is corrupt.  Yet this received no media attention, and to my knowledge has never been mentioned in a major US medical journal.  (Look here.)

So health care corruption remains a largely taboo topic.  (On Health Care Renewal, we call corruption "anechoic," since evidence of health care corruption produces few echoes.) 

The Annals of Internal Medicine, like most major medical journals, has long avoided discussion of health care corruption, and how systemic corruption harms patients' and the public's health.

Of course, the unwillingness to discuss global health care corruption, health care corruption in the US, and the relationship of health care corruption in the US to corruption in other sectors may arise from the fear, as stated by one person interviewed in Charles Ferguson's documentary Inside Job, that discussion could lead to investigation, and investigation could "find the culprits".

Summary

It is perfectly fitting and proper for the Annals of Internal Medicine to call attention to various kinds of unprofessional behavior by physicians and health care professionals, such as sexist, disrespectful expression, even if such behavior is already subject to sanctions by medical boards, accrediting organizations, etc. In my humble opinion, however, if such disrespectful comments by physicians should generate outrage, corrupt behavior by large health care organizations that may harm patients and the public health, and which often goes largely unchallenged by civil authorities, should deserve more outrage.

Of course, it is one thing to criticize individual physicians, and ask physicians to "call out our colleagues" who behave unacceptably.

It is another to call out large, powerful, wealthy organizations and the executives who have become rich running them.  Such executives command well funded marketing and public relations departments, and corps of attorneys ready to take on perceived critics.

But if we really want better health care and public health, we all have to step up.  In particular, I urge the editors of the Annals of Internal Medicine, and other major health and medical journals to take on health care corruption as vigorously as they would take on physicians' expressions of "misogyny and disrespect."

ADDENDUM (26 August, 2015) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog. 

References
1.  Laine C, Taichman DB, LaCombe MA. On being a doctor: shining a light on the dark side.  Ann Intern Med 2015; 163: 320.  Link here.
2.  Anonymous.  Our family secrets.  Ann Intern Med 2015; 163: 321.  Link here.
3. Horton R. Offline: ten commandments, G8 corruption, and OBL. Lancet 2011; 377: 1638. Link here.
4. Pololi L, Kern DE, Carr P, Conrad P, Knight S. The culture of academic medicine: faculty perceptions of the lack of alignment between individual and institutional values. J Gen Intern Med. 2009;24:1289–95. Link here.

Guest Post: Scholarly Mad Libs and Peer-less Reviews

Health Care Renewal presents a guest post by Marjorie Lazoff, MD, a Board certified internist with a clinical background in academic emergency medicine.  She is currently a full time freelance editor and independent consultant specializing in evidence-based clinical content and medical informatics.

On December 17, 2014, Scientific American published an investigative report by journalist Charles Seife documenting a new and curious form of scholarly publication fraud, For Sale: “Your Name Here” in a Prestigious Science Journal. As an editor and supporter of evidence-based medicine I am both appalled by, and sympathetic to, how such widespread fraud could take place unnoticed.

Seife describes how he discovered the doctored writings:

The dubious papers aren't easy to spot. Taken individually each research article seems legitimate. But in an investigation by Scientific American that analyzed the language used in more than 100 scientific articles we found evidence of some worrisome patterns—signs of what appears to be an attempt to game the peer-review system on an industrial scale…

…This is not a simple case of plagiarism. Many seemingly independent research teams have been plagiarizing the same passage. An article in PLOS ONE may eventually lead to 'our better, comprehensive understanding' of the association between mutations in the XRCC1 gene and thyroid cancer risk. Another in the International Journal of Cancer (published by Wiley) might eventually lead to 'our better, comprehensive understanding' of the association between mutations in the XPA gene and cancer risk—and so on. Sometimes there are minor variations in the wording but in more than a dozen articles we found almost identical language with different genes and diseases seemingly plunked into the paragraph, like an esoteric version of Mad Libs, the parlor game in which participants fill in missing words in a passage.

Another example virtually eliminates the likelihood of coincidence:

There is no such thing as a 'Beggers funnel plot'…the proliferation of 'Begger's' tests [were discovered] by accident. While looking for trends in medical journal articles, papers [were found] that had almost identical titles, similar choices in graphics and the same quirky errors, such as 'Begger's funnel plot.'

