healthy4u: UC-Davis

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 href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/22/v-print/4648415/2-uc-davis-neurosurgeons-accused.html">a story</a> in the Sacramento (CA) Bee. A Bizarre Series of Surgical Experiments It started with two neurosurgeons who embarked on an extremely unorthodox treatment program, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> First, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> 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, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> One surgeon did get <blockquote>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.</blockquote> 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, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> I should point out that deliberately introducing bacteria into an otherwise sterile surgical site is a very radical and seemingly periolous step. Furthermore, a <a href="http://www.nature.com/news/can-bacteria-fight-brain-cancer-1.11080">blog post</a> in Nature News suggests that the reasoning used by the surgeons to support this approach was based on extremely weak evidence, <blockquote>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 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/NEU.0b013e318222adfa">here</a>. ] 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 <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1227/01.NEU.0000343525.89321.C5">here</a>. ]</blockquote> The University Investigation Then, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> The junior neurosurgeon defended their conduct by claiming <blockquote>We believed that this was innovative treatment, not research, and that IRB approval was not needed</blockquote> The senior surgeon asserted that he <blockquote>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.'</blockquote> However, <blockquote>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</blockquote> Furthermore, per a Sacramento Bee <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/28/4668495/uc-davis-neurosurgeon-department.html">follow-up article</a>, Elizabeth Woeckner, founder and director of Citizens for Responsible Care and Research, or CIRCARE, said the surgeons' "experiment" was <blockquote>the worst thing I've seen in my 12 years with CIRCARE</blockquote> An Overreaction, or an Under reaction? So far, this story seems different from many of those discussed on <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/">Health Care Renewal</a>. 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 <blockquote>[Dr J Paul] Muizelaar, 65, who has been a department chairman at the School of Medicine since 1997</blockquote> He is pretty well paid, earning <blockquote>more than $800,000 a year as chairman of the department of neurological surgery</blockquote> In fact, a <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/22/4648465/banned-ucd-doctor-is-one-of-ucs.html">companion article</a> in the Sacremento Bee noted, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> 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 <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/22/v-print/4648415/2-uc-davis-neurosurgeons-accused.html">article</a>, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> It is not the first time he has received special treatment. The <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/22/4648465/banned-ucd-doctor-is-one-of-ucs.html">companion article </a>noted that Dr Muizelaar was able to attain and keep his position even though he never obtained a state medical license, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> When asked why he never bothered to obtain a California medical license <blockquote>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?'</blockquote> 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 <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/25/4657366/uc-davis-chancellor-orders-review.html">according to</a> the Sacramento Bee, three days later, the CEO of the UC-Davis campus, Chancellor Linda P B Katehi <blockquote>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.</blockquote> A day after that, the Sacramento Bee <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/07/28/4668495/uc-davis-neurosurgeon-department.html">reported</a>, <blockquote>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.</blockquote> However, do not expect to hear much more about this, <blockquote>A spokeswoman for UC Davis Health System said 'there will be no further system statement on this or other personnel actions.'</blockquote> 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 <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_Farm">Animal Farm</a>, 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 <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-uc-davis-chancellor-be-held.html">here</a>.) 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 <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/impunity">impunity</a>.  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 <a href="http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/02/matt-stoller-a-very-political-oscars-%E2%80%93-not-a-single-executive-has-gone-to-jail.html">noted</a> on receiving his Oscar, <blockquote>three years after a horrific financial crisis caused by massive fraud, not a single financial executive has gone to jail and that’s wrong</blockquote> 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.

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...

Đọc thêm »

Administrators at Pepper Spray U Found to Have Violated Medical Professor's Academic Freedom

There they, the management of University of California - Davis, go again. The Wilkes and Hoffman Op-Ed Questioning A University Sponsored Aggressive Prostate Cancer Screening Program According to the <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2012/jun/14/local/la-me-ucdavis-20120614">Los Angeles Times</a>, and a post in <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2012/06/06/academic-freedom-committee-uc-davis-blames-administrators">Inside Higher Ed</a>, the trouble began when Dr Michael Wilkes, a professor of medicine at University of California - Davis, and Jerome Hoffman, a professor of emergency medicine, wrote an <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/09/30/EDET1FLK3B.DTL">op-ed</a> in the San Francisco Chronicle in 2010 questioning the wisdom of a program run by UC-Davis promoting aggressive screening for prostate cancer with the PSA test.  They brought up problems with using PSA for screening that have been known for a while, including the poor ability of the test to detect cancer, the inability of the test or of prostate biopsy performed in response to the test to differentiate aggressive prostate cancer from cancer that will not progress, which is more common, the risks of such biopsies, and the poor effectiveness of available prostate cancer treatments, compared with the frequency with which they produce harms.  All these issues have again been brought to the fore by US Preventive Services Taskforce's <a href="http://annals.org/article.aspx?doi=10.7326/0003-4819-157-2-201207170-00464">latest recommendations</a> not to screen for prostate cancer, based on similar concerns. Not only did Wilkes and Hoffman question the basis for the university sponsored program's aggressiveness, they speculated that it might have to do with money.  The program was sponsored not only by UC-Davis but by the American Urological Association Foundation.  In fact, that foundation's <a href="http://www.urologyhealth.org/difference/corporatesponsors.cfm">current corporate sponsors </a>include:  Astellas Pharma, Inc., Endo Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Intuitive Surgical, Inc., Pfizer, Inc., and Qualigen, Inc., although the op-ed did not specifically list its commercial support. The University Slap(p?)s Back Nonetheless, per the Inside Higher Ed post, <blockquote>Michael Wilkes received an e-mail from an administrator at the University of California at Davis. Wilkes, a professor at the medical school, was told that he would no longer lead a program sequence that taught better patient care, and support for a Hungarian student exchange program he headed would be withdrawn. Within weeks, Wilkes was told that he would be removed as director of global health for the UC Davis Health System. He also received letters from the university’s health system counsel suggesting that the university could potentially sue him for defamation over the op-ed. </blockquote> Again, this occurred despite the facts that many distinguished people have questioned the wisdom of aggressive prostate cancer screening, and that this particular prostate cancer program was supported by an organization that in turn is supported by money from pharmaceutical devices and drug companies that may stand to gain from selling drugs and devices related to screening for prostate cancer, and the diagnosis and treatment of such cancer. Wilkes and Hoffman were raising valid clinical and policy concerns about the public actions of a government-supported university, in my humble opinion. Thus the university lawyer's apparent threat of defamation suits thus appears to be a SLAPP, a threat of strategic litigation against public participation. In California, a 1993 law provides recourse for people who have been threatened with SLAPPs (look <a href="http://www.thefirstamendment.org/antislappresourcecenter.html">here</a>). The Faculty Committee Responds Regardless, Prof Wilkes filed an internal complaint, and again, per Inside Higher Ed, <blockquote>Now, a committee on academic freedom at the university that investigated allegations of intimidation and harassment against Wilkes has found them to be true. The faculty committee said in its report, a copy of which was obtained by Inside Higher Ed, that the actions of the university administrators cast doubt on its ability to be a 'truthful and accountable purveyor of knowledge and services.' The group has asked the dean and other top officials at the university’s school of medicine to write letters of apology to the professor, admit to errors of judgment, stop proposed disciplinary actions against him and take steps to prevent future violations of academic freedom. This week, representatives of the university’s Academic Senate are expected to vote on similar resolutions against the administrators.</blockquote> Now, according to the LA Times, <blockquote>The next step is up to campus Executive Vice Chancellor Ralph Hexter, who in consultation with Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi is expected to decide by fall whether to impose any discipline on the medical school executives, campus officials said.</blockquote> Good luck with that. The Context at UC-Davis I would be surprised if any such punishment occurs. After all, UC-Davis has a record of not tolerating dissent, but tolerating administrators who suppress such dissent.  We have previously discussed: - How the UC-Davis police infamously pepper sprayed peaceful student demonstrators, apparently at least partially in response to Chancellor Katehi's vague orders to clear the campus (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/uc-davis-pepper-spray-case-as.html">here</a>). - A subsequent report blamed this incident on incompetent, or worse leadership by Katehi's administration, but so far it is not obvious that this has lead to any changes (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/04/will-uc-davis-chancellor-be-held.html">here</a>). - How UC-Davis adminstrators tried to punish a medical student who got in a dispute with an overly officious student who apparently was "monitoring" his actions on an email list server, apparently on behalf of the administration, invoking "professionalism" as if that meant blind obedience to academic administrators (see post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/using-professionalism-initiative-as.html">here</a>). Furthemore, Chancellor Katehi has a record of her own relationships to industry.  <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-wiley-and-sons-director-apologizes.html">Here</a> we noted that she sits on the board of a large publishing conglomerate that includes a medical education and communication company (a MECC) as a subsidy.  So I suspect she may not rush to punish subordinate executives because they suppressed criticism of the role of commercial money in medical academics. Summary So UC-Davis seems to be another academic medical institution run by people more interested in bringing in commercial support than the academic medical mission, including the support of free speech and academic freedom.  Its case is another example of how leadership that seems hostile to the mission in one instance is likely to be hostile to the mission in other instances. <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/using-professionalism-initiative-as.html">Here</a> I summarized what I believe to be the real threats against professionalism in the academic medical context.  As we have said again and again, true health care reform would encourage leadership who understand the mission and will put its support ahead of financial concerns and ahead of their own self-interest. See also posts in the <a href="http://www.healthnewsreview.org/2012/06/intimidation-tactics-prof-demoted-after-criticizing-university-for-psa-seminar/">Health News Review blog</a>, and the <a href="http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=36149">University Diaries blog</a>.

