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.

Private Equity vs Patient Care - a Bainful Example

A long investigative report in Salon summarized allegations about the quality of care in various treatment centers owned by Aspen Education, and its parent company, CRC Health Group, in turn wholly owned by a private equity firm, Bain Capital.  The article provides examples of what can go wrong when health care organizations are taken over by remote leadership focused overwhelmingly on short-term revenue.   

A Death from a Treatable Disease
The report opened with the investigation of a 14 year old resident at Youth Care, in Salt Lake City, and Aspen Education treatment center.  Brendan Blum "died of a twisted-bowel infaction," according to the local medical examiner, which allegedly went untreated because "two poorly paid monitors on duty," were slow to seek approval to call for emergency services, and "were too low on the totem pole to call 911 themselves."

The article cited "previously unreported allegations of abuse and neglect in at least 10 CRC residential drug and teen care facilities across the country."  It charged, "such incidents have largely escaped notice because the programs are, thanks to lax state regulations, largely unaccountable." 

Allegations of Toxic Corporate Culture

The article noted numerous other reports of unexplained and allegedly wrongful deaths, and other allegations of mistreatment of patients.

Furthermore, the article noted allegations "that such incidents reflect, in part, a broader corporate culture at Aspen's owner, CRC Health Group, a leading national chain of treatment centers.  Lawsuits and critics have claimed that CRC prizes profits, and the avoidance of outside scrutiny, over the health and safety of its clients." 

We have frequently discussed how the corporate culture of the finance industry, the industry that brought us the global financial collapse/ great recession, has influenced health care, and how this culture may be related to extensive problems with the leadership of health care, including lack of understanding of or even outright hostility to the health care mission, the prioritization of self-interest over the mission, conflicts of interest, and even outright criminal behavior, such as fraud, and kick-backs (bribery).  One way that finance may influence health care is the presence of finance leaders on the boards of trustees of non-profit health care institutions (see recent examples here and here). 

A more direct way the culture of finance can influence health care is for private equity firms (that is, re-branded leveraged buyout firms, look here) to purchase organizations that actually take care of patients.  The Salon article noted:

CRC’s corporate culture, in turn, reflects the attitudes and financial imperatives of Bain Capital, the private equity firm founded by Mitt Romney. (The Romney campaign also did not reply to written questions.) Bain is known for its relentless obsession with maximizing shareholder value and revenues. Indeed, this has become a talking point of late on the Romney campaign trail; he bragged to Fox in late May that '80 percent of them [Bain investments] grew their revenues.' CRC, a fast-growing company then in the lucrative field of drug treatment, was perhaps a natural fit when Bain acquired it for $720 million in 2006. In conversations with staff and patients who spent time at CRC facilities since the takeover, there are suggestions that the Bain approach has had its effects. 'If you look at their daily profit numbers compared to what they charge,' Dana Blum [the mother of the boy who died in the incident discussed above] said of CRC’s Aspen division in 2009, 'it’s obscene.' That point, ironically enough, was underscored by the glowing reports in the trade press about its profitability.

The article discussed how Bain Capital's acquisition of CRC Health Group further tilted the balance towards short-term revenue and away from quality care:

When Bain purchased CRC, it looked like an investment masterstroke. The company, founded in the mid-’90s with a single California treatment facility, the Camp Recovery Center, had quickly grown into the largest chain of for-profit drug and alcohol treatment services in the country, with $230 million in annual revenue. Under Bain’s guidance, its revenue has nearly doubled, to more than $450 million. CRC now serves 30,000 clients daily — mostly opiate addicts — at 140 facilities across 25 states. In the first five years after its acquisition, Bain had already extracted nearly $20 million in management-related fees from the chain, although Bain investors haven’t cashed in yet through dividends or an IPO. Bain’s purchase, a leveraged buyout, also saddled CRC with massive debt of well over $600 million.

According to company executives and independent analysts, hands-on oversight of subsidiary companies is a hallmark of both Bain and CRC. Romney’s campaign literature boasts about Bain taking exactly this sort of direct role in helping to turn around failing companies. 'Over the life of an investment, they have a strong management team willing to participate,' Sheryl Skolnick, an analyst with CRT Capital, a leading institutional brokerage firm, says of Bain.

