healthy4u: Memorial Sloan-Kettering

Rendering Unto Caesar - What the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute vs Thompson Says About the Loss of the Academic Medical Mission

A case, <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/health/cancer-center-in-lawsuit-says-a-doctor-appropriated-a-discovery.html">reported</a> by the New York Times as involving an intellectual property dispute, should create a lot of cognitive dissonance about the state of the academic medical mission. Litigation Involving the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute and Dr Craig B Thompson Here is how the Times outlined the story: <blockquote>The president of Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York is in a billion-dollar dispute with his former workplace, a cancer institute at the University of Pennsylvania, over accusations that he walked away with groundbreaking research and used it to help start a valuable biotechnology company. In a lawsuit, the Leonard and Madlyn Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute at Penn described its former scientific director, Dr. Craig B. Thompson, as 'an unscrupulous doctor' who 'chose to abscond with the fruits of the Abramson largess.' </blockquote> In particular, <blockquote>In the suit, the Abramson cancer institute, which has received more than $100 million from the philanthropist Leonard Abramson and his family, says that Dr. Thompson concealed his role in starting Agios, which has attracted investors with a potentially new way to treat cancer. The institute says Dr. Thompson’s actions deprived it of proceeds that could support future research, causing it damages that could exceed $1 billion.</blockquote> So presumably the Abramson Institute is alleging that Thompson took its intellectual property and put it into Agios, and the Institute therefore wants compensation. Note that the Institute does not appear to be alleging either that Thompson was supposed to be its employee, but actually was working for Agios at the time he was supposed to be working for the institute; or that Thompson hid a a conflict of interest created by his financial relationship with Agios that could have affected how he fulfilled his professional responsibilities there. Note further that certain other parties declared that they are not part of this dispute. These included Dr Thompson's current employer: <blockquote>Sloan-Kettering declined to comment, saying it was not a party to the lawsuit....</blockquote> These also included the University of Pennsylvania: <blockquote>Susan E. Phillips, senior vice president for Penn Medicine, said that the suit had been filed not by the university but by the research institute, a separate entity. She said the university was investigating the accusations. </blockquote> The nature of this dispute ought to generate several kinds of cognitive dissonance. Protecting Intellectual Property vs Upholding the Academic Mission at the University of Pennsylvania On <a href="http://www.afcri.upenn.edu/aboutus/ourhistory.html">one of its web pages</a>, the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute describes its history: <blockquote>The Abramson Cancer center of the University of Pennsylvania provides each patient with exemplary care though a comprehensive team approach, personalized service, education and outreach, and nationally recognized cancer research programs.</blockquote> The web page describes the institute as simply part of the larger University of Pennsylvania cancer center, which came to be named for the Abramson family: <blockquote>Penn's Cancer Center was renamed in 2002 as the Abramson Cancer Center of the University of Pennsylvania, recognizing the Abramson family's $100 million commitment to support comprehensive cancer research and care.</blockquote> Thus it seems that the Abramson institute is simply a piece of a traditional academic medical center. The academic mission is traditionally described as the creation and teaching of knowledge. Thus, if an academic institution creates new knowledge, its should then disseminate it, not own it. Of course, in the US, since the Bayh-Dole act was passed, academic institutions were given the ability to patent their discoveries, and began to protect and sequester the knowledge they contained, rather than disseminating it. In this case, however, one part of a large university and a large academic medical center seems to be concentrating entirely on its right of ownership of intellectual property, not the traditional academic mission. The fact that this dispute has lead to litigation suggests that the academic organization is now intent on protecting, rather than disseminating knowledge. The dispute appears to be between a commercial research company and its allegedly errant former hired manager. The Abramson Institute: Part or Independent of the Academic Medical Center?   