Seife’s investigative reporting revealed that China was the source of most of his “fill-in-the-blanks” research. Further,

Much of the funding for these suspect papers comes from the Chinese government. Of the first 100 papers identified by Scientific American [and listed at the close of his article], 24 had received funding from the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), a governmental funding agency roughly equivalent to the U.S.'s National Science Foundation. Another 17 acknowledged grants from other government sources.

Seife suspects that most research probably began as legitimate work without intent to deceive, but somewhere an author or service was added to help ensure publication through the necessarily arduous manuscript review process.

The culprit?

A quick Internet search uncovers outfits that offer to arrange, for a fee, authorship of papers to be published in peer-reviewed outlets. They seem to cater to researchers looking for a quick and dirty way of getting a publication in a prestigious international scientific journal.

Seife’s investigation goes undercover, 60 Minutes style:

In November Scientific American asked a Chinese-speaking reporter to contact MedChina, which offers dozens of scientific 'topics for sale' and scientific journal 'article transfer' agreements. Posing as a person shopping for a scientific authorship, the reporter spoke with a MedChina representative who explained that the papers were already more or less accepted to peer-reviewed journals; apparently, all that was needed was a little editing and revising. The price depends, in part, on the impact factor of the target journal and whether the paper is experimental or meta-analytic. In this case, the MedChina rep offered authorship of a meta-analysis linking a protein to papillary thyroid cancer slated to be published in a journal with an impact factor of 3.353. The cost: 93,000 RMB—about $15,000.

Finally, the corrosive effect of this particular fraud on scientific and medical publication is real:

Publishers at the moment are fighting an uphill battle. 'Without insider information it's very difficult to police this,' Clinical Endocrinology's Bevan says. CE and its publisher, Wiley, are trying to close loopholes in the editorial process to flag suspicious late changes in authorship and other irregularities. 'You have to accept that people are submitting things in good faith and honesty,' Bevan says.

That is the essential threat. Now that a number of companies have figured out how to make money off of scientific misconduct, that presumption of honesty is in danger of becoming an anachronism.

Were this the only threat currently facing research journals today! Last month, Retraction Watch published an article describing a known and partially-related problem: fake peer reviews, in this case involving 50 BioMed Central papers. In the above-described article, Seife referred to this BioMed Central discovery; he was able to examine 6 of these titles and found that all were from Chinese authors, and shared style and subject matter to other “paper mill-written” meta-analyses.

Retraction Watch agrees:

It would seem that a third party, perhaps marketing services helping authors have papers accepted, was involved.

Problems with peer review are longstanding editorial fodder. For a description of another recent peer review scam, this one involving authors hijacking researchers’ identities, see the article also written by Retraction Watch editors and published last month in Nature.

On Friday, in response to requests by several publishers, The Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) posted a statement on inappropriate manipulation of peer review processes 

While there are a number of well-established reputable agencies offering manuscript-preparation services to authors, investigations at several journals suggests that some agencies are selling services, ranging from authorship of pre-written manuscripts to providing fabricated contact details for peer reviewers during the submission process and then supplying reviews from these fabricated addresses. Some of these peer reviewer accounts have the names of seemingly real researchers but with email addresses that differ from those from their institutions or associated with their previous publications, others appear to be completely fictitious.

COPE recommends, among other things, the retraction of articles based solely on fraudulent reviews. Retraction Watch’s announcement earlier today of a MacArthur Foundation grant to help fund a comprehensive and freely available database of retractions could not have come at a better time!

Seife and Retraction Watch have documented new forms of published research fraud among third world researchers. Certainly the solution is not for editors and readers to suspect all papers from specific countries; there are ample instances of research fraud emanating from English-speaking researchers and top U.S. institutions. Research from around the world is critically important, particularly although not exclusively in the basic sciences, emerging infectious disease, and public health/epidemiology. Now that it has been identified, a common screening procedure for manuscripts at a journal can be adjusted to filter out this new form of plagiarism.

Sadly, it seems to me that fraudulent research of all types can flourish within a perfect storm of circumstances and factors: the globalization of science and medicine encourages non-or-limited English-speaking researchers to publish (or perish) in the highest impact English language journals; the proliferation of open-access wannabes, hybrids of every color and degree of sincerity, and other money-over-science journals and companies that rip off desperate and naïve researchers; a complicated, time-consuming and often author-unfriendly manuscript submission process; and journal editors who struggle with limited staffing and resources, necessarily arduous editorial processes, and the pressure of increasing numbers of worthy manuscripts deserving to reach the scientific and medical communities in near-real time. Research fraud is particularly destructive given traditional publishing’s ongoing struggle to survive the transformational Electronic Age; the pervasive if not perverse marketing of pharma, medical device companies, and self-promoting individuals and institutions using “unbiased” research; and today’s bizarrely anti-science culture.

