My Presentation to the Health Informatics Society Of Australia: "Critical Thinking on Building Trusted, Transformative Medical Information: Improving Health IT as the First Step"

In early 2011 I was invited to present at the annual convention of the Health Informatics Society of Australia (HISA) by its CEO, Louise Schaper, PhD.  HISA was aware of my writings and thought a presentation at their conference would be of interest to the Australian informatics and healthcare governance community.

Dr. Schaper wrote:

From: Louise Schaper
Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2011 10:50 AM
To: Scot Silverstein
Subject: HIC invitation to deliver a keynote presentation

Hi Scot,

I trust this email finds you well and I hope spring is bringing you some warmer weather and cheer.

I wanted to let you know that the Health Informatics Conference committee met recently and expressed a high level of interest in having you deliver a keynote address at HIC and also to form part of a panel presentation. 

I know you may not be able to make a commitment to come to Australia in August, but I wanted to let you know what we would love to have you, if circumstances permit you being here.  I’m confident we could have your trip sponsored (providing you don’t mind spending some face-time with the sponsoring organisation) and generate some media coverage around your visit.

The preliminary program will be advertised in the next few weeks and at the moment I’m leaving a ‘spot’ for you in the hope that you may be able to join us.  I know you are in difficult and upsetting circumstances so please know that I’m not intending to add to any pressure – I just wanted to let you know that we would be honoured if you are able to deliver an address at HIC this year and I will keep a speaking spot reserved for you if you think you may be able to accept our invitation.

Thanks for your time Scot.  I look forward to hearing from you.

Kindest regards,

Louise

Sadly, the "difficult and upsetting circumstances" she mentioned were my involvement in caring for my mother, seriously injured in May 2010 in a healthcare information technology-related medical misadventure and, by this time, dying.

I was thus unable to attend.

My mother passed away June 6, 2011 of her injuries.

In January 2012, Dr. Schaper was gracious enough to re-invite me to the annual 2012 conference in Sydney.  I accepted.

I enjoyed taking pictures like this with my trusty (and portable) Canon SX110 IS.  Click to enlarge.

I attended HIC 2012, held in the Darling Harbour Convention Centre in Sydney 30 July - 2 August 2012.

My powerpoint slides for the presentation entitled "Critical Thinking on Building Trusted, Transformative Medical Information:  Improving Health IT as the First Step" are at this link.

Darling Harbour Convention Centre, Sydney, Australia. Click to enlarge.

Australia has embarked on a national Personally Controlled Electronic Health Record (PCEHR) project under the auspices of Nehta, the National E-Health Transition Authority.  I find this an interesting approach to national health IT; unlike the U.S., whose project is top-down (centrally controlled records), Australia seems to have learned from our mistakes and is initiating health IT as a bottom-up (patient-controlled) initiative.

At the conference last week, I delivered a keynote address on the theme of improving health IT as an essential step in leveraging the capabilities of the technology.

Being that I am anti-"bad IT" and pro-"good IT", implicit in my address was the issue of the technology's untrustworthiness in 2012, largely due to the unregulated free-for-all its market represents and the poor engineering that is the result.

I also participated in a Panel Discussion led by Australian investigative journalist and popular political TV program host Tony Jones.  Mr. Jones hosts the Australian Broadcasting Corporation's "Q&A - Adventures in Democracy."

I don't have a picture of my panel moderated by Tony Jones at present, but here is another panel at HIC 2012. Click to enlarge.

I will highlight several key points I made in my keynote and on the panel:

• Critical thinking is essential at all times in healthcare ... or your patient's dead.
• Critical thinking is not mindless criticism; on the contrary, it is reflective, inquisitive, logical thinking that is focused on deciding what to believe or do.
• Health IT must be trusted by users and patients [And be free of major downsides] - as a primary step before HIT can optimally benefit healthcare 
• I pointed out I am not suggesting anything new and that, in fact, I am suggesting something old:  "First, do no harm."
• I pointed out the "revolutions" usually have downsides, and IT always produced winners...and losers.

I then posed a series of questions of great relevance to understanding health IT realities.  Click to enlarge:

  

 

I left it to the audience to answer these questions.

I then posed the question "Is health IT being done well?"

I provided links to various evidence that it was not, such as the National Research Council 2009 report on health IT; AMIA's report on its workshop on healthcare IT failure, the 2012 U.S. IOM report on safety, the 2012 U.S. NIST report on usability, and the work by Australian Professor Jon Patrick of U. Sydney on health IT defects.

Again, I did not impose views on the audience.  I didn't need to, as that corpus speaks for itself.

I also clarified terminology that reduces essential caution, such as the term "EHR" and "EMR" (a source of endless wasted contention on definitions) being anachronisms from an earlier age of IT.  I pointed out that in 2012 what these innocuous terms somewhat deceptively represent are complex enterprise clinical resource management and clinician workflow control systems – where many, many things can go wrong.

I asked if case reports of health IT unintended consequences (UC’s) were “anecdotal” and to be played down, while studies of health IT benefits to date solid science.  I then asked if the reality might be that studies of health IT benefits to date were mostly anecdotal (e.g., specialized settings, non-RCT’s) while reports of UC’s are risk management-relevant case report “red flags” pointing to possible systemic problems.

I pointed out the common seller marketing memes of beneficence and deterministic efficacy, and asked if these were realistic.  I also pointed out the need for transparency about HIT risks, and the impediments to this transparency.

Finally, I indicated what was the likely problem affecting all countries involved in EHR projects: that the rigor, ethics and skepticism of medical science itself not applied in the domain of health IT.

I suggested a simple solution:  a paradigm shift in thinking about health IT as another medical device, that needed to be subject to the same methodologies and ethical considerations applicable for decades (or more) in the healthcare delivery sector such as medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and research (and other risk-prone industries e.g., aviation and automotive).

My goal was to provoke thinking about these issues, to circumvent blank, uncritical acceptance of industry and industry-supporter memes.

I believe I succeeded.  Feedback I received was that the audience, including government officials, found many new things to consider as they embark on their national health IT projects.

I also heard that some HIT seller representatives were squirming a bit.  That was not unexpected.  I was taking "control of their message" away from them.

University of Sydney Professor Jon Patrick presenting on computational linguistics.   Jon is the author of a treatise on health IT defects (at this link), mentioned numerous times on this blog.  Click to enlarge.

Finally, I had a question from the audience, from fellow blogger Matthew Holt of the Health Care Blog.  Matthew asked me a somewhat hostile question that I was well prepared for, expecting a question along these lines from the seller community, actually.  The question was preceded by a bit of a soliloquy of the "You're trying to stop innovation through regulation" type, with a tad of Merck/VIOXX ad hominem thrown in (I ran Merck Research Labs' Biomedical libraries and IT group in 2000-2003).

His question was along the lines of - you were at Merck; VIOXX was bad; health IT allowed discovery of the VIOXX problem by Kaiser several years before anyone else; you're trying to halt IT innovation via demanding regulation of the technology thus harming such capabilities and other innovations.

The audience was visibly unsettled.  Someone even hollered out their disapproval of the question.

My response was along the lines that:

• VIOXX was certainly not Merck at its best, but regulation didn't stop Merck from "revolutionizing" asthma and osteoporosis via Singulair and Fosamax;
• That I'm certainly not against innovation; I'm highly pro-innovation;
• That our definitions of "innovation" in medicine might differ, in that innovation without adherence to medical ethics is not really innovation. 

