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.<br /><br /><strong>Review: the University of California - Davis Pepper Spray Incident</strong><br /><br />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>).<br /><br />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).<br /><br /><strong>A University Chancellor in Proximity to the One Percent as Director of John Wiley and Sons</strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.  <br /><br />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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br /><strong>A Conflict of Interest</strong><br /><br />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.  <br /><br />On its website, this entity <a href="http://www.wiley.com/WileyCDA/Section/id-310320.html">promises</a>:<br /><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, <em>we can develop a customized communications plan to support your promotional strategy, maximizing the impact of your brand</em>.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />We provide an expert service, competitive pricing, dedicated project management and the flexibility to provide <em>peer-reviewed support for your brand from pre-launch to maturity, achieving strong credibility</em>.</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.  <br /><br />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>.)  <br /><br /><strong>Summary</strong><br /><br />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.<br /><br />In any case, it turns out that Occupy UC -Davis took on a more appropriate opponent than they realized.  <br /><br />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.  <br /><br />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 IncidentWe just discussed the now infamous pepper spraying of peaceful …

Đọc thêm »

Why I Shouldn't Read Non-Systematic Review Articles: Special Pleadings and Undercover Authors

I usually resist looking at non-systematic review articles in medical journals, but because the title interested me, and things seem to be getting slow this holiday season, prompted by an update email from the American Journal of Medicine, I looked at Ram CVS. Beta-blockers in hypertension. Am J Cardiol 2010: 106: 1819-1825. (Link <a href="http://www.ajconline.org/article/S0002-9149%2810%2901631-0/abstract">here</a>.)<br /><br /><strong>The Ram Article in Praise of Vasodilating Beta-Blockers</strong><br /><br />The article focused on the results of meta-analyses:<br /><blockquote>Concerns have also been raised by meta-analyses in which β blockers were reported to have a suboptimal effect on reducing stroke risk and increasing the risk for new-onset diabetes compared with other antihypertensive agents.</blockquote><br />The article discussed several meta-analyses in which beta-blockers, [a specific class of blood pressure lowering drugs] but mostly atenolol (mostly sold generically), usually combined with a diuretic, were compared with other antihypertensive drugs, usually including angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and calcium channel blockers. But after discussing these comparative results, the author jumped to descriptions of another group of drugs which were not included in any of these comparative studies. This was the category of vasodilating beta-blockers, consisting of labetolol (mostly sold generically), carvedilol (Coreg, GlaxoSmithKline [GSK]), and nebivolol (Bystolic, Forest Laboratories. Based on physiologic studies of these drugs and trials in which they were compared with placebo, but not on studies which directly compared clinical outcomes of patients given these drugs or other kinds of antihypertensives, Dr Ram reached conclusions that they were a better alternative:<br /><blockquote>The review of the evidence provided herein confirms that there are valid reasons to question the utility of certain β blockers in treating hypertension. However, many of the perceptions about β blockers are derived from data obtained from studies of traditional agents or combinations of diuretics and β blockers. Evidence suggests, and the guidelines concur, that there are intrinsic differences among members of the β-blocker class. Indeed, the vasodilatory β-blockers, which have generally not been included in comparative meta-analyses, lower blood pressure to a similar degree as other antihypertensive drugs, may provide better central aortic pressure reductions than traditional β blockers, and are associated with neutral or favorable metabolic effects.</blockquote><strong>Special Pleading</strong><br /><br />Dr Ram's questioned the old-fashioned beta-blocker atenolol (perhaps only when added to a diuretic)  based on the results of meta-analyses which attempted to compare it to other drugs. Such meta-analyses could suggest that atentolol (again, perhaps only in combination with a diuretic) might be in some way less preferable than the other drugs to which it was compared. However, the meta-analyses did not address the vasodilating beta-blockers at all. Dr Ram concluded that they were preferable based on different kinds of and probably less definitive evidence. He did not seek to compare such studies done on the vasodilating beta-blockers to similar studies done on the conventional beta-blockers.  Thus it seems his conclusions were based on a double standard. <br /><br />In the vocabulary of logical fallacies, this was an example of a <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html">special pleading</a>:<br /><blockquote>Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. </blockquote><br />Here was more reason not to bother reading a narrative review articles to learn how to better practice clinical medicine.  They often are based on idiosyncratic, if not biased evidence used to support illogical arguments.<br /><br />But having read so far, I wondered why the authors of this article were so happy to use a double standard as the basis of their arguments.<br /><br /><strong>Undercover Author</strong><br /><br />Those paying attention may also now be wondering why I referred to the authors in plural, when the citation lists only one author. The clue is at the end of the article:<br /><blockquote>Acknowledgment <br /><br />I would like to thank Tamalette Loh, ProEd Communications, Inc. (Beachwood, Ohio), for her editorial assistance and literature validation in the preparation of this report.