Administrators at Pepper Spray U Found to Have Violated Medical Professor's Academic Freedom

There they, the management of University of California - Davis, go again. The Wilkes and Hoffman Op-Ed Questioning A University Sponsored Ag...

Đọc thêm »

Will the UC-Davis Chancellor be Held Accountable for "Systemic and Repeated Failures?"

During the brief Occupy Wall Street etc campaign last year, the pepper spraying of unarmed protesters on the University of California - Davis campus became a symbol for some of what the powers that be thought of those who challenge the political economic status quo.  We discussed this incident (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/uc-davis-pepper-spray-case-as.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-wiley-and-sons-director-apologizes.html">here</a>) on <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/">Health Care Renewal</a> as an example of how the privileged hired leaders of big organizations, including health care organizations, may put their own interests ahead of the organizations' missions.  Note that this case is relevant to Health Care Renewal since UC- Davis has a medical school and academic medical center. The Task Force Report Now, five months later, an internal investigation of the case has been made public, and it seems to support our concerns about the leadership of large organizations.  The AP described the resulting report (<a href="http://www.seattlepi.com/news/article/CA-university-slammed-for-pepper-spraying-students-3476454.php">via the Seattle Post-Intelligencer</a>).  In summary, <blockquote>a UC Davis task force said the decision to douse seated Occupy protesters with the eye-stinging chemical was 'objectively unreasonable' and not authorized by campus policy. 'The pepper-spraying incident that took place on Nov. 18, 2011, should and could have been prevented,' concluded the task force created to investigate the confrontation.</blockquote> The report concluded that the Chancellor (functionally, the CEO) of UC-Davis, Linda Katehi had substantial responsibility for the incident: <blockquote>The task force blamed the the incident on poor planning, communication and decision-making at all levels of the school administration, from Katehi to Police Chief Annette Spicuzza to Lt. John Pike, the main officer seen in the online videos.</blockquote> Furthermore, <blockquote>The task force blamed the chancellor for not clearly communicating to her subordinates that police should avoid physical force on the protesters. It also said she was responsible for the decision to deploy police on a Friday afternoon, rather than wait until early morning as Spicuzza recommended.</blockquote> An <a href="http://www.mercedsunstar.com/2012/04/13/2306515/our-view-deep-reform-called-for.html">editorial</a> in the Merced Sun-Star focused more vividly on Katehi's poor leadership. <blockquote>The independent assessment of events leading up to the infamous Nov. 18 pepper-spraying incident at the University of California at Davis provides a devastating indictment of the leadership of Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi and key vice chancellors -- and of the operations of the campus Police Department. Katehi showed either extreme naivete or incompetence in weighing a response to protesters camping in the Quad. The report of the task force, led by former California Supreme Court Associate Justice Cruz Reynoso, revealed a deeply flawed structure for decision-making. Little or no consideration of alternatives. Failing to record and adequately communicate key decisions, so that ambiguity and uncertainty ruled. The command and leadership structure of the campus Police Department, the report concluded, is 'very dysfunctional.' Lieutenants, the report stated, don't 'follow directives of the Chief.' This department needs a top-to-bottom review to bring it into line with best practices in policing for a university campus. Campus leaders had been dealing with protests since 2009 and were well aware of events that November in Oakland and at UC Berkeley. But instead of deliberate preparations, those events, according to the report, sparked alarmist fears among Katehi and other administrators that if any encampment was not removed immediately, older non-students might assault young female students. Katehi said she was worried about 'the use of drugs and sex and other things, and you know here we have very young students ... we were worried especially about having very young girls and other students with older people who come from the outside without any knowledge of their record ... .' But the report suggests Katehi and her leadership team did little or nothing to verify whether these fears were well-founded, ignoring evidence from student affairs staff that protesters were students and faculty. The report concludes that Katehi's fears were 'not supported by any evidence' obtained by the Kroll Inc. investigators. Worse, even if the concerns were real, Katehi and her leadership team did not consider alternatives to immediate removal of the encampment -- or learn anything from the experience of other places. This rush to action resulted in ad hoc decision-making, apparently with no one having a clear understanding of what was supposed to happen. Katehi did make one thing clear: She wanted the tents removed at 3 p.m. -- though it was never certain what legal authority police had to remove tents during the day in order to implement a policy against overnight camping. Subordinates, the report says, took her statement as an executive order and tactical decision. The report also notes that Katehi 'failed to express in any meaningful way her expectation' that campus police would use no force. There is no indication what Katehi thought police should do if protesters refused a request to take down tents.</blockquote> Furthermore, an <a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/04/remember-the-pepper-spraying-cop-uc-davis-releases-a-powerful-report/255903">article</a> in the Atlantic suggested that Katehi was not truthful in her dealing with the investigation: <blockquote>at face value ... [the report's] findings are also very damaging to the still-serving Chancellor of UC Davis, Linda Katehi. For instance, the Kroll report says about a letter asking the demonstrators to disperse: <blockquote>Chancellor Katehi told Kroll investigators that Student Affairs wrote the letter and that she did not review it before it went out. The record contradicts both of these statements, as detailed below. Katehi did review the letter, provided an editorial change and approved it. Student Affairs did not write the letter...</blockquote></blockquote> Will Leadership be Held Accountable? So, in summary, the report on the pepper-spraying incident portrays the Chancellor of UC-Davis as presiding over a dysfunctional police department, hastily responding to rumors rather than evidence, making decisions without considering alternatives, poorly communicating decisions and their rationale, and not always being honest.  This is not the portrait of a capable leader.  This a a portrait of someone totally out of her depth. So why is she paid the big bucks?  As we have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/executive%20compensation">discussed endlessly</a>, the top hired leaders of big health care (and other related) organizations seem to be almost universally lauded by their boards of trustees, not to mention fawning public relations departments, as brilliant.  That brilliance is used as a rationale for the leaders' compensation and benefits, and for deflecting their accountability. Yet often on close examination top hired leaders prove to be bumblers at best.  Again and again their leadership has been shown to <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/mission-hostile%20management">subvert the mission</a> of their own organizations.  Yet the structure that has been erected to protect them, to put them into a "CEO bubble," keeps them unaccountable. Even after this report, will Chancellor Katehi be held accountable?  Once again, I am not holding my breath.  The strength of her protective bubble was demonstrated in an <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2012/04/13/4410834/katehi-urged-to-stay-by-critic.html">article</a> in the Sacramento Bee, <blockquote>Cruz Reynoso, the former state Supreme Court justice whose task force blamed 'systemic and repeated failures' of UC Davis' leadership for the pepper-spraying of students last fall, said Thursday that Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi should stay on the job and enact reforms to prevent a recurrence. 'She should not resign. The balance is that she has done a lot of good despite this drastic poor judgment,' Reynoso said, a day after releasing an investigative report that faulted the chancellor for failing to make clear to campus police she wanted no force used in dispersing protesters and taking down an Occupy encampment on Nov. 18. Reynoso said he was impressed by the chancellor's response: a written statement Wednesday vowing to protect students' 'safety and free speech' as the university learns 'from the difficult events.'</blockquote> What an example of cognitive dissonance this was. "Systematic and repeated failures," and "drastic poor judgment," which resulted in injuries to students and clear violation of the university mission is not reason enough to fire a CEO (as long as she writes a contrite letter promising to uphold the mission in the future)? There is no way to understand this other than as a manifestation of belief in the "divine right of CEOs" (look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/why-health-care-leaders-remain.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/golden-calf-explains-how-economism-lead.html">here</a>). So my response is that we will not solve the problem of health care dysfunction, and our society's larger political economic problems until we resolve to hold our leaders accountable for the missions they are supposed to uphold.