(I forgot to mention that I gave an invited presentation to Merck's Drug Surveillance department in 2006, PPT here, long after I was their employee, on the potential use of EHR data to detect drug adverse events sooner than traditional phase IV studies or ad-hoc reporting allowed.)

When I spoke of medical innovation requiring ethics, nearly the full audience at my keynote address - hundreds of people - broke out in applause.

•

I knew at that point that my talk was a success.

This author with HISA CEO Louise Schaper , PhD. Click to enlarge.

More photos of my trip are here.

-- SS

Addendum:  Another added pleasure in my visit Down Under. As Australia and the U.S. respect each other's amateur radio licenses, I was able to operate my handheld radio as "KU3E portable Victor-Kilo." VK is the international radio prefix for Oz.  Contacting Australia from the U.S. is considered a "holy grail" of ham radio.  It was interesting to hear amateur radio "from the other end."

Yaesu VX-3 Multiband Transceiver

-- SS

Defense Attorney Lies Under Oath In Sworn Filing to Protect Hospital's Health IT

At my Aug. 7. 2012 post "Malpractice Attorney Puts ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies (ATCBs) at Risk of Litigation?" I wrote:

 ... I returned to the U.S. to find that the defense attorney for the hospital where my mother was severely injured, and then died as a result, is once again raising an absurd issue in objections to the medical malpractice Complaint that was refiled within the Statute of Limitations for technical reasons.   The President Judge of the county where the case is filed had dismissed this complaint (among many others) some time ago:

(ii) Plaintiffs Software Design Defect Claims are Preempted by the Federal HITECH Act

... To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring a common law product liability claim against [name redacted] Hospital for required use of EMR software [see addendum below - ed.], such a claim is barred due to Federal Preemption of this area with the passage of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. 42 U.S.C. 201, 300, et seq.

Specifically, the design, manufacture, specification, certification and sale of EMR in the United States is a highly regulated industry under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS draws its statutory authority to design and certify EMR as safe and effective under the HITECH act as amended. Id.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, article VI, clause 2, preempts any state law that conflicts with the exercise of federal power. Fid. Fed. Say. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S. Ct. 3014 (1982). “Pre-emption may be either express or implied, and ‘is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.” Matter of Calun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 109 F.3d 248, 254 (5th Cir. 1997) citing Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.s. 519, 525 (1977).

In this case, to impose common law liability upon [name redacted] Hospital for using certified EHR technology, which was in compliance with federal law and regulations for Health Information Technology, would directly conflict with Congress’ statutory scheme for fostering and promoting the implementation and use of EHR 

I really don't think Congress intended HIT to maim and kill patients with impunity.  In any case, this assertion was thrown out in its entirety several months ago, but here it is again in a new set of objections.  I find its reappearance remarkable.  I also wonder if the industry is behind it.

What I didn't post is the reply to this nonsense that was presented to the court by Plaintiff (me), via Plaintiff's counsel after my analysis of this passage, in a Memorandum of Law to the court Dec. 5, 2011:

... HHS does not regulate the design, manufacture, specification, certification, and sale of EMRs or any other clinical information technology. The HITECH Act itself does not establish standards and certification criteria for health information technology, but instead establishes the HIT Standards Committee to implement such specifications and standards for certification. HITECH Act § 3003, 42 U.S.C. § 300jj-13.

The initial set of standards specifications and certification criteria were not published until July 28, 2010, approximately 2 months after Mrs. Silverstein entered [name redacted] Hospital. Health Information Technology: Initial Set of Standards, Implementation Specifications, and Certification Criteria for Electronic Health Record Technology, 75 Fed. Reg. 44589 (July 28, 2010). Therefore, it would have been impossible for [name redacted] Hospital’s EMR system “to be in compliance with federal law and regulations for Health Information Technology” during the time of Mrs. Silverstein’s admission.

These facts were filed with the Court and delivered to the defense on Dec. 5, 2011 regarding health IT certification.  An Affidavit/Certificate of Service to the defendants was also filed with the Response and Memorandum of Law as is customary, and are noted on the Prothontary website.  No "I didn't receive it" excuse is possible...

The facts about health IT "certification" are trivial to verify. 

As the hospital admission where my mother was injured, and the injury itself, were in May 2010, "using certified EHR technology in compliance with federal law and regulations for Health Information Technology" was not possible at that time.  (Not to mention the facilities' EHR's were not actually "certified" until December 2010 via the ONC database of certified systems.)

Thus, the defense attorney by re-issuing this claim in August 2012 (to the new judge overseeing the case re-filing) is now knowingly lying to the Court in sworn filings, in order to harass, cause unnecessary delays in litigation, and needlessly increase the cost of litigation while collecting hourly fees for production of frivolous and untrue assertions.

The attorney is also making a mockery of the court system in the locality where the case is being heard, and also insulting the judges' intelligence.

These are the lengths to which hospitals and defense attorneys seem to be willing to go in defense of health IT.  I find this remarkable (but not surprising).

It will be interesting to see how the judge responds to an attorney knowingly trying to blow smoke up his behind.

-- SS

Addendum:  Also pointed out in earlier filings was the fact that use of EMR's is not "required."   It seems the defense attorney, besides being a liar, has a thick skull.

-- SS

Needed: A Webcast on Disruptive and Criminal Hospital Executives

I received this, unsolicited, via email:

Webcast:  Managing Disruptive Docs in a New Era of Hospital-Physician Relations

If you haven't already purchased this live Webcast, don't miss out! Left unchecked, disruptive physicians do more than just create a negative work environment; they endanger patient care and can lead to million-dollar lawsuits and bad publicity.  Our top experts will show you early intervention techniques and a range of effective resources that can help you reduce behavioral problems, retain star physicians, create a healthier workplace and save millions in potential lawsuits.

The agenda includes:

    Defining and identifying causes of disruptive behavior
    Economic consequences of disruptive behavior
    Overcoming disruptive physician problems

This program will be guided by your questions, so register now and ask away!

Your instructors:

Alan Rosenstein, MD, MBA
Medical Director of Physician Wellness Services

David Danielson, JD, CPA
Senior Vice President, Clinical Risk Management, Sanford Health

Scott Hurst
Former Director of Physician Alignment and Recruitment, CHRISTUS Spohn Health System

Managing Disruptive Docs in a New Era of Hospital-Physician Relations is designed to help CEOs, COOs, CMOs, group practice administrators, HR leaders, and physicians learn strategies and tactics to prevent, reduce, and limit the severity of disruptive physician incidents.

"Disruptive physician" is a vague term subject to enormous abuse, leading to sham peer review among other totalitarian tactics.   It reminds me of the old Soviet Union's politics.

You have been deemed a Disruptive Physician, Comrade.  You will be given a fair trial, then shot

In particular, this label can be used to suppress clinician concerns about care quality in an era of cost cutting and care manipulation through electronic workflow control systems (e.g., EHR's CPOE, CDS etc.)

The potential of being labelled as "disruptive" may be one reason why physician outcry against the very low quality of healthcare IT systems and dangers posed by them is relatively uncommon.