The CRC acquisition immediately made Bain owner of the largest collection of addiction treatment facilities in the nation. Unlike some Bain Capital acquisitions, which led to massive layoffs, the company’s approach with CRC was to boost revenues by gobbling up other treatment centers, raising fees, and expanding its client base through slick, aggressive marketing, while keeping staffing and other costs relatively low. But that rapid pace of acquisition couldn’t be sustained in the mostly small-scale drug treatment industry alone. So Bain Capital and CRC set their sights on an entirely new treatment arena: the multibillion-dollar 'troubled teen' industry, a burgeoning field of mostly locally owned residential schools and wilderness programs then serving, nationwide, about 100,000 kids facing addiction or emotional or behavioral problems.

One of CRC’s first acquisitions under Bain ownership was the Aspen Education Group. Founded in 1998 with about six schools, Aspen Education had expanded to 30 troubled-teen and weight-loss programs by 2006, including Youth Care of Utah. With Bain’s backing, CRC purchased Aspen for nearly $300 million in the fall of 2006.

Less than a year later, Brendan Blum was dead.

At the time of the CRC acquisition, Aspen already had a history of abuse allegations, including at least three lawsuits, and two known patient deaths, one by suicide. Featured on 'Dr. Phil,' it grew out of schools inspired by the 'tough-love' behavior-modification approach of the discredited Synanon program, which was eventually exposed as a cult. By 2006, Aspen was facing a wrongful death lawsuit, later settled, over an incident in 2004 in which a 14-year-old boy, Matthew Meyer, perished from heat stroke just eight days into his stay at its Lone Star Expeditions wilderness camp in Texas.

This just underscores concerns we raised here about how ownership by private equity could undermine the ability of health care organizations to fulfill their missions. At the time we worried that private equity's short time horizon would clash with health care's long-term focus, how standardized cost-cutting approaches, including emphasis on individual employees' "productivity," could undermine patient care, and how private equity's obsession with secrecy is the antithesis of the transparency required to make health care accountable.

The Increasing Influence of Private Equity

Ironically, the reason that the problems at CRC have gotten such public attention is that the former leader of the private equity firm that controls it is now running for the US presidency. His candidacy emphasizes just how influential the culture of private equity has come.

The purchase of CRC came seven years after [former Massachusets Governor and now Republican presidential hopeful Mitt] Romney publicly announced his retirement as CEO of Bain Capital, where he had been in charge since its founding in 1984. But at the time of his departure, Romney worked out an arrangement to continue to share in Bain’s profits as a limited partner in the firm. Today, he is still an investor in 48 Bain accounts. Though he has refused to disclose their underlying assets, some information about them can be gleaned. For example, he has reported at least $300,000 to $1.2 million, if not more, in fluctuating annual earnings from Bain Capital VIII, the convoluted $3.5 billion array of related funds that owns both name-brand companies such as Dunkin’ Donuts and the lesser-known CRC Health Group. Most of these funds were made more attractive to privileged investors by being registered in the Cayman Islands tax haven. And Romney’s connections to CRC run even deeper: Of the three Bain managing partners who sit on CRC’s board, two, John Connaughton and Steven Barnes (with his wife), gave a total of half a million dollars to Restore Our Future, the super PAC supporting Romney. They also each donated the $2,500 maximum directly to his campaign.

Furthermore, it provides a warning about much more influential it might become, particularly in regard to health care:

Romney has been outspoken about his belief that for-profit health care companies can flourish only without onerous regulations. 'I had the occasion of actually acquiring and trying to build health care businesses,' he said during a primary debate last year. 'I know something about it, and I believe markets work. And what’s wrong with our health care system in America is that government is playing too heavy a role.'

The allegations against one of those health care businesses suggest another viewpoint.

I have frequently repeated a contention that true health care reform would emphasize leadership of health care organizations that understand and uphold the values of health care, starting with prioritizing the needs of patients and the public's health over all other concerns. Instead, there is a danger that health care leaders will be ever more removed from patients and the public, and their health needs, while they become ever more concerned with making as much money as possible in the short-run, and after that, the Devil take the hindmost.

Gentiva's Odyssey Healthcare Settles Again, Signs Yet Another Corporate Integrity Agreement

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reported a legal settlement worth noting.  Here are the basics:

One of the nation's largest providers of hospice care has agreed to pay $25 million to settle a Medicare fraud case initiated after a former company nurse in Milwaukee filed a whistle-blower suit.

It was the second such settlement in six years for Odyssey Healthcare Inc., which paid the federal government $12.5 million in 2006 after another Wisconsin-based employee sued.