A little more digging suggests that the nature of the Abramson institute is not as clear as is described in its web-page. A GuideStar search revealed that the institute is actually legally independent from the university. It filed its own 990 form (latest version, covering 2009-2010, <a href="http://www.guidestar.org/FinDocuments/2010/232/929/2010-232929823-074d3257-9.pdf">here</a>.) The filing did list various entities, including the Clinical Care Associates of the University of Pennsylvania Health System, and the Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania as "related tax-exempt organizations." However, this filing should create cognitive dissonance about what the underlying nature of the Institute? Is it part of the University of Pennsylvania and its medical center, or is independent but cooperating? This dissonance is only enhanced by the ambiguous response of the University of Pennsylvania to the lawsuit. If the Institute is part of the University, then the University ought to be party to the lawsuit, it would seem. This filing with the US government did underline the Institute's commitment to disseminating research. A description of its tax "exempt purposes" included: <blockquote>Education - scientists at the Institute actively share their discoveries with the research community, physicians, and students.</blockquote> As above, this statement of purpose appears not to fit with the filing of a lawsuit to obtain damages due to the alleged taking of intellectual property. If this really were the Institute's mission, would not they want the intellectual property liberated so it could be actively shared? The cognitive dissonance about the mission of the Institute and of the University versus the protection and sequestration of intellectual property is thus increased. Upholding the Academic Mission vs Staying Uninvolved at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center As an aside, note that Dr Thompson is now not just working for Agios. In fact, he has been President of the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center since 2010 (look <a href="http://www.mskcc.org/news/magazine/october-2010/craig-thompson-named-president-msk">here</a>). Just like the Abramson Cancer Center, Sloan-Kettering is an academic medical center with the traditional mission of teaching, research, and patient care. Here is its <a href="http://www.mskcc.org/about">mission statement</a>: <blockquote>As one of the world's premier cancer centers, Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center is committed to exceptional patient care, leading-edge research, and superb educational programs.</blockquote> So one would think that people there ought to be concerned by allegations that its current president took intellectual property without authorization, and that he is "an unscrupulous doctor." If these allegations were to be proven false, they seemingly would represent a major, unwarranted slur on its and his reputation. If they were to be proven true, they would indicate that current leadership might not have the character to uphold the mission. Either outcome would be serious and have serious implications. However, at the moment, this noted academic medical institution has expressed neither outrage about possibly false accusations nor resolve to investigate the matter and then weed out any leaders not devoted to the mission. Thus, the apparent intention of the leadership of Memorial Sloan-Kettering to stay uninvolved with this case ought to generate more cognitive dissonance. Summary The cognitive dissonances evoked by the case of the Abramson Institute vs Dr Thompson ought to inspire questions about what our academic medical institutions have become.  While they proclaim their devotion to research and teaching to improve health and health care, and advance science, they may increasingly act like commercial research organizations whose main goal is to generate increased revenue from products and services, and in this case, from intellectual property.  It is hard to see how this emphasis on holding onto rather than disseminating new knowledge will be good in the long run for science, learning, or patient care. We are now a good 30+ years into our ill-fated American experiment about the effects of turning medicine commercial and making health care a commodity. So far, it has yielded the highest costs in the world, but declining access, mediocre quality, and demoralized professionals.  Squabbling among top researchers and leading academic medical institutions over the ownership of intellectual property for the sake of revenue, not dissemination, is the latest symbol of the decline of our health care. I can only hope that all the parties involved suddenly remember that they are supposed to be creating and disseminating knowledge, not just getting rich.

