NEJM: Medical Malpractice Liability in the Age of Electronic Health Records

As I wrote on Nov. 11 at Report of an AMIA special task force on challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT :

This report may be part of a trend ... It appears that the views on healthcare IT safety, ethics, management practices, etc. appearing on the Healthcare Renewal blog and on my once-controversial academic health IT website "Contemporary Issues in Medical Informatics: Common Examples of Healthcare Information Technology Difficulties" (started in 1999) are now becoming mainstream.

Notable "events" continue to occur rapidly in the literature on clinical IT. Another example of the trend I noted appeared today, this time in the New England Journal of Medicine:

Medical Malpractice Liability in the Age of Electronic Health Records
Sandeep S. Mangalmurti, M.D., J.D., Lindsey Murtagh, J.D., M.P.H., and Michelle M. Mello, J.D., Ph.D.
N Engl J Med 2010; 363:2060-2067 (Nov. 18, 2010)

From the Department of Medicine, New York University Medical Center, New York (S.S.M.); and the Department of Health Policy and Management, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston (L.M., M.M.M.).

The above hyperlink takes you, as of this writing, to full text and an available PDF.

My comments on this article are that:

I am happy to see it appear -- as it shows that critical thinking about HIT has reached the top echelons of the medical literature.

However, the new paper itself appears to wander a bit, and seems to add little to the much more comprehensive article:

"E-Health Hazards: Provider Liability and Electronic Health Record Systems." Sharona Hoffman and Andy Podgurski. Berkeley Technology Law Journal (2010).
Available at: http://www.btlj.org/data/articles/24_4/1523_Hoffman.pdf

(Sharona Hoffman JD is Professor of Law and Bioethics, Co-Director of Law-Medicine Center, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, and Andy Podgurski PhD is Professor of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, Case Western Reserve University.)

The new article does reference the Hoffman/Posgurski article once at [32].

The new NEJM article also seems to display biases. For instance, it states:

EHR users overwhelmingly report improvement in the quality of care they provide. [29]

Reference [29] is this article:

29. DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Rao SR, et al. Electronic health records in ambulatory care — a national survey of physicians. N Engl J Med 2008;359:50-60.

From that article:

In late 2007 and early 2008, we conducted a national survey of 2758 [ambulatory care] physicians, which represented a response rate of 62%. Using a definition for electronic health records that was based on expert consensus, we determined the proportion of physicians who were using such records in an office setting and the relationship between adoption and the characteristics of individual physicians and their practices.

... Four percent of physicians reported having an extensive, fully functional electronic records system, and 13% reported having a basic system ... Physicians reported positive effects of these systems on several dimensions of quality of care and high levels of satisfaction ... Physicians who use electronic health records believe such systems improve the quality of care and are generally satisfied with the systems. However, as of early 2008, electronic systems had been adopted by only a small minority of U.S. physicians, who may differ from later adopters of these systems.

I would therefore relate that the blanket statement that "EHR users overwhelmingly report improvement in the quality of care they provide" is overstated.

It might have been more appropriate to write that:

"In one study of ambulatory care physicians, a minority of which at present were using EMR's at various levels of sophistication, users reported improved care."

Also, other literature refuting the premise that physicians report improved care could (should) have been considered, such as (in just one example) the 2008 survey reported upon by the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS):

PHYSICIAN ATTITUDES & ADOPTION OF HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY (PDF)

I wrote about that survey at this link. (I note that the AAPS is a conservative group; NYU and Harvard tend strongly towards the left; one wonders if the NEJM authors would have considered mentioning the AAPS survey, even if they did know of it.)

More potential biases appear in the conclusion of the new NEJM paper:

... In evaluating whether to invest in EHR technologies, provider organizations must weigh the substantial up-front cost and possible risks against the potentially sizeable, but uncertain, long-run benefits.[55]

[55] DesRoches CM, Campbell EG, Vogeli C, et al. "Electronic health records’ limited successes suggest more targeted uses." Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29:639-46.

From [55]:

... We examined electronic health record adoption in U.S. hospitals and the relationship to quality and efficiency. Across a large number of metrics examined, the relationships were modest at best and generally lacked statistical or clinical significance. However, the presence of clinical decision support was associated with small quality gains. Our findings suggest that to drive substantial gains in quality and efficiency, simply adopting electronic health records is likely to be insufficient. Instead, policies are needed that encourage the use of electronic health records in ways that will lead to improvements in care.

Using [55] as an example of "potentially sizable but uncertain long-run benefits" is not how I would have interpreted the Health Affairs Millwood article.

The NEJM paper authors then write in their conclusion:

... The malpractice implications of EHRs should be included in future discussions of risks and benefits. [Agreed - ed.] Although there is currently little research quantifying the risks and benefits with respect to liability, we are optimistic that they will ultimately weigh in favor of the implementation of EHRs.

They do not state how or why they are optimistic, nor provide corroborating references for that opinion.

Is it revealing of bias and probably not a good practice, as far as I am concerned, to put what appears as wishful thinking -- especially where one states that there is little research supporting the optimism -- in the conclusion of a scientific paper.

In summary, while I feel the paper has a number of flaws, I am glad to see the topic of potential healthcare IT malpractice liability addressed in one of the top journals in medicine.

-- SS

Some answers about new site "EHRevent.org" for health IT and drug adverse event reporting - and a note on incendiaries

Some answers to the questions I raised here and here about a new site EHRevent.org, for reporting of healthcare IT and drug problems, can be found in a blog post at the site of Occam Practice Management at this link: http://www.occampm.com/blog/general/ehr-event-reporting/.

Its author, Michelle R. Wood, had noted this HC Renewal post. She researched some of the questions and wrote up her findings.

It is well worth a read.

I do have a small bone to pick with her post at Occam. She wrote:

"While HC Renewal occasionally borders on the incendiary side of things, Dr Silverstein posed some valid questions about a website that seem to have caught everyone by surprise..."

I maintain that the true incendiaries are fired by those we write about, those whose pronouncements and acts are "threats to health care's core values, especially those stemming from concentration and abuse of power."

Those 'incendiary' pronouncements and acts can indeed maim and kill (for example, as a relative of mine is now experiencing thanks to a commercial EMR 'mishap').

I may be more accurate to say we don't restrict ourselves to the confines of 'political correctness', that is, stunted discourse conventions that generally favor maintenance of the status quo.

As I wrote on that issue last year here in my series on mission hostile healthcare IT:

... Some have complained I am being "politically incorrect." At a time when our banks, major industries, investments, lifestyle and retirements have been seriously eroded by a combination of secrecy, incompetence, and criminal behavior on an unprecedented scale, I think such people need to get their priorities in order.

In his mantra "Critical thinking always, or your patient's dead", cardiothoracic surgeon Victor P. Satinsky, mentioned in earlier posts as my earliest medical mentor, did not include "but be polite about it" as part of the lesson.

On those pesky EMR curmudegons ... (click to enlarge)

-- SS

Addendum 11/17/10:

At the above Occam link Ms. Wood published my brief comment on this issue, and a thoughtful response. See the comment thread of her EHRevent essay.

-- SS

EHRevent: survey amateurism, bias, or something else?

At my post EHRevent.org: Web Site to Collect EHR Safety Reports, I wrote of my questions about a new organization, EHRevent.com, that seems to supercede or compete with the FDA's MAUDE and Medwatch medical device and medication adverse events reporting and analysis services.

