A Sale of One Residency Program - the Commercialization of Health Care and now Residents Treated Like "Assets"

We recently posted (here and here) about the decline and impending closure of a once major urban safety-net teaching hospital, the Hahnemann University Medical Center.  This was the final common pathway of a downhill progression for an over 170 year old institution.

[Hahnemann Hospital in 1925]

Since the 1990s, it had been a non-profit university academic medical center, which was then merged into a non-profit health care system (Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation, or AHERF), which was mismanaged into a bankruptcy of historic proportions (look here).  After that, the hospital wound up part of the  for-profit Tenet chain.  Two years ago, after reportedly losing millions of dollars a year for its corporate owner, it was sold to a private equity group, Paladin Healthcare, and made part of their American Academic Health System LLC.   Now, the new owner decided it was losing too much money, and declared bankruptcy.

The final closure of Hahnemann left patients, often indigent or vulnerable, with no ready source of health care, and thousands of health care professionals and staff without their jobs.  New coverage of these events revealed in particular the plight of the hospital's nearly 600 house staff.

The Plight of the Residents

On July 10, 2019, a Medscape article summarized the state of play:

The 570 residents who started their programs just more than a week ago at Hahnemann University Hospital in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, are scrambling to find new positions in light of the announced closing of the hospital.

Third year medical resident Thomas Sibert MD described their situation. He had:

just started his third year as an internal medicine resident at Hahnemann. Now, instead of focusing on finding a fellowship, he must simultaneously find another residency as well.

'The people we are counting on for recommendations are themselves also looking for jobs,' he told Medscape Medical News. 'The attendings have been endlessly supportive. They've been working for the fellows at the same time they're working for their residents interested in fellowships and looking for their own jobs.'

He described some of the worries the residents are facing.

Many have signed full-year leases for housing and some landlords have been unwilling to break them, he said. Because the areas near Philadelphia can only at this point — depending upon pending solutions — take a percentage of the displaced, others will need to move across the country and some states will require getting a new medical license with potentially months of background checks.
The consequences are especially severe for interns, Sibert said.

'They are going to enter their new hospitals with very little clinical exposure because the number of patients and the resources at Hahnemann have been so severely reduced,' he said.

A few days later, on July 15, a Philadelphia Inquirer article revealed another threat to some of the house staff:

Fifty-five Hahnemann University Hospital residents holding J-1 visas face the possibility of deportation if they cannot secure a position in an accredited program within 30 days of the hospital’s closure.

The visas enable foreign physicians to come to the U.S. for training at accredited medical schools.

The Solution: Sell the Residency?

The current and final owners of Hahnemann had a solution, of sorts.  The Philadelphia Business Journal reported their plan as of July 10, 2019, was to sell the residency program.

Hahnemann University Hospital and Tower Health said Wednesday they have entered into a letter of intent to transfer the majority of the residency and fellowship programs at Hahnemann/Drexel University to Tower Health.

Under the letter of intent, Tower Health will assume the responsibility for the continued training of the more than 550 residents and fellows in these programs — while giving those physicians-in-training the right to be placed in one of Tower Health’s six hospitals.

Also,

Tower Health said it will seek to hire the faculty who are currently training the residents and fellows to ensure continuity of the Hahnemann and Drexel training programs.

The July 15, Inquirer article noted that it really was a sale, not a "transfer,"

Tower Health has offered $7.5 million to buy Hahnemann’s 500-plus residency and fellowship slots, as well as the hospital’s Medicare ID number, which dictates the number of medical residents for which the hospital can receive federal funding.

However, that article also suggested that this plan might need some work. To begin, Tower Health had no structure to take on the complexity of the Hahnemann program:

But Tower has only eight accredited programs — significantly fewer than the 35 programs currently operating at Hahnemann, according to a court filing in the Hahnemann bankruptcy case. That’s a problem for many residents, but especially for those with J-1 visas.

'We are very concerned about them,' said Jaime Sanders, an anesthesiologist at Hahnemann. Under the terms of their visa, they cannot have any 'gaps' in their program, which will end when the hospital closes. Closure is slated for September.

Another question was would Tower have the faculty to teach and supervise the residents? On July 18, 2019, an Inquirer article noted that a lot of the Drexel University faculty who were involved in the Hahnemann residency program were slated to lose their jobs:

About 40 percent of Drexel University physicians and clinical staff will lose their jobs as a result of the planned closure of Hahnemann University Hospital, Drexel president John Fry announced in an email to the university staff Thursday morning.

Tower Health was supposed to take on some of them, but the details were unclear.

Fry said that Tower Health Medical Group will become the college’s new partner and will be able to offer approximately 60 percent of the 800 clinical faculty and staff within the program employment in their current jobs. Tower also expects to be able to offer about half of the remaining 40 percent comparable positions at similar pay at Tower locations in Reading, Chestnut Hill, and the Philadelphia suburbs, said Jill Tillman, CEO and associate dean of Drexel University Physicians.

The 800 clinical faculty and staff include 245 physicians who received severance notices on Thursday, though many of them will be offered employment through Tower, Tillman said. Tower has offered to keep all primary care physicians, she said, minimizing disruption to patients.

And again, where exactly would these faculty fit in at Tower Health?

that six-hospital system does not have all the accredited training programs it would need to accommodate Hahnemann’s 500-plus residents. The plan is also subject to approval by U.S. Bankruptcy Court, which has scheduled a hearing for Friday.

Drexel plans to eliminate certain health-care service lines as a result of the closure, Fry said.

In a separate email to staff on Thursday, Drexel senior vice president for medical affairs Daniel V. Schidlow provided some details about which medical services Tower would seek to retain. Family medicine and internal medicine, including primary care, would continue in their current Drexel Medicine practice locations. Tower wants to meet with physicians and clinical staff in emergency medicine, surgery, cardiology, and other specialties 'about employment opportunities' within Tower’s system.

Tower’s Chestnut Hill Hospital — its only property in Philadelphia — does not have a maternity unit, but Schidlow said Drexel’s obstetricians and midwives may be offered jobs within the Tower system.

Many of the residents were totally unconvinced that this plan would work, or that it had their interests at heart.  A Bloomberg article on July 19, 2019, described their plea to the bankruptcy judge,

The bankruptcy sale of Hahnemann University Hospital’s education program is treating more than 570 doctors as financial assets and threatening their ability to complete the final stage of their specialized medical training, a group of hospital residents told a judge overseeing the case.

About 20 hospital residents, most wearing medical coats bearing the Drexel University College of Medicine logo, asked U.S. Bankruptcy Court Judge Kevin Gross to force the hospital’s owner Philadelphia Academic Health Systems LLC to guarantee the doctors have continued access to the federal Medicare money that pays their salaries.

'The residents of Hahnemann are not assets,' said Dr. Raluca McCallum, a resident who spoke from a prepared statement in court on behalf of her colleagues. McCallum said the residents have continued to provide the highest level of patient care possible 'for Philadelphia’s sickest, poorest and most downtrodden population.'

Nonetheless, the judge seemed willing to use a market approach to decide the house staff's fate:

Gross gave the company permission to set up a potential auction for the residency program with an initial bid of $7.5 million from Tower Health, a health care company that owns hospitals in the region. They are an owner of hospitals and related medical facilities in the area.

Today, the Inquirer just reported that Tower did not win the bidding war for the residents and their program.

Hahnemann University Hospital’s residency slots fetched a $55 million winning bid from team of six local health systems at Thursday’s bankruptcy auction, topping bids by Tower Health and a California company that wants to reopen the Center City hospital.