Health Care Renewal is wonderful at calling out intentionally perpetrated health care events whose importance and implications can be debated, depending on one’s perspective and personal values. Here, I think, we have the reverse: there is near unanimity over the need to prevent fraudulent papers of any type from contaminating our research databases, as best as is humanly and technologically possible. There is also near unanimity among quality medical journals throughout the world, and internationally respected editor and publisher groups, to confront and solve these problems. The enemy identified by HCR is not always unrestrained greed or maliciousness. Sometimes, as in this case, the enemy is a cacophony of small circumstances and extraneous factors that could, if left unattended, invisibly erode something we all hold dear.

Without ongoing attention and support from the entire medical and science communities, we risk the progressive erosion of our essential, venerable research database, until it finally becomes too contaminated for even our most talented editors to heal.

Dr Marjorie Lazoff

ADDENDUM (30 December, 2014) - This post was reposted on the Naked Capitalism blog on 24 December, 2014.

ADDENDUM (7 January, 2015) - See also comments on DSHR's Blog.  

ADDENDUM (19 January, 2015) - This post was reposted by TruthOut on 10 January, 2015.

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

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

Two Somewhat Redundant Lancet Articles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Also, regarding her career at UCSF,(2)

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

Finally, regarding expectations for her performance in the future,

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

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

What the Articles Did Not Say

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

Defending $55,000/ Year Bevacizumab

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Investments in Tobacco Stocks

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

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

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

The Lancet articles were silent on this issue.  

Questions Whether Industry Partnerships Threaten the University Mission

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

Dismissing Concerns about Conflicts of Interest

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

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

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

Privatizing UCSF

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Summary

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

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

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

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

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

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


References

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

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

The $20 Million Dollar Journal Editor

Last week, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported on a royally paid journal editor:

In 2002, Thomas Zdeblick, a University of Wisconsin orthopedic surgeon who has pocketed millions of dollars in royalties from the spinal device maker Medtronic, took over as editor-in-chief of a medical journal about spinal disorders.

It would be the beginning of a beautiful friendship.

In the years to come, Zdeblick would receive more than $20 million in patent royalties from Medtronic for spinal implants sold by the company. And the medical journal he edited would become a conduit for positive research articles involving Medtronic spinal products, a Journal Sentinel analysis found.

Zdeblick took over editorship of the Journal of Spinal Disorders & Techniques seven years ago. Since then, studies involving Medtronic spinal products or that were funded by Medtronic appeared in the journal at least once per issue, on average.

Dozens of studies that mentioned Medtronic products have been published while Zdeblick has been editor. But in issue after issue, readers of the journal were not told that he was receiving millions of dollars in royalty payments from Medtronic at the same time.

Most of the time the articles, including some co-authored by Zdeblick himself about devices for which he gets royalties, had good things to say about the Medtronic products. Only on a small number of occasions did the articles find major problems with Medtronic devices.

And often the articles did not disclose financial ties the authors had to Medtronic.

Here are some specifics:

From 2003 through 2007, Zdeblick got more than $19 million in royalty payments for spinal devices from Medtronic, according to a January 2009 letter by U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), who has been investigating payments to orthopedic surgeons by Medtronic. In 2008, Zdeblick got another $2 million from Medtronic from royalties and working as a consultant, according to UW records.

To assess the relationship, the Journal Sentinel reviewed every article published in the journal since Zdeblick became editor.

The journal is published seven or eight times a year and typically has a dozen or so articles. The articles were searched to see if Medtronic products were used as a part of the study or if the study was funded by Medtronic.

At least 70 such articles were found in 56 issues of the journal from 2002 through October 2009.

• A 2005 study by researchers in France found favorable preliminary results with Medtronic's Maverick artificial disc.

In 2007, Medtronic paid Zdeblick $144,000 in royalties for the Maverick disc, according to Grassley's letter.

•  In August 2009, Zdeblick co-authored a study that involved Medtronic's Premier Anterior Cervical Plate as well as the plate of another company, Synthes. The study involved using two different kinds of bone grafts with the plates. Zdeblick got $654,000 in Premier royalties from Medtronic in 2007.

•  Zdeblick also co-authored three articles, in 2002, 2003 and 2005, involving Medtronic's BMP-2 and the LT-Cage, a device that paid him $1.4 million in royalties in 2007. None of those studies disclosed that he received millions of dollars in royalties from Medtronic.