Reviewing the EHRevent report form on this day (archived here, PDF), I note the following multiple choice question on page 7 (emphasis mine):

Notwithstanding the event you are reporting, has the adoption and use of an EHR by your practice added to patient safety, improved care or improved documentation? Select one option.

o Yes, definitely

o Likely

o Not sure

o No impact

A bias and/or survey amateurism is clearly evident in this question. And perhaps something more?

Missing is this option:

o None of the above; EHR adoption did not "add to"; rather, it subtracted, as worsening occurred

A fundamental rule of surveys is that the choices should not artificially limit the survey taker's ability to provide critical or relevant information.

As Ross Koppel, PhD, a sociologist studying healthcare IT at the University of Pennsylvania stated at the Feb. 25, 2010 HHS Certification/Adoption Workgroup Meeting on Health IT Safety (minutes of that meeting are archived at this link, PDF):

... Like everyone else, I want HIT to increase patient safety, care efficiency, treatment quality, savings, and drug ordering guidance. I want HIT to provide coherent structures for test results and other data, and I wanted to provide better visualization of complex clinical data.

Unlike many of my colleagues here who are HIT scholars and advocates, however, because of my training perhaps, I‘ve studied the surveys that have been used to guide and explain the current HIT strategy.

These surveys explored why doctors and hospitals have not embraced HIT‘s benefits. The findings pointed to the cost of HIT, to the physicians‘ resistance. They called them technophobic, hide bound, and perhaps most gruesome, too old. It also talked about overwhelmed hospital IT staff and other user pathologies or user inadequacies.

Now the years of research on HIT suggested that those answers could not be complete. They weren‘t right. The reasons the surveys found this, I‘ve been investigated, was I looked at the questions that were asked of the doctors and hospitals. And the only answer options dealt with the problems of hospitals and doctors. In other words, they found only the questions that they asked about physician difficulties, doctor difficulties. They didn‘t look for any other options, and they didn‘t even give other option answers to talk about the following issues.

So they could have asked, does HIT slow or speed your clinical work? Are EHR data presented in helpful ways, or do they generate unnecessary cognitive burdens because, for example, the data that should be contiguous are in five separate screens, where you‘re scrolling across vast wastelands of rows and columns looking for the needed information. How many information displays are understandable or are disarticulated, confusing, or missing key data? Does HIT distract from your patient care or improve it? And the last one I‘ll ask, although I have about 50 others, how responsive are HIT vendors to acknowledging and repairing defects? How quickly are these defects repaired?

The absence of the relevant questions divert us from understanding the actual HIT needs of clinicians and patients. Now I‘m certain that the people who asked these questions, designed these surveys, were not intentionally deceptive. Well, I‘m certain most were not intentionally deceptive. But the restricted options reflects a series of assumptions or … that says HIT is intrinsically beneficial. Anything that encourages HIT is good for patient safety. Anything that discourages it or retards it is bad by definition.

The creators of the EHRevent survey apparently were not present, or not listening, during Dr. Koppel's presentation.

I have not yet reviewed in depth the other survey questions for similar issues, but this one stood out like a sore thumb.



I cannot imagine an objective, competent scientist committing such an error.

-- SS

EHRevent.org: Web Site to Collect EHR Safety Reports

At "Cart before the horse, again" I observed the irrationality of creating "meaningful use" rules for health IT before usability issues (i.e., poor usability) had been robustly addressed, and the further irrationality of the IOM studying HIT safety after HIT became slated for national rollout in the next few years.

The horse seems to be starting to catch up to the cart (or is it the other way around?):

HDM Breaking News, November 15, 2010

The iHealth Alliance, a coalition of industry stakeholders, has launched an electronic health record safety reporting Web site, called EHRevent.org.

The site is designed to be a national system where providers can report safety issues related to the use of EHRs. Reported events will be confidential but used as the basis to generate other reports that medical societies, malpractice insurers and government agencies can use "to help educate providers on the potential challenges that EHR systems may bring," according to the alliance. The Food and Drug Administration will use data collected on the site to assist in evaluating safety issues that may arise during the forthcoming widespread implementation of EHRs.

Initial supporters of EHRevent.org include the American Medical Association and some state medical societies, American Cancer Society, National Patient Safety Foundation, American Pharmacists Association, CentrEast Regional Extension Center in Texas, and EHR vendor eMDs Inc.The PDR Network, which distributes drug labeling information, FDA-issued product safety alerts and other services such as the Physicians' Desk Reference, will operate the network. Participating insurers, medical societies, EHR vendors and other entities will have links to EHRevent.org on their own Web sites. A similar site to report adverse medication events, RxEvent.org, will launch in 30 to 60 days. [Is the FDA outsourcing MedWatch? - ed.]

Federal agency supporters include the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, and the Food and Drug Administration. Malpractice carrier supporters include COPIC Insurance Company and The Doctors Company.

From the homepage at http://www.ehrevent.org/:

The EHR Safety Event Reporting Service is a service of PDR Secure™, a Patient Safety Organization (“PSO”).

I have several concerns with this development:

• The site page on Privacy and Security states that "PDR Secure™, a certified Patient Safety Organization, receives oversight and governance from the iHealth Alliance, a not-for-profit organization whose mission is to protect the interests of patients and providers, as healthcare increasingly moves online." However, who's paying for the EHR Safety Event Reporting Service and the salaries of the people involved?
  

• How is it that these watchdog organizations seem to spring out of nowhere, with no opportunity for public comment or involvement before they "hatch?"

• Did Congress or other elected representatives have a role in this development?
  

• Will competitors also "hatch?"
  

• Why doesn't the FDA take on this role instead of simply "using data collected on the site to assist in evaluating safety issues that may arise during the forthcoming widespread implementation of EHRs?" They have the infrastructure and experience (e.g., the Medwatch and MAUDE reporting facilities).

• Will actual reports, de-identified as the the reporter, be available to the public in a searchable database as they are in, say, FDA's MAUDE database? (See posts on MAUDE here and here.) From the EHRevent site:
  

The Privacy and Security page states that "PDR Secure™ ... will collect, analyze and report back to healthcare providers and others on trends, recent new developments, and other information designed to reduce the risk of harm in the delivery of health care." The FAQ page states "PDR Secure will ... analyze and make available reports on the type of events, frequency of events, and other statistics as well as recommendations and best practices for using EHR systems. "

Will the actual report text itself be unavailable to the public?

• Re: "A similar site to report adverse medication events, RxEvent.org, will launch in 30 to 60 days." Is FDA abandoning its role in collecting drug AE reports?

Further, from the site's own language:

• What, exactly, will be done with the information? They state: "Reporting EHR events can help improve EHRs, support patient safety, reduce professional liability and help liability carriers and others properly educate physicians on safe use of EHRs." How?

• Is the reporting process really protected? Again, from the site itself:

How broad is the legal protection in this PSO?

Patient Safety Work Product - the information you provide in the reporting form, once it becomes part of the PSO environment - is entitled to greater protection from disclosure in legal matters as part of a new statutory and regulatory framework. PDR Secure™, as a certified and listed Patient Safety Organization under Federal law/regulations, has been designed to afford a reporter with the protections under this law. However, it is important to know that PSOs are relatively new entities that have not been tested in the courts of every jurisdiction. Each person or entity who submits information to PDR Secure™ should make their own independent evaluation as to the risks involved in submitting information and what particular information to submit.

Can I submit a report without identifying myself?

You need to provide your identity, which will become part of the PSO database. You can select whether your identity can be shared or is to be kept confidential under the regulations governing the PSO, and PDR Secure’s policies and procedures.