Patients - you - ultimately suffer when your physicians fear being your outspoken advocates.

As the many stories of healthcare executive malfeasance and profiteering at the expense of patients on this blog indicate, what is really needed for true healthcare reform are webcasts on:

MANAGING DISRUPTIVE AND CRIMINAL HOSPITAL EXECUTIVES IN AN ERA OF RAMPANT CORPORATIZATION OF MEDICINE.

-- SS

Addendum:  here are additional resources on the “Disruptive Physician”:

Abuse of the “Disruptive Physician” Clause, http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/huntoon.pdf

The Insulting Physician “Code of Conduct”, http://www.jpands.org/vol13no1/huntoon.pdf

In the latter article, Lawrence Huntoon MD PhD, and expert on abuses of this label, notes:

... The typical physician code of conduct is initiated by a hospital administration. Its wording is curiously similar from one hospital to the next, suggesting that a template is being circulated.

... The physician code of conduct is intentionally insulting, demeaning, and degrading to physicians, and reduces physicians to being treated like juvenile delinquents at a reform school. It assumes that all physicians, like juvenile delinquents, need to be subjected to a long list of prohibited behaviors because, in the hospital administration’s view, physicians are predisposed to such things as theft, destruction of property, and physical and sexual assault. Conspicuous by its absence is any mention of “disruptive” or “abusive” hospital administrators, or any similar code of conduct applicable to a hospital administration.

Dr. Huntoon then goes on to make a recommendation, a "hospital administration’s code of conduct":

... The term “disruptive hospital administrator” and/or “abusive hospital administrator” should be incorporated into the hospital administration’s code of conduct and should be defined as anyone in the hospital administration who, in the view of the medical staff (as determined by majority vote), interferes with the ability of physicians to provide safe and high-quality care to patients in the hospital.

His detailed criteria for “disruptive hospital administrator” in the latter article are worth reading in their entirety.

-- SS

ONC and Misdirection Regarding Mass Healthcare IT Failure

In my keynote address to the Health Informatics Society of Australia in Sydney recently, I cautioned attendees including those in government to be wary of healthcare IT hyper-enthusiast misdirection and logical fallacy (a.k.a. public relations).

In the LA Times story "Patient data outage exposes risks of electronic medical records" on the Cerner EHR outage I wrote of in my post "Massive Health IT Outage: But, Of Course, Patient Safety Was Not Compromised" (the title, of course, being satirical), Jacob Reider, acting chief medical officer at the federal Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology is quoted.  He said:

"These types of outages are quite rare and there's no way to completely eliminate human error."

This is precisely the type of political spin and hyper-enthusiast misdirection I cautioned the Australian health authorities to evaluate critically.

As comedian Scott Adams humorously noted regarding irrelevancy, a hundred dollars is a good price for a toaster, compared to buying a Ferrari.

Further, when you're the patient harmed or killed, or the victim is a family member, you really don't care how "rare" the outages are.

Airline crashes are "rare", too.   So, shall they just be tolerated as a "cost of doing business" and spun away?

(As I once wrote, the asteroid colliding with Earth that caused the extinction of the dinosaurs was a truly "rare" event.)

It seems absurd for me to have to point out that paper, unless there is a mass outbreak of use of disappearing ink, or locally hosted clinical IT, do not go blank en masse across multiple states and countries for any length of time, raising risk across multiple hospitals greatly, acutely and simultaneously.   Yet, I have to point out this obvious fact in the face of misdirection.

Locally hosted health IT, of course, can only cause "local" chart disappearances.  "Local" is a relative term, however, depending on HC organization size, as in the example of a Dec. 2011 regional University of Pittsburgh Medical Center (UPMC) 14-hour outage affecting thousands here.

Further, EHR's and other clinical IT, whether hosted locally or afar, had better offer truly major advantages, without major risks and disadvantages, over older medical records technologies before exposing large numbers of patients to an invasive IT industry and the largest unconsented human subjects experiment in history.

Unfortunately, those basic criteria are not yet apparent with today's systems (see for instance this reading list).

EHR's and other clinical IT, forming in reality an enterprise clinical resource management and clinician workflow control apparatus, have introduced new risk modes including mass chart theft (sometimes tens of thousands in the blink of an eye); also, mass chart disappearances as in this case - all not possible with paper.

At the very least, if hospitals want enterprise clinical resource management and clinician workflow control systems, these should not be relegated to a distant third party.  Patients are not guinea pigs upon whom to test the ASP software model ("software as a service") that, upon failure for any reason, threatens their lives.

Finally, these complications are a further example why this industry cannot go on without meaningful oversight.  The unprecedented special medical device regulatory accommodations must end.

-- SS

Joint Commission Should Be Named As Defendant If Patients Harmed by EHR "Outages"

At my recent post "Massive Health IT Outage: But, Of Course, Patient Safety Was Not Compromised" over a massive, outrageous Cerner outage to hospitals contracting their clinical IT via an ASP model (that is, 'software as a service'), I observed:

... The Joint Commission, for example, likely issued its stamp of approval for the affected hospitals, hospitals who had outsourced their crucial medical records functions to an outside party that sometimes went mute.  If someone was injured or died due to this outage, they would not care very much about the supposed advantages.

From the JC's page "About the Joint Commission":

An independent, not-for-profit organization, The Joint Commission accredits and certifies more than 19,000 health care organizations and programs in the United States. Joint Commission accreditation and certification is recognized nationwide as a symbol of quality that reflects an organization’s commitment to meeting certain performance standards.

It's time to up the ante regarding this accreditation body, fully aware of health IT risks (e.g., the Dec 2008 Sentinel Events Alert on Health IT) but to date having done little about them.  Through my legal work and my speaking to Plaintiff's attorneys, I am becoming increasingly aware of medical malpractice cases that  involve an EHR or related clinical IT systems at JC-accredited organizations.

In effect, the JC has accredited hospitals whose entire clinical command-and-control structure (the term EHR is an anachronism; these systems are in reality enterprise clinical resource management and clinician workflow control devices) can disappear in the blink of an eye, without warning, raising risk to patients greatly.

If I discover that a patient was harmed or killed as a result of, or related to, this massive recent outage of outsourced medical records/workflow control  infrastructure, I will be recommending that the Joint Commission, including its leadership, which likely certified the hospital(s) involved for safe operations in areas such as Information Management, be named as defendants.

I have informed the JC leadership by email.
 
-- SS

Massive Health IT Outage: But, Of Course, Patient Safety Was Not Compromised

Having been 'Down Under' in Sydney addressing the Health Informatics Society of Australia on the need to slow down their national health IT program - and on the need to think critically about HIT seller public relations exaggerations and hubris - and being very busy, I missed this quite stunning story of a major health IT outage.

Just a typical "glitch":

Some lessons from a major outage
Posted on July 31, 2012
By Tony Collins

Last week Cerner had a major outage across the US. Its international customers might also have been affected.

InformationWeek Healthcare reported that Cerner’s remote hosting service went down for about six hours on Monday, 23 July. It hit “hospital and physician practice clients all over the country”. Information Week said the unusual outage “reportedly took down the vendor’s entire network” and raised “new questions about the reliability of cloud-based hosting services”.