Often articles in the journal had good things to say about Medtronic products:

•  In the 2002 study, Zdeblick and the co-authors concluded that BMP-2 and the LT-Cage led to a solid union and high fusion rates. In the 2003 study they found that BMP-2 may become 'the new gold standard.'

•  In a 2006 study, a different group of authors concluded that BMP-2 when used with a hip bone graft significantly improved the success of the fusion surgery with minimal risk to the patient. The 2005 French study of Medtronic's Maverick artificial disc that did not involve Zdeblick concluded it was a 'promising therapeutic technique.'

Dr Zdelblick declined to comment for the Journal-Sentinel, but:

In a statement, a spokesman for the spinal journal said Zdeblick has disclosed his financial relationship with Medtronic to the company that publishes the journal, Wolters Kluwer Health/Lippincott Williams & Wilkins.

All manuscripts submitted to the journal go through a rigorous review process using reviewers who have an objective viewpoint, Robert Dekker, director of communications with Philadelphia-based Wolters Kluwer Health & Pharma Solutions, said in a statement. 'Thanks to our strict peer review policies and processes, we have no concerns about the existence of this relationship,' Dekker said in an e-mail.

Dekker declined to provide a list of the reviewers used by the journal or information about their financial relationships with device companies. He also declined to comment on how Zdeblick made decisions about manuscripts and reviewers.

Of course, as the Journal-Sentinel pointed out, editors can make publication decisions independent of the recommendations of peer-reviewers. They also are free to select peer-reviewers who might have a particular viewpoint about a manuscript, its topic or authors, and to make and enforce editorial suggestions for changes in manuscripts.  It is beyond me what good that disclosure of conflicts of interest to a for-profit publishing corporation does in the absence of further disclosure.  Keep in mind also that the division of Wolters Kluwer that publishes the journals, Wolters Kluwer Health & Pharma Solutions, not only publishes journals and textbooks, but "provides marketing and publications services, business intelligence products, and advanced analytical tools and services" to pharmaceutical corporations.

Furthermore,

'It's absolutely a conflict,' said Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal.

At a minimum, Zdeblick's conflict should be fully disclosed by his journal whenever a study involving a Medtronic product is published, said Smith, the author of 'The Trouble with Medical Journals.'

However, because he makes so much money from Medtronic royalties, he really should not be editing the journal at all, Smith said.

Just to add icing to the cake, Prof Margaret Soltan pointed out on her University Diaries blog that Dr Zdeblick is not only a journal editor, but a Professor and Chairman of Orthopedics and Rehabilitation at the University of Wisconsin.  In addition, his web-page at the University notes that he is on the editorial board of another orthopedics journal, Spine, also published by Wolters Kluwer Health. 

So here we go again.  How should we assess the objectivity of an ostensibly scholarly medical journal whose editor was made rich by royalties from a company whose devices were often evaluated in the articles published in the journal?  How should we assess the honesty of a journal editor who received millions in royalties from Medtronic, but who only deigned to disclose as an author in his own journal, "One or more of the author(s) has/have received or will receive benefits, (e.g., royalties, stocks, stock options, decision making position) for personal or professional use from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript." (as in Zdelblick TA, Phillips FM. Interbody cage devices.  Spine 2003; 28: S2-S7.)  (Note that this sort of disclosure seems to be standard operating procedure for orthopedic surgeons who make millions from royalties and consulting fees, e.g. see this post.)

Prof Zdelblick had numerous opportunities to influence his colleagues, trainees, and students in his roles as journal editor, journal editorial board member, author of scholarly articles, and professor and chair of orthopedics.  At the very least, the people who read his journal or his articles, listened to his lectures, or participated in his clinical teaching should have at least had the opportunity to judge for themselves whether being paid over $20 million might have just biased what he wrote and said a tiny bit.  But can anyone doubt that $20 million dollars would profoundly influence one's thinking?  Can anyone doubt that an inventor who got rich from royalties might not be more enthused about the use of the devicesthat generated the royalties than would an academic whose salary is unrelated to the use of any device?   It seems to be an abuse of entrusted power for a journal editor, professor, and department chairman not to clearly disclose such huge conflicts of interests to readers, learners and colleagues.

This is just the latest vivid example of the conflicts of interest that permeate health care.  When multi-million dollar men pretend to be unbiased editors and professors, is it any wonder that we regularly overuse and overvalue the devices and drugs that they are selling?