• Will the "contract" one has to agree with, a 16-page document studded with legalese (download here, .doc format), inhibit voluntary EMR-related problem reporting?
  

Even with those questions in mind, I think this may be a net positive development. It would at the very least seem to lay to rest the deterministic notion (and/or marketing message) that this technology is harmless and entirely beneficent.

Will it be an effective way to help reform the health IT industry? Time will tell.

-- SS

Addendum 11/16/10:
See my initial concerns with the EMRevent report form at my followup post here.

Addendum 11/17/10:
Some answers to these questions can be found in a blog post at the site of Occam Practice Management at this link: http://www.occampm.com/blog/general/ehr-event-reporting/, whose author noted this HC Renewal post. My comments are at a post here.

"Living High Life on Money to Treat the Poor"

Here is another story that has developed over the last week about questionable goings on at a not-for-profit health care organization.  The organization in question this time was the not-for-profit, but state government supported Medicaid managed care organization/ health insurer for the Louisville, Kentucky region.  The details came from a Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal article about a state auditor's report on the Passport Health Plan:

The organization providing Medicaid services in Jefferson and surrounding counties has spent lavishly on such things as travel, meals, salaries, bonuses and lobbying in recent years, the state auditor’s office said in a report released Tuesday.

The scathing report, which Gov. Steve Beshear described as 'disheartening,' said two Passport Health Plan officials — Executive Vice President Shannon Turner and Associate Vice President Nici Gaines — were paid well, ate well and traveled extensively.

'Lodgings were often luxury spas and resorts,' the report said. 'The executives used limousine services and dined at expensive restaurants. While these types of expenditures may be routine for many private, for-profit companies, they should not be typical in nonprofit, health care organizations.'

The report also said Passport made extraordinary efforts to burnish its public image and gain political support by spending $1 million since 2007 on lobbying and public relations, as well as $423,000 in donations and sponsorships.

Many of the donations had no connection with health care, the report said — including $600 to sponsor a reception for the Senate Republican majority in 2009, $10,000 to sponsor an 'inflatable character' for the Kentucky Derby Festival's Pegasus Parade, and contributions to the Boy Scouts, Kentucky Opera, Volunteers of America and others.

Here are some more specifics about amounts spent:

Travel: Passport spent $106,722 on more than 36 trips including trips to conferences at resorts in New Orleans, Key West, Las Vegas, Seattle, Philadelphia, Tucson, Washington and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Meals: Spent $72,994 on 753 meals for groups large and small. These were mostly at Louisville restaurants but included tabs at some famous restaurants outside Kentucky, such as Emeril's and Commander's Palace in New Orleans.
Limo services: Five uses of limos totaling $3,996.
Lobbying and public relations: Spent $1 million.
Donations and sponsorships: Spent $423,000, some with no connection to health care, including $10,000 to be an “Inflatable Character Sponsor” for the Kentucky Derby Festival.
Gifts: Spent $9,311 for 95 gifts, which included flowers and Christmas gifts.
Salaries: Paid salary and bonuses of $303,750 to Executive Vice President Shannon Turner and $156, 000 to Associate Vice President Nici Gaines in most recent year.

Here are more specifics about conflicts of interest:

Conflicts of interest: Both Turner and Gaines received additional compensation in contracts with subcontractor they were overseeing, AmeriHealth Mercy. Also, Larry Cook, Passport's chairman and CEO, had divided loyalties because he serves as an executive vice president of U of L. He also was reimbursed $1,717 by AmeriHealth for expenses for a trip to Ireland in 2007.
Grants: Many grants were made by Passport to groups with ties to staff and/or board members

The organization also was charged with distributing additional funds to area health providers based on their initial investment in the not-for-profit managed care organization, but not on the amount of care they were providing to Medicaid patients:

[State Senator Tim] Shaughnessy was particularly concerned about distributions of $10 million in excess funds in late 2008 and again in and 2009 to the large Jefferson County health-care providers that formed Passport.

These distributions were reported to the Kentucky Department of Insurance as grants to cover indigent care costs incurred by Passport's provider partners — University Medical Center, University Physician Associates, Norton Healthcare, Jewish Hospital and St. Mary's Healthcare, and the Louisville/Jefferson County Primary Care Association.

But the auditor’s report said the money was distributed based on the percentage of the providers' initial investments to create Passport — not the amount of indigent care they provided. And the report said this money was placed in the general funds of these providers 'rather than specifically set aside for uncompensated indigent care.'

Finally, it appears that Passport tried to block disclosure of important information, including the compensation of its executives, even though it is a not-for-profit organization entirely funded by the government:

Early this year The Courier-Journal filed a request under the state open records law seeking Passport records on compensation of its executives and minutes of its board meetings. But Passport refused to release them, claiming that the law did not apply.

The attorney general's office disagreed, saying that Passport is 100 percent publicly funded and must release the records. But Passport again refused and took the matter to Jefferson Circuit Court, where it is pending.

So again we have the same tiresome features of leaders who apparently regard their organization as their own personal sandbox: lavish compensation, given the context, luxuries supplied the leadership out of organizational funds, conflicts of interest that apparently increased further the leaders' personal gains, and attempts to keep the whole thing secret. As a Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader editorial ("Living High Life on Money to Treat the Poor") noted, given the mission of the organization, this sort of sleaze is particularly unfortunate:

In one way, though, Passport's profligacy deserves special condemnation. Every dollar Passport executives spent on their own pleasurable pursuits, on lobbying to insure tax money kept flowing their way, on buying goodwill in the Louisville area or on any other unnecessary expense was a dollar taken away from providing Medicaid services to the most vulnerable, needy members of society.

This case resembles one we discussed previously, that of the non-profit community health agency in Florida whose leaders again seemed to regard their job as an opportunity for personal enrichment.  It seems that even leaders of non-profit organizations whose mission is to help the needy may seem to put their own needs before those of their disadvantaged constituents.  Of course, given they may have seen leaders of not-for-profit universities and hospital systems making millions, and leaders of for-profit pharmaceutical, device, and especially managed care organizations/ health insurers making tens of millions, and conclude that their six-figure salaries and occasional luxuries were barely adequate compensation.

As we have noted before, the "executives take all" mentality of an era economically dominated by financiers as aristocrats seems to have infected health care.  Somehow we have to restore the idea that executives and managers  like doctors and nurses, should regard their work as calling meant to put the needs of patients and public health first, rather than a quick way to get rich. 

About to be Bought-Out Non-Profit Hospital System Tries to Hide Executives' Golden Parachutes

A report from FloridaToday (in Brevard County) about the sale of a not-for-profit Florida hospital system to a for-profit corporation raises some interesting questions. The background is that the non-profit Wuesthoff Health System was bought by for-profit Health Management Associates (HMA):

HMA, a for-profit hospital management company in Naples, bought the not-for-profit Wuesthoff Oct. 1 for $145 million. Wuesthoff lawyer William Kopit has said it was forced to sell because the hospital system lacked the capital to compete.

The question is about the conditions of the sale:

A foundation formed to manage the proceeds of the sale and continue providing indigent health care has refused to disclose the executive packages to the state, claiming it constitutes a trade-secret exemption under Florida law.

This was despite the state Attorney General's authority to oversee sales of charitable non-profit organizations to for-profit entities:

Under its statutory obligation to oversee charities registered in the state, the Attorney General's Office requested the executive pay information from Wuesthoff, Wiggins said. Wuesthoff's lawyers submitted 40 pages of heavily redacted material. Negotiations led to Wuesthoff agreeing to redact only the names and compensation details of the executives.