Will the UC-Davis Chancellor be Held Accountable for "Systemic and Repeated Failures?"

During the brief Occupy Wall Street etc campaign last year, the pepper spraying of unarmed protesters on the University of California - Davi...

Đọc thêm »

Using a "Professionalism" Initiative as a Speech Code to Punish Students' Criticisms of Administrative Authority?

The original impetus to set up <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/">Health Care Renewal</a> was increasing evidence of external threats to physicians' professional values.  So it seemed to me that renewed interest in addressing professionalism in academic medicine might lead to more attention to these threats, and perhaps even real challenges to them.  Instead, most academic professionalism initiatives seem to have steered away from this contentious area.  Worse, at times the academic medical concept of professionalism has been turned on its head.  A Dispute Among Students at University of California - Davis A recent <a href="http://thefire.org/article/14251.html">post</a> in the Torch blog from our friends at FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) provided a graphic example.  The case involved an apparently trivial dispute among two medical students: <blockquote>[University of California - Davis medical student Curtis] Allumbaugh's ordeal began after he emailed the 'med2014' mailing list (or 'listserv') on July 19, 2010, regarding a party he was organizing. The listserv was widely used for a variety of non-academic purposes. Allumbaugh's email provided the address of the party, detailed the available space, and listed the variety of alcohol that would be available at the party. The email noted that others had signed up to bring snacks and mentioned that some things were still lacking for the party, such as music, fruit juice, and beer. Prior to Allumbaugh's message, others had sent similar emails using the same listserv about their own parties, such as a 'kegger' one student called 'CAMP MED.' On July 20, 2010, a second-year student emailed Allumbaugh, notifying him that she had 'been placed on the class of 2014's listserve' and had monitored the class email. She criticized Allumbaugh's email for placing 'a heavy emphasis on alcohol.' In response, Allumbaugh emailed her directly on July 21, calling her a 'busy body' and telling her, 'You should really just mind your own business and let our class be.'</blockquote> Note that the second-year student's email (available <a href="http://thefire.org/article/14238.html">here</a>) carried a suggestion that she had some sort of authority to monitor the extra-curricular actions of first year students as manifested on the list server, and perhaps even punish them for perceived misconduct: <blockquote>I can tell you that as MS2s, we work and play hard, but we do it responsibly and always in the forefront of our minds we remember what image we are portraying in public and through the messages we send. I'd hate to see any one of you 2014ers get into any trouble right before you start an amazing period of your life.</blockquote> Note that the exchange between the two students did not occur in an academic or clinical setting, and it was never clear why the second year student was "placed on" the list server, or why she should have any authority over the Allumbaugh. . The School Administration Invokes "Professionalism" The medical school saw fit to cast Allumbaugh's actions as violations of the school's standards of professionalism: <blockquote>As a result of this email exchange, Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Graduate Medical Education James Nuovo sent Allumbaugh a letter on September 14, 2010, citing him for 'failing to demonstrate the highest standards of civility and decency to all' and 'failing to demonstrate courtesy, sensitivity and respect.' On November 3, 2010, Allumbaugh received a letter from the SOM Committee on Student Progress, punishing him with academic probation for the rest of his time in medical school and requiring him to undergo a psychological assessment to determine whether he was 'fit' to continue in medical school. Finally, on November 19, 2010, SOM changed its rules to force all medical students to abide by the Principles of Community or else face academic probation. </blockquote> The result was a series of interventions by FIRE: <blockquote>In response, FIRE wrote UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi on August 3, 2011, noting that enforcing professional standards in truly professional settings differs greatly from enforcing workplace standards in other settings such as private conversations. FIRE also noted that it is blatantly unconstitutional to police student speech under the UC Davis Principles of Community because such a 'civility' policy violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech when it is given disciplinary force. </blockquote> When that letter had no effect, it took threats of litigation for the medical school to suspend Allumbaugh's punishment more than one year after it began: <blockquote>SOM Associate Dean of Curriculum and Competency Development Mark Servis replied to FIRE on August 10, 2011, defending the policy. FIRE responded on November 23, 2011, reminding Katehi that 'violating well-established law regarding the First Amendment rights of students at public universities leaves you at risk of losing qualified immunity, thereby opening you and other administrators to personal liability' for the deprivation of students' First Amendment rights. Servis again defended the policy in a reply on December 5, 2011. Finally, on February 16, 2012, the Committee on Student Progress notified Allumbaugh that his probation had been dropped, but persisted in requiring him to adhere to the Principles of Community. </blockquote>Note that Associate Dean <a href="http://thefire.org/public/pdfs/6d24a77115edf335c1cb2b1d1a737622.pdf?direct">Servis' letter</a> stated that the email sent to Allumbaugh by the second year student was "a genuine suggestion of concern and an offer of albeit unsolicited friendly advice."  Thus, Servis seemed unaware that it could have been interpreted as an assertion of authority and a threat of punishment ("I'd hate to see any one of you 2014ers get into any trouble.") Dean Servis also defended the use of probation to punish a student for failing to "work effectively with classmates." Yet the dispute that had nothing to do with (academic or clinical) work, and only involved a single student from another class.  Why that student was not equally to blame was not clear, unless it was because she had been granted special authority by the administration to monitor the actions of less senior students.  The implication appears to be that the punishment was in defense of a student who had been granted special authority by the administration, and hence was ultimately in defense of the administration's power.  Summary In this case, the medical school's professionalism policy seemed to be used by the administration primarily to control students' speech outside of the academic and clinical setting. Furthermore, the student's main offense seemed to be failure to kowtow sufficiently to another student who by implication had been given some sort of authority by the administration.  What the two students' dispute had to with professionalism is not  apparent. On one hand, this seems like a case in which a speech code was mainly used to defend administrators from criticism and challenge. On the other hand, this speech code was cloaked in the mantle of professionalism.  So this case seems to be an example of a professionalism initiative used as an excuse for the leadership to maintain its power. It is beyond ironic that while this was going on, the University of California - Davis, and its Chancellor Linda Katehi were becoming briefly infamous for another effort, a more violent one, by the administration to prevent criticism and challenge. Chancellor Katehi had authorized university police to "clear" student demonstrators from an "occupation" of the campus which was protesting, among other things, rising tuition and economic inequality, and in doing so, the police used pepper spray on unarmed students (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/uc-davis-pepper-spray-case-as.html">this post</a>.) There are a lot bigger threats to physicians' and other health care professionals' professionalism than medical students' sarcasm or even rudeness in disputes about alcohol served at off-hours parties. Since many of these threats also generate personal benefits to academic leadership, it may not be much of a surprise that they have received little attention.  (See the list of threats appended below.  Note that we have discussed two of these threats in the specific context of the University of California - Davis.  <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/08/university-leaders-goal-taking-new.html">Here</a> we noted that Chancellor Katehi seemed to be re-imagining her medical school as a biotechnology company.  <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/john-wiley-and-sons-director-apologizes.html">Here</a> we noted that Chancellor Katehi was also on the board of a company with a medical education and communication company subsidiary.) However, while they remain unaddressed, I submit that using "professionalism" to cloak increased social control of students to prevent them from looking too closely at what academic administrators are doing will eventually backfire.  === ADDENDUM: List of Threats to Professionalism Instead, to really uphold professionalism, we need to defend it from its real threats, as listed in my <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/12/lancet-emphasizes-threats-to-academic.html">2010 post</a>: <ul><li>Abandonment of traditional prohibitions of the commercial practice of medicine - In the US, a Supreme Court decision was interpreted to mean that medical societies could no longer regulate the ethics of their members.  Until 1980, the US American Medical Association had  ruled that the practice of medicine should not be "commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade."  After then, it ceased trying to maintain this prohibition.  The result was increasing, now rampant commercialization.  See posts  <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/12/relman-in-jama-on-threats-to-physicians.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/06/why-did-us-physicians-give-up-their.html">here</a>.</li><li>Making money takes precedence over education -  A recent survey showing that more than half the faculty at multiple US medical schools felt they were valued more for how much money they brought in than their teaching or patient care abilities (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/12/american-medical-schools-are-only-in-it.html">here</a>), confirming previous anecdotal reports (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/04/medical-schools-to-faculty-show-me.html">here</a>).  </li><li>The medical school re-imagined as a biotechnology company -  In 2000, a Vice President of the American Association of Medical Colleges(1) wrote that research universities must respond to "societal demands that they become engines of economic development…."  Many universities now defend lax conflict of interest policies with similar arguments.  For more details, go <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/11/who-you-gonna-call-how-should-young.html">here</a>.</li><li>Faculty become employees of industry - For numerous examples of this and other kinds of conflicts of interest, go <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/conflicts%20of%20interest">here</a>.  A survey by Campbell et al suggested that approximately two-thirds of medical academics get significant payments from industry.(2)</li><li>Academics become "key opinion leaders" paid to market drugs and devices - Marketers regard "key opinion leaders" as salespeople who appear more credible because of their professional guise.  See anecdotal evidence <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/key%20opinion%20leaders">here</a>.  </li><li>Control of clinical research given to commercial sponsors - A study by Mello et al showed how universities' grant administrators are willing to sign contracts giving commercial sponsors control over key aspects of human research studies.(3)  See post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/05/troubling-study-of-contracts-between.html">here</a>. </li><li>Conflicts of interest allow manipulation and suppression of clinical research - Commercially sponsored research design, implementation, and dissemination are often <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/manipulating%20clinical%20research">manipulated</a> to favor the sponsor's interests.  When such manipulation fails to produce favorable results, the results may simply be <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/suppression%20of%20medical%20research">suppressed</a>.</li><li>Academics take credit for articles written by commercially paid ghost-writers - Such <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/ghost%20writing">ghost-writing</a> is often part of organized <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/stealth%20marketing">stealth marketing</a> campaigns.  </li><li>Whistle blowers are discouraged, or worse, and academic freedom is damaged.  Discussion of some examples of what may happen to whistle blowers is <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/whistle-blowers">here</a>.  The survey mentioned earlier (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/12/american-medical-schools-are-only-in-it.html">here</a>) showed that about one-third of faculty fear they may be punished for speaking  out.  </li><li>Leadership of academic medical centers by businesspeople - <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/ill-informed%20management">Ill-informed management</a> may result from leaders who have no background or training in actual health care.  </li><li>Leaders of teaching hospitals and universities become millionaires -  A recent example is <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/more-hospital-ceos-join-millionaires.html">here</a>, and more may be found <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/executive%20compensation">here</a>.  Leaders of academic medical centers and the parent universities of medical schools often make more than $1 million a year in the US.  When such amounts are in play, executives may focus more on short-term measures that lead to even more pay than on upholding the mission.  </li><li>Medical school leaders become stewards (as members of boards of directors) of for-profit health care corporations - A recent example is <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/12/duke-divinity-students-protest-pay-of.html">here</a>, and a summary of how we discovered this phenomenon in 2006 is <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-species-of-conflict-of-interest-in.html">here</a>.   The conflict of interest is severe because directors of for-profit corporations are supposed to have unyielding loyalty to the interests of the corporation and its stockholders, although they are frequently accused of acting mainly as cronies of the top hired executives (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/new-york-times-reports-university.html">here</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/01/one-small-step-towards-reducing.html">here</a>).</li><li>Leaders of failed finance firms become stewards of academic medicine - We have found numerous examples, recently <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/04/failed-leaders-of-citigroup-as-leaders.html">here</a>, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/04/wamu-worry-more-overlaps-between.html">here</a>, and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/03/members-of-board-of-now-bankrupt-lehman.html">here</a>, of top executives and/or board members of the finance firms who helped bring on the global financial collapse also being trustees of medical schools, academic medical centers, or their parent universities.  Such "stewards" may bring to the academic environment the "greed is good" culture now pervasive in finance.  </li></ul>References 1. Korn D. Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2000; 284: 2234-2237. Link <a href="http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/284/17/2234">here</a>. 2. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. Llink <a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMsa064508">here</a>. 3. Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 21.  Link <a href="http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/352/21/2202">here</a>.

Using a "Professionalism" Initiative as a Speech Code to Punish Students' Criticisms of Administrative Authority?

The original impetus to set up Health Care Renewal was increasing evidence of external threats to physicians' professional values. So ...