Christiana Care Health System, Cooper University Health Care, and Main Line Health joined Einstein Healthcare Network, Jefferson Health, and Temple University Health System in the winning bid

This begs the question of how one could run a residency program currently populated by house staff based in Philadelphia that is split among six large hospital systems spread from Delaware to New Jersey.  Organizing something like that would be a huge, perhaps unprecedented undertaking.

Would former Hahnemann residents now shuttled around to destinations including multiple hospitals in six systems and three states feel even more like assets, or widgets?  As the man says, we shall see.


Was an Asset Sale the Plan All Along?

Given that Hahnemann had been placed under the tender protections of a for-profit hospital corporation along time ago, after it ended the abusive relationship with the failed AHERF (look here),  maybe it should not have been a big surprise that the finale would be asset sales.

An opinion piece in Bloomberg contained observations by Prof Alan Sager of the Boston University School of Public Health, including:

Hahnemann has posted operational losses every year from 2004 to 2018, a 'remarkable' record, said Sager, who reviewed public documents kept by Pennsylvania on hospital finances.

Yet despite sustaining such apparent "losses" for 14 years, Tenet seemed to not be interested in trying to turn the hospital around.  An article in the Inquirer from July 20, 2019, featured an interview with the president of Drexel University, whose medical school was tied to Hahnemann.  It stated,

When John Fry became president of Drexel University in 2010, he inherited a medical school that was hobbled by its relationship with Hahnemann Hospital, where aspiring doctors got hands-on training.

Serving mostly poor Philadelphians, the historic facility was struggling financially. Important maintenance kept on being put off, he said, and there was only 'passive interest' from the hospital’s for-profit owner, Tenet Healthcare Corp.

'We wanted a first-rate place to educate our students and treat our patients,' Fry said in an interview Thursday, "and we never had that.”

Why would Tenet continue to own and operate a hospital that lost money for 14 straight years without making any apparent effort to improve the situation?  In my humble opinion, there is only one explanation that makes sense.  The losses were an illusion, product of an accounting trick.  Tenet was extracting money from the hospital, possibly in the guise of administration/ management expenses charged to Hahnemann, as if the hospital was a stand-alone entity, not a subsidiary of Tenet.  Those charges led to a sham analysis that showed chronic deficits.  When Tenet got tired of stripping assets, or the assets available for stripping were drying up, it was time to sell.

After Paladin Healthcare, a private equity firm bought the hospital, asset sales were clearly in the cards.  A CBS News article featuring an interview with a disillusioned Hahnemann nurse recited what we already know about how private equity works, in health care as well as elsewhere. It included a discussion by an expert on private equity who explained why these firms are now so interested in health care:

The expectation that health care will provide a sure return in volatile economic times, said Eileen Appelbaum, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research and an expert on private equity.

'Health care is a major area of investment for private equity,' Appelbaum said. 'They look at health care the way they used to look at supermarkets. They said, 'People have to eat, so this is safe investment.' Now they are saying that about health care.'

However, the private equity playbook may spell doom for the health care organizations such firms acquire:

Private equity funds acquire companies that are struggling or distressed yet still have value. PE executives then direct management to make operational changes in order to boost a business' performance. The goal is to turn around the businesses and eventually sell them for a profit.

But private equity firms also tend to raise money by issuing debt from their target company, which critics say can make it tougher for a struggling company to make a recovery. In the worst cases, critics say, fragile businesses can be pushed into insolvency by their new debt burdens.

The reason Tenet bought Hahnemann after the AHERF bankruptcy, and the reason Paladin was willing to buy the hospital from Tenet may have been all about the value of the real estate involved, not the health care or medical education the hospital provided.

But in Hahnemann's case, economist Appelbaum said, it appears the hospital was bought for the value of its real estate, not for its mission to provide care to low-income Philadelphians. The hospital is located near a burgeoning arts district in central Philadelphia, as well as Temple University, which makes the land valuable to developers.

'It's the first time I know for a hospital being bought by a private equity company in what appears to be a pure real estate play,' she said.

Again, the article highlighted the steps that neither Tenet nor Paladin took that might have kept the financially ailing hospital - if indeed it was - afloat.

To make Hahnemann a financially viable hospital, its management could have taken several steps, such as buying hospitals in wealthier, suburban neighborhoods, which would have diversified its revenue. It could have also opened smaller, urgent care clinics, which are increasingly popular with patients, she said. "They did none of those things," she said. 'Surprise, surprise, the hospital tumbled more and more into the red, then 18 months later they went to bankruptcy.'

In any case, in the private equity model, once the decision was made to declare bankruptcy, the residency program became just another, and relatively inconsequential asset to be sold.  The residents, and faculty, like the patients, were just subjects of collateral damage.Why shouldn't they all be outraged?

Graduate Medical Education Adrift in a Sea of Commercialized Health Care

In 2007, Dr Arnold Relman wrote(1) that physicians' core values are threatened:

Endangered are the ethical foundations of medicine, including the commitment of physicians to put the needs of patients ahead of personal gain, to deal with patients honestly, competently, and compassionately, and to avoid conflicts of interest that could undermine public trust in the altruism of medicine.

These threats arose from "the growing commercialization of the US health care system." This has been abetted by physicians who accept "the view that medical practice is also in essence a business." Thus, "the vast amount of money in the US medical care system and the manifold opportunities for physicians to earn high incomes have made it almost impossible for many to function as true fiduciaries for patients."

Since 2007, nothing has stopped the march to an ever more commercially focused US health care (non-)system.  Meanwhile, the mission of taking the best care of each patient, and thus necessarily providing adequate education to health care professionals, fades into the rear view mirror.

Although the original argument for the commercialization of health care came from neoliberalism, (or market fundamentalism) especially in its dogma that:

harshly reinstated the regulatory role of the market in all aspects of economic activity and led directly to the generalisation of the standards and practices of management from the private to the public sectors. The radical cost cutting and privatisation of social services that followed the adoption of neoliberal principles became a public policy strategy rigorously embraced by governments around the world(2)

 Yet, as Prof Sager pointed out in the Bloomberg article,

'This is a symptom of the underlying anarchy that pervades U.S. healthcare,' Alan Sager, a professor of health law, policy and management at the Boston University School of Public Health, said referring to the plan to shut Hahnemann. 'Nobody is accountable for identifying the hospitals that are needed for the public. There is no free market and there is no government accountability.'

Neoliberalism may seem like a lot of economic mumbo jumbo, but ask the patients and staff of the former Hahnemann University Medical Center, and the house staff and faculty of its former residency program about its impact.

If only we could go back to a time when hospitals were non-profit community and/or academic institutions, when for-profit hospitals and the commercial practice of medicine was banned, when anti-trust laws were enforced to prevent ever growing corporations from enforcing ever growing power.  If only...

Such drastic changes, however, would all greatly threaten those who have become wealthy off the current system.  Think of the former CEO of AHERF, the current CEO of Tenet, the owner of Paladin Healthcare, and indirectly, all those plutocrats and oligarchs out there.

However, unless the public is willing to discomfit these plutocrats and oligarchs, what happened to Hahnemann and its residency program will likely soon seem like a trivial problem compared to what will come next. 


References

1. Relman AS. Medical professionalism in a commercialized health care market. JAMA 2007; 298: 2668-2670. [link here]

2.  Komesaroff PA, Kerridge IH, Isaacs D, Brooks PM.  The scourge of managerialism and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.  Med J Aust 2015; 202: 519- 521.  Link here.