The materials submitted suggested a lot of executives getting golden parachutes, but not the amounts or conditions involved:

The unredacted portions show as many as eight former executives receiving three years of salary paid out over 12 months, a pay-to-stay retention bonus for continuing to work for the company during sale discussions, a senior executive retirement package and regular retirement pay and extended health benefits. Based on Wuesthoff's tax returns, those payouts will be in the millions.

So, legal action will ensue:

'Therefore we will look to the court for guidance and abide by any judicial ruling on the public record and trade secret issues,' said Ryan Wiggins, communications director for the attorney general.

The notion that how much a for-profit corporation will pay in golden parachutes to former executives of a not-for-profit hospital system is a "trade secret" just boggles the mind.  What could a competitor possibly gain from this information that could lead to specific action that would disadvantage Wuesthoff?

On the other hand, it might be that the size of these golden parachutes, if revealed, would lead to some raised eyebrows, or worse.  Consider first the contrast between payments made and to be made to fortunate executives and the performance of the health care system. 

Note that what is available on the public record (via the hospital system's latest available, that is, 2008 form 990 disclosures to the US Internal Revenue Service) suggests that in the past, Wuesthoff executives were already quite well-paid. On that form we found the following total compensation reported:
Emil Miller, President: $927,543 ($523,069. compensation; $342,130, benefits; $62,344, benefits)
Brian Bodi, Controller: $184,789
George Fayer, CFO: $439,580
Johnette Gindling, Senior Vice President: $236,975
Marchita Marino, Senior Vice President: $264,529

Nearly a million dollars was a lot of compensation for the CEO of a small, non-profit hospital system in 2007.  Although there is no easily publicly available information about executive compensation since 2007 (the year covered by the 2008 report noted above), these high rates of compensation were paid by a hospital system that now apparently has so little capital that it no longer can "compete" without being bought by a for-profit corporation.   Now the executives who could not amass a competitive amount of capital will amass quite a sizable amount of personal riches.

Consider second the contrast between the extraordinary assertion that these golden parachutes should remain secret, and the hospital system's stated interest in "transparency," or its stated devotion to "five core values that drive our hospital and its mission: integrity, courtesy, compassion, competence and stewardship." It seems that preventing embarrassment about executive enrichment may trump transparency and integrity.

Health care, probably infected by the finance industry that brought us the global financial collapse, aka "great recession," seems to have been overcome by "compensation madness."  A central value of many health care organizations seems to be enriching their top leaders/ managers/ executives, no matter what the financial condition of the organization, or the performance of the leaders in terms of fulfilling the organization's mission.  From these perverse incentives, the perverse incentives favoring short-term financial performance over patient care seem to have sprung.  As Prof Mintzberg wrote, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit."

If we truly want health reform that addresses spiraling costs, declining access, and threatened quality of care, we need to give health care practitioners and leaders positive incentives for being caring, competent, well-informed, and honest, not for clever financial manipulation and short-term profits, or just for managing to show up for work.

ADDENDUM (2 December, 2010) - 4 days after the above post, Florida Today reported that details about the golden parachutes were released:

[Emil] Miller, who ran Wuesthoff for more than a decade, received $6.25 million total. Of that, $2.2 million was severance pay and $3.2 million was retirement pay. The balance was the cost of his employee benefits.

Former CFO George Fayer has the next highest exit pay at $973,000, which includes a $171,000 for staying through the sale and transition. Fayer is a consultant to the foundation, Gindling said.

Chantal LeConte, who ran the Rockledge hospital, received the third highest payout, $553,000. LeConte's package included about $138,000 for staying through the transition.

Given that the health system was merged out of existence because it supposedly no longer had enough capital to "compete," now we see why system leaders were so reluctant to reveal the amounts.

Report of an AMIA special task force on challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT

I am both surprised and pleased to read the new report of an American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) task force, in the form of an AMIA Board Position Paper released today entitled:

"Challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT vendors, their customers, and patients: a report of an AMIA special task force." Goodman, Berner, Dente, Kaplan, Koppel et al. for the AMIA Board of Directors. J Am Med Inform Assoc (2010). doi:10.1136/jamia.2010.008946.

A free PDF is available at this link.

This report may be part of a trend. As I wrote recently at this link:

I was somewhat taken aback by the appearance of the article by Karsh et al. entitled "Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities" (covered at Healthcare Renewal here) in the Oct. 2010 Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA).

I was taken aback since the article rains heavily on the academic memes of healthcare IT as a benign and deterministic solution to healthcare's ills, and of health IT-related adverse outcomes being mere "anecdotes."

It appears that the views on healthcare IT safety, ethics, management practices, etc. appearing on the Healthcare Renewal blog and on my once-controversial academic health IT website "Contemporary Issues in Medical Informatics: Common Examples of Healthcare Information Technology Difficulties" (started in 1999) are now becoming mainstream.

Most of the issues in this new AMIA Position Paper have been written about at this blog since 2004, and at my aforementioned academic HIT website since 1999. I will reproduce the abstract of the paper below, but download and read the entire paper (emphases mine):

ABSTRACT
The current commercial health information technology (HIT) arena encompasses a number of competing firms that provide electronic health applications to hospitals, clinical practices, and other healthcare-related entities. Such applications collect, store, and analyze patient information. Some vendors incorporate contract language whereby purchasers of HIT systems, such as hospitals and clinics, must indemnify vendors for malpractice or personal injury claims, even if those events are not caused or fostered by the purchasers. Some vendors require contract clauses that force HIT system purchasers to adopt vendor-defined policies that prevent the disclosure of errors, bugs, design flaws, and other HIT-software-related hazards. [The "gag clauses." These are exceptionally unethical, in my view, regarding the use of an experimental technology, healthcare IT, on unsuspecting, unconsented patients unaware of health IT risks - ed.] To address this issue, the AMIA Board of Directors appointed a Task Force to provide an analysis and insights. Task Force findings and recommendations include: patient safety should trump all other values [I've been writing and saying this for many years now - ed.]; corporate concerns about liability and intellectual property ownership may be valid but should not over-ride all other considerations; transparency and a commitment to patient safety should govern vendor contracts; institutions are duty-bound to provide ethics education to purchasers and users, and should commit publicly to standards of corporate conduct; and vendors, system purchasers, and users should encourage and assist in each others’ efforts to adopt best practices. Finally, the HIT community should re-examine whether and how regulation of electronic health applications could foster improved care, public health, and patient safety. [Regulation has been another issue I have focused upon, especially after holding a management role in Big Pharma - ed.]

Also notable was this proclamation:

... “Hold harmless” clauses in contracts between Electronic Health Application vendors and purchasers or clinical users, if and when they absolve the vendors of responsibility for errors or defects in their software, are unethical. [I note that, somewhat remarkably, this is not the more typical hedged academic "may be unethical" statement- ed.] Some of these clauses have stated in the past that HIT vendors are not responsible for errors or defects, even after vendors have been informed of problems.

Unethical, indeed, as per my JAMA letter of July 22, 2009 on that issue entitled "Health Care Information Technology, Hospital Responsibilities, and Joint Commission Standards" (link) and per my more detailed essay at my Drexel HIT website (link).

Also remarkable were these statements:

... For-profit manufacturers of healthcare products are bound by values which may at times conflict. For instance, as entities in a marketplace, they are duty-bound to provide a financial return to those investors who have contributed resources in anticipation of their success. Yet, as developers and manufacturers of products that affect the health of people, they are no less obligated to ensure, to the extent possible, that their products are safe and effective, and beneficially support patients [that goes without saying - ed.] and those who treat and care for them. [That is, clinicians, who through their unpaid hard work using oft ill-designed HIT systems are currently used as beta testers and, through 'hold harmless' clauses, as an insurance company and, quite frankly, as cannon fodder - ed.]