ADDENDUM (6 January, 2010) - See also comments on the Spine Blogger, and by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog.

How Industry Views the Research It Sponsors

We have posted frequently about threats to the integrity of the clinical evidence-based, and to the practice of evidence-based medicine.  In particular, we have discussed how research may be manipulated in favor of vested interests, or suppressed when the results do not favor such interests.

Last week, the British Medical Journal electronically published a set of guidelines for how industry sponsored clinical research ought to be published, sponsored by the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals.  The authors came from pharmaceutical companies (Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca, Pfizer and Cephalon), medical device companies (LifeScan), and medical publishing and medical education and communication companies (John Wiley & Sons, Excerpta Medica, Field Advantage Medical Communications, PharmaWrite, and Knowledgepoint 360 Group).  [Graf C, Battisti WP, Bruce-Winkler V et al. Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines.  Brit Med J 2009; 339:b4430.  Link here.]

These guidelines are remarkable for the questions they raise about how people from industry view clinical research and how it should be reported in medical journals. 

Who's in Charge?

Nowhere does the article acknowledge that any one person has overall responsibility for a research project.  Clinical research projects funded by the US National Institutes of Health, Agency for Healthcare Quality and Research, and other federal agencies must have "principal investigators," who are the people who take overall scientific responsibility for the project.  The Graf et al article does not use this or an equivalent term.   There is no sense that they expect anyone to be in completely in charge of industry sponsored research. 

Particularly confusing is the following passage:

Before writing begins one author (a lead author, who may also be guarantor) should take the lead for writing and managing each publication or presentation. One author (identified as guarantor) should take overall responsibility for the integrity of a study and its report.

Here are some questions it raises.  If the guarantor could be chosen only when writing a paper is contemplated, which presumably could be years after the study that the paper would report was designed and implemented, who then would have been responsible for study "integrity" before the guarantor was chosen? Who would chose the guarantor for a particular paper? If a study generates more than one paper, could they each have a guarantor, and then how could they share responsibility for study "integrity?"  If the guarantor and lead author of a paper are different people, how would they share responsibilities, what would happen if they were not to agree, and who would be finally accountable?

So the guidelines seem to completely diffuse accountability for research projects, and the reports written about them.

Who is an Author?

In my experience with US federally and foundation funded research, research papers are written by the investigators, the people who actually did the research project.  However, in the guidelines by Graf et al, the concept of authorship is also ambiguous.  They suggest that "recognised criteria should be used to determine which of the contributors to an article should be identified as authors."  This is already confusing, since how could one be a "contributor" to an article without authoring it?  A later discussion of "contributors" as "investigators, sponsor employees, and individuals contracted by the sponsor" was not very helpful.  Why should a "sponsor employee" who was not an "investigator" be a "contributor" or an "author," whatever the distinction is between them? 

So the guidelines blur distinctions among people who do research, and people employed by companies that may have vested interests in the research favoring their products or services.

What do Professional Medical Writers Do?

There has been considerable recent controversy, not directly acknowledged by Graf et al, about the role of professional medical writers in the reporting of research and the writing of ostensibly scholarly medical publications, particularly in cases where the writers were paid by and reported to corporate sponsors, but were not recognized as such in the publications they wrote (a type of ghost-writing).  The guidelines by Graf et al do not clearly explain what the roles of professional medical writers ought to be:

Professional medical writers must be directed by the lead author from the earliest possible stage (for example, when the outline is written), and all authors must be aware of the medical writer’s involvement. The medical writer should remain in frequent contact with the authors throughout development of the article or presentation. The authors must critically review and comment on the outline and drafts, approve the final version of the article or presentation before it is submitted to the journal or congress, approve changes made during the peer review process, and approve the final version before it is published or accepted for presentation.

Note that this would not prevent a professional medical writer from writing an initial outline, the first draft, and all subsequent drafts. including the final draft of a paper. (The role of an "author" above might be restricted to simply commenting on and accepting the outline and all drafts.) Thus, the "authors" could function as distant editors, and the professional writer would assume authorship, as most people would define it. (Merriam-Webster: "1. one that originates or creates 2. the writer of a literary work.")

Furthermore, while the professional writer could take one the role of authorship, the guidelines do not require him or her to publicly acknowledge this role:

Professional medical writers, depending on the contributions they make, may qualify for authorship. For example, if a medical writer contributed extensive literature searches and summarised the literature discovered, and by doing so helped define the scope of a review article, and if he or she is willing to 'take public responsibility for relevant portions of the content' then he or she may be in a position to meet the remaining ICMJE criteria for authorship.