A Cerner spokesperson Kelli Christman told Information Week,

“Cerner’s remote-hosted clients experienced unscheduled downtime this week. Our clients all have downtime procedures in place to ensure patient safety.  [Meaning, for the most part, blank paper - ed.] The issue has been resolved and clients are back up and running. A human error caused the outage.  [I don't think they mean human error as in poor disaster recovery and business continuity engineering - ed.]  As a result, we are reviewing our training protocol and documented work instructions for any improvements that can be made.”

Christman did not respond to a question about how many Cerner clients were affected. HIStalk, a popular health IT blog, reported that hospital staff resorted to paper [if that was true, that paper was OK in an unplanned workflow disruption of major proportions, then why do we need to spend billions on health IT, one might ask? - ed.] but it is unclear whether they would have had access to the most recent information on patients.

One Tweet by @UhVeeNesh said “Thank you Cerner for being down all day. Just how I like to start my week…with the computer system crashing for all of NorCal [Northern California].”

Tony Collins is a commentator for ComputerWorldUK.com.  He's quoted me, as I wrote in my May 2011 post Key lesson from the NPfIT - The Tony Collins Blog.

This incident brings to life longstanding concerns about hospitals outsourcing their crucial functions to IT companies.  

Quite simply, I think it's insane, at least in the foreseeable future, as this example shows.

It also brings to mind the concerns that health IT, as an unregulated technology, causes dangers in hospitals with inadequate internal disaster and business continuity functions aside from fresh sheets of paper.  Such capabilities would likely be mandatory if health IT were meaningfully regulated.

The Joint Commission, for example, likely issued its stamp of approval for the affected hospitals, hospitals who had outsourced their crucial medical records functions to an outside party that sometimes went mute.  If someone was injured or died due to this outage, they would not care very much about the supposed advantages.

There's this in the article:

... “Issue appears to have something to do with DNS entries being deleted across RHO network and possible Active Directory corruption. Outage was across all North America clients as well as some international clients.”

Of course, patient safety was not compromised.

Finally:

Imagine being a patient, perhaps with a complex history, in extremis at the time of this outage.  

I, for one, do not want my own medical care nor that of my relatives and friends subject to cybernetic recordkeeping unreliability and incompetence like this, and the risk it creates.

-- SS

Aug. 8, 2012 addendum:

The Los Angeles Times covered this outage in a story aptly entitled "Patient data outage exposes risks of electronic medical records."

They write:

Dozens of hospitals across the country lost access to crucial electronic medical records for about five hours during a major computer outage last week, raising fresh concerns about whether poorly designed technology can compromise patient care.

My only comment is that the answer to this question is rather axiomatic.

They also quote Jacob Reider, acting chief medical officer at the federal Office of the National Coordinator for Health Information Technology, who said:

"These types of outages are quite rare and there's no way to completely eliminate human error"

This is precisely the type of political spin and misdirection I cautioned the Australian health authorities to evaluate critically.

Paper, unless there is a mass outbreak of use of disappearing ink, or locally hosted clinical IT, do not go blank en masse across multiple states and countries for any length of time, raising risk across multiple hospitals greatly, acutely and simultaneously.  (Locally hosted IT outages only cause "local" mayhem; see my further thoughts on this issue here).

-- SS

Malpractice Attorney Puts ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies (ATCBs) at Risk of Litigation?

I am jet-lagged after returning from Sydney, Australia, where I delivered one of the keynote addresses at the Health Informatics Society of Australia annual conference, HIC 2012 (http://www.hisa.org.au/page/hic2012/).

My theme in a talk entitled "Critical Thinking on Building Trusted, Transformative Medical Information:  Improving Health IT as the First Step" was health IT trust and safety.  I was actually invited in 2011 but could not attend; I was helping care for my mother, who was severely injured due to a HIT-related mishap in 2010.  Her death in 2011 allowed me to attend now on re-invitation.

More on my presentation later.

A beautiful view of the Sydney Harbour Bridge and Opera House, taken with a mere Canon SX110IS.  Click to enlarge.

In the meantime, I returned to the U.S. to find that the defense attorney for the hospital where my mother was severely injured, and then died as a result, is once again raising an absurd issue in objections to the medical malpractice Complaint that was refiled within the Statute of Limitations for technical reasons.   The President Judge of the county where the case is filed had dismissed this complaint (among many others) some time ago:

(ii) Plaintiffs Software Design Defect Claims are Preempted by the Federal HITECH Act

... To the extent Plaintiff attempts to bring a common law product liability claim against [name redacted] Hospital for required use of EMR software, such a claim is barred due to Federal Preemption of this area with the passage of the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act. 42 U.S.C. 201, 300, et seq.

Specifically, the design, manufacture, specification, certification and sale of EMR in the United States is a highly regulated industry under the jurisdiction of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The HHS draws its statutory authority to design and certify EMR as safe and effective under the HITECH act as amended. Id.

The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, article VI, clause 2, preempts any state law that conflicts with the exercise of federal power. Fid. Fed. Say. & Loan Ass’n v. de la Cuesta, 458 U.S. 141, 102 S. Ct. 3014 (1982). “Pre-emption may be either express or implied, and ‘is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.” Matter of Calun Elec. Power Co-op., Inc., 109 F.3d 248, 254 (5th Cir. 1997) citing Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U.s. 519, 525 (1977).

In this case, to impose common law liability upon [name redacted] Hospital for using certified EHR technology, which was in compliance with federal law and regulations for Health Information Technology, would directly conflict with Congress’ statutory scheme for fostering and promoting the implementation and use of EHR 

I really don't think Congress intended HIT to maim and kill patients with impunity.  In any case, this assertion was thrown out in its entirety several months ago, but here it is again in a new set of objections.  I find its reappearance remarkable.  I also wonder if the industry is behind it.

As per numerous posts in this blog, such assertions are false - and likely knowingly so in this situation.  (In that case, this would be an even more serious matter.)

For example as I pointed out at my Feb. 2012 post Hospitals and Doctors Use Health IT at Their Own Risk - Even if "Certified", ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies (ATCB's) answered my questions about safety, legal indemnification etc.  Their work has nothing to do with certifying HIT as safe by their own admission.

Also, as in my April 2011 post FDA Decides Regulating Implantable Defibrillator Medical Devices a "Political Hot Potato"; Demurs and my Nov. 2011 post IOM Report - "Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care, the HIT industry is unregulated.

On the HIT regulation issue, IOM has itself stated in no uncertain terms that HIT is non-regulated (not "a highly regulated industry") in their report to HHS.  For instance, in the aforementioned 2012 report they state (as one example):

... If the Secretary [of HHS] deems it necessary for the FDA to regulate EHRs and other currently nonregulated health IT products, clear determinations will need to be made about whether all health IT products classify as medical devices for the purposes of regulation. If FDA regulation is deemed necessary, the FDA will need to commit sufficient resources and add capacity and expertise to be effective.

I won't even address the claim that the HITECH Act represents or intended to represent Federal pre-emption of state common law rights.   It's without merit, and actually absurd.

Worst of all, statements in legal dockets that "HHS draws its statutory authority to design and certify EMR as safe and effective under the HITECH Act" (in reality, private non-governmental ONC-Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies or ATCB's are appointed by ONC to "certify" HIT features and functionality to be compliant with "Meaningful Use" guidelines and do not test for safety or efficacy) potentially puts those private ATCB's at risk for being named defendants in lawsuits where HIT was found unsafe and/or ineffective if upheld.