... Contracts should require that system defects, software deficiencies, and implementation practices that threaten patient safety should be reported, and information about them be made available to others, as appropriate. Vendors and their customers, including users, should report and make available salient information about threats to patient safety [I've also been writing this for years; it's common sense - ed.] resulting from software deficiencies, implementation errors, and other causes. This should be done in a way easily accessible to customers and to potential customers. This information, when provided to customers, should be coupled with applicable suggested fixes, and should not be used to penalize those making the information available. [There should be as little fear of reporting HIT problems as in reporting medication problems - ed.]

... If appropriate for their size and mission, vendors and client institutions contribute to the growth of biomedical knowledge by conducting HIT research [including research on how to remediate the HIT itself and the IT industry creeds, customs and traditions that cause suboptimal design and implementation in the first place - ed.] … authors of scientific reports should not be prevented from identifying devices, tools, and systems by name in publications.

… There are situations in which HIT vendors pursue joint marketing agreements with institutions that adopt vendors’ products and by which these institutions become a part of the vendors’ marketing program [I believe that hospitals should never allow themselves to become IT marketing and promotion operations - ed.], often in exchange for discounts, payments, stock options, or favorable treatment by the vendor. In at least some cases, these agreements include provisions whereby healthcare institutions that serve as demonstration sites for particular products receive compensation when other institutions adopt products from the same vendor. The Task Force notes that such agreements might place the “referring” institutions in a conflict of interest [a common topic on this blog -ed.], and therefore recommends that:

• Any such conflicts should be eliminated or managed, including disclosure, according to current standards.

• Where such agreements are made, they should include a provision whereby any payment or other compensation contingent on the sale of a system to another party must be disclosed to that other party.

• Payments or gifts to individuals and institutions, including institutional officials, clinicians, etc, should be disclosed. Alternatively, they should be addressed by entities’ internal mechanisms for managing conflicts of interest and commitment, perhaps along the lines of the “rebuttable presumption” standard endorsed by the Association of American Medical Colleges. The goal of the standard is “to ensure that institutions systematically review any financial interest that might give rise to the perception of a conflict of interest, and further, that they limit the conduct of human subjects research by financially interested individuals to those situations in which the circumstances are compelling.

The new AMIA Position Paper and the aforementioned paper on HIT fallacies and realities seem to reflect a welcome transformation or even about-face for AMIA. I am likely considered "radioactive" by some in that organization for espousing similar views dating back to the late 1990's, when expression of such views was uncommon and even frowned upon. Academia has not been highly tolerant of heterodoxy in many domains for quite some time.

One wonders if that stigma will "stick" in view of the increasing realization that such views were not heretical, but forward-thinking along the lines of my early medical mentor, the late Victor P. Satinsky, MD of Hahnemann Medical College and Hospital:

From http://www.upenn.edu/gazette/0298/0298obits.html: Dr. Victor P. Satinsky, C'34, Philadelphia, a cardiovascular surgeon at the old Hahnemann Hospital who helped develop coronary-bypass surgery; September 7 [1997]. He is also credited with 30 major medical innovations and the invention of the Satinsky clamp, now a standard instrument in cardiovascular surgery. He joined Hahnemann (now part of the Allegheny health system [as of 2010 now Drexel College of Medicine - ed.]) in 1946 to do thoracic-surgical research, and from 1961 till his retirement in 1977 he was the research director of its cardiovascular institute. Dr. Satinsky liked to refer to himself on promotional materials as 'the Renaissance Doctor', as he was also a poet, a playwright (some of his plays were produced in London), a painter, a clarinetist, and a fencer; he was known at Hahnemann for practicing his swordsmanship in the halls and classrooms of the hospital. And at the age of 80, he earned a black belt in aikido, and subsequently taught it. Although he had no religious training, during the Second World War he once filled in as a rabbi on a troopship going to Europe when he learned it had chaplains, but no rabbi. He also had taught himself psychiatry and while at Hahnemann developed educational programs for young people; the first, for gifted high-school students, began in 1961. He later added programs for disadvantaged youth, for young people with emotional problems, and one for college dropouts. On retiring, he set up the Satinsky Institute for Human Resource Development to continue this work, which he ran until his death at 84 years.

Dr. Satinsky's short, simple and unyielding credo was:

"Critical thinking always, or your patient's dead."

-- SS

BLOGSCAN: The Age of Deception

Per the Corrente blog, the CEO of the Girl Scouts of America described the biggest obstacle to inspiring girls to become leaders:

The majority of girls feel that in order to be a leader in today’s society, they have to become liars and they do not want to compromise the values they are learning as Girl Scouts in order to become leaders.

If the Girl Scouts say that nowadays leadership=deception, what does that say we have to do?

"This is Really Going to Set People's Hair on Fire" - the Justice Department Indicts a Pharmaceutical Company Vice President and Associate General Counsel

We have been posting nearly every week about the parade of legal settlements, sometimes including guilty pleas to criminal charges, made by health care organizations.  The settlements have involved charges of kickbacks, fraud, conspiracy, and other colorful offenses. Most of these settlements entailed fines or other payments by the organizations that may seem huge, but were fractions of the amounts made by the practices that lead to the charges that were settled.  Almost never have the cases involved penalties for any individuals who authorized, directed, or implemented the misbehavior.  We have also been saying (seemingly endlessly, but most recently here) that such settlements may be viewed by organizations as merely the costs of doing business, and so until the actual people who were involved in the bad behavior suffer some negative incentive or penalty, expect the behavior to continue. 

Maybe things are changing.  In the New York Times, Duff Wilson wrote:

In a rare move, the Justice Department on Tuesday announced that it had charged a former vice president and top lawyer for the British drug giant GlaxoSmithKline with making false statements and obstructing a federal investigation into illegal marketing of the antidepressant Wellbutrin for weight loss.

Specifically,

The indictment accuses the Glaxo official, Lauren C. Stevens of Durham, N.C., of lying to the Food and Drug Administration in 2003, by writing letters, as associate general counsel, denying that doctors speaking at company events had promoted Wellbutrin for uses not approved by the agency. Ms. Stevens 'made false statements and withheld documents she recognized as incriminating,' including slides the F.D.A. had sought during its investigation, the indictment stated.

An Associated Press story provided more detail about the allegedly false statements:

The Department of Justice alleges that in 2002, Lauren Stevens of Durham, N.C., signed several letters to the Food and Drug Administration denying that her company had promoted an antidepressant drug for unapproved uses. But Stevens knew that the company had paid numerous physicians to give talks touting unapproved uses of the drug, including weight loss,....

Also,

In one instance, prosecutors say Stevens withheld slides used by physicians promoting the company's drug, even though the FDA had asked specifically for the materials. Stevens claimed that the company's response to the FDA was 'final' and 'complete,' according to the indictment.

Stevens also falsely denied that Glaxo had paid doctors to attend special sessions where medical experts discussed unapproved uses of Wellbutrin, according to the Department of Justice.

'Attendees were not paid, reimbursed or otherwise compensated to attend these events,' Stevens wrote in a 2003 letter to the FDA. But prosecutors say attendees received gifts, entertainment and other compensation in return for attending the events.

During 2001 and 2002, Glaxo paid two expert physicians to speak about 500 times each about Wellbutrin, including how to use the drug to treat obesity.