Have They Finally Got to You? - the Firing of Dr Gu

Introduction - Dr Gu's History of Activism Made Him Unpopular at Vanderbilt

We first wrote in February, 2018, about the plight of Dr Eugene Gu, a surgical resident at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC).  Dr Gu has a history of political activism, resulting in being  blocked on Twitter by President Trump after Dr Gu criticized him online, until a court forced Trump to unblock him on First Amendment grounds.  After Dr Gu posted a photography of himself kneeling in support of the protest of football player Colin Kaepernick, the mother of a pediatric patient apparently refused permission for Dr Gu to treat her child based on the kneeling post, and VUMC responded by suspending him.

Dr Gu Fired

The story reappeared in the media in June, first in the Duke University Chronicle, then in the Tenneseean and USAToday.  From the latter,

A Tennessee doctor who became a social media sensation because of statements on President Donald Trump, racism and Colin Kaepernick - and who later sued the president over First Amendment rights - is losing his job at Vanderbilt University Medical Center.

Dr. Eugene Gu, 32, a Vanderbilt surgery resident, said Friday that Nashville's biggest hospital is ending his five-year residency after only three years.

Technically, Vanderbilt has decided not to renew his contract with the hospital, Gu said, but he argues the effect is 'no different than being fired.'

Dr Gu argued that the reason he was effectively fired was that VUMC disapproved of his political views as expressed on social media.

'The take-home message here is that there is an unwritten rule for surgical residents and that is rule is, always make your program look good and always make your hospital look good, and often that means stay silent,' Gu said.

VUMC denied that:

Vanderbilt said in an email statement Friday that the decision not to renew Gu's contract was not a result of his criticism of Trump, his lawsuit, or his public opposition to racism. The hospital has said previously that all disciplinary actions against Gu relate to his work performance and professionalism.

'Regarding other allegations that Dr. Gu is making about the Medical Center, I would ask that you please consider these as allegations and nothing more,' John Howser, a spokesman for the hospital, said in the email. 'To date, we have not engaged in a point by point rebuttal of Dr. Gu’s many claims over the past two-plus years. At this time we will continue to maintain this stance.'

VUMC, however, has not provided any clear evidence of deficient performance or insufficient professionalism.  The Duke Chronicle article noted arguments that Dr Gu made suggesting that it may not have had much such evidence.  First,

After an appeal, a May 17 letter to Gu from VUMC General Counsel Michael Regier—delivered at the request of Jeffrey Balser, president and CEO of VUMC—cited a 'lack of sufficient improvement in performance and conduct in key areas' after the probation. The letter, which was obtained by The Chronicle, indicated that the most "significant areas of concern" were 'patient care, communication, and medical knowledge.'

However, Dr Gu cited one example of a criticism of his performance that seemed rather trivial.

when he was serving on consult call, meaning he would respond to any surgical needs throughout the night. There was a patient for whom he was supposed to identify the course of treatment—which he did, correctly, as he did with the imaging and other relevant details. His colleagues, nevertheless, 'nit-picked' Gu about 'every little detail on the case'—claiming he didn’t 'dot all of his i’s and t’s' by not providing the patient’s height and weight—which Gu said were irrelevant.

Also, he noted that

Kyla Terhune, the residency program director for general surgery, was two-faced in her interactions with him. A text message obtained by The Chronicle showed that Terhune wrote 'Nice presentations' to Gu after he spoke at the Veterans Affairs Medical Center Tumor Board. He said she complimented him for his performance after going through two surgeries for him. But when it came time for performance review, Terhune said his performance was 'terrible' in those same instances, Gu noted.

Given the local and social media attention this story has received, one might wonder why, if VUMC had such a strong case against Dr Gu, it has avoided ever airing any details about it.

Furthermore, the article noted an apparent anomaly in the narrative of how the patient's mother came to complain about Dr Gu.

Before the story broke, VUMC declined to comment more than a dozen times, saying that it does not comment on personnel matters. After it was published, Howser wrote in a statement that Gu did not need to change his political views.

'Dr. Gu has never been told that he must change his political views or the substantive content of his personal participation on social media platforms,' the statement read. 'He has been advised of the need to adhere to VUMC’s social media policy, which requires that persons who are identified as representatives of VUMC clearly state that their views are their own. He has also been advised that resident physicians should be professional and respectful in their interactions and communications with and about one another.'

In the kneeling photo, one cannot make out that his badge says Vanderbilt Medical Center on it, even when zoomed in on. Gu's Twitter bio had no reference to Vanderbilt, though he had tweeted about Vanderbilt seven times prior. Twice, he tweeted that his views communicated on Twitter do not represent VUMC.

Yet Vanderbilt, after first suspending Dr Gu, ended his residency prematurely.  Since surgical residency normally lasts five years, it seems reasonable to say Dr Gu was fired, and that such Vanderbilt's action will likely damage his career.  Since Vanderbilt has not provided any convincing evidence that Dr Gu was incompetent or unprofessional, one is left with the nasty suspicion that it fired him because refused to stay silent about political beliefs that did not accord with those of Vanderbilt leadership.


Discussion

This story suggests that in our current political era, health care professionals, particularly trainees or others at the bottom of the totem pole, may be increasingly beholden to the political sensibilities of their bosses, and hence increasingly wary of espousing political views that run counter to those of their bosses. 

While it is reasonable for residency programs to require their trainees to be professional, since when did "professional" mean stifling political views that might offend hospital corporate leadership?

As we wrote in February,

 It may not be unreasonable to expect physicians and physician-trainees, as medical professionals, to avoid getting into political arguments with patients.  However, it is unreasonable to expect physicians to avoid making any public political comments that could ever be expected to offend any patient or relative.

And this case also raises the question of whether it was the patient's mother's offense, or the Department Chairman's offense, that mattered.

Attempts to censor political speech in academia are unfortunately not rare (see the website of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for many examples).  However, they have not seemed to be that frequent in medical education. (Our most recent example before this case was from 2015.)

I wonder, though, if the ongoing attacks on free speech and the free press (e.g., look here and here) by the current President and his cronies are emboldening censorship in US society.  The President does set the tone and agenda for the country.  A president who personally threatens free speech and a free press will encourage other would-be censors to crawl out of the woodwork. 

We will only be able to restore the freedoms promised in our Constitution, and ostensibly inherent in the nature of academic organizations, if we can get a new president who upholds the worth of these freedoms, and actually will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

Musical Interlude

Some lyrics from Dr Wu, Steely Dan, by Fagen and Becker

Are you with me Doctor Wu
Are you really just a shadow
Of the man that I once knew
She is lovely yes she's sly
And you're an ordinary guy
Has she finally got to you
Can you hear me Doctor

Are You With Us, Dr Gu? - Vanderbilt Suspended Surgical Resident Allegedly Due to Patient's Mother's Compaints About His "Taking a Knee" on Social Media

In the US, our political situation seems to be leading to new threats to free speech in academic medicine. 

Background: Dr Gu's Activism 

 his story was first reported by The Chronicle at Duke University, and here it is in chronological order

Congressional Subpoena about Fetal Tissue Research

Dr Eugene Gu is a pediatric surgical resident at Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC).  He has a history of political activism starting at least since he was a medical student.

As a third-year student at Duke Medical School in 2012, Gu earned a Howard Hughes Medical Institute fellowship, allowing him to perform fully-funded research at Stanford Medical School. There, he worked with stem cells.

In particular,

he performed the first successful fetal kidney and fetal heart transplants in immunocompromised rats—a project funded by family, friends and small angel investors, he said. The ultimate goal was to help babies with congenital heart and kidney diseases.

In order to do this research,

Gu obtained the tissue from third-party StemExpress, not directly from patients.