Presumably, a professional writer could dodge authorship by simply being "unwilling" to take such public responsibility.

So the guidelines apparently condone nearly all functions commonly assumed to be those of an author to be performed by a professional writer paid directly by the sponsor, without the writer being listed as an author.  The guidelines thus appear to condone ghost-writing in its most pernicious form.

Who Owns and Analyzes the Data?

Cases in which various the implementation and analysis of clinical research seems to have been manipulated to favor vested interests have raised concerns about the integrity of the data collected in the course of a research project, and how it is analyzed.  This is what Graf et al say about the ownership and use of the data:

Sponsors have a responsibility to share the data and the analyses with the investigators who participated in the study. Sponsors must provide authors and other contributors (for example, members of a publication steering committee or professional medical writers) with full access to study data and should do so before the manuscript writing process begins or before the first external presentation of the data. Information provided to the authors should include study protocols, statistical analysis plans, statistical reports, data tables, clinical study reports, and results intended for posting on clinical trial results websites. Sufficient time should be allowed for authors and contributors to review and interpret the data provided and to seek further information if they wish (for example, access to raw data tables or the study database).

The guidelines by Graf et al suggest that the company that sponsors the research should own the data. The investigators who collected the data and implemented the research project should not. At best, the company should "share" summaries, analyses, or pieces of the data, but at best investigators could have only "sufficient time" to "seek ... access to raw data tables or the study database."

So the guidelines would allow corporate research sponsors to analyze the data from studies evaluating their own products and services as they see fit, and the scientists who implemented the study and collected the data could only ask for access to it. 

Summary

The guidelines by Graf et al seem based on a very strange conceptualization of clinical research. In their view, no individual may be responsible for a clinical research project. Research data is controlled by the company that paid for the project, not scientists who implemented the research and collected the data. Research papers may be written by anonymous professional writers while the scientists who did the research only need to review and approve what they have written.

So why should anyone give credence to industry sponsored research?

We have discussed numerous instances in which clinical research was manipulated in favor of vested interests, and when clinical research whose results did not favor vested interests was suppressed. In most cases, the vested interests were held by for-profit pharmaceutical, biotechnology or device anufacturers acting as research sponsors. The guidelines by Graf et al seem to have been cleverly written to to employ comforting platitudes while licensing manipulation and suppression.  They should inspire no confidence in the integrity of industry sponsored research.

BLOGSCAN - Merck Hired Elsevier to Create Fake Peer-Reviewed Medical Journal

You just can't make this stuff up. On the Respectful Insolence blog, Orac recounted how pharmaceutical giant Merck hired medical publishing giant Elsevier to create what appeared to be a peer-reviewed journal, but theAustralasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine really was just a marketing outlet. The goal was to market Fosamax and Vioxx. This is another bizarre variant on the stealth marketing theme, taken to quite an extreme. And the pharmaceutical companies wonder why people don't trust them?

ADDENDUM (4 May, 2009) - Dr Aubrey Blumsohn is back online on his Scientific Misconduct Blog, and noted the academic luminaries who were willing to serve on the editorial board of this fake peer-reviewed journal.

ADDENDUM (11 May, 2009) - See also comments on Laika's MedLibBlog.

What, The RUC, Again? - One of the World's Most Prominent Medical Journals Also Leaves Some Important Things Out

With health care reform continuing as a hot topic in the US, more discussions of issues of interest to Health Care Renewal are appearing. We previously posted about a prominent expert's discussion of how the US Medicare system pays physicians. We noted that he seemed to avoid critical issues, and thus may have failed to suggest changes that would address the real problems. Finally, we noted that his undisclosed financial relationships with several companies which have profited from the status quo may have affected his arguments, and failure to disclose these apparent conflicts of interest muddied the discussion.

In a similar vein, we will discuss an article just published entitled "Reforming Medicare's Physician Payment System," by Gail R Wilensky, PhD(1). [Note that the discussion will be formatted in the same manner as the previous post, and we will unashamedly borrow some language from that post.]

Ms Wilensky's summary of the main problems afflicting the payment system was:

Medicare originally based its reimbursement to physicians, like all its reimbursements, on the amounts that had historically been charged for particular health care services. In 1984, when the program moved away from a charge-based per-diem rate for hospitals, it introduced the use of the Medicare Economic Index — a measure of the annual change that physicians face in the costs of practice — for updating physicians' reimbursement. This change marked the start of an increasing divergence between Medicare's reimbursement of physicians and its reimbursement of other providers.