Rendering Unto Caesar - What the Abramson Family Cancer Research Institute vs Thompson Says About the Loss of the Academic Medical Mission

A case, reported by the New York Times as involving an intellectual property dispute, should create a lot of cognitive dissonance about the state of the academic medical mission.Litigation Involving t…

Đọc thêm »

07 Feb 2012

Academic Medical Center Crime Wave?

Every large group or organization has a few bad apples.  My web searches constantly turn up stories of individuals working in health care who behave unethically or commit crimes.  I do not generally discuss these cases on Health Care Renewal, since they seem unavoidable, and their sporadic appearance does not necessarily have anything to do with systemic problems in health care. However, in the last week, I noted four cases of rather exceptionally bad behavior by individuals working in large hospital systems, and the severity and proximity of these cases made me wonder if they reflect some new trend. Pennsylvania State University Faculty Member Charged with Rape As <a href="http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2010/11/doctor_accused_of_using_painki.html">reported</a> by PennLive.com, <blockquote>Former Derry Township, Dauphin County, doctor Dr. Robert L. Yarwood stands accused of using his position and influence to addict two of his patients to painkillers and raping them multiple times. Yarwood, 56, has been charged with more than 42 criminal counts, including rape and sexual assault, stemming from allegations made in 2008 by two women, ages 40 and 45. He is accused of giving narcotics to the women to 'exert psychological force,' said Fran Chardo, Dauphin County first assistant district attorney. 'The case, speaking abstractly, is very disturbing because of the trust relationship between the patient and the doctor,' Chardo said. 'It’s a violation of trust.' In an interview with The Patriot-News, one of the women said she had visited Yarwood several times over the course of a year. He was prescribing her pain medication, which she eventually became addicted to. Then, she said, he raped her. 'I was paralyzed. I was in shock,' she said. 'I trusted him.' At the time of the allegations, Yarwood was an obstetrician and gynecologist at the Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center, which he joined in the late 1990s. In August 2008, the medical center was apprised of the investigation and immediately suspended Yarwood from having contact with patients. </blockquote> $5 Million Embezzlement from Columbia University Medical Center As <a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704584804575645152197487616.html">reported</a> by the Wall Street Journal, <blockquote>A 48-year-old Bronx man has been arrested and charged with grand larceny for allegedly stealing nearly $4.5 million from Columbia University over the course of two months, authorities said Monday. George Castro is accused of adding a TD Bank account belonging to him as a payee in the Columbia University Medical Center's accounts payable system, netting payments of $3.4 million in October and $1 million in November, authorities said. Mr. Castro, whose relationship with the university is unclear, was arrested Wednesday. A law-enforcement official familiar with the case said Mr. Castro had $200,000 in cash in his possession when he was arrested and had withdrawn $140,000 the day before his arrest. According to a criminal complaint, Mr. Castro told investigators the money 'just appeared' in his bank account and that he had gotten 'greedy.'</blockquote> Duke Surgeon and Surgical Department Business Manager Accused of Embezzlement As <a href="http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/8700929/">reported</a> by WRAL.com, <blockquote>A former Duke University surgeon and manager have been charged with stealing $267,000 from the university, police said Tuesday. Dr. Eric Joel DeMaria, 51, of 1101 Tacketts Pond Drive in Raleigh, and John William Cotton, 39, of 7228 Loblolly Pine Drive in Raleigh, were each charged with embezzlement of more than $100,000. Cotton also was charged with obtaining property by false pretense. Cotton was arrested last Wednesday, and DeMaria surrendered to police Tuesday morning. Both have been released on $25,000 bonds. DeMaria was director of Duke's bariatric surgery program, while Cotton was a business manager in the surgical department at Duke University Hospital, according to Michael Schoenfeld, Duke's vice president for public affairs.