He was rewarded with a congressional subpoena:

in March of 2016, Gu was subpoenaed by Congress for his work.

Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) put the subpoena into motion after manipulated videos tried to 'make it as though Planned Parenthood employees were selling fetal tissue in violation of federal law.'

Several subsequent investigations found 'no evidence of wrongdoing' by Planned Parenthood.

Congress said it subpoenaed him and other researchers at this time to 'get the facts about medical practices of abortion service providers and the business practices of the procurement organizations who sell baby body parts.'

Gu called it a 'witch-hunt' along with StemExpress CEO Cate Dyer in a joint op-ed in Nature.

The Association of American Medical Colleges issued a statement supporting the sort of research Gu was doing, signed by dozens of top medical schools, including Duke and Stanford.

Lawsuit After President Trump Blocked Dr Gu on Twitter

Dr Gu was not shy about replying to President Trump on Twitter.

Gu said the tweet that got him blocked by the 45th President of the United States poked fun at his infamous 'covfefe' typo:

Covfefe: The same guy who doesn't proofread his Twitter handles the nuclear button.

— Eugene Gu, MD (@eugenegu) June 18, 2017

'Trump often announces changes in national policy exclusively from his personal Twitter account,' Gu said. 'It has become a de facto town hall in the modern era of social media. Not being able to participate in the conversations underneath his tweets is like being silenced from the public sphere.'

This lead Dr Gu to become party to a lawsuit against Trump for blocking him and other Twitter users from this public forum.

The Knight First Amendment Institute filed a complaint on behalf of him and six other Twitter users blocked by President Trump in the Southern District of New York July 11. The group alleged that preventing citizens from accessing his account, a 'public forum,' was in violation of the First Amendment.

Dr Gu Suspended

After having demonstrated that he was not in agreement with President Trump and some of his supporters on a number of issues,

The now-Vanderbilt University Medical Center (VUMC) resident was placed on paid administrative leave for nearly two weeks on Nov. 9. He says it might have to do with a patient’s mother complaining that he took a knee on Twitter to protest white supremacy.

She wrote two public Facebook posts identifying herself as the patient’s mother that kicked Gu out of the room and prevented him from caring for her son because of Gu’s actions. She did not respond to multiple requests for comment from The Chronicle.

The Chronicle journalists did a little digging,

According to emails obtained by The Chronicle with the name of the patient and their mother redacted to protect patient privacy, VUMC administration officials discussed investigating all the mother’s complaints regarding his social media posts on Nov. 8. That day, Seth Karp, chairman of the department of surgery, requested that someone document the mother's complaints about Gu and get them to him by the end of the next day, Nov. 9.

One day later, Gu was placed on administrative leave.

VUMC did not return more than a dozen requests from the Chronicle for confirmation that Karp is involved in personnel decisions over more than a week, over email and the phone.

A later article in The Chronicle noted

on Monday, VUMC denied that he was placed on leave due to his kneeling after a wave of social media criticism and reports from major news outlets covering The Chronicle’s story.

'The assertion that Dr. Gu was disciplined because of his expression of political or social views in social media is untrue,' the new statement read. 'All of VUMC’s actions relating to Dr. Gu’s progress as a surgery resident have been and will continue to be based on his performance and his adherence to VUMC policies.'

The VUMC statement further said:

He has been advised of the need to adhere to VUMC’s social media policy, which requires that persons who are identified as representatives of VUMC clearly state that their views are their own. He has also been advised that resident physicians should be professional and respectful in their interactions and communications with and about one another,...

How Dr Gu might have violated the medical center's social media policy, or how his tweeting might have amounted to unprofessional or disrespectful communications with colleagues was not made clear.

According to his Twitter account, Dr Gu is still a resident at Vanderbilt but is seeking to transfer elsewhere.

This case apparently was also covered in a single story in the Tennessean, and inspired a single op-ed by a medical student in the Toronto Star. Beyond that, it has been anechoic in the news media or scholarly medical literature.

The Toronto Star op-ed suggested:

This is a cautionary tale for any resident physician. Medical trainees are at the mercy of the hospitals that employ them because mandatory residency education is a prerequisite for board examination and certification. Without these, a physician cannot practice independently.

Due to this power imbalance, physicians-in-training are averse to any action that would put themselves at professional risk, including political advocacy that may be perceived as contrary to an institution’s value system. The stakes are simply too high.

The real question, however, is whether society wants its physicians to also be advocates.

Discussion and Conclusions

This case suggested that at least the leadership of one prestigious university medical center is very uncomfortable at best, with its residents publicly expressing certain political opinions, even clearly outside the confines of the hospital.  Whether the leaders felt licensed by the President of the United States, who had banned the person at the center of this case from following him on Twitter, is a reasonable question.

It may not be unreasonable to expect physicians and physician-trainees, as medical professionals, to avoid getting into political arguments with patients.  However, it is unreasonable to expect physicians to avoid making any public political comments that could ever be expected to offend any patient or relative.

And this case also raises the question of whether it was the patient's mother's offense, or the Department Chairman's offense, that mattered.

Attempts to censor political speech in academia are unfortunately not rare (see the website of FIRE, the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, for many examples).  However, they have not seemed to be that frequent in medical education. (Our most recent example was from 2015.)

I wonder, though, if the ongoing attacks on free speech and the free press (e.g., look here and here) by the current President and his cronies are emboldening censorship in US society.  The President does set the tone and agenda for the country.  A president who personally threatens free speech and a free press will encourage other would-be censors to crawl out of the woodwork. 

We will only be able to restore the freedoms promised in our Constitution, and ostensibly inherent in the nature of academic organizations, if we can get a new president who upholds the worth of these freedoms, and actually will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

How Managerialists Turned Housestaff Training into a Zero-Sum Game: the Continuing Saga of the FIRST and iCompare Studies

A ongoing controversy about two controlled trials (FIRST and iCompare) meant to test the bizarre hypothesis that sleep depriving medical housestaff (that is, physicians in training) would improve health care provided new evidence that academic medicine has been captured by managerialists.  

Background: the Controversy about the FIRST and iCompare Housestaff Sleep Deprivation Trials

In early December, 2015 we posted about two clinical trials, FIRST and iCompare, designed to test the hypothesis that  increasing housestaff sleep deprivation would improve care continuity, and thus somehow improve housestaff their performance and their patients' outcomes.  Not only did the studies' hypothesis seem strange, but the studies seemed to violate fundamental rules of research ethics.  Study investigators proceeded without obtaining formal informed consent from their house staff or patient research subjects, and did not allow any research subjects to opt out without penalty (e.g., house staff would have to quit their programs and find new ones to opt out).  Finally, after Public Citizen and the American Medical Student Association (AMSA) complained about the studies, study defenders based their arguments on logical fallacies.

Why would distinguished medical educators behave so strangely?  I hypothesized that medical educators could not imagine a way to improve care continuity without worsening trainees' sleep deprivation because all logical methods to do so would cost money.  However, the managerialist executives to whom medical educators are now beholden shrink from increasing costs, other than their and their cronies' own compensation.

Two Psychiatric Residents Write about the Zero-Sum Game of Housestaff Training

Of course, the controversy, and particularly the complaints from AMSA and Public Citizen have been largely anechoic.  But recently, the Washington Post published a commentary by two psychiatric residents on these issues.  The authors, Jeffrey Clark and David Harari, confirmed many of my concerns about the sleep deprivation trials.  They personally verified that the studies were done without informed consent from the research subjects.

The two of us and our patients were not provided informed consent before being enrolled in the iCompare trial.