I am sure the ATCB's and ONC would not be happy about that.

-- SS

Private Equity, Obfuscatory Advertising, and Making Health Care a Commodity: Lessons from Cerberus Capital Management

The use of advertising by Steward Health Care, currently a regional hospital system here in New England, continues to provide lessons about how public relations and marketing may be used to shape the health care policy debate.  Stand by because the story is convoluted.

Steward Promotes "New Health Care," Whatever That May Be

This week, Commonwealth reported on Steward's latest high profile advertising campaign in the Boston area,

Steward Health Care is using the Olympics to hone its image. The Boston-based chain of 10 community hospitals, many of which were on the verge of going under when Steward acquired them, is running a series of ads on WHDH-TV (Channel 7) during Olympics coverage that cast the company as a delivery system for a new type of world-class health care.

While visible, the advertisements are notably vague. One features

a Steward employee who says she believes 'world class health care is here.' Another of the initial ads features individual doctors and technicians pledging to be stewards of 'the new health care,' which is the tagline for all of the Steward ads.

What the 'new health care' means is never fully explained in the ads

One local health care expert

Paul Levy, the former CEO of Beth Israel Deaconness Medical Center, said he thinks the ads are part of a campaign by [Steward Health Care owner] Cerberus [Capital Management] to make Steward more attractive to would-be buyers. 'This has very little to do with anything other than establishing the image and the brand of the Steward hospitals so when the day comes when Cerberus sells the company it will be better received in the public markets,' Levy said.

The article had noted that

Cerberus Capital Management, a New York private equity firm, owns Steward,...

So it is possible that no one at Steward really has any idea what sort of "new health care" the organization is promoting

Steward's CEO Promotes Health Care as a Commodity

However, there is reason to think that the top leadership of Steward, and probably of Cerberus Capital Management, the private equity group that owns it, actually does have a clear idea what new health care they are promoting.

Almost simultaneous with the Commonwealth article and the Olympic advertising campaign an interview appeared with Steward's CEO in Fortune. CEO Dr Ralph de la Torre first pitched medicine as science,

A lot of us physicians went into medicine because we loved the art aspect of it. There wasn't a lot of real hard-core science when many of today's doctors went into medicine. It was your intuition, your abilities, the gestalt of what was going on. But something happened in medicine along the way. It started becoming a real science, and a lot of studies have come out that guide what we do and how we do it. We as a society need to understand that science has to guide our practice of medicine. Not everyone with a headache needs a CAT scan; not everybody with a sprained ankle needs an MRI.

This sounds like it could be an affirmation of evidence-based medicine, the approach that attempts to base medicine on systematic search for and critical review of the best clinical research, among other things. However, De la Torre takes it a big step further, citing:

In deference to those who love the individual hospital, you have to look back at America and the trends in industries that have gone from being art to science, to being commodities. Health care is becoming a commodity. The car industry started off as an art, people hand-shaping the bodies, hand-building the engines. As it became a commodity and was all about making cars accessible to everybody, it became more about standardization. It's not different from the banking industry and other industries as they've matured. Health care is finally maturing as an industry, and part of that maturation process is consolidation. It's getting economies of scale and in many ways making it a commodity.

Apparently Dr De la Torre does not see a distinction any longer between health care, or to use an old-fashioned word, medicine, traditionally considered an art or practice of caring for individual patients, and making automobiles on an assembly line. Dr De la Torre may be deeply misinterpreting evidence-based medicine, which is about evidence from clinical research, but also much more. Consider how the Cochrane Collaboration discusses it:

Evidence-based health care

Evidence-based health care is the conscientious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients or the delivery of health services. Current best evidence is up-to-date information from relevant, valid research about the effects of different forms of health care, the potential for harm from exposure to particular agents, the accuracy of diagnostic tests, and the predictive power of prognostic factors [1].

Evidence-based clinical practice is an approach to decision-making in which the clinician uses the best evidence available, in consultation with the patient, to decide upon the option which suits that patient best [2].

Evidence-based medicine is the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients. The practice of evidence-based medicine means integrating individual clinical expertise with the best available external clinical evidence from systematic research [3].

[1] Cochrane AL. Effectiveness and Efficiency : Random Reflections on Health Services. London: Nuffield Provincial Hospitals Trust, 1972. Reprinted in 1989 in association with the BMJ. Reprinted in 1999 for Nuffield Trust by the Royal Society of Medicine Press, London, ISBN 1-85315-394-X.[2] Gray JAM. 1997. Evidence-based healthcare: how to make health policy and management decisions. London: Churchill Livingstone.
[3] Sackett DL, Rosenberg WMC, Gray JAM, Haynes RB, Richardson WS. 1996. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312: 71–2 [3] [Full text]

Note the emphasis on making decisions for individuals based on what is best for each, and the integration of evidence from clinical research with clinical expertise. This is far from commoditization.

Nonetheless, Dr De la Torre seems to envision "new health care" like a 1930s automobile assembly line, with the physicians and other health professionals cast as assembly line workers, and the patients cast as automobiles.

Our next example may provide some explanations for this point of view.

Steward's Advertising Raises Questions of Whose Hands Should be on Health Care

As we discussed earlier, Steward Health Care has been working on acquiring a struggling local Rhode Island hospital system, and in doing so is in a dispute with the statewide non-profit Blue Cross health insurance company. Steward had been putting daily full-page advertisements in the local paper. A recent version (27 July, 2012), had this text:

RHODE ISLAND TO BLUE CROSS:
GET YOUR HANDS OFF OUR HOSPITALS

With 80% of the market under its control, Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Rhode Island thinks it can decide which hospitals survive or fail. The people of Rhode Island beg to differ.

For the past decade, they've watched Blue Cross starve Landmark Medical Center of its funding. And this year, when Blue Cross issued an ultimatum to terminate the hospital, Rhode Islanders heard enough.

In a poll conducted this week by John Marttila, a nationally recognized leader on public attitudes concerning health care, 76% of respondents said that Blue Cross shouldn't be allowed to use their monopoly to dictate the fate of Rhode Island hospitals. They also felt, by a 2-1 margin, that if Landmark did indeed close, Blue Cross would be to blame.

However, soon after, investigative reporting by the Providence Journal's Ms Felice Freyer revealed that maybe the poll should have been interpreted differently. Not unexpectedly, Ms Freyer revealed the poll to have been "commissioned by Steward." Its basic results were really:

Just over half the respondents knew that Landmark was being sold to Steward, and of those, 58 percent did not have an opinion, 29 percent supported the sale, and 13 percent opposed it. However, among those who knew about the sale and also live in northern Rhode Island, the approval rating was higher –– 37 percent support the sale, with 15 percent disapproving and 48 percent having no opinion.

The pollster than provided prompting, perhaps in an attempt to get results more favorable to its client:

One of the questions starts with this statement: 'Blue Cross Blue Shield provides health insurance to 80 percent of Rhode Island. By refusing to negotiate on reimbursement rates, Blue Cross can essentially determine if hospitals in the state stay open or if hospitals close.' Based on that statement, 76 percent of respondents agreed that 'Blue Cross should not be allowed to use its monopoly to dictate which hospitals stay open and which close their doors.'