</blockquote> Office Worker Accused of Stealing $3.8 Million from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center As <a href="http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/clerk_mil_rip_off_yqCRPJkkPQelySq0vY6oCO">reported</a> by the New York Post, <blockquote>A former worker at Memorial Sloan-Kettering stole nearly $4 million from the cancer center in a massive scheme that involved ordering a boatload of unnecessary printer cartridges and reselling them, authorities said. The loot from the elaborate scam was used to fund a lavish lifestyle that allowed $37,000-a-year receiving clerk Marque Gumbs to move from a Bronx housing project to a luxurious Trump high-rise in the suburbs. Gumbs, 32 -- who was arraigned yesterday in Manhattan Criminal Court on charges of grand larceny and criminal possession of stolen property -- allegedly began his scheme in 2004 by ordering extra toner cartridges and reselling them. In one astounding stretch from October 2009 through August 2010, Gumbs ordered $1.2 million worth of toner that wasn't usable for any machine at the hospital, authorities said. His alleged ruse cost the hospital $3.8 million.</blockquote> Summary So here is the box-score. Reported in one week were three alleged theft/ embezzlement schemes with values from $267,000 to $5 million, and one alleged series of multiple rapes. The alleged perpetrators included two academic physicians (one in surgery, one in obstetrics-gynecology), two hospital staff, one in management, and a person with an unclear relationship to the hospital. All involved large, prestigious academic medical centers. So, again, maybe these were just coincidences. However, it may be that there is a real trend toward bigger and more spectacular thefts and embezzlements from big, not for profit health care institutions.  The most likely explanation is simply that the increasingly huge amounts of money flowing through such institutions attracts those who go to where the money is, and that the increased complexity of the bureaucracy of ever-growing health care institutions makes it easier to hide such thefts.  At least, this odd string of cases should prompt more questions about the conventional wisdom that it is good for health care organizations to grow ever larger.  However, just to be speculative, note that three of these incidents occurred at institutions whose leadership has attracted our attention before.  We discussed conflicts of interest affecting one Columbia academic leader <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/08/more-entangled-web-unitedhealth-case.html">here</a>, and the prevalence of leaders of failed financial services companies on the New York-Presbyterian board <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/12/with-leaders-like-these.html">here</a>.  We discussed a leader of two of the firms most involved in the global financial collapse who was also the chairman of the board of Duke University<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/10/trustee-of-what-caliber-for-hospital.html"> here</a>.  A quick skim of Memorial Sloan-Kettering's Board of Overseers (in its <a href="http://www.mskcc.org/annualreport/2009/pdfs/FullReport_AR09.pdf">2009 annual report</a>) showed the presence of at least two leaders of failed financial services firms heavily involved in the global financial collapse (E Stanley O'Neal, former CEO of Merrill Lynch, and Sanford I Weill, former CEO of Citigroup).  The speculation is that as academic medical centers and hospital systems and their parent universities have increasingly been recipients of the "stewardship," and hence immersed in the culture of the financial services industry, particularly firms which contributed to the global financial collapse, the culture of health care became increasingly laissez faire, anything goes, wild, wild west, and so it got easier for the wrong people to be hired, and for the wrong people to pull off truly spectacular capers. I submit that the first criterion for being a trustee or director, and hence ostensibly a steward of an academic medical institution should be devotion to the mission of the organization, not size of one's contribution.