Also,

Medicare provides a benefit meant to cover hospice care for the terminally ill. It covers 24-hour in-home nursing service only during limited crisis periods. But from 2006 to 2009, Odyssey practiced a pattern of enrolling and recertifying non-terminal patients, and billing for continuous care that wasn't necessary or reasonable, according to the False Claims Act suit filed in 2008 but just unsealed Thursday.

As is usual in such cases, Odyssey's parent company denied that it did anything wrong:

Odyssey, which operates in 26 states, is now part of Atlanta-based Gentiva Health Services, which runs hospice offices in West Allis and Burlington. Gentiva officials declined to comment, but referred to an announcement it posted on its investor relations website last month.

'Gentiva cooperated fully with this investigation, which covered a period prior to our acquisition of Odyssey, and the settlement is consistent with our efforts to instill Gentiva's culture of compliance throughout the company,' said John Camperlengo, general counsel and chief compliance officer.

The statement said the firm is proud of the care its thousands of hospice clinicians provide, and of Gentiva's efforts to ensure strict compliance with all regulatory requirements.

The Implications of the Need for a New Corporate Integrity Agreement

However, there are some disturbing aspects of this case that require a bit more explanation. First, as noted by the Associated Press (in a story available here from the Dubuque [Iowa] Telegraph-Herald),

Besides agreeing to pay the $25 million settlement, Odyssey entered a five-year corporate integrity agreement with the federal government.

Now corporate integrity agreements are not known for their effectiveness. In fact, as we noted in this blog post, according to Gentiva's 2010 annual report, its Odyssey subsidiary had been subject to a corporate integrity agreement arising from its 2006 settlement, one which was apparently not effective in preventing its misbehavior from 2006 to 2009.

However, corporate integrity agreements do serve as markers for the need to improve the integrity of the corporations who need to make them. In this case, why would Gentiva be asked to sign such an agreement if its integrity were already beyond reproach? So Gentiva's current "culture of compliance" is open to question.

The Implications of "Enrolling and Recertifying Non-Terminal Patients"

A quick read of the Journal-Sentinel and Associate Press stories above might give the impression that what Odyssey did wrong involved a billing technicality, admittedly, one that allowed it to collect more money that that to which it would otherwise be entitled.

This story actually goes beyond the issue of fraud, and raises important concerns about patient care.

The enrollment  by a hospice of patients who are actually not terminally ill could have serious adverse effects on such patients. As we noted in this post, hospices are meant for patients with very limited life expectancies. The goal of hospice is to provide comfort and palliation, not active treatment of illnesses. So if patients who actually do not have such severely limited life expectancies are admitted to a hospice, they might be denied therapy that could actually make them feel better, or even cure acute illnesses or prolong their lives. For example, a hospice patient who developed an open wound might not get maximal wound therapy, as in an example (allegedly involving a different commercial hospice provider) in the post above.

So it is possible that Odyssey's enrolling and re-certifying of non-terminally ill patients could have lead to failure to provide some of these patients with the care they should have had. Whether this did or did not occur in individual cases, and what adverse effects may have been produced is not clear from the coverage of this case.  

Summary

As I wrote in 2011, .... There has been a lot of blather from politicians in the US about "death panels" in debates about health care reform. Many such politicians seem worried that the US government has or will have death panels under the new health care reform legislation. We have criticized that legislation for not addressing many important health care problems. No one, however, has convincingly demonstrated how its provisions would convene "death panels."


Wendell Potter argued in his book, Deadly Spin, (see this post) that for-profit insurance companies had their own "death panels." The Bloomberg article strongly suggests that for-profit hospices may also act like death panels. In search of more revenue, for-profit hospices may enroll patients who are not at the end of life, but then provide them only "comfort care," so that if they develop new conditions that are treatable, they are likely to die in the absence of treatment.

I am waiting for the politicians who so enthusiastically condemned the supposed "death panels" to be found in health care reform legislation to condemn for-profit hospices for behaving like death panels.

In my humble opinion, the case discussed above are the strongest argument yet that we need to reconsider our headlong rush to turn health care, particularly the direct care of patients, over to relatively unregulated, for-profit corporations. The cases above suggest that the pursuit of revenue ahead of patients' welfare by such organizations may lead to sick and dead patients.

I cannot see how for-profit direct patient care can be made safe for patients without intense government regulation. If any of those vocal advocates of "free market" health care (in the absence of any good explanation of how health care can ever be an ideal free market, see this post) can explain to me how for-profit hospices can be made safe for patients without such regulation, I would welcome their attempts.