The also confirmed that the trial investigators assumed they were working in a zero-sum framework.

We already know that extended shifts are dangerous. While many people rightfully suspect that current duty-hour limits aren’t improving outcomes, these studies err in assuming that the dangers of sleep deprivation must be traded for the dangers of shared patient care. Such a zero-sum framework won’t help us improve patient care or ensure the well-being of resident physicians.

To elaborate, the big problem with the duty hour restrictions is that while limiting the consecutive hours interns were supposed to work, this was not accompanied by any diminution of the total workload of housestaff at any one institution.

The standards published in 2011 by the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education still allow hospitals to put residents through blistering 80-hour work weeks, while setting maximum shift lengths of only 16 hours for interns and 24 hours for more senior residents. Interns simply work shorter but more-frequent shifts. Doctors hand off patients to each other more regularly but without the training needed to manage these transitions effectively. And, by and large, hospitals have not responded to the changes with larger workforces, leaving residents no choice but to compress their daily work into shorter time periods.

It appears that housestaff were formerly sleep deprived not by their own choice, but because they were required to accomplish enormous amounts of work.  The new duty-hour limits rearrangde their work into shorter shifts, without diminishing their total responsibilities.  This does not seem like much of an improvement.  The FIRST and iCompare trials were designed to test whether removing the new duty-hour limits, and thus increase sleep deprivation, would somehow help, which ignores the reason  the new duty-hour restrictions were enacted.  But simply shortening shifts accomplishes little as long as total workload remains the same.

Stimulants, An Even Worse Solution

So Clark and Harari confirmed my concerns about the FIRST and iCompare trials.  But they added a new and in some ways even more dire concern.  They uncovered an even more troubling response by medical academics to the zero-sum game which the managerialists ensure they are playing.

Adequate sleep is a fundamental physiological need. No amount of caffeine, prescription stimulants (as some physician leaders have advocated for) or 'alertness management strategies' can adequately compensate for acute and chronic sleep deprivation.

In an aside, Clark and Harari suggested the medical educators were advocating that housestaff use prescription stimulants to counteract the effects of sleep deprivation.  This seems astonishing.

Yet a brief search revealed many informal accounts of medical students and housestaff using psychoactive prescription drugs to increase wakefulness.  For example, see an account of a medical student using Focalin (dexmethylphenidate) here.  Surveys, for example by Shy et al of emergency residents, suggest that use of stimulants by housetaff is rare,(1), but survey respondents may be unwilling to admit to such behavior, and emergency medicine residents may work shorter shifts than medicine and surgery residents.

Also, there is some other evidence that medical educators may encourage use of stimulants.  At least one 2014 guest poster on the KevinMD blog stated

at one medical university, it is common knowledge among the student body that struggling individuals are encouraged to see a physician about their 'possible ADD,' or attention deficit disorder.

Furthermore, in 2009, Rose and Curry writing in the Mayo Clinic Proceedings (2) noted that 

extending the use of drug therapy to include resident with no identified sleep disorder to improve concentration and learning, improve wakefulness, enhance performance, and promote high-quality patient care (especially at night) raises a variety of concerns

without explaining who came up with that idea in the first place.  However, in a response to a letter challenging their commentary, they denied (3) that they were advocating for such drug use, but never made clear who else was.

As we have noted, stimulants used for attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are  amphetamines or relatives of amphetamines, and have dangerous adverse effects.  Encouraging, even subliminally, medical trainees to use such dangerous drugs to try to compensate for underfunding of training programs seems unethical, as the above letter writer pointed out.(3)  That medical educators would resort to such an extreme solution suggests how they are now boxed in. 

Conclusion: the Problem is Managerialism   

While the ongoing trials of housestaff sleep deprivation have been largely anechoic, the recent Washington Post commentary by Clark and Harari make questions about why in the world medical academics would have set up such trials and continue to defend them even more stark.

But it seems that medical academics are boxed in, playing a zero-sum game.  They may know that there housestaff are overworked and sleep deprived, a situation that endangers the housestaff and their patients.  Yet every reasonable way one could imagined improving the situation would require spending more money, most likely to hire more people to spread the workload.  Yet spending more money may be an anathema to the generic managers to whom medical academics report.  Spending more money would decrease revenue, and for many managerialist managers, increasing revenue, not patient outcomes or physician performance, is the prime directive.    


We have frequently posted about what we have called generic management, the manager's coup d'etat, and mission-hostile management. Managerialism wraps these concepts up into a single package.  The idea is that all organizations, including health care organizations, ought to be run people with generic management training and background, not necessarily by people with specific backgrounds or training in the organizations' areas of operation.  Thus, for example, hospitals ought to be run by MBAs, not doctors, nurses, or public health experts.  Furthermore, all organizations ought to be run according to the same basic principles of business management.  These principles in turn ought to be based on current neoliberal dogma, with the prime directive that short-term revenue is the primary goal.

To conclude, as I did on my first post on the sleep deprivation studies....  I hope that the two studies create the degree of controversy they deserve, and that the federal government promptly starts investigating honestly and thoroughly.  I further hope that this unseemly episode causes medical educators to rethink the cozy or at least conflict averse relationships they have with their managerialist leaders.

True health care reform would restore health care leadership that understands health care and medicine, upholds the health care mission, is accountable for its actions, and is transparent, ethical and honest.



References

1.  Shy BD, Portelli I, Nelson LS. Emergency medicine residents' use of psychostimulants and sedatives to aid in shift work. Am J Emerg Med 2011; 29: 1034-36. Link here.

2.  Rose SH, Curry TB.  Fatigue, countermeasures and performance enhancement in resident physicians.  Mayo Clin Proc 2009; 84:  955-57.  Link here.


3.  Paparodis R. Fatigue, countermeasures and performance enhancement in resident physicians.  Mayo Clin Proc 2010; 85: 300 - 303.  Link here.

AMIA Board: specification of core competencies in Biomedical Informatics

In 1998 I launched a website called "Medical Informatics and Leadership of Clinical Computing" (now entitled "Contemporary Issues in Medical Informatics- Common Examples of Healthcare Information Technology Difficulties" at this link).

Its theme was that leadership of IT in healthcare was severely lacking in the formal competencies needed to reach any measure of success, and in fact the lack of informatics competencies in the usual IT actors was causing wasted resources and patient harm.

I had also commented that the term "Medical Informatics" itself was being misappropriated by anyone claiming to do anything with computers in medicine, even the creation of trivial and/or low-value programs.

Sadly, little has changed in that regard since 1998; in fact things are much worse.  The meaning of the term "Medical Informatics" itself has become severely blurred, and job listings that use the term are largely misguided.  They often seek a nurse (most common) or doctor (less common) without formal education in the domain, who's dabbled with hospital IT systems, to lead clinical IT projects.  This is a totally inappropriate and even dangerous approach (example here).

The American Medical Informatics Association has released a paper "AMIA Board white paper: definition of biomedical informatics and specification of core competencies for graduate education in the discipline" that is long, long overdue.  As of this writing, full text is available a this link:  http://jamia.bmj.com/content/early/2012/06/07/amiajnl-2012-001053.full.

This paper certainly provides a robust affirmation of ONC's recommendations on healthcare IT leadership roles that I wrote of in my Oct. 2009 post "ONC Defines a Taxonomy of Robust Healthcare IT Leadership."