Đọc thêm »

John Wiley and Sons Director Apologizes for Pepper Spray - An Example of the Proximity of the One Percent to the Leaders of Academic Medicine

The title of this post has not been hacked.  All will be revealed soon. Review: the University of California - Davis Pepper Spray Incident We just <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/uc-davis-pepper-spray-case-as.html">discussed</a> the now infamous pepper spraying of peaceful student protesters at the University of California.  We noted our previous concerns about the leadership of the university Chancellor who presided over this incident because she had previously seemed disconnected from the prime mission of the university (but instead pushed its role as a developer and marketer of biotechnology) (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/08/university-leaders-goal-taking-new.html">this post</a>), and defended the nearly one million dollar compensation for the medical center CEO at a time when the university's finances became increasingly fragile (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-repeats-of-talking-points.html">this post</a>). Since then, the Chancellor, Linda P B Katehi, vaguely apologized for the incident at a student rally where many speakers called for her resignation (see, for example, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/11/21/MNK71M2548.DTL">this story</a> in the San Francisco Chronicle). A University Chancellor in Proximity to the One Percent as Director of John Wiley and Sons There is a certain irony to all this.  While the overriding theme of the "occupy" movement has been to advocate for the "99 percent" of Americans who feel increasingly powerless, the original protest at UC-Davis was not so much against the plutocratic one percent, as against "tuition increases and state cuts in higher education," (per the Chronicle)   Yet the person who is now at the focus of the Occupy UC-Davis group's wrath is closer to the one percent than most protesters realized. A quick search on Google revealed that Chancellor Katehi started a new part time job in 2011.  She is now a member of the <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-301709.html">board of directors of John Wiley and Sons, Inc</a>, a $2.8 billion market market capitalization "global  publisher of print and electronic products."  Note that this position on not listed on <a href="http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/about/index.html">her official bio</a> on the UC - Davis web-site as of 23 November, 2011, nor on <a href="http://chancellor.ucdavis.edu/local_resources/pdfs/katehi_vita.10.29.2010.pdf">her official curriculum vita</a> (from 2010) available on that web-site.  As a board member, she can expect over $100,000 yearly as compensation, based on fees paid in 2010 reported in the <a href="http://www.wiley.com/about/corpnews/2011_proxy.pdf">2011 company proxy statement</a>.  Since last year, the board approved compensation for the five highest paid executives ranging from over $1.8 million to over $5.3 million.  So a position on the board certainly put Ms Katehi in the proximity of the one percent. Furthermore, as we have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/06/managers-coup-how-hired-hands-got.html">noted</a> previously, compliant, if not crony board members have been blamed for the huge increase in the compensation of top corporate executives who now make up the majority of the "one percent."  Since most board members seem to be current or retired high-ranking executives, their enthusiasm for raising their fellow hired executives' compensation should not be surprising.  Note that Ms Katehi is effectively the "CEO" of UC- Davis. A Conflict of Interest In some cases, board members' disinclination to challenge the executives they are supposed to be supervising may arise from conflicts of interest.  Note regarding the current example that John Wiley and Sons is a leading publisher of text books and professional journals in medicine, the life sciences, and many other subjects relevant to the curriculum of many of the schools and departments at UC-Davis, and particularly to the medical school and academic medical center.  More importantly, as we noted here, John Wiley and Sons' Wiley-Blackwell subsidiary includes a medical education and communications unit.  On its website, this entity <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-310320.html">promises</a>: <blockquote>Our Global Corporate Sales Team of more than 100 people is dedicated to serving the publishing and communication needs of your industry. Through our extensive range of clinical and professional publications, we can develop a customized communications plan to support your promotional strategy, maximizing the impact of your brand. Whether you are looking for global or localized campaigns, for strategic or tactical support, our publishing teams are knowledgeable at all levels and are easy to reach in your time zone by phone, email or in person. We provide an expert service, competitive pricing, dedicated project management and the flexibility to provide peer-reviewed support for your brand from pre-launch to maturity, achieving strong credibility.</blockquote>Among the services provided are "continuing professional development," including "conferences and training schemes," and establishing "advisory boards to provide direction on issues surrounding new products or developing brands. We draw on our close relationships with industry leaders...." Thus, like other <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/medical%20education%20and%20communication%20companies">medical education and communication companies</a> (MECCs), this subsidiary can use a variety of tactics to infiltrate marketing messages into what appears to be medical education.  By accepting a position on the board of directors of an academic and medical publisher that also runs a MECC, Ms Katehi has taken on fiduciary responsibility for the company, and thus seems to have a potentially intense conflict of interest, particularly affecting her leadership of a medical school and academic medical center (see our first discussion of what then appeared to be a "new species" of conflict of interest due to academic medical leaders' membership on a board of a health care corporation <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-species-of-conflict-of-interest-in.html">here</a>.)  Summary I can only speculate that proximity to the one per cent, and the conflict of interest induced by fiduciary responsibility for the stewardship of an academic and medical publisher and a medical education and communication company might have left Ms Katehi feeling distant from protesters who claimed "we are the 99 per cent," and hence more inclined to support clearing them from the campus by whatever means. In any case, it turns out that Occupy UC -Davis took on a more appropriate opponent than they realized.  This case illustrates how the complex web of relationships among the top leaders of society, including leaders of health acre organizations, is more sticky and pervasive than was heretofore apparent.  In any case, it underlines our repeated call....  To reform health care, we must reverse the managers' coup d'etat, and restore leadership of health care organizations that puts the mission, and the health of patients and the population first, and is accountable to corporate owners (when applicable) and to patients and the public.  But that will mean now going up against those who have made themselves the richest and most powerful people in the country and the world, who will not lightly give up their oligarchy.

John Wiley and Sons Director Apologizes for Pepper Spray - An Example of the Proximity of the One Percent to the Leaders of Academic Medicine

The title of this post has not been hacked. All will be revealed soon. Review: the University of California - Davis Pepper Spray Incident W...

Đọc thêm »

The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Case as Illustrative of Problems with the Leadership of Health Care