Academic Medical Center Crime Wave?

Đọc thêm »

02 Dec 2010

Spun Silly: Academic Medical Center Cancer Treatment Advertising in the Era of Hype and Flim-Flam

Over the weekend, the New York Times <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/19/health/19cancerads.html">reported</a> on how prestigious academic medical centers advertise cancer care.  Here are some examples, Prostate Cancer Surgery at Mount Sinai <blockquote>A print advertisement for prostate cancer surgery at Mount Sinai Medical Center in Manhattan is typical of the way many elite research and teaching hospitals sell hope to the public. 'Our newest prostate specialist, Dr. David Samadi, has pioneered a minimally invasive approach that allows him to retain the highest cancer cure rates with the lowest risk of side effects,' says the ad. Highest cure rates. Lowest risk. What evidence does the medical center have to back up such superlatives? The ad’s claims are based on the successful results of Dr. Samadi’s operations and testimonials from his patients, said Jane Zimmerman, Mount Sinai’s chief marketing officer. </blockquote>However, the article noted that the hospital could provide no studies that showed that its or Dr Samadi's results were superior to those of other hospitals or other surgeons. <blockquote>... the ad with the superlative prostate cancer claims ... was later revised to say that Dr. Samadi’s approach gives 'high rates of success coupled with lowered risks of side effects.' Ms. Zimmerman said Dr. Samadi was not available to be interviewed. </blockquote>Also,the people who concocted the advertisement said it was not really meant to tell prospective patients that the surgeon had better results than all others: <blockquote>But marketing executives defend their approach, saying cancer treatment ads tend to play more heavily on emotion than on medical statistics because the ads are not intended to inform people who already have the disease. They are meant to make an impression on future patients, who may decide on treatments years after they have seen an ad, or to sway influential people who might advise a future patient. 'This isn’t retail advertising,' said Ellis Verdi, president of the DeVito/Verdi Agency in Manhattan. The agency produced the Mount Sinai ad, which ran in The New York Times, and has created cancer ads for other hospital clients. 'This is reputation advertising,' Mr. Verdi said. 'There is a very big difference.' </blockquote> But the advertisement said that the hospital's prostate cancer specialist had the highest survival and lowest adverse event rates.  How would a patient with prostate cancer realize that the advertisement was only meant to enhance the hospital's reputation, but not meant to speak to him?   Radiation for Brain Tumors at Massachusetts General Hospital <blockquote>'We gave Nick something he couldn’t find anywhere else in the Northeast. Life without cancer.' That was the text of a print ad last year by the Massachusetts General Hospital Cancer Center in Boston, promoting its $50 million center for proton beam therapy, a kind of high-energy radiation to treat brain tumors and other cancers. The hospital was the only medical center in the region with a proton therapy center, the ad said, enabling doctors there to successfully treat the brain tumor of a young man named Nick. The ad’s concept was that Nick had a greater chance of survival because the precise proton beam could destroy malignant brain tissue while leaving surrounding healthy brain tissue intact, said Jodie Justofin, the marketing director at Mass General’s cancer center. Dr. Thomas F. DeLaney, the medical director of the Francis H. Burr Proton Therapy Center at Mass General, said he had no involvement in the ad and did not have any information about Nick. </blockquote> However, the article also noted that "no rigorous studies have shown that proton beam therapy has higher brain-cancer cure rates than other treatment methods, said Dr. [John D] Birkmeyer of Michigan [a professor at the University of Michigan and cancer outcomes researcher]. 'The ad might be accurate that they are the only hospital in the Northeast with this particular widget,' he said. 'But it could be misleading that the availability of this particular widget gave this patient better odds of survival.'" Again, the advertisement said that the patient got "life without cancer," something he could not get anywhere else in the Northeast.  How would a patient with a brain tumor realize that the advertisement was merely based on a "concept," rather than scientific evidence that his  or her only hope for "life without cancer" could come from proton beam therapy at the Massachusetts General Hospital? Surgery for Cervical Cancer at Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center <blockquote>'Cancer, You said I’d never bear children,' reads the handwritten letter, held out by a pretty, healthy-looking woman, as a toddler peeks from behind the paper. 'My daughter says you’re wrong.' That recent print ad from Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in Manhattan tells the story of Michelle Rogala, a patient with cervical cancer. Ms. Rogala’s hospital in New Jersey could offer her only a hysterectomy, an operation that would have left her unable to have children. Instead, she went to Memorial Sloan-Kettering, where she entered a clinical trial that was studying less invasive surgery. Ms. Rogala now has a little girl named Maddie. Ellen Miller-Sonet, vice president for marketing at Memorial Sloan-Kettering, said consumers seeing the ads realizes that these were individual stories. 