Some highlights of the new AMIA paper:

Abstract

The AMIA biomedical informatics (BMI) core competencies have been designed to support and guide graduate education in BMI, the core scientific discipline underlying the breadth of the field's research, practice, and education. The core definition of BMI adopted by AMIA specifies that BMI is ‘the interdisciplinary field that studies and pursues the effective uses of biomedical data, information, and knowledge for scientific inquiry, problem solving and decision making, motivated by efforts to improve human health.’ Application areas range from bioinformatics to clinical and public health informatics and span the spectrum from the molecular to population levels of health and biomedicine. The shared core informatics competencies of BMI draw on the practical experience of many specific informatics sub-disciplines. The AMIA BMI analysis highlights the central shared set of competencies that should guide curriculum design and that graduate students should be expected to master.

Note that Biomedical Informatics, which the Board feels is a broader term encompassing all of the information-science disciplines in healthcare and biomedical research, is defined as "a core scientific discipline underlying the breadth of the field's research, practice, and education."  One does not acquire expertise in a scientific discipline without first rigorously studying that discipline, e.g., as is done in medical school to gain optimal understanding of clinical medicine.

... The present articulation of BMI core competencies is intended to support AMIA and its members in promoting the discipline as a career choice, and to provide guidance to students and curriculum developers when choosing, designing (and implementing), or re-designing graduate-level academic BMI programs.

(Who needs graduate education in Biomedical Informatics when all that seems to be needed is a little on-the-job dabbling?)

... Defining BMI as the scientific core of a discipline that has broad applications across health and biomedicine highlights its foundational role and refutes the kind of reductionism that superficially explains BMI simply as the application of information technology (IT) to biomedical and health problems.

I termed that phenomenon "Medical Instamatics" on that late 1990's site.  Unfortunately, the "reductionism" is all too prevalent today.  People whose BMI education and skill levels (which I define as the ability to apply deep knowledge and experience to successfully manage the unexpected, not just manage traditional activities via a book of "process"), are often at the amateur level -- in the same sense that I am a radio amateur, not a telecommunications/engineering professional -- or worse.  This wreaks havoc (as here) in health IT, especially when led by senior management also incognizant of the issues.

Definition: Biomedical informatics (BMI) is the interdisciplinary field that studies and pursues the effective uses of biomedical data, information, and knowledge for scientific inquiry, problem solving, and decision making, driven by efforts to improve human health.

Scope and breadth of discipline: BMI investigates and supports reasoning, modeling, simulation, experimentation, and translation across the spectrum from molecules to individuals and to populations, from biological to social systems, bridging basic and clinical research and practice and the healthcare enterprise.

Theory and methodology: BMI develops, studies, and applies theories, methods, and processes for the generation, storage, retrieval, use, management, and sharing of biomedical data, information, and knowledge.

Technological approach: BMI builds on and contributes to computer, telecommunication, and information sciences and technologies, emphasizing their application in biomedicine.

Human and social context: BMI, recognizing that people are the ultimate users of biomedical information, draws upon the social and behavioral sciences to inform the design and evaluation of technical solutions, policies, and the evolution of economic, ethical, social, educational, and organizational systems.

There is also a call for experts to:

• Acquire professional perspective: Understand and analyze the history and values of the discipline and its relationship to other fields while demonstrating an ability to read, interpret, and critique the core literature.

In effect, health IT amateurs, including those in traditional business computing, have little to no formal education or experience in reasoning, modeling, simulation, experimentation, and translation; developing, studying, and applying theories; building on and contributing to computer, telecommunication, and information sciences and technologies; and drawing upon the social and behavioral sciences to inform design of these complex systems.

BMI is the core scientific discipline that supports applied research and practice in several biomedical disciplines, including health informatics, which is composed of clinical informatics (including subfields such as medical, nursing, and dental informatics) and public health informatics (sometimes referred to more broadly as population informatics to capture its inclusion of global health informatics). There are related notions, such as consumer health informatics, which involves elements of both clinical and public health informatics. BMI in turn draws on the practical experience of the applied subspecialties, and works in the context of clinical and public health systems and organizations to develop experiments, interventions, and approaches that will have scalable impact in solving health informatics problems. However, it is the depth of informatics methods, shared across the spectrum from the molecular to the population levels that defines the core discipline of BMI and provides its coherence and its professional foundation for defining a common set of core competencies.

Here is the diagrammatic represention of the above in the full article:

Biomedical informatics and its areas of application and practice, spanning the range from molecules to populations and society

Finally, excerpts from the meat of the article on Prerequisite knowledge and skills.  This depth and breadth of knowledge does not come from studying business computing, dabbling with systems by nurses or physicians lacking formal domain education at the graduate level or beyond, or by guessing by the seat of one's pants:

• • Fundamental knowledge: Understand the fundamentals of the field in the context of the effective use of biomedical data, information, and knowledge. For example:
    • ... Healthcare: screening, diagnosis (diagnoses, test results), prognosis, treatment (medications, procedures), prevention, billing, healthcare teams, quality assurance, safety, error reduction, comparative effectiveness, medical records, personalized medicine, health economics, information security and privacy.
  • Procedural knowledge and skills: For substantive problems related to scientific inquiry, problem solving, and decision making, apply, analyze, evaluate, and create solutions based on biomedical informatics approaches.
    • Understand and analyze complex biomedical informatics problems in terms of data, information, and knowledge.
    • Apply, analyze, evaluate, and create biomedical informatics methods that solve substantive problems within and across biomedical domains.
    • Relate such knowledge and methods to other problems within and across levels of the biomedical spectrum.
• Theory and methodology: BMI develops, studies, and applies theories, methods, and processes for the generation, storage, retrieval, use, management, and sharing of biomedical data, information, and knowledge. All involve the ability to reason and relate to biomedical information, concepts, and models spanning molecules to individuals to populations:
  • Theories: Understand and apply syntactic, semantic, cognitive, social, and pragmatic theories as they are used in biomedical informatics.
  • Typology: Understand, and analyze the types and nature of biomedical data, information, and knowledge.
  • Frameworks: Understand, and apply the common conceptual frameworks that are used in biomedical informatics.
    • A framework is a modeling approach (eg, belief networks), programming approach (eg, object-oriented programming), representational scheme (eg, problem space models), or an architectural design (eg, web services).
  • Knowledge representation: Understand and apply representations and models that are applicable to biomedical data, information, and knowledge.
    • A knowledge representation is a method of encoding concepts and relationships in a domain using definitions that are computable (eg, first order logics).
  • Methods and processes: Understand and apply existing methods (eg, simulated annealing) and processes (eg, goal-oriented reasoning) used in different contexts of biomedical informatics.
• Technological approach: BMI builds on and contributes to computer, telecommunication, and information sciences and technologies, emphasizing their application in biomedicine.
  • Prerequisite knowledge and skills: Assumes familiarity with data structures, algorithms, programming, mathematics, statistics.
  • Fundamental knowledge: Understand and apply technological approaches in the context of biomedical problems. For example:
    • Imaging and signal analysis.
    • Information documentation, storage, and retrieval.
    • Machine learning, including data mining.
    • Networking, security, databases.
    • Natural language processing, semantic technologies.
    • Representation of logical and probabilistic knowledge and reasoning.
    • Simulation and modeling.
    • Software engineering.
  • Procedural knowledge and skills: For substantive problems, understand and apply methods of inquiry and criteria for selecting and utilizing algorithms, techniques, and methods.
• Human and social context: BMI, recognizing that people are the ultimate users of biomedical information, draws upon the social and behavioral sciences to inform the design and evaluation of technical solutions, policies, and the evolution of economic, ethical, social, educational, and organizational systems.
  • Prerequisite knowledge and skills: Familiarity with fundamentals of social, organizational, cognitive, and decision sciences.
  • Fundamental knowledge: Understand and apply knowledge in the following areas:
    • Design: for example, human-centered design, usability, human factors, cognitive and ergonomic sciences and engineering.
    • Evaluation: for example, study design, controlled trials, observational studies, hypothesis testing, ethnographic methods, field observational methods, qualitative methods, mixed methods.
    • Social, behavioral, communication, and organizational sciences: for example, computer supported cooperative work, social networks, change management, human factors engineering, cognitive task analysis, project management.
    • Ethical, legal, social issues: for example, human subjects, HIPAA, informed consent, secondary use of data, confidentiality, privacy.
    • Economic, social and organizational context of biomedical research, pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, medical instrumentation, healthcare, and public health.
      