In addition, a CBS News story suggested that Ms Stevens was made aware of the nature of the information withheld:

In March of 2003, the indictment alleges, Stevens received a memo from other lawyers at GlaxoSmithKline analyzing the pros and cons of turning over the slides to the FDA. One of the cons listed in that memo was that turning over the slides would provide 'incriminating evidence about potential off-label promotion of [the drug] that may be used against [the corporation] in this or in a future investigation.'

An indictment of an individual, particularly a high-ranking corporate executive, seems to have gotten people's attention, e.g., as Duff Wilson wrote in the Times:

The indictment grabbed the attention of pharmaceutical executives who have been bracing for a long-promised government crackdown on company officials — rather than the corporations themselves — in drug-fraud cases that have resulted in billions of dollars in fines and payments.

'This is absolutely precedent-setting — this is really going to set people’s hair on fire,' said Douglas B. Farquhar, a Washington lawyer who recently presided at a panel on law enforcement during a drug industry conference where federal officials warned they were focusing on individuals. 'This is indicative of the F.D.A. and Justice strategy to go after the very top-ranking managing officials at regulated companies.'

My response is, of course, that the threat of this sort of action is absolutely what is needed to deter future bad behavior by health care organizations. As long as health care leaders could act with impunity, the fraud, kickbacks, conspiracy etc were continuing. Worse, given their impunity, why would anyone but an idealistic fool attempt to swim against the tide of rising sleaze in health care?  How could skeptics and critics of the status quo in health care gain any traction?

Now maybe this sort of action may finally lead self-satisfied, unreflective health care executives to think about what they are doing and its ethical and moral aspects. The NY Times article included this statement in defense of Ms Stevens:

Brien T. O’Connor, a lawyer with Ropes & Gray, said in a statement, 'Lauren Stevens is an utterly decent and honorable woman. She is not guilty of obstruction or of making false statements. Everything she did in this case was consistent with ethical lawyering and the advice provided her by a nationally prominent law firm retained by her employer specifically because of its experience in working with F.D.A.'

I actually would guess that Ms Stevens believes she did nothing wrong. I would guess that most of the numerous health care leaders who have been caught up in bad behavior also thought they did nothing wrong. After all, they were all very well paid, lived in nice houses in nice neighborhoods, drove fancy cars (when they did not have a paid car and driver), were respected in their communities, did charitable works, etc. How can fine people who look so respectable do anything wrong? But, of course, the veneer of respectability does not prevent unethical or immoral behavior. Making one's numbers, getting one's bonuses, all from doing the big boss' wishes do not certify one's actions as ethical or moral. Perhaps making corporate health care leaders actually accountable for their actions will lead them to think about whether their actions are really as upstanding as their accoutrements of social status make them feel.

My final comment is that it may be significant that this case involved a lawyer. On one hand, attorneys have been at the forefront of what little movement there is to improve the accountability, integrity, and transparency of health care organizations. On the other hand, the leadership of many health care organizations have lawyered up to defend their actions. Organizational lawyers have been known to sweet-talk, obfuscate or intimidate those who dare to criticize the organizational leaders' actions. Anyone who is a vocal skeptic of the powers that be in health care must know there is a constant risk of some corporate counsel or hired firm threatening a libel, slander, or tortious interference action. Any individual who dares to be skeptical must be worried that the leaders of large health care organizations can use a lot of other peoples' money to pay for lawyers to push such actions, while individual skeptics facing threats of suits for huge amounts of damages are not likely to have enough money of their own to keep fighting. So I hope that the current case will also push attorneys who make a lot of money protecting the status quo in health care to reflect on the ethics and morality of what they are doing.

ADDENDUM (10 November) - Also see comments by Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

What a Conflicted Web We Weave: More About Leaders of Financial Firms Influencing Policy in the Guise of Independent Academics

The issue of conflicted academic economists providing public policy recommendations just got bigger.  As discussed by Felix Salmon in his blog for Reuters, and by Nancy Folbre in the Economix blog for the New York Times,  a new study by Epstein and Carrick-Hagenbarth showed that some very prominent economists who frequently make pronouncements about financial policy often failed to disclose some major conflicts of interest. 

In summary, they identified "two groups of economists that were prominent in the field of financial economics and which had taken a public stance on financial regulation."  Some of these economists also had prominent advisory roles for government economic agencies, including the US Federal Reserve, the US Council of Economic Advisers, the Indian Finance Ministry, the Bank of Finland, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. The authors did an extensive search for the economists' financial ties to financial corporations, which probably detected most relationships such as membership on the boards of directors of public companies, but may have missed consulting arrangements.  They found that 12 of 19 had such relationships, mostly positions on boards of directors or ownership interests.  They found that all but one of the economists with such relationships failed to identify these relationships in the majority of their academic papers and writings in the media.  The one economist who always disclosed his relationships in the media only wrote articles for the private financial firm for which he worked.

So major financial conflicts of interest were prevalent among "prominent economists who write op-eds for newspapers, they testify on public panels, they take positions as advisers for politicians and they are interviewed by the media. Academic economists often convey the impression that they occupy these positions as independent objective experts."  The authors concluded:

Academic economists serve as experts in the media, molding public opinion. They are also important players in government policy. If those that are creating the culture around financial regulation as well as influencing policy at the government level for financial reform also have a significant, if hidden, conflict of interest, our public is not likely to be well-served.

They also noted that economics as a profession does not even have a formal code of ethics, and in particular has never embraced any necessity for disclosing, managing, or restricting conflicts of interest.

We had previously discussed anecdotal but striking evidence that some of the most prominent economists who influenced public policy up to and after the great recession/ global financial crisis also had major but undisclosed financial ties to financial institutions. It now looks like conflicts of interest could be as prevalent among those who are influential in economics as they may be among those who are influential in medicine, health care, and health care policy.

This further corroborates the hypothesis that academic medical institutions are so comfortable with their faculty and leaders' conflicts of interest because they exist in a larger academic culture in which such conflicts are standard operating procedure.  Academic institutions may be particularly happy with economists' conflicts of interest because they involve such large amounts of money. Felix Salmon gave the example of  Paul Krugman who when he worked as an economist could command a $40-50,000 fee per speech, easily more than an order of magnitude more than the going rate for medical talks.  Furthermore, as we have noted before, (e.g., here, here, and here) many prominent academic institutions that incorporate medical schools and academic medical centers have boards of directors dominated by leaders of finance.  Now it appears that these leaders' economic interests may lead them to encourage conflicts of interest among their faculty and administration.

So not only do conflicts of interest appear to be a fundamental problem for medicine and health care, they may pose a fundamental problem for society as a whole.

Clearly, as Epstein and Carrick-Hagenbarth wrote, economists, like all professionals who can influence public policy, ought to have a code of ethics, and that code, at a minimum, ought to require full disclosure of all conflicts of interest.  Economists who write about policy in the media, write policy-relevant academic articles, and/or who advise non-profit organizations and government agencies should at a minimum reveal all such conflicts.  Similarly, of course, physicians and health policy/ care/ services researchers who write about or otherwise may influence health care policy should at a minimum reveal all such conflicts.

Meanwhile, extreme skepticism about policy advice by apparently independent academics and experts is warranted.  We risk sliding into the cynical position that all major policy is now being made by imperial CEOs and their cronies and paid agents. 

Ela Medical (Now the Sorin Group) Settles

And we return to the parade of legal settlements, which is still marching along.  The next entrant to the parade was described by the Miami Herald:

In a four-year-old case with nationwide implications, Ela Medical has agreed to pay $9.2 million to settle a whistle-blower case brought by a former Miami technician who charged the company used several schemes to pay kickbacks to South Florida doctors.