Unfortunately, it appears that the prompting statement was perhaps not fully accurate:

In 2011, Blue Cross covered 66 percent of Rhode Islanders with private health insurance, not 80 percent, according to a report by the Office of the Health Insurance Commissioner.

Blue Cross denies that it has refused to negotiate.

'We have negotiated in good faith and have offered a fair contract to Landmark Hospital that is consistent with our reimbursement arrangements for other independent hospitals,' Blue Cross said in a statement. 'Unfortunately, Steward has been unwilling to enter into a contract under those conditions.'

While they touted probably methodologically biased survey results, Steward's local advertising campaign's headline might prompt some people to think about whose hands should really be on their health care. The advertising tries to limit this question to Blue Cross' influence. However, one might also ask whose hands control Steward Health Care?

Whose Hands are on Steward Health Care?

As the Commonwealth article above pointed out, Steward Health Care is a wholly owned subsidiary of Cerberus Capital Management, a New York based private equity firm.

Cerberus' top leadership includes
- CEO Steven A Feinberg, who, as we noted previously, was listed as number 21 on a list of the 25 most powerful businessmen in 2007 by Fortune, at that time running through Cerberus 50 companies with total revenues of $120 billion.  On Wikipedia, his net worth was estimated as $2 billion in 2008.
- Chairman John W Snow, who, as we noted previously, resigned as Treasury Secretary in the administration of President George W Bush "in 2006 only because it was revealed that he had not paid any taxes on $24 million in income from CSX, which had forgiven Snow's repayment of a gigantic loan that the company had made to him," according to Chareles Ferguson in Predator Nation.
- Chairman, Cereberus Global Investments J Danforth Quayle, the controversial former US Vice President during the George H W Bush administration.

Furthermore, Cerberus Capital Management, which wholly owns Steward Health Care, owns several other businesses.  As we noted here, these include, DynCorp (see their web-site), which has been called one of the "leading mercenary firms," by an article in the Nation.  As reported by Bloomberg, DynCorp, and hence indirectly about Cerberus, and Steward Health Care, in 2011 settled accusations that it overbilled the US government for construction work in Iraq.   Furthermore, as we noted here, Cerberus also owns the biggest manufacturer of firearms and ammunition in the US. As reported by BusinessWeek in 2010, Cerberus owns 13 brands of fire-arms and munitions under the umbrella Freedom Group.

So while Cerberus Capital Management would like us to believe that Rhode Island residents question the hands of Blue Cross Blue Shield of Rhode Island on a struggling local hospital system, it seems to be trying to avoid questions about whose hands would be on the hospital system were Cerberus Capital Management's subsidiary Steward Health Care to acquire it. 

Summary

So, to recapitulate this winding story....   A regional hospital system has been pushing its "new health care" idea.  However, its former surgeon CEO promotes new health care as commoditized health care, assembly line health care, in which doctors become assembly line workers and patients become widgets.  This seems bizarre until one realizes that the CEO actually works for a huge private equity firm whose goal is to make a lot of money in the short-term.  Standardized, commoditized health care is likely to be cheaper to provide than individualized health care.  Private equity firms thrive by cutting their subsidiaries' costs, and then selling them quickly, sometimes before the long-term consequences of these cuts become apparent.  (Look here.)

So there are two lessons.

To repeat the lesson from our earlier post, everybody, doctors, other health care professionals, health policy makers, patients, and the public ought to be extremely skeptical of the marketing and public relations efforts of big health care organizations.  Based on the examples above, they ought to be particularly skeptical of organizations that are overtly for profit, and/or have a clear focus on short-term revenue generation.  As a society we need to think about how to best counter these biased, incomplete, sometimes grossly deceptive efforts to manipulate public psychology and opinions through our rights to free speech and a free press.

To add a lesson, everybody, doctors, other health professionals, health policy makers, patients and the public ought to be extremely wary of the ongoing corporatization of medicine and health care.  Corporate leaders who often get large incentives for maximizing short term revenue are likely to be enthused about turning our health care into a commodity.  Doctors and health care professionals should not want to be assembly line workers, and patients surely should not want to be widgets. 

More "Visionary" Leadership That Turned Out to be "More Interested in Flash than Substance" - Continuing Troubles at the University of Miami

Over the last 20 years or so, health care organizational leaders somehow ceased to be mere mortals, and became visionaries.  The latest example of how their visions turned out to be cloudy appeared in the Miami Herald.

Background: Donna Shalala as "Visionary" President of the University of Miami

Donna Shalala, formerly the US Secretary for Health and Human Services, became President of the University of Miami in 2001 (see her official biography).  She has since been hailed literally for her "visionary leadership" (as recipient of the Health Leadership Award from the National Hispanic Medical Association in 2005).  In 2008, then US President George W Bush awarded her the US Medal of Freedom, the highest US civilian award, as "one of our nation’s most distinguished educators and public officials. She has worked tirelessly to ensure that all Americans can enjoy lives of hope, promise and dignity.")

At the University of Miami, as described in a detailed investigative report by Paul Basken in the Chronicle of Higher Education in 2011, Ms Shalala pursued a grand strategic vision to " bring the University of Miami into the ranks of the nation's elite research universities."  In an interview at that time, she claimed to have had "a very disciplined strategic plan to make this place much, much better, to move into the top ranks of American universities."

Cracks in the Wall Appear in 2011

However, Mr Basken reported that by 2011, that strategy was showing signs of failure.  He noted problems including rising deficits and a worsening credit rating; allegations that the university was failing to meet the needs of the poor patients for whom its doctors had traditionally cared for at Jachson Memorial Hospital while favoring paying patients at its newly acquired medical center; and concerns about conflicts of interest affecting top leadership of the university, including Ms Shalala (see our post here).  At the time, university leadership scoffed at the importance of these problems.  For example, Ms Shalala ridiculed doctors "who gripe" that the university had become over-extended by pushing research over patient care as "these people complaining they want to live their little lives without being researchers." 

After the 2011 report came out, Ms Shalala ridiculed  it in print as "a shocking example of irresponsible and lazy reporting."

Note that on Health Care Renewal, we had previously raised questions about Ms Shalala's conflicts of interests, particularly her role on the board of UnitedHealth at the time its CEO was receiving hundreds of millions in back-dated stock options (in 2006, look here); and about her priorities, including the contrast between her lavish compensation, which encompassed her residence in a fully-staffed mansion, and how the university treated its low level workers, particularly its janitors who did not receive health insurance (also in 2006, look here). 

The Cracks Widen in 2012

In retrospect, Mr Basken's article appears quite responsible and accurate.  Last week the Miami Herald reported that Ms Shalala's "ambitious moves vaulted UM’s medical school to the national stage — but they may also have seriously damaged it."  Soon after Ms Shalala ridiculed the Chronicle of Higher Education article, already internal reports showing even more trouble were appearing. 

As far back as October, billionaire car dealer Norman Braman wrote in a memo to fellow UM trustees that he and colleagues had been receiving anonymous letters for months 'outlining a host of wrongdoings, mostly at the medical school. Braman and others closely tied to the school warned UM officials the medical school was spending too much, too fast in the push to build a world-class medical center.