      
      
      

While nobody is an expert in all of these areas, skills in many of them are essential for successful and safety-promoting leadership in the health IT domain.

I repeat, this depth and breadth of knowledge does not come from studying business computing, dabbling with health IT, or by guessing by the seat of one's pants.  It comes about from rigorous education and experience in the appropriate domains at the graduate and (especially) post-doctoral levels.

Amateurs mistakenly put in leadership positions, and their organizations, are going to increasingly find themselves in legal hot water over mistakes in design and implementation that result in patient harm, security breaches, overbilling and other issues.

That is probably what it will take to have hospitals manage health IT talent more appropriately.

Finally, I plead guilty to tooting my own profession's horn.

Somebody needs to when the stakes are so high for patients.

-- SS

The Case of the Vanishing Graduate Medical Education Funds

While primary care falters in the US, those who teach it seem to feel increasingly poverty stricken.  Now it appears that one reason for this is an amazing example of multiple failures of transparency and accountability.  Let me work through it, begging your pardon for a little bit of "inside baseball," medical education style.  The results suggest how we desperately need some medical disciples of Sherlock Holmes.

Background

My personal experience and increasing data suggests that most medical school faculty believe that their teaching is not valued by their institutions because teaching brings in no external funds.  In 2004, Dr Catherine DeAngelis, then the editor of JAMA, wrote "few medical schools provide adequate, if any, reimbursement for teaching time."(1)  (See this 2005 post.)   This seems absurd on its face, since what are medical schools for if it is not to provide teaching. 

However, there is evidence of this mission-hostile behavior.  In 2007, we quoted from a revealing interview with Dr Lee Goldman, Executive Vice President for Health and Biomedical Sciences at Columbia University,(2) who stated that "taxpayers," faculty who "generate more [money] than they cost," are valued most, and implied that faculty who focus on teaching are regarded as "welfare recipients," who bring in less external funding, and are valued least.  In 2010, we noted the results of a large-scale survey presented by Dr Linda Pololi in which 51% of faculty felt that the administration only valued them for the money that they brought in, and half felt that their institutions did not value teaching.(3)

Yet while faculty seem to believe that educational institutions receive little if any money to pay for teaching, it is not clear why the believe something so counter intuitive, and it is less clear what money actually goes to pay for medical education.

US Government Funding for Graduate Medical Education

However, several recent publications affirm that actually a lot of money goes towards one important form of medical education, yet the specifics of the money flows are shrouded in secrecy.  In the May, 2012, SGIM Forum, Dr Mark Liebow and colleagues summarized some of what is known about federal support of graduate medical education, that is, education of interns, residents, and other house officers.(4)  There are two streams of money that flow from Medicare to US hospitals:

Direct GME (DGME) payments help hospitals pay the salaries of residents, teaching faculty, and support staff. DGME is the product of three numbers: a per resident amount that varies by hospital, adjusted annually for inflation; the number of residents in the hospital (capped for each hospital at 1997 levels); and the fraction of discharges from the hospital that are Medicare beneficiaries. The Indirect Medical Education (IME) payment is a percentage amount added on to each DRG payment. The percentage is calculated via a complex formula (the only US statute containing an exponent!), where the key factor is the ratio of interns/residents to beds (IRB ratio).

These two streams are of considerable size:

Of the $9.2 billion Medicare paid for GME in 2010, $3 billion was for DGME and $6.2 billion for IME. The money is paid to hospitals sponsoring training programs rather than to the training programs or other hospitals where training occurs. While about 1,100 hospitals receive GME payments, 66% goes to the 200 hospitals that have the largest numbers of residents.

So, the 200 largest hospitals get about $2 billion in direct GME money (and presumably about another $4 billion in indirect money). This averages then to about $10 million DGME and $20 million indirect GME per hospital.

Thus, teaching, at least the teaching of interns, residents, and other house-staff does pay, and much more than trivial amounts. (Note that these amounts are not for teaching of medical students, which ought to be supported by other funding streams.)

Why then do faculty think that teaching does not bring in any money?

The GME Money Vanishes

An article by Dr Saima I Chaudhry and colleagues in the American Journal of Medicine begins to explain, although the explanations are found between the lines.(5)

First of all, while the graduate medical education money is paid by the government to the hospitals, the government does not publish what it pays to individual hospitals:

It has been previously reported that the amount of GME funding individual hospitals receive is not publicly reported by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services,....

The government also does not hold the hospitals accountable for how they spend this money, nor for the quantity or quality of education they supply in exchange for it.

Remarkably, Chaudhry et al imply that that the people who run graduate medical education teaching programs also may not know how much money their hospitals receive from the government to fund their programs. The introduction to their article noted:

It is unclear how much program directors know about the amount and flow of DME funds to their programs. Program directors' beliefs about the transparency of funding to their programs, or their desire to influence how funds are distributed to them, also are unknown.

The article reported on a survey of internal medicine residency program directors which asked about "their knowledge of D[G]ME funding for their programs, the transparency with which funds are distributed to them, and their desire to influence this disbursement." The researchers sent surveys to 372 member programs, representing 97.1% of all US internal medicine residencies. They got 268 responses, a 72.0% response rate.

The main results were that only 159/268 (59.3%) of program directors had tried to find out how much DGME money their programs received, and of those, only 84 (52.8% of those enquiring, but only 31.3% of all respondents) actually knew how much money their programs got.

Of the 92 program directors who did not even try to discover how much money their programs received, approximately 21% said that "no one would tell me," 21% said that the "information would be inaccurate," 14% said they "don't know who to ask," and 2% were "afraid to ask."

Summary

US medical school faculty, especially those in primary care, increasingly feel pressured to perform activities that they perceive brings in money from external sources. They tend to believe that their own teaching somehow does not bring in any money, and that their careers will fail if they do not put more emphasis on other activities that the institution views as more profitable.

However, literally billions of US government dollars go to support the education of house staff, including the salaries of faculty who teach interns and residents, who probably are the majority of physician faculty. Faculty probably do not know this, because the government does not publish the amounts given to individual hospitals, nor demand of the hospitals any accountability for how they spend the money they receive.

Presumably, the top executives of each hospital know how much money the government gives them. Nonetheless, the majority of physician leaders of residency programs are never told these amounts, apparently because their hospital executives kept the amounts secret. Many of those educators who have tried to find out the figures were unsuccessful. Some did not even try to find out based on beliefs that their attempts would be unsuccessful, any amounts they discovered would be inaccurate, the people who knew the amounts were hidden, or that it would be dangerous to their careers to even try.

Thus billions of dollars of money flowing from the government to fund graduate medical education seems to have vanished in an amazing example of widespread deficiencies in accountability and transparency.

There are many people who blame government for many social ills. In this case, one can blame the US Congress for not writing a law that makes the money flows transparent and hospitals accountable for providing good educational value for the money provided. One can also blame the executive branch, particularly the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for not making the money flows and the values received for them transparent.