The aggressive actions by University of California-Davis police against unarmed, peaceful student protesters turn out to be the latest illustration of the problems with leadership and governance we discuss on <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/">Health Care Renewal</a>.  The University of California - Davis Pepper Spray Incident To summarize the current episode, I start with quotes about its background <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/19/us-protests-davis-pepperspray-idUSTRE7AI0ZA20111119">from Reuters</a>, <blockquote>Student protesters at Davis had set up an encampment in the university's quad area earlier this month as part of the nationwide Occupy movement against economic inequality and excesses of the financial system. Their demonstrations, which had been endorsed by a faculty association, included protests against tuition increases and what they viewed as police brutality on University of California campuses in response to recent protests. The students had set up roughly 25 tents in a quad area, but they had been asked not to stay overnight and were told they would not be able to stay during the weekend, due to a lack of university resources, [university Chancellor Linda] Katehi said. Some protesters took their tents down voluntarily while others stayed.</blockquote> Then, <blockquote>The pepper spray incident appeared to take place on Friday afternoon, when campus police moved in to forcibly evict the protesters.</blockquote> Then, as <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/outcry-over-chilling-campus-pepper-spray-use-6265203.html">per the (London, UK) Independent</a>, <blockquote>A police officer saunters up to a group of young protestors who are sat in a line on the ground, with their arms linked. Then he removes a canister of pepper spray from his belt, with a flourish, before casually proceeding to unload its contents into their faces. The demonstrators remain silent and motionless, with their heads bowed. So the policeman carries on, methodically covering them, from point blank range. By the time he’s finished, their heads and faces are covered in a thick layer of the toxic red liquid.</blockquote> The actual video is below: <iframe allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/WmJmmnMkuEM" width="560"></iframe> The UC-Davis Chancellor's Defense of the Police Actions The Independent's coverage emphasized that initially the leadership of the campus police defended the use of pepper spray on apparently unarmed, peaceful students: <blockquote>Annette Spicuzza, the head of the UC Davis Campus Police, who were responsible for Friday’s incident .... told reporters that her officers had been 'forced' to use the pepper spray, after demonstrators surrounded them. Lt Pike gave his victims sufficient warning of the impending attack, she added, and emptied the canister with a sweeping motion, in keeping with official procedures. 'When you are encircled by 200 individuals, I don’t know if I want to say ‘afraid,’ but I think they were quite concerned about their safety,' she said, regarding the circumstances her officers faced. 'There was no way out of that circle... It's a very volatile situation.'</blockquote> That coverage also made clear that the directive to clear the demonstrators came from the top: <blockquote>Linda Katehi, the Chancellor of UC Davis ... had asked the police to clear demonstrators from her campus, a couple of hours north of San Francisco. In the aftermath of the incident, she had initially joined Spicuzza in defending the force's methods, saying that they had 'no option' but to adopt a hard line.</blockquote> Ms Katehi later backed off, but only after her first response <blockquote>sparked immediate outrage, and within hours, the university’s Faculty Association, representing Ms Katehi’s employees, issued a statement called for her resignation, saying that her authorisation of 'excessive' force had amounted to a 'gross failure of leadership.' Nathan Brown, an assistant English professor who witnessed the incident, wrote in an open letter: 'Several of these students were hospitalized. Others are seriously injured. One of them, forty-five minutes after being pepper-sprayed down his throat, was still coughing up blood... You are responsible.'</blockquote> Other comments likened the police actions to something "coming from some riot-control unit in China, or in Syria," [<a href="http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/pepper-spray-brutality-at-uc-davis/248764/">James Fallows in the Atlantic</a>] called them indicative of "a police state in its pure form," [<a href="http://www.salon.com/2011/11/20/the_roots_of_the_uc_davis_pepper_spraying/">Glenn Greenwald in Salon</a>], or otherwise denounced them as "outrageous" or "awful." (Clark McPhail, professor emeritus of sociology at the University of Illinois, and Greg Lukianoff, President of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, respectively, <a href="http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/11/21/experts-and-activists-question-use-pepper-spray-davis">via Inside Higher Ed</a>.) This aggressive, violent response to peaceful protest seems to be the latest example of the arrogance of some current leaders of our important organizations. Our Previous Discussion of the Chancellor in Health Care Renewal This case appears directly related to the problems in leadership and governance we discuss on <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/">Health Care Renewal </a>Ms Katehi has the distinction of having been already written up twice on Health Care Renewal for questions about her leadership. On her arrival at UC-Davis in 2009, she promised to "help UC Davis to become more aggressive in taking new biotechnology and agriculture products to market." This indicates at best ignorance of, at worst hostility to the fundamental university mission, which is hardly developing and particularly marketing products, but discovering and disseminating knowledge (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/08/university-leaders-goal-taking-new.html">this post</a>). At that time, I called this an example of "how the leaders of academic institutions seem to be forgetting or radically deconstructing their academic missions." In 2011, Ms Katehi defended the payment to the medical center CEO, whom she called a "great CEO,' of nearly a million dollars yearly in compensation. However, that CEO was part of a group of top university leaders demanding large increases in their pensions at a time when the university was under great financial distress. For that, some called them not great leaders, but greedy and "despicable." Thus, Ms Katehi seemed to stand up for top leaders' privilege and exceptionalism, including their entitlement to huge compensation whatever the circumstance, even in a time of financial travail (see <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/more-repeats-of-talking-points.html">this post</a>). I could not have predicted that Chancellor Katehi would preside over the pepper spraying unarmed students for peaceful, legitimate protest. However, it is not surprising that a leader who does not understand the fundamental academic mission and who supports executive privilege and exceptionalism would foster an authoritarian climate in which such an incident could happen. This example clearly illustrates the issues we have been discussing on Health Care Renewal for a long time. In particular, leaders who are more dedicated to their own and their fellow executives' privilege and exceptionalism than their organizations' missions are likely to end up promoting actions that threaten those  missions. The Moral of the Story Instead, as we have been preaching endlessly,... health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior. If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses. You heard it here first on <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/">Health Care Renewal </a>. Keep your eye on Health Care Renewal for continued discussion of parallels between problems in health care and in the larger political economy.

The UC-Davis Pepper-Spray Case as Illustrative of Problems with the Leadership of Health Care

The aggressive actions by University of California-Davis police against unarmed, peaceful student protesters turn out to be the latest illus...

Đọc thêm »

More Repeats of Talking Points Supporting Making Non-Profit Hospital CEOs Into Millionaires