'They know that no two people are the same,' she said. </blockquote>However, Ms Rogala told the NY Times, "hers had indeed been a special case. She had early-stage cervical cancer, she said, making her eligible for a novel operation that has now become a standard treatment at the center. After her operation, doctors told her she would need fertility treatments to conceive. But she said she turned out to be one of the few patients in the study who did not need radiation — which can cause fertility problems. She later became pregnant without medical intervention." Again, why "consumers," much less patients with cervical cancer, would realize that the advertisement was just an "individual story," not a promise that the hospital's treatment of cervical cancer would not prevent future pregnancies, was entirely obscure. Summary The three advertisements described in the NY Times article had some features in common. All seemed to promise exceptional results. None were based on clear scientific evidence. All seemed to have been products of marketers and advertising agencies working without input from the physicians who actually provide the treatments they were advertising. All the marketers defended their work by saying that the advertisements did not actually mean what they appeared to mean. My most obvious comment is that hospitals, even the most prestigious teaching hospitals, now seem to be willing to market their services like the used car salespeople seen on late night television.  Such advertisements, of course, are unseemly and undignified coming from such august institutions.  Worse, they seem to promise more than what these or any hospitals can be proved to deliver, and the only defense of the marketers who produced the advertisements were that they did not mean what they seemed to mean. This shows the sad, and ultimately deceptive and unethical effects of turning the leadership of our best medical institutions over to businesspeople with little knowledge or understanding of the values of  health care. It also shows what has happened to health care in an age of hype, scam, sham, spin and flim-flam.  It all seems part of what Frank Rich just <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/20/opinion/20rich.html">wrote</a> about in the NY Times: <blockquote>If there’s been a consistent narrative to this year and every other in this decade, it’s that most of us, Bernanke included, have been so easily bamboozled. The men who played us for suckers, whether at Citigroup or Fannie Mae, at the White House or Ted Haggard’s megachurch, are the real movers and shakers of this century’s history so far. That’s why the obvious person of the year is Tiger Woods. His sham beatific image, questioned by almost no one until it collapsed, is nothing if not the farcical reductio ad absurdum of the decade’s flimflams, from the cancerous (the subprime mortgage) to the inane (balloon boy). What makes the golfing superstar’s tale compelling, after all, is not that he’s another celebrity in trouble or another fallen athletic 'role model' in a decade lousy with them. His scandal has nothing to tell us about race, and nothing new to say about hypocrisy. The conflict between Tiger’s picture-perfect family life and his marathon womanizing is the oldest of morality tales. What’s striking instead is the exceptional, Enron-sized gap between this golfer’s public image as a paragon of businesslike discipline and focus and the maniacally reckless life we now know he led. What’s equally striking, if not shocking, is that the American establishment and news media — all of it, not just golf writers or celebrity tabloids — fell for the Woods myth as hard as any fan and actively helped sustain and enhance it. People wanted to believe what they wanted to believe. Tiger’s off-the-links elusiveness was no more questioned than Enron’s impenetrable balance sheets, with their 'special-purpose entities' named after 'Star Wars' characters. Fortune magazine named Enron as America’s 'most innovative company' six years in a row. In the January issue of Golf Digest, still on the stands, some of the best and most hardheaded writers in America offer 'tips Obama can take from Tiger,' who is typically characterized as so without human frailties that he 'never does anything that would make him look ridiculous.' </blockquote>I would note that the health care precursor to all this was how the former CEO of the Allegheny Health Education and Research Foundation (AHERF), the biggest health care system in Pennsylvania in the 1990s, was hailed as a visionary in the medical press and scholarly literature, which later ignored AHERF's bankruptcy and its former CEOs criminal conviction (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/04/that-recent-unpleasantness-fall-of.html">here</a>.)  So my one disagreement with Mr Rich is that the problems are much older than the 21st century. Rich concluded, <blockquote>after a decade of being spun silly, Americans can’t be blamed for being cynical about any leader trying to sell anything. As we say goodbye to the year of Tiger Woods, it is the country, sad to say, that is left mired in a sand trap with no obvious way out. </blockquote> The way out of our sand trap in health care, of course, is to refuse to be spun any more. We need to stop believing the hype propogated by all the clever marketers, and all the self-interested CEOs who hire them. Meanwhile, I would suggest to any cancer patient who failed to get the wonderful results promised by some slick hospital advertisement, there may be some lawyers who with whom you ought to speak.

Spun Silly: Academic Medical Center Cancer Treatment Advertising in the Era of Hype and Flim-Flam

Over the weekend, the New York Times reported on how prestigious academic medical centers advertise cancer care. Here are some examples,Prostate Cancer Surgery at Mount SinaiA print advertisement for…

Đọc thêm »

21 Dec 2009

Load more posts