Meanwhile, this just calls out for legislative and legal investigation, and urgent policy changes.
 
By the way, the case above also shows how the current approach used by the government to address misbehavior in health care does not work.  We have noted previously how these legal settlements often only lead to financial penalties imposed on companies, not individuals, which diffuses their impact, and provides no disincentives to future bad behavior by individuals.  Sometimes corporate integrity agreements are added, but as in the current case, they also seem not to deter future bad behavior.   So, I further conclude, de rigueur, to really deter bad behavior, those who authorized, directed or implemented bad behavior must be held accountable. As long as they are not, expect the bad behavior to continue. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

As U.S. Presidential Campaign Ramps Up, Newt Gingrich Plays Down Support for Health IT

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who I recall hearing in person as an an invited speaker at a health IT meeting some years ago (AMIA, I believe), has been pushing health IT rather uncritically in recent years.

However, he seems to have backed off that position at the election cycle heats up:

As Campaign Ramps Up, Gingrich Plays Down Support for Health IT

iHealthbeat.org

Friday, December 16, 2011

Now that he is a frontrunner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is downplaying his previous support for health IT adoption, The Hill's "Healthwatch" reports (Pecquet, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 12/15).

History of Supporting Health IT

During the George W. Bush administration, Gingrich worked with former CMS administrator Mark McClellan and former National Coordinator for Health IT David Brailer on federal efforts to promote health IT, according to the New York Times (Rutenberg/McIntire, New York Times, 12/16).

Gingrich also worked with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) to co-author the forward of a book titled, "Paper Kills 2.0," which gives examples of how federal funds for health IT could be used in pilot projects to improve health care (Rowland, Boston Globe, 12/16).

Shortly before the passage of the 2009 federal economic stimulus package, Gingrich criticized the legislation as a "big politician, big bureaucracy, pork-laden bill." However, at the same time, Gingrich praised a provision of the stimulus package that allocated $19 billion to promote the use of health IT. He said, "I am delighted that President Obama has picked this as a key part of the stimulus package."

His views have apparently changed somewhat:

... Campaign Plays Down Health IT Support

On Wednesday, Gingrich unveiled a new brain science initiative that does not include any mention of EHRs, even though the technology was a major component of the brain science proposals he discussed over the summer.

Politics aside (it is probably not too far from the truth to say that all politicians hold out their fingers to see what direction the wind is blowing, although Mr. Gingrich is probably becoming more aware of HIT downsides thanks to lobbying of both sides of the aisle by people such as myself and like-minded experts [1]), I cannot disagree with this:

In August, Gingrich said he aimed to bolster brain science research in part by modernizing FDA through the use of EHRs. Gingrich said EHRs would allow for "much faster [FDA] approval times because you can monitor in real time everyone who uses the drug. And if you start getting inappropriate responses, you can change within weeks" ("Healthwatch," The Hill, 12/15).

In fact, I was championing exactly this idea ca. 2001 when I was employed at Merck Research Labs in the Research Information Systems division. Unfortunately, the answer from more senior personnel was that doing so would be "impossible" due to inability to blind, to control the data quality, etc., responses I considered unreasonable at the time but did not argue with to avoid getting on the Short List early in my employment there.

I also tried to present the idea to Merck as a former employee in Nov. 2006, at an invited presentation to the Clinical Risk Management & Safety Surveillance department of MRL entitled “Medical Informatics Perspectives on Leveraging the EMR in Pharma" (PPT). Also see my 2007 paper "A Medical Informatics Grand Challenge: the EMR and Post-Marketing Drug Surveillance" where I address a number of issues related to using EHR's in this fashion (PDF).

Using EHR's (e.g., with special screens and training) for well-defined Phase IV post-marketing surveillance studies would be one of the best uses for the technology [2].

Finally, I note that we need post-marketing surveillance of EHR's, CPOE's and other clinical IT systems themselves, not just drugs. Information technology cannot improve healthcare until it itself is improved significantly regarding its current deficiencies (see "reading list" here for illustrations).

-- SS

Notes:

[1] Health IT risks are a non-partisan issue.

[2] I should note that while I believe EHR's could facilitate postmarketing surveillance of drugs and devices, I take a dim view of more grandiose proposed uses of EMR's such as for comparative effectiveness research (CER). See my essay in the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) entitled "The Syndrome of Inappropriate Overconfidence in Computing: An Invasion of Medicine by the Information Technology Industry?" here (PDF).