I have found even more cases of non-profit hospital leaders for whose generous compensation the only support was the usual talking points, without clear evidence on their behalf, and despite obvious concerns based on publicly available data.  In chronological order, Wellstar After the firing of its last CEO was later justified by contentions of misconduct and a "special relationship," but countered by accusations of insiders' financial "improprieties," (see <a href="http://www.ajc.com/news/health-care/execs-firings-rankle-wellstar-923660.html">this story</a> in the Atlanta Journal Constitution), Wellstar, a non-profit hospital system in Georgia, hired a new CEO, Reynold C Jennings, for hefty price, <a href="http://cherokeetribune.com/view/full_story/15144876/article-New-WellStar-CEO%E2%80%88to-earn--975K-in-base-pay?instance=home_news_bullets">per the Cherokee Tribune</a>, <blockquote>He received a five-year contract composed of an initial term of three years and two one-year renewal options. The contract pays an annual base salary of $975,000, in addition to a bonus that could range from 35 to 65 percent of his annual salary, depending on his performance, [board of trustees chair Randall] Bentley said. By comparison, Bentley said WellStar’s last CEO, Dr. Greg Simone, earned a base salary last year of $900,000. Other benefits included in Jennings’ contract are: Thirty annual paid vacation days, in addition to six holidays. Payment for time lost from a serious health condition with proper medical certification. Annual automobile allowance: $12,000. Annual cell phone allowance: $2,400. Annual physical exam allowance: $800. Annual financial planning/tax preparation services: $3,000. Because Jennings has existing medical and dental coverage and did not want to participate in the benefits plan offered by WellStar, WellStar will also pay him an annual $12,000 allowance for this reason. The contract also provides for life insurance, a retirement savings plan and long-term disability benefits.</blockquote> His total compensation thus would have to be more than $1 million, any additional bonus notwithstanding. The board gave the usual justification for making Mr Jennings a million-dollar plus baby: <blockquote>'We’re very excited to have someone of his talent and his capability, someone that’s within our community, someone that understands what it takes to take our system to a new level,' said Randall Bentley, chairman of WellStar’s board of trustees. 'We’re very, very excited.'</blockquote> The WellStar board did not elaborate on Mr Jennings' "talent and capability," or to what "new level" he was expected to take Wellstar. The Cherokee Tribune did note he had a 10 year career in management of <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/Tenet">Tenet Healthcare</a>, ending in 2007 as Vice Chairman. Neither the news article nor the board noted Tenet's troubles during Jennings' tenure there, culminating with financial woes and a $395 million settlement of the Redding Medical Center unnecessary heart surgery scandal in 2004 (look <a href="http://articles.sfgate.com/2004-12-22/news/17458067_1_redding-medical-center-steven-campanini-unnecessary-heart">here</a>), and a $21 million settlement of US government charges of kickbacks (look <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/business/18tenet.html">here</a>), a $7 million settlement with the government of Florida of charges of fraudulent billing (look <a href="http://www.bizjournals.com/stlouis/stories/2006/02/20/daily31.html">here</a>), and a $900 million settlement of federal over-billing complaints (look <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2006/jun/30/business/fi-tenet30">here</a>, and see our post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/07/echos-of-previous-scandals-in-for.html">here</a>), all in 2006.  At least Mr Jennings had experience dealing with allegations of financial improprieties, but if anyone raised questions about hiring someone who lead a for-profit hospital corporation at a time when it seemed steeped in a culture of dubious ethics, they were not reported. University of California - Davis The Sacramento Bee <a href="http://blogs.sacbee.com/the_swarm/2011/09/katehi-replacing-hospital-ceo.html">noted</a> that: <blockquote>Last week, UC regents approved a $259,000 raise to $960,000 a year, money paid by hospital fees, not state money or student tuition</blockquote>for UC Davis Medical Center CEO Ann Madden Rice, justified because, <blockquote>that another academic hospital was recruiting Rice and offering $1.5 million. Katehi told The Bee's editorial board today that it was 'not an easy decision' to support the salary hike. While no one is irreplaceable, she said, the cost and time of replacing Rice would be far greater than the raise. Just hiring an executive search firm would cost $500,000, Katehi said. Then the search would take a year, and UC Davis would almost certainly end up paying more for Rice's successor. That's just the way the market is, she said. Rice, the chancellor added, is a great leader.</blockquote> One wonders whether the decision was informed by Rice's leadership earlier in this year of a lawsuit against the University of California by a group of top university executives who sought a large increase in their pensions at a time that the university was under great fiscal stress (see our post <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/01/some-call-it-tyranny-top-leaders-of.html">here</a>). That lawsuit drew responses using words like "outrageous," "despicable," and "greed," (not taken out of context) from a variety of people at the university.  Lifespan This last story is regrettably local, about Lifespan, the Rhode Island based hospital system, <a href="http://www.pbn.com/Union-slams-Lifespans-executives-pay,61281">published</a> by the Providence Business News, <blockquote>A release of Lifespan’s executives’ salary, bonuses and supplemental retirement contributions has been met with great consternation by the Rhode Island Hospital union. The forms - the U.S. Internal Revenue Service 990 forms for non-profit organizations - show that Lifespan’s nine highest-paid executives received $9.4 million in total compensation in the last reported year, including $1.8 million in bonuses and $2.6 million in supplemental retirement contributions. Lifespan President and CEO George A. Vecchione received a total of $2.9 million in salary and benefits – including $853,024 in base salary, $522,051 in bonuses, and $1,485,197 in retirement or deferred compensation. Dr. Timothy J. Babineau, president and CEO of Rhode Island Hospital and The Miriam Hospital, received $1.1 million in salary and benefits – including $573,675, in base salary, $379,376 in bonuses and $92,035 in retirement or deferred compensation.</blockquote> The defense of these million dollar plus compensation packages was predictable: <blockquote>Alfred Verrecchia, chairman of Lifespan’s board of directors, said that because of the hospital system’s significant size and complexity, the board places a priority on recruiting and retaining a highly skilled leadership team who can manage in both good and bad times, with the goal of providing the highest quality care to patients. 'The process for setting leadership compensation is undertaken by a board committee and is informed by national surveys provide by the The Hay Group, an independent compensation consultant,' Verrecchia said. Over the past several years, Verrecchia continued, 'base pay for executives has been relatively flat. A significant portion of the executive pay is at risk and is only paid out if quality, service and financial performance goals established by the compensation committee are achieved.' Verrecchia praised the current leadership team at Lifespan, saying: 'Lifespan hospitals are fortunate to have a stable, sound leadership team with a proven track record of addressing significant financial challenges in order to continue to fulfill our mission of providing the best and safest care to our patients.'</blockquote> The system's employees did not all agree: <blockquote>'We are angry, we feel disrespected,' said Helene Macedo, president of the United Nurses & Allied Professionals which represents 2,200 employees at Rhode Island Hospital. 'It’s not justified, when we see the sacrifice that those of us who are working at the bedside are being asked to make,' she told Providence Business News. Macedo, an operating room nurse who has been at Rhode Island Hospital for 20 years, was further irked by the fact that Lifespan had just announced a decision to cutting the matching contributions to employee’s 403(b) Fidelity plan for 2011 and eliminating the matching contribution for 2012. 'It looks like another example of corporate greed,' she said, 'when you look at their executives’ salaries, bonuses and supplemental retirement, compared to that of what employees are making – and the sacrifices we’ve been asked to make during the last several years.' The atmosphere in the hospital, Macedo said, 'is one where we’re counting every penny and cutting every corner. But there doesn’t appear to be any corner-cutting or counting in the corner office.'</blockquote> Summary Here were three more examples of million dollar (more or less) non-profit hospital system CEOs. As we have noted frequently, even non-profit hospital systems that are supposed to put their patient care and academic missions, when applicable, first somehow seem increasingly unable to function without yearly making their leaders instant millionaires. It was striking that the justifications, by boards of trustees or hospital spokespeople, for these indulgent pay packages followed the talking points we have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/09/talking-points-sans-original-thought-to.html">identified before</a>: -  We pay what everyone else pays -  CEOs work hard and are brilliant, so they deserve high pay -  High pay is needed to attract and retain competent, if not brilliant people Yet in these cases, as in nearly all cases we have discussed before, there were no logical, fact-based arguments why - the particular CEOs deserved at least what supposedly comparable CEOs got, if not more, and how the comparator group were judged to be comparable; - why the CEOs were so brilliant, (or in this case, had such "talent and capabilities," was a "great leader," or was "highly skilled," and "stable and sound") when there were at least reasonable but unanswered questions about their leadership based on publicly available information So despite their hospitals' financial challenges, and despite questions about their previous leadership, more non-profit hospital leaders are becoming million dollar babies, encouraged by boards of trustees who seem to be basing their "stewardship" on the same talking points, rather than reasoned arguments.  One can only wish that the boards who supposedly exercise stewardship over our formerly revered health care institutions actually had to answer some tough questions about the leaders they continue to uncritically endorse. So ad infinitum, I repeat.... health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior. If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

More Repeats of Talking Points Supporting Making Non-Profit Hospital CEOs Into Millionaires

I have found even more cases of non-profit hospital leaders for whose generous compensation the only support was the usual talking points, w...

Đọc thêm »

Some Call it "Tyranny" - Top Leaders of University of California (Including Leaders of Academic Medicine) Demand Bigger Pensions for Themselves