The details of the allegations were:

In the Miami case, brought by May and Ben Kuehne, Lee alleged that Ela gave money to doctors for questionable studies, had Ela techs do work on patients that doctors later billed Medicare for, gave doctors free trips and helped doctors get monitoring equipment that to led to more Medicare billing.

The moves were made by the company to boost sales in the multibillion-dollar field of cardiac devices, where pacemakers can cost up to $7,000 and defibrillators up to $18,000.

These devices have batteries that run down in about three years, the lawsuit said, and patients need to be monitored to see how much battery life their devices have left. An Ela tech performed the tests in doctors' office.

'Although Medicare required a physician to be present during the battery test, physicians never attended these battery check appointments,' the lawsuit alleged. Doctors then billed Medicare for the techs' work.

Other times, doctors were paid $2,500 to $4,000 for each Ela patient enrolled in a study, even though patients were never informed and never gave the required permission, the lawsuit said. 'The physicians had no role and in fact did nothing in furtherance of the study,' the lawsuit stated. 'However, Medicare was billed each time the study was conducted, as if the physician had participated.'

Of course, the company's statement had all the expected elements:

Closure of this investigation places this legacy issue firmly behind us and clearly enhances our ability to execute on our plans for CRM [cardiac rhythm management] in the United States. Our commitment to provide patients and healthcare providers with life-saving and life-enhancing innovation, and to conduct our business in a highly ethical manner is stronger than ever.

I leave it to my dear readers to decide on how ethically the company's previous business operations were, based on the above.

I would note that not only did the company want to put this case behind it, it seemed to want to put its old name behind it too. Ela Medical is now apparently known only by the name of its Italian parent company, the Sorin Group.

To add a final disturbing note, this case illustrates why people who see what appears to be unethical, or even illegal behavior are not rushing to report it:

On Monday, May, the attorney, said Lee 'is not talking to anybody. This has been a difficult experience.' She quit Ela when, after complaining about the company's questionable practices, she was told to transfer to California. She took a job with a competitor, but was dropped when the industry learned she had filed the lawsuit.

'She was blackballed,' May said. 'She's basically gone from $100,000 a year to minimum wage.'

One would hardly have expected Ms Lee to have kept her job at Ela once she reported what was going on there. However, it was worse than that. Being known as a whistle-blower may make one radioactive enough to preclude any employment in a segment of health care that is at all related to the one in which one blew the whistle.

The Herald article did note that Ms Lee stands to get part of the settlement. Yet this will come at least four years after the case began, as her lawyer said:

the 'money will allow her basically to start over.' If she had kept her mouth shut, 'she would have made far more money in her lifetime than she will get as a percentage of the settlement.'

As we just noted, in health care, the incentives are strongly tilted to favor financial productivity , or "making the numbers," and to disfavor ethical conduct, especially when it requires dissenting with top managers. If we really want accessible, affordable, high-quality health care, we will have to get rid of these sorts of perverse incentives.

So the march of legal settlements continues.  As in many previous cases, note that the monetary cost of the above settlement, while it seems large to normal humans, would be just slightly more than round-up error for a large multi-national company.  As I have said repeatedly,  penalties that only appear to be (relatively small) costs of doing business are unlikely to deter future bad behavior. Until the people who actually authorized, directed and implemented the bad behavior have to suffer some negative consequences, expect the bad behavior to continue. 

On AMIA's Jan. 2009 Letter to The Office of President Elect Barack Obama: Something is Missing

------------------------------------------
Nov. 11, 2010 note: see the new post on an AMIA Board Position Paper released this day (Nov. 11) entitled "Report of an AMIA special task force on challenges in ethics, safety, best practices, and oversight regarding HIT" at this link.
------------------------------------------

I was somewhat taken aback by the appearance of the article by Karsh et al. entitled "Health information technology: fallacies and sober realities" (covered at Healthcare Renewal here) in the Oct. 2010 Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association (JAMIA).

I was taken aback since the article rains heavily on the academic memes of healthcare IT as a benign and deterministic solution to healthcare's ills, and of health IT-related adverse outcomes being mere "anecdotes."

(It is ironic that my own relative recently fell victim to healthcare IT's supposed beneficence. They were harmed via health IT-related disruptions in care continuity.)

My blog posting on that Karsh article brought a letter to my attention, authored by AMIA's leadership and sent on Jan. 7, 2009 to the Office of President Elect Barack Obama. The full PDF of the letter is here.

Here are relevant excerpts about which I will make only a single comment:

January 7, 2009

Dear Mr. President-Elect,

On behalf of the more than 4,000 physicians, nurses and other members of the American Medical Informatics Association (AMIA) who use health information and communications technology (HIT) to improve the quality, efficiency and safety of healthcare, I am writing to applaud and encourage your commitment to investing in a genuine transformation of our nation’s healthcare system. Properly deployed and supported, HIT can be part of broad health care reform and, importantly in this time of economic challenge, a significant economic multiplier that will encourage the creation of new jobs and real improvements in patient care, public health and life sciences research.

... If we are to develop a national infrastructure for the use of health information to benefit individuals and our entire population, the United States must –

• Develop mechanisms, including grants, loans and financial incentives for physicians, nurses, and healthcare organizations to deploy, implement successfully, and widely disseminate electronic health records (EHRs);
• Develop and support local, regional and national health information exchange to ensure that accurate, secure health information is available whenever and wherever needed by those authorized to access such information;
• Develop and support programs to address the need for a prepared health information technology workforce, with training and continuing education of physicians, nurses, health information managers and others;
• Develop more effective ways to address the health needs of underserved populations, including providing equitable access to health information and communications technology;
• Develop and assure compliance with standards, policies and practices that support effective sharing of health information, while fostering security, confidentiality and transparency, and building trust with the public;
• Develop and maintain health terminologies and classifications that will allow health data to be not only useful, but uniform and consistent, and enable interoperability across myriad information systems;
• Develop proper means to link information related to individuals in order to ensure the validity and integrity of health data used to inform care and research;
• Develop proper means for authentication of the identity of individuals and caregivers and any others authorized to access identifiable health information;
• Support the development of decision-making and other knowledge-management tools in order to permit the delivery of individualized, evidence-based care;
• Develop and support secure web-portals to link individuals to their caregivers and ensure genuinely patient-centered care;
• Develop appropriate and secure linkages between EHRs and the public health system to ensure safety from bioterrorism, rapidly spreading infectious diseases, and other threats;
• And provide appropriate funding for the development of a robust national health information strategy, with support for continued HIT and informatics research and innovation.

During the Presidential campaign, you demonstrated your boldness and vision by pledging to allocate $10 billion annually for five years to promote the adoption and use of health IT. Such an investment will pay dividends not only in improving health care, but in creating jobs...

These are all laudable and interesting goals for an experimental technology, as tacitly admitted in the above goals (although it would have been more ethical, I believe, to have waited for the technology to have "needed" fewer of these goals as a result of research in constrained settings before boldly promoting expensive national rollouts on live patients).

In any case, however, something very, very important is missing...

There is no mention of healthcare IT safety.

At $10 billion annually, surely the AMIA leadership could have specifically and explicitly recommended that some fraction, even a token % (even a small percentage of $10,000,000,000 is not chicken feed), should have been dedicated to help ensure the disruptions and unintended consequences caused by any new/developing/expanding information and communications technology (ICT) didn't kill or maim patients.