There were problems beyond those described by the CHE article:

The medical school also had major problems of its own. According to internal documents, the school suffered from bloated staffing, a faulty billing system and prices that sometimes ran much higher than at other South Florida hospitals. Internal controls apparently were weak at best: A whopping $14 million in expensive cancer drugs disappeared from a UM pharmacy over three years before an employee was charged with theft in June 2011.

The medical school’s difficulties even began to impede its relationship with the ailing, taxpayer-financed Jackson Health System, endangering a decades-long partnership with the public hospital system.

The Herald article includes substantially more detail to support these assertions.

Trustee Braman summarized it thus:

Poorly conceived decisions by the medical school administration have put the university at significant risk and, at the same time, injured Jackson Memorial Hospital.

As we noted, earlier this year the university's financial problems lead to layoffs, but at the same time, the university was building an even fancier mansion for President Shalala. After the lay-offs, Braman said they were:

a real tragedy that never should have happened. ... The people at the top were very much more interested in flash than substance.

Summary

Since the early 1990s we have suffered the rise of extremely confident, extremely well-paid, "visionary" health care leaders. Anyone within the organization who doubted their visions risked being labeled a malcontent or worse. Any skeptic outside the organization might be met by a barrage of propaganda from the organization's well financed public relations operation. Yet the visions these leaders produced often appeared to be clouded at best.

One of the most striking early examples remained anechoic for a long time. The then CEO of the Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation, Sharif Abdelhak, was publicly labeled a "visionary" and "genius" for assembling a large, vertically oriented health care system, which eventually went bankrupt. Abedlhak went to jail. (Look here for summary). In the greater business world, whose culture now seems to rule health care, there are other examples of such failed visionaries (look here).  Yet this case, and other since, have largely been ignored.

However, as the case of the leadership of the University of Miami now seems to show in retrospect, many people seem to fall again and again for the now tired hucksterism of the "visionary," or "genius" leader selling grandiose and often self-serving pipe dreams.

Maybe it would be enough in health care to simply aspire to good patient care, responsible education, and honest research.

Meanwhile, health care professionals, health policy leaders, and the public at large should start showing appropriately pointed skepticism of our current self-proclaimed "visionary" leadership.

Another Story of Unaccountable Leadership from UC-Davis: "World Famous" Neurosurgeon Banned from Research, but Still Department Chair

The University of California - Davis just keeps supplying us with lessons about problems with leadership and governance in major health care organizations.

Our latest example comes from a story in the Sacramento (CA) Bee.

A Bizarre Series of Surgical Experiments

It started with two neurosurgeons who embarked on an extremely unorthodox treatment program,

Documents show the surgeons got the consent of three terminally ill patients with malignant brain tumors to introduce bacteria into their open head wounds, under the theory that postoperative infections might prolong their lives. Two of the patients developed sepsis and died, the university later determined.

First,

In 2008, the doctors proposed treating a glioblastoma patient with bacteria applied to an open wound to 'attack the tumor,' then later withholding antibiotics and letting the bacteria do its work.

The FDA responded that animal studies would have to be done before any human research could be considered. Apparently the surgeons intended to do some animal research, but what they did, and what its results were remain unclear. Nevertheless,

Between October 2010 and March 2011, the physicians went forward with three procedures on humans with malignant brain tumors, surgically introducing probiotics into their open head wounds.

One surgeon did get

IRB permission to move forward on Patient No. 1 with a 'one-time procedure' that was 'not associated with any research aim,' the letter states.

University documents show that the physicians believed they had been given the go-ahead for all three surgeries, but officials later determined that they had been misinformed or were misunderstood by the doctors.

No patient lived very long. Two developed sepsis before they died. After hearing that the surgeons were then planning to do the procedure on five more patients,

The university threw on the brakes.

On March 17, 2011, the IRB director ordered the doctors to immediately stop their probiotic treatments, according to university documents.

I should point out that deliberately introducing bacteria into an otherwise sterile surgical site is a very radical and seemingly periolous step. Furthermore, a blog post in Nature News suggests that the reasoning used by the surgeons to support this approach was based on extremely weak evidence,

researchers at the Catholic University of Rome examined the records of 197 patients treated for glioblastoma between 2001 and 2008, of which ten developed pathogenic infections after surgery. Those patients had a median survival rate of 30 months, whereas patients who did not become infected had a median survival rate of 16 months. However, the authors concluded that the association was 'not definitive'. [De Bonis, P. et al. Neurosurgery 69, 864–868 (2011). Link here. ]

A 2009 report considered 382 patients with malignant brain cancer, 18 of whom developed infections. Infected patients lived longer on average, but the difference was not statistically significant. What’s more, the researchers reasoned that infection may correlate with longer survival not because infection prolongs survival but because patients who live longer are more likely to develop infections. [Bohman, L. E. et al. Neurosurgery 64, 828–834 (2009). Link here. ]

The University Investigation

Then,

The internal investigation began.

Six months later, the university concluded its probe – ordering the doctors to halt all human research activity 'except as necessary to protect the safety and welfare of research participants.'

In the case of Patient No. 1, the investigation found, ... [one surgeon] had made an 'incorrect statement' about restrictions on the bacteria's use, leading IRB staff to incorrectly conclude that such review was not necessary, Lewin told the FDA.

As for Patients 2 and 3, the university found that treating them with an 'unapproved biologic' amounted to human-subjects research – and thus required prior review and approval.

The junior neurosurgeon defended their conduct by claiming

We believed that this was innovative treatment, not research, and that IRB approval was not needed

The senior surgeon asserted that he

believed the FDA gave its permission early on, if the doctors thought the treatment was 'beneficial to the patients.' He described the research ban as an "overreaction" by the university.

'And I understand it,' he said. There are people who blatantly break the rules that endanger all of their research programs. We certainly didn't blatantly trample any rules.'

However,

A renowned U.S. bioethicist, describing the alleged violations as 'a major penalty,' said the university's IRB was right to intervene – and quickly.

Arthur Caplan, director of medical ethics at New York University's Langone Medical Center, said that desperate people are especially vulnerable and need added protections.

'If you're dying, you're kind of like reaching out to anything that anybody throws in front of you,' said Caplan

Furthermore, per a Sacramento Bee follow-up article, Elizabeth Woeckner, founder and director of Citizens for Responsible Care and Research, or CIRCARE, said the surgeons' "experiment" was

the worst thing I've seen in my 12 years with CIRCARE

An Overreaction, or an Under reaction?

So far, this story seems different from many of those discussed on Health Care Renewal. The questionable conduct it describes, after all, appears to have resulted in serious negative consequences. Furthermore, it seems to have been conduct by two loose cannons, rather than to be a sign of systemic problems with leadership or governance. However, there is more to the story.

First, the senior surgeon held a substantial leadership position at the time the events in question occurred. He is

[Dr J Paul] Muizelaar, 65, who has been a department chairman at the School of Medicine since 1997

He is pretty well paid, earning

more than $800,000 a year as chairman of the department of neurological surgery

In fact, a companion article in the Sacremento Bee noted,

In 2010 – the same year Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar first performed an experimental treatment on a dying brain cancer patient at UC Davis Medical Center – the neurosurgeon made more money than 99.9 percent of all employees in the University of California system.

With a total compensation package of $801,841 in 2010, he was the 35th highest earner, behind 27 other physicians, four athletic coaches and three executives, according to the most recent UC salary data.