In general, however, physicians are paid for providing discrete services, according to a disaggregated fee schedule that uses more than 7000 billing codes. In 1989, a major change was made in physician payments: the disaggregated fee schedule based on historical charges was replaced with the Resource-Based Relative Value Scale, which is based on relative values for physicians' work effort, physicians' practice expenses, and malpractice liability insurance expenses. Although the scale was intended to correct for a historical undervaluing of primary care and overvaluing of procedures (which it does not appear to have done very successfully) and for larger differences between urban and rural reimbursements than could be justified by differences in the costs of practice, it retained the use of a largely disaggregated fee schedule.

Because the risk of inappropriate volume increases is much greater with a disaggregated billing system, as the experiences of the 1980s showed, updates to the fee schedule have followed a top-down strategy. Since the early 1990s, overall Medicare spending has been tied to a preset target — initially to the volume performance standard (an amount that was set into law each year) and now, through the sustainable growth rate (SGR), to the rate of growth in the economy. Fees are adjusted whenever overall spending is greater (or less) than the target level....

Most recent discussion of reforming physician payment has focused on the SGR, which has caused the pressure to lower physicians' fees.

Her main solution to these problems:

I believe the key to reforming physician payment is to develop a more aggregative payment strategy. In the near term, payments need to be developed that cover all the services that a single physician provides to a patient for the treatment of one or more chronic diseases. This approach is consistent with, and could be related to, the work that CMS and others are doing on medical homes. In addition, bundled payments should be developed for high-cost, high-volume DRGs, to include, at a minimum, the reimbursement for all physician services associated with the DRG and perhaps the hospital payment as well.

Ms Wilensky suggested the main problem with Medicare's current system for paying physicians is that the sustainable growth rate (SGR) forces reductions in physicians' fees whenever total payments to physicians grow faster than the optimal rate. However, she avoids discussing why those payments grow so fast.

Increases in Fees Paid for and Volume of Procedures

As we have discussed, the current system pays physicians much more to do procedures than provide "cognitive" services, and these discrepancies are increasing over time. The amounts it pays for particular procedures are frequently raised. Meanwhile, physicians increase the number of procedures they do, partially because they find ways to do procedures faster. Thus, the amount being paid for procedures increases rapidly over time. But then the SGR mechanism is used to cut fees across the board, including those for cognitive services, which did not contribute to the overall increase in costs.

Why does Medicare continue to behave seemingly so irrationally? As we have discussed before, it seems to do with the machinations of the shadowy RUC (RBRVS Update Committee).

The Shadowy RUC

As we have discussed, the US Medicare system determines what it pays physicians using the Resource Based Relative Value System (RBRVS). This system determines the pay for every kind of medical encounter according to a complex formula that is supposed to account for physicians' time and effort, physicians' practice expense, and the cost of malpractice insurance. The components of physicians' effort assessed are, in turn, technical skill and physical effort; the required mental effort and judgment; and stress due to the potential risk to the patient.

To keep the system, which was started in 1990, current, requires addition of new kinds of encounters, which means encounters involving new kinds of procedures, and updating of the estimates of various components, including physicians' time and effort. To do so, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC). The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments. However, the identities of RUC members are secret, as are the proceedings of the group.

This opaque and unaccountable process has resulted in increases outstripping inflation in fees paid for procedures, while fees paid for "cognitive"medicine, i.e., for primary care, and for services that involve diagnosis, management of acute and chronic disease, counseling, coordination of care, etc, but not procedures, have lagged inflation. The effects of the RUC have been amplified by the unexplained tendency of commercial managed care and health insurance to track the RBRVS system when making their own payments to physicians.

For further details about the RUC, see these posts on Health Care Renewal (here, here, here, here, and here) and important articles by Bodenheimer et al,(2) and Goodson.(3)

By the way, why the US Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies de facto exclusively on the RUC to control the RBRVS system, and why the AMA made the RUC into a secret organization apparently beholden only to the organization's proceduralist members are unanswered questions.


What Wilensky Left Out, and Why?

Ms Wilensky, a distinguished health care policy expert, barely touched on the biggest problems with how the US fee-for-service payment system works, and why these problems occurred. Thus, it is not surprising that the few solutions she recommended seem irrelevant to these problems.