The state of California, and its flagship university system, the University of California, have been under extreme financial pressure lately.  The 36 Executives' Demands However, that apparently has not decreased the University's hired managers' and executives' sense of entitlement.  They are threatening to sue if their pensions are not increased.  As reported <a href="http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-12-29/news/26349177_1_uc-employees-uc-system-higher-pensions">by the San Francisco Chronicle</a>, <blockquote>Three dozen of the University of California's highest-paid executives are threatening to sue unless UC agrees to spend tens of millions of dollars to dramatically increase retirement benefits for employees earning more than $245,000. 'We believe it is the University's legal, moral and ethical obligation' to increase the benefits, the executives wrote the Board of Regents in a Dec. 9 letter and position paper obtained by The Chronicle. 'Failure to do so will likely result in a costly and unsuccessful legal confrontation,' they wrote, using capital letters to emphasize that they were writing 'URGENTLY.' Their demand comes as UC is trying to eliminate a vast, $21.6 billion unfunded pension obligation by reducing benefits for future employees, raising the retirement age, requiring employees to pay more into UC's pension fund and boosting tuition. The fatter executive retirement benefits the employees are seeking would add $5.5 million a year to the pension liability, UC has estimated, plus $51 million more to make the changes retroactive to 2007, as the executives are demanding. The executives fashioned their demand as a direct challenge to UC President Mark Yudof, who opposes the increase. 'Forcing resolution in the courts will put 200 of the University's most senior, most visible current and former executives and faculty leaders in public contention with the President and the Board,' they wrote. </blockquote> Background to the Case Here is the relevant background: <blockquote>The roots of the pension dispute go back to 1999, five years after the IRS limited how much compensation could be included in retirement package calculations. But even after the IRS granted UC's waiver in 2007, nothing changed. University executives were having troubles of their own that year. President Robert Dynes resigned in 2007 after it was discovered that UC was awarding secret bonuses, perks and extra pay to executives. State auditors also found that UC's compensation practices were riddled with errors and policy violations. UC officials also had become aware of another big problem: UC's pension obligations were about to outstrip its ability to pay retirees. Neither UC nor its employees had paid into the fund since 1990. It took until this year for UC to act. In September, a retirement task force offered Yudof several options for closing the $21.6 billion gap - and one to widen it: increasing executive pensions.</blockquote>Health Care Executives Included Note that in addition to a bunch of finance officers and portfolio and asset managers, the demanding executives included quite a few leaders of the medical schools, and academic medical centers, including: <blockquote>UC System's Central Office Dr. Jack Stobo, senior vice president, health services and affairs UCSF Dr. Sam Hawgood, vice chancellor and dean, School of Medicine Ken Jones, chief operating officer, medical center Mark Laret, CEO, medical center Larry Lotenero chief information officer, medical center John Plotts, senior vice chancellor UC Davis William McGowan, CFO, health system Dr. Claire Pomeroy, CEO health system, vice chancellor/dean, School of Medicine Ann Madden Rice, CEO Medical Center UCLA Dr. David Feinberg, CEO of the hospital system; associate vice chancellor Dr. Gerald Levey, dean emeritus Virginia McFerran, chief information officer of the health system Amir Dan Rubin, chief operating officer of the hospital system Dr. J. Thomas Rosenthal, chief medical officer of the hospital system; associate vice chancellor Paul Staton, chief financial officer of the hospital system UC San Diego Dr. David Brenner, vice chancellor for health sciences; dean of the School of Medicine Tom Jackiewicz, CEO, associate vice chancellor of the health system Dr. Thomas McAfee, dean for clinical affairs UC Irvine Terry Belmont, CEO, Medical Center</blockquote>The Outraged Reaction The executives' demands sparked anger on campus. <blockquote>Dissenting members of the task force said it would be unseemly' to expand executive pensions. Tuition had just been increased by 32 percent this fall, and the regents were poised to raise it another 8 percent for fall 2011. They also voted to shift more money into the retirement fund from employees' pockets, as low-wage workers worried about retiring into poverty. 'I think it's pretty outrageous that this group of highly compensated administrators of a public university are challenging the president and the chair of the Board of Regents, said Daniel Simmons, chairman of UC's Academic Senate and a law professor at UC Davis. 'What outrages me the most is that these 36 people are blind to the fact that this is a public entity in dire straits,' said Simmons, who also served on the retirement task force and opposed the higher pensions.</blockquote> The demands prompted outrage from politicians and editorialists. A few choice samples: - The executives are "tarnishing the university's name with greed," <a href="http://www.dailybruin.com/index.php/article/2011/01/with_the_uc_in_crisis_senior_executives_should_be_helping_to_fix_the_budget_instead_of_demanding_a_f">editorial (UCLA) Daily Bruin</a>. - "Very out of touch," by Governor Elect Jerry Brown; "truly living in an ivory tower...." while "people are suffering in the rest of the state and losing their homes," by Assemblyman Jerry Hill, D- San Mateo (<a href="http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-12-30/bay-area/26350890_1_uc-system-higher-pensions-uc-execs">per the San Francisco Chronicle</a>) - "Uncaring and divisive," "undercuts public support for one of California's most treasured institutions," "sending out its own special-interest message: what's in it for me," - <a href="http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-12-30/bay-area/26350890_1_uc-system-higher-pensions-uc-execs">editorial, San Francisco Chronicle</a>. - "despicable threat," the California Regents (UC board of trustees) should not "claim that lavish pension may be needed to recruit good people to UC. Good people don't threaten lawsuits against a cash-strapped sate to enrich themselves." <a href="http://www.sacbee.com/2011/01/02/3290033/editorial-uc-executives-offer.html">editorial, Sacramento Bee</a>. - Governor-Elect B4rown should issue an executive order "to eliminate any position in the University of California system paying $245,000 a year or more," (thus effectively firing all the 36 complaining executives); "free taxpayers and students alike from the tyranny of those whose main objective during any time - tough or otherwise - is to keep milking the state for every penny the can squeeze out," <a href="http://www.mantecabulletin.com/news/article/19725/">editorial, Manteca Bulletin</a>. Summary We have posted frequently about hired managers and executives of health care organizations receiving <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/executive%20compensation">compensation</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/executive%20life%20style">benefits</a> out of all proportion to their apparent performance. The case of the demanding University of California executives is just one of many. However, what is really remarkable about this case is the reaction to it. We are hearing top leaders, including many of the top leaders of the state's medical schools and academic medical centers, called uncaring, greedy, and despicable by well-known politicians and in newspaper editorials, and we are hearing calls that they be fired, en masse. Maybe we are at a tipping point. Of course, hired health care managers and executives are not entitled to line their own pockets while patients and their other constituencies suffer during the great recession. They are not entitled to continually drive health care costs up while they enrich themselves. However, apathy,<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/learned%20helplessness"> learned helplessness</a>, and the <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/anechoic%20effect">anechoic effect</a> have let them promote themselves into a de facto new aristocracy (just like the hired managers and executives of some other non-profit organizations, for-profit corporations, and especially financial service corporations have turned themselves into the rest of that aristocracy.) If we do not reclaim health care from these new oligarchs, we will all end up not just with expensive, difficult to access, mediocre health care, but under their tyranny. Post-Script This is just the latest example of the sense of entitlement displayed by the hired managers and executives of the University of California. Outrageous pay and benefits unjustified by any measure of performance for University of California's hired managers and executives has been grist for the Health Care Renewal mill since 2005.  A few samples: -  The ranks of those paid more than $200 K rose much faster than those paid less, while lower paid employees endured a pay freeze, and the university cut its budget.  Managers got bonuses for extra work, while faculty did not.  Managers got housing allowances, and other perks.  (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/11/leadership-living-large-at-university.html">November, 2005</a>)  - UC-Irvine managers were paid lavishly while presiding over debacles involving transplant services  (liver transplants, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2005/11/university-of-california-irvine-shuts.html">November, 2005</a>; bone marrow transplants, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/01/even-more-trouble-in-oc-uci-bone.html">January, 2006</a>; kidney transplants, <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/01/california-bad-dreamin-more-troubles.html">January, 2006</a>) - UC - San Diego Chancellor was paid $359 K plus a bonus of $248 K for supposed full time work while serving on ten for-profit corporate and non-profit boards, including directorships of for-profit health care corporations that were conflicts of interest with her role overseeing the medical school and medical center.  This was the first case of what we later called the "new species of conflicts of interest" posted on the blog.  (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/01/california-nightmares-more-troubles-at.html">January, 2006</a>) - UC - Irvine managers got bonuses while its medical center failed an inspection (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/01/uci-medical-center-fails-inspection-uci.html">January, 2010</a>), as did managers at other UC campuses (<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/01/more-california-medical-centers-plagued.html">January, 2010</a>). Maybe if these older stories produced more outraged, the current situation would not have occurred. You heard it first on Health Care Renewal Hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan <a href="http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=28524">on the University Diaries blog</a>.

Some Call it "Tyranny" - Top Leaders of University of California (Including Leaders of Academic Medicine) Demand Bigger Pensions for Themselves

The state of California, and its flagship university system, the University of California, have been under extreme financial pressure lately...

Đọc thêm »