There are a few people, including this author, who also blame the leadership of health care organizations for many of the problems besetting health care. In this case, one can blame top leadership, presumably CEOs and chief financial officers (CFOs) of hospitals for hiding the amounts of money they receive from Medicare to finance graduate medical education. One can also blame the physician leaders of residency programs for not insisting that they know the true sources of financial support for their programs, obtain budgets that reflect this support, and recognition that their faculty really do bring in external funds for their teaching of house staff (and are thus valuable "taxpayers" in Dr Goldman's parlance.)

It is amazing that such amounts of money have been flowing for years mostly in secret. The secrecy has fueled incorrect, and in retrospect, bizarre ideas about the funding of medical education, and the value of medical educators to their institutions. This secrecy, in turn, has helped suppress the morale of medical educators, support the control of managers of health care professionals, and distort the flow of money within academic institutions and to compensation for certain favored individuals.

Would our dysfunctional health care system not be better off if we demanded transparency and accountability from its leaders?  In particular, the US government should make payments to hospitals for graduate medical education completely transparent, and develop a system to hold these hospitals accountable for how they spend the money.  Meanwhile, top leaders of hospitals receiving this money should make the amounts transparent, first to the people who are supposed to be doing the education that the money pays for, and to the public at large.  This would allow those running the relevant educational programs to develop reasonable and realistic budgets, to treat their faculty with respect, and to demonstrate what value they provide for the money received. 
The ongoing anechoic effect, and related deception and secrecy fostered by leaders in health care are major reasons our health care system is so dysfunctional, that costs are so high, and access and quality so poor.  True health care reform would ensure health care leaders put the mission before their personal enrichment, and act ethically with accountability, transparency, and honesty. 
References
1.   DeAngelis CD. Professors not professing. JAMA 2004; 292: 1060-1.  Link here.
2.  Goldman L, Halm EA.  A view from the top: general internal medicine from the perspective of a chair and dean.  SGIM Forum, April, 2007.  Link here.
3.  Pololi L, Ash A, Krupat E.  Faculty Values in the Culture of Academic Medicine: Findings of a National Faculty Survey. Link here.
4.  Liebow M, Jaeger J, Schwartz MD. How does Medicare pay for graduate medical education? SGIM Forum, May, 2012.  Link here.
5. Chaudhry SI, Khanijo S, Halvorsen AJ, McDonald FS,Patel K. Accountability and transparency in graduate medical education expenditures. Am J Med 2012; 125: 517-522. Link here.

Physicians' "Learned Helplessness"

An important article on Medscape General Medicine, by a lawyer, of all people, suggested how physicians have developed "learned helplessness." [Bond C. The training of the "helpless" physician. Medscape General Medicine 2007; 9(3):47.] Bond had two causative hypothesis on how this happened.

First, medical schools and post-graduate training programs do not teach physicians how to cope with the current health care environment.

Medical training programs do not provide young physicians basic information about doctors' options in the workforce -- for example, the pros and cons of private practice vs employment -- nor is there any effort to explain to them the larger economic forces at work in healthcare in the United States, so physicians do not understand the competitive forces that are shaping today's radically changing economic climate.

Doctors, having received no training in adapting to the current market conditions that are occurring rapidly around them, are ill-equipped to function in this radically changed economic -- and ethical -- landscape.

Beyond the basics of medical economics, young physicians are generally not introduced to the regulatory and political environment in which they will have to practice.

More importantly,

Medical training is inculcating a culture among physicians that may be deepening their woes and contributing to the decline of the profession.

Helplessness can be trained into individuals when, regardless of repeated best efforts that should be rewarded, no reward is forthcoming; as a result, the individual eventually learns to give up and sinks into a lonely feeling of futility and malaise. It would appear that collectively the medical profession has mastered this art and is suffering the symptoms en masse.

Unfortunately, medical training is helping to create the foundation for the profession's helplessness. Regardless of the new limitations on work hours, conditions in many training programs remain reminiscent of medieval, monastic, ascetic orders. Self-deprivation -- especially sleep deprivation -- continues to be viewed as a necessary virtue, especially during subspecialty training. Learning is still most often imposed on the basis of the model of strict authoritarian discipline, with a high degree of emphasis on shame and fear of failing. Good patient care is so expected of trainees that it is rarely rewarded. Residents' pay is usually set at bare subsistence levels or below, so there is no financial reward for the hard work of medical training, and indeed most medical graduates emerge with huge school loan debts.

Psychologically, young physicians often expect residency and fellowship to be the crowning experience of their long educational path. Since they were 5 years old, these young people were told that they were the brightest and the best, a message that was socially reinforced as they successfully progressed through school, college, and medical school. Everything about their experience reinforced their belief in the Puritan work ethic: If you work hard and do well, you will be rewarded -- until they reach residency, a point at which rewards are so few and far between that they begin to believe that if they work hard and do well they will be resented.

Young physicians become so well trained in deferring gratification that many give up on ever getting any meaningful rewards for their sacrifices. With their resilience worn away, many just give up the fight. A dispirited acceptance of one's individual fate seems to be the dominant mood of physicians nowadays rather than a motivated mobilization toward a better lot for the individual practitioner and the profession as a whole. Most doctors focus so hard on trying to provide good patient care -- ie, taking care of others -- that they forget, or have no energy, to take care of themselves. Thus, when some doctors propose positive collective action, they are usually quickly quieted by a few naysayers whose negativity taps into the helplessness learned so well during medical training. The progress of the profession is being effectively paralyzed by its own failure to teach leadership and the skills of self-survival.

Strong stuff, that.

There are, of course, two obvious solutions.

The first is to teach medical students and house-staff about the realities of the professional world they will inhabit. In my humble opinion, this would include teaching about evidence-based medicine and technology assessment so that they have some framework to evaluate the maelstrom of marketing, propaganda, disinformation, and intimidation and coercion that they will encounter. This would certainly also include discussion of health care ethics, i.e., the issues that we discuss on Health Care Renewal. This sort of teaching need not focus too much on how to recognize conflicts of interest and corruption (which is pretty obvious), but should focus on helping the learners resist these "dark arts." (This should be distinguished from traditional biomedical ethics courses, which mainly focus on analyzing difficult clinical decisions, important, but not the same thing.)

Note that efforts to teach even the rudiments of evidence-based medicine have not gone very far. We can also surely expect a lot of resistance to teaching about the sorts of ethical issues that appear on Health Care Renewal. After all, that might make certain medical school, academic medical center, and university leaders, starting with those who also sit on the boards of directors of public for-profit health care corporations, uncomfortable. In fact, I know of no US medical school that requires any education in any such issues. Further, Bonds noted,

One attempt to institute a seminar-style course in 'real-world' healthcare economics at a major State University School of Medicine was met with a refusal to fund even the modest travel stipends for the national experts lined up to teach the course.

The second solution is to change the culture of medical education itself. We need to lessen the crushing sleep deprivation and the long work hours which still occur when the work-week is limited to "only" 80 hours. We need to make teaching more collegial and less authoritarian. That may require actually paying medical school faculty to teach in clinical settings. (In many schools, the first priority is on faculty raising external funds for the school through research and patient care.) This may also require banning the conflicts of interest that let faculty work as much for pharma/ biotech/ device companies as they do for the medical school, e.g., as noted here. None of that will be easy either, especially because such changes would obviously disrupt some economic relationships that are very lucrative to certain people.

Nonetheless, physicians are going to have to unlearn their helplessness if they expect to do anything about the mess that is health care today. They certainly ought to feel obliged not to let the next generation of physicians be taught to be helpless as well.