As an aside, her discussion is not atypical of what is seen in most writings about health care policy that have to do with costs. It appears that it is politically incorrect to say that incentives are skewed, that this skewing appears to have resulted from the acts of a few individuals, and that these acts occurred with little outside attention or accountability. Why do health care policy experts follow these dictates of political correctness?

I don't know, but one possible explanation is that they are themselves biased by their own incentives. So let us further consider the case of Ms Wilensky.

Ms Wilensky's Conflicts of Interest

The New England Journal of Medicine article identified Ms Wilensky as "a senior fellow at Project HOPE, Bethesda, MD, a former administrator of the Health Care Financing Administration (now the CMS), and a former chair of MedPAC." It also noted, "no potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported."

So it did not acknowledge the following relationships:

- Ms Wilensky is a member of the board of directors of Cephalon, which claims to be "one of the world’s top ten biopharmaceutical companies." According to the 2008 company proxy statement, her total compensation for this position was $347,395 in 2007, and she owned 65,000 shares of Cephalon stock or equivalent.
- Ms Wilensky is a member of the board of directors of Gentiva, which claims to be "the nation's leading provider of comprehensive home healthcare and related services." According to the 2008 company proxy statement, her total compensation for this position was $125,031 in 2007, and she owned 33,205 shares of Gentiva stock or equivalent.
- Ms Wilensky is a member of the board of directors of Quest Diagnostics Company, which claims to be "the world’s leader in diagnostic testing, information, and services." According to the 2008 company proxy statement, here total compensation for this position was $291,112 in 2007, and she owned 122, 224 shares of Quest stock or equivalent.
- Ms Wilensky is a member of the board of directors of SRA International, a multi-purpose consulting company which "provides health consulting services for global clients, both public and private." SRA International also has a subsidiary, SRA "Global Clinical Development [which] is a full-service, global CRO [contract research organization]" providing services to pharmaceutical, biotechnology and device companies. According to the 2008 company proxy statement, her total compensation for this position was $179,659 in 2007, and she owned 20,000 shares of SRA stock or equivalent.
- Ms Wiilensky is a member of the board of directors of the UnitedHealth Group, one of the largest US health care insurers/ managed care organizations. According to the 2008 company proxy statement, her total compensation for this postion was $322,591 in 2007, and she owned 312,560 shares of UnitedHealth stock or equivalent.

All these corporations benefit from how the health care system currently runs. In particular, our current procedure-heavy style of medicine, driven by the incentives dictated by the RUC, favors the extensive use of expensive pharmaceuticals, laboratory tests and devices. The companies Cephalon, Quest Diagnostics, and SRA International thus especially benefit from this style. As a member of the boards of these companies, Ms Wilensky has a duty to advance their financial performance. Thus, it seems that Ms Wilensky's legal responsibilities to these companies might tend to bias her against actively questioning how physicians are currently paid, or proposing solutions that might upset the status quo.

Ms Wilensky's leadership roles in US publicly traded corporations are public, but not easily found unless one knows where to look. (A previous post on Health Care Renewal did document Ms Wilensky's board relationships at the time, 2006, as they related to a report she helped author on pay-for-performance [P4P]). However, the New England Journal of Medicine did not choose to make these apparent conflicts of interest public.

Without the knowledge of these financial relationships, one might suppose Ms Wilensky's opinions are only based on her disinterested expertise as a well-known health care policy scholar. Without knowledge of these financial relationships, one might think that a secretive, opaque process skewing physicians' payments toward procedures is not an important problem for our health care system.

We have come to a critical time in the history of attempts to reform the US health care system. Whether reform occurs, and whether it does any good will depend on the quality of the debate that precedes it. Such a debate should be robust, but those involved ought to make clear where their biases and interests may lie.

Unfortunately, it may be that some of the most prominent voices in the debate are those of people with strong personal financial interests in having health care reform go in certain directions, not others. Furthermore, people with particular interests may not want certain issues to be even brought up. If these interests are not revealed, the debate becomes deceptive.

In a previous post, I said "I fear that much of the debate up to now has been deceptive, and will not lead to good outcomes." Since the current post is also about a prominent health care expert published in a leading international forum whose arguments seem to obfuscate a major cause of our health system dysfunction, possibly due to conflicts of interest which were not disclosed, my fear has become stronger.




References

1. Wilensky GR. Reforming Medicare's physician payment system. New Engl J Med 2009; 360: 653-655. Link here.

2.Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. Link here.

3. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310. Link here.