More importantly, even though the university's internal investigation was done in the fall of 2011, and at that time Dr Muizelaar was immediately banned from human research, he did not lose his leadership position. Instead, according to the first Sacramento Bee article,

Despite the disciplinary action imposed last fall, Muizelaar was honored this spring with an additional academic role at UC Davis. He was named the first holder of the Julian R. Youmans endowed chair in the department of neurological surgery, according to an April 19 news release from the UCD School of Medicine.

It is not the first time he has received special treatment. The companion article noted that Dr Muizelaar was able to attain and keep his position even though he never obtained a state medical license,

Muizelaar, who previously was a professor of neurosurgery at Wayne State University in Detroit, was hired directly into the top post at UC Davis – even though he lacked a California medical license.

A native of the Netherlands, where he was educated, Muizelaar was brought into the UC Davis School of Medicine under a 'special faculty permit' issued by the Medical Board of California.

The provisional permit allows a foreign doctor who has been recognized as 'academically eminent' in a specific field to practice at a sponsoring California medical school and its formally affiliated hospitals.

Currently, only 15 doctors at six of California's eight medical schools eligible to receive them hold special faculty permits.

When asked why he never bothered to obtain a California medical license

Muizelaar said he has not gotten a California license because he already works 80 to 100 hours a week and the step is 'not necessary.'

'I'll be frank with you, I'm world famous, so they gave me the license to practice here,' he said. 'I can go sit for the exams, but why would I do that?'

Although Dr Muizelaar continued as department chair and in his endowed professorship for approximately 10 months after he was banned from human research, things happened fast after the stories appeared in the local media. Again according to the Sacramento Bee, three days later, the CEO of the UC-Davis campus, Chancellor Linda P B Katehi

ordered a top campus official to conduct a 'comprehensive review' of accusations that two university neurosurgeons conducted unauthorized research on dying brain cancer patients, as reported in Sunday's Bee.

Ralph J. Hexter, the provost and executive vice chancellor, will lead another investigation into the actions of Dr. J. Paul Muizelaar, the longtime chairman of the department of neurological surgery, and his colleague, Dr. Rudolph J. Schrot, according to a university spokesman.

A day after that, the Sacramento Bee reported,

A UC Davis neurosurgeon accused of performing unauthorized research on humans has 'temporarily relinquished' his position as chairman of the department of neurological surgery, the university confirmed Friday.

However, do not expect to hear much more about this,

A spokeswoman for UC Davis Health System said 'there will be no further system statement on this or other personnel actions.'

Summary: A Culture of Unaccountable Leadership

To sum up, the highly paid chair of neurosurgery at UC-Davis performed bizarre, and potentially dangerous experiments on three patients with terminal cancer, all of whom died, without obtaining permission from the institutional review board. After internal investigation, the chair was banned from performing further human research, but kept his well-paid position, and was given a new endowed professorship.  He only was forced to temporarily step down about nine months later, after reports of the affair appeared in the media. 

So, a la George Orwelll's Animal Farm, doctors may think themselves as equals, but doctors who are health care leaders are more equal than others. After conduct that would likely lead to the dismissal of more ordinary doctors, those who are also in high management positions may just collect more honors.  Then again, Dr Muizelaar considered himself to be "world famous," so why should be be expected to play by the rules under which the common folk labor?

This story also suggests a more general culture of unaccountable leadership at University of California - Davis. Note that the Chancellor who let the neurosurgeon continue in his leadership role despite his strange research conduct and the consequent research ban has appeared in Health Care Renewal before. Specifically, she attained some notoriety last year after campus police who report to her pepper-sprayed unarmed and apparently non-violent students at her own institution who were protesting as part of the "occupy" movement at that time. (See post here.) A later investigation of the incident blamed Chancellor Katehi and her subordinates for "poor decision making," and some editorialists concluded that she showed "incompetence," or worse. Yet Chancellor Katehi retains her top leadership position.

We have discussed how leaders of other health care organizations are rarely held accountable for bad behavior by their organizations. At times, this bad behavior has been criminal, and the leaders' unaccountability has seemed more like impunity.  This seems to parallel a larger phenomenon in society.  Increasingly the wealthy and powerful seem unrestricted by the rules that us common folk are expected to follow.  As Charles Fergusson famously noted on receiving his Oscar,

three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail and that’s wrong

Health care, particularly in the US, continues to be increasingly expensive and inaccessible, yet its quality appears increasingly dubious. True health care reform would hold health care leaders accountable for upholding the health care mission.

Where is the risk?

That’s the question Thomas Cox, an RN with insurance experience and expertise, says should be asked about any health care financing mechanism.

The whole idea of insurance is distributing risk widely so that it can be shared over a wide group of people and thus become manageable. That’s why people need insurance at all, and that’s also why schemes that put too much of the onus on individuals are a very bad idea – as has happened in recent years to a number of people,  the “insured” individual can incur costs that are more than he or she can bear.

In general, insurance is most solid when it’s over a larger group. Each major increase in group size distributes the risk further and makes the healthcare financing system stronger. Cox has an interesting paper on this which he presented at an American Statistical Association meeting.

In general, large insurers are an order-of-magnitude more sound than small ones, and nationwide insurance systems (such as Medicare) have a distinct actuarial edge over state-based insurance (think, for example, California earthquake). For this reason, it’s a shame that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has state exchanges as its primary mechanism rather than one single federal exchange; risk dispersal is inferior.

Looking at the risk question, there’s a real problem with affordable care organizations (ACOs), which are one of the primary ways the ACA aims to keep down future costs. Essentially, ACOs are a form of capitation, and (Cox maintains and I think he’s right) capitation is essentially a mechanism to push risks down from the insurer or from Medicare to providers. Pushing risks to smaller groups is a terrible idea and will worsen the system. With ACOs having  smaller covered populations, they are far more subject to being the victim of events they can’t control, whether that’s having a large number of huge-cost, high-needs patients in a single year or having a large number of patients affected by an epidemic or natural disaster.

Providers are not trained or qualified to manage risk well, nor do they have the financial reserves to do so.  Cox calls this “professional caregiver insurance risk.”  Burdening providers with a task they are very ill-suited for is a truly bad idea. As Cox comments:

Pushing risks elsewhere removes the only real function we are paying insurance companies for.  If insurance companies are pushing down their risks elsewhere, we are paying them money for nothing of value. Insurance companies don’t provide healthcare – if they don’t manage risk either, what good are they? Of course, if they can sit there and siphon off profits without taking risks, it may not trouble profit-making insurers . . . but it should trouble the public [if they are] issuing policies, passing the insurance risks on to health care providers, and walking off with guaranteed profits year after year.

And (particularly for the ACO that has been “unlucky” and has incurred larger-than-expected costs), the financial risk can be a force for corruption, pushing organizations toward denying care and undertreatment.

Of course, with the enormous amount of unnecessary care and overtreatment in the US medical system today, some ACOs may indeed manage to give really good care for quite a while provided they are reasonably lucky. But this is a strategy with diminishing returns (as unneeded care dwindles in amount). At root, pushing down insurance risk to smaller entities is, Cox has persuaded me, a fundamentally flawed direction.

And I’ll never look at a health care financing proposal in future without asking myself: “Where is the risk?”