Perhaps through the publication of the aforementioned Karsh study on HIT fallacies and sober realities, the AMIA leadership is subconsciously seeking absolution.

-- SS

Addendum: my own Dec. 7, 2008 "Open letter to President Obama" on healthcare IT took a decidedly different approach, namely, I attempted to make the President-elect aware of numerous HIT "fallacies and sober realities":

... our government has been seduced by the promise, the potential, the Siren Song if you will of HIT, and shielded from information on its true challenges, difficulties, downsides and failures. An "irrational exuberance", a Syndrome of Inappropriate and Uninformed Overconfidence in Computers prevails in healthcare.

... [If HIT itself is not reformed,] billions of precious healthcare dollars that might be spent on “IT misadventure” in a time of unprecedented national financial challenges and hardships might simply be better spent on delivery of needed medical services, health insurance and other "safety net" interventions.

... healthcare’s defects cannot be effectively changed or reformed via healthcare IT, if that healthcare IT itself is defective.

AMIA leadership and I also differed on the issue of health IT regulation, as I posted in July 2009 at "JAMA letter: Health Care Information Technology, Hospital Responsibilities, and Joint Commission Standards." On that issue, JAMA published my commentary, not theirs.

-- SS

There You Go Again: Richard Epstein Says "Conflict-of-Interest Rules Thwart Medical Progress"

Richard Epstein, a professor at the New York University and University of Chicago law schools, just authored a report on the perils of conflict of interest rules.  In his blog, "The Libertarian," he summarized his beliefs that strict conflict of interest (COI) rules and restrictions on pharmaceutical marketing "spell lower rates of innovation and slower dissemination of new products." 

Prof Epstein is extremely prominent.  The Manhattan Institute, of which he is a fellow, claimed, "Professor Epstein's influence is profound: he is one of the three most cited law professors in the United States and the most cited professor writing largely in private law." Thus, it is disturbing that it appears that his objections are based on a series of logical fallacies.  (Note that we critiqued a defense of certain conflicts of interest he made in 2007 here on similar grounds.)

Ad Hominem: Enemies of Capitalism

Prof Epstein implied that the people who advocate strong conflict of interest rules are enemies of capitalism and free markets.  For example, he wrote, "most of the modern critics of the drug and medical device industries start with the assumption that the profit-motive alone is sufficient to distort the behavior of all scientists and researchers."  Later, "the people who line up most strongly against drug and device companies often treat the phrase 'market forces' as though it embodies the worst things in life."  How he was able to read the minds of those who disagree with him is unclear.  Attacking proponents of strict COI regulation as anti-capitalists (and by implication, socialists or communists) appears to be an ad hominem fallacy.

Burden of Proof: Ignoring Evidence of Harms of COI, Asserting Evidence of Benefits

Prof Epstein argued that COIs rarely if ever leads to bad effects: "the number of instances of serious abuses of power in the drug and device industry, like in medical research itself, is small, relative to the huge number of interactions that have taken place." Thus, he ignored evidence that commercially funded research may be biased in favor of the sponsors' products.(1-4) On the other hand, he implied that financial relationships  among physicians and researchers and commercial firms that sell health care products and services are necessary for "rapid development and deployment of new pharmaceuticals and medical devices," and for "innovation" in the field, but provided no evidence for these points.  Thus, while ignoring evidence of the possible harms of COIs, he failed to provide evidence for their benefits.  By placing the burden of proof on those who disagree with him, while avoiding it himself, he invoked the burden of proof (or appeal to ignorance) fallacy.

Appeal to Common Practice: Scientists Wearing Multiple Hats

Prof Epstein asserted that strict COI rules would disturb what is now common practice.  They would threaten how "the best research scientists in universities ... wear multiple hats.  In addition to researching within the academy, they also offer consulting services to drug companies, or start businesses of  their own."  Academics may currently behave in this way, but that does not mean this behavior is optimal in any sense.  Thus, Epstein employed the fallacy of the appeal to common practice. 

Slippery Slope: Silencing Communication and Collaboration

Prof Epstein asserted that strict rules on COI would "prohibit the collaborative efforts that have long characterized standard practices [in research]."  Specifically, he asserted the rules could stipulate that "no scientist who sits on any Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) review committee, or any hospital conflict of interest committee, should be allowed to have connections with the pharmaceutical industry."  Also, "collaborations between government and industry scientists on research projects of common interests should either be totally eliminated or heavily regulated."  Finally, he asserted, "free interchange of information within and across firm boundaries is best calculated to allow the sharing and coordination of vital information," but "strong conflict of interest regulation poses real threats to these dynamic interactions."

Yet rules about conflicts of interest generally refer to those generated by financial relationships, most often payments by commercial firms to academics, researchers or physicians.  Payments are not necessary for collaboration.  Researchers can communicate, share information, even work together without one party paying the other.  Warning of such dire consequences of regulations that have nothing directly to do with communication or collaboration amount to the slippery slope fallacy.

Appeal to Authority: the "Most Gifted Members of the Academy"


Prof Epstein noted above that it was the best researchers who consult for commercial firms or start their own firms.  Later, he stated, "the ablest scientists often have the most extensive outside practices."  In complaining about rules that limit the pay of faculty members for services on boards of directors of for-profit health care companies, he asked, "why crimp the behavior of the most gifted members of the academy who can also make major contributions to industry?"  Thus he seemed to agree with the arguments made by representatives of pharmaceutical and device companies that the doctors who they pay to speak, consult, or do research are the best and the brightest.  However, there is considerable evidence (e.g., see posts here and here), that such "key opinion leaders" or "thought leaders" are chosen because of their sympathy to the companies and their products, and their malleability.  In addition, there is evidence that medical schools now put more emphasis on ability to attract external funding than any other faculty characteristic in decisions about payment, promotion, and retention (see post here).  Prof Epstein's invocation of the need to honor the best and the brightest appears to be a variant on the appeal to authority fallacy. 

Summary

So here we have another example, by " one of the nation's most prolific legal thinkers, (according to the Manhattan Institute) of a defense of the prevalent conflicts of interest that affect academic physicians and clinical researchers.  Like many previous such defenses, it seemed to be mainly based on logical fallacies. 

Also, like many previous such defenses, it was made by someone with a history of his own financial relationships with health care corporations.  To his credit, Prof Epstein did disclose, "over the years, I have worked extensively with various groups in the pharmaceutical industry, but have done no such work in the past few years."  On the other hand, he did not disclose his previous relationships with eSapience, a company which once claimed it "shapes the debate on issues that intersect law, economics, and policy."  (See post here.)

The currently prevalent relationships with health care corporations among academic physicians, researchers, and other decision makers and influencers in health care have been lucrative for them.  I have yet to see a coherent, logical argument that these relationships are good for patients, medical education, biomedical or clinical science, or public health made by anyone who does not have such relationships.

By the way, Prof Epstein also complained about overly rigorous regulation of pharmaceutical marketing in the same blog post, but since this really seems to be a distinct topic, I will not discuss his arguments here. 

References

1.  Bekelman JE et al. Scope and impact of financial conflicts of interest in biomedical research: a systematic review.  JAMA 2003; 289: 454-465.  Link here.
2.  Lexchin J et al.  Pharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review.  Brit Med J 2003; 326:  1167.  Link here.
3.  Jorgenson AW et al. Cochrane reviews compared with industry supported meta-analyses and other meta-analyses of the same drugs: systematic review. Brit Med J 2006; 333: 782.  Link here.
4.  McGauran N et al. Reporting bias in medical research - a narrative review.  Trials 2010; 11: 37.  Link here.