</blockquote><br />Sensitized as I have been to the many recent discussions of ghost-writing, I immediately wondered who Ms Loh is, and what sort of "editorial assistance and literature validation" she provided. So first I looked at what her company, ProEd Communications does, wondering if its business is to help syntactically challenged academics and professionals write better sentences and more organized papers.<br /><br />The ProEd Communications <a href="http://www.proedcom.com/">web-site </a>states:<br /><blockquote>ProEd Communications balances diverse perspectives—clinical, regulatory, marketing, and customer—<em>to create compelling messaging to maximize a product's potential</em>. </blockquote><br />So it appears that ProEd Communications does not provide independent editorial services. Instead, it is a <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/medical%20education%20and%20communication%20companies">medical education and communications company</a> (MECC) which works mainly to market its clients' products, and further, its <a href="http://www.proedcom.com/ExperienceAndClientList.aspx">clients</a> are essentially only pharmaceutical companies:<br /><blockquote>Of the world's 50 largest pharmaceutical companies, ProEd has worked with 18 in the past 3 years and currently supports projects for 7 of the top 10 largest pharmaceutical companies, as ranked by MedAdNews (2008).</blockquote><br />Furthermore, a few minutes on Google reveals that Ms Loh seems to specialize in papers on anti-hypertensives, particularly Coreg (carvedilol), one of the three drugs in the vasodilating beta-blocker group favored by Dr Ram. In fact, two other papers whose authors she assisted sounded hauntingly familiar. <br /><br />Let me first display the quote above from the Ram paper:<br /><blockquote>Concerns have also been raised by meta-analyses in which β blockers were reported to have a suboptimal effect on reducing stroke risk and increasing the risk for new-onset diabetes compared with other antihypertensive agents.</blockquote><br />Now see this quote from Frishman WH, Henderson LS, Lukas MA. Controlled-release carvedilol in the management of systemic hypertension and myocardial dysfucntion. Vasc Health Risk Management 2008; 4: 1387-1400.  (Link <a href="http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2663448/">here</a>):<br /><blockquote>However, concerns have been raised recently from hypertension meta-analyses regarding suboptimal outcomes with use of beta-blockers, specifically atenolol, compared with outcomes for other antihypertensive drug classes.</blockquote><br />Also see this relatively similar quote from McGill JB. Optimal use of beta-blockers in high-risk hypertension: a guide to dosing equivalence. Vasc Health Risk Management 2010; 6: 363-372. (Link <a href="http://amec.glp.net/c/document_library/get_file?p_l_id=843157&folderId=754745&name=DLFE-19217.pdf">here</a>):<br /><blockquote>Concerns about the use of β-blockers as first-line agents for hypertension have been raised because of a 2005 metaanalysis that found β-blockers do not significantly reduce<br />cardiovascular events, especially stroke, compared with other antihypertensive drug classes</blockquote><br />Furthermore, read this discussion of Coreg by Ram:<br /><blockquote>Carvedilol is a nonselective β blocker with α1 receptor–blocking activity and no intrinsic sympathomimetic activity. Clinical data suggest that carvedilol reduces systemic vascular resistance in patients with hypertension.</blockquote><br />Here is Frishman et al:<br /><blockquote>Carvedilol is a third-generation, vasodilatory beta-blocker that nonselectively blocks both the beta 1- and beta 2-adrenergic receptors.... vasodilatory beta-blockers can lower blood pressure by reducing systemic vascular resistance (SVR) </blockquote><br />Both Frishman et al and McGill are very positive about Coreg.  Although the emphases of the three articles are different, they have organizational similarities.  Again, all three were written with the assistance of Ms Loh.<br /><br />At the end of the Frishman article we again find:<br /><blockquote>The authors would like to thank Tamalette Loh, PhD, ProEd Communications, Inc.®, for her medical editorial assistance with this manuscript.</blockquote><br />At the end of the McGill article we find:<br /><blockquote>Editorial assistance, specifically revisions to the final draft, was provided by Tamalette Loh, PhD, at ProEd Communications, Inc.®, whose services were also funded by GlaxoSmithKline. Dr Loh’s revisions were reviewed and approved by Dr McGill.</blockquote>Note that now it seems that Ms Loh has a doctoral degree, of unclear kind. Note also that now it seems that GSK, the manufacturer of Coreg, funded Dr Loh's work on the McGill article. <br /><br />Dr McGill further disclosed:<br /><blockquote>Dr McGill is a consultant for GlaxoSmithKline and a speaker for AstraZeneca and Forest Pharmaceuticals. Financial support for medical editorial assistance was provided by GlaxoSmithKline, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.</blockquote><br />Finally, in another article, about angiotensin converting enzyme blockers combined with diuretics to treat hypertension (Egras AM, Ram CVS. Reduced cardiovascular risk and healthcare expenditures with angiotensin receptor blocker/ hydrochlorthiazide. Am J Pharmacy Benefits 2010; 2: 127-135. Lin <a href="http://ajpblive.com/media/pdf/Ergas_2-2.pdf">here</a>. ), Dr Ram acknowledged:<br /><blockquote>Dr Ram is in the speakers’ bureau pool of Cogenix, ProCom, and Genesis, which manage medical education programs for Bristol-Myers Squibb, GlaxoSmithKline, and Novartis.</blockquote><br />The series of articles above demonstrated a phenomenon I have not seen explored before. All articles were written with some sort of assistance from an employee of a MECC, perhaps partly funded by a company which marketed a drug which was the subject of all the articles. The assistance was openly acknowledged.  The three articles had some remarkable similarities not explained by an overlap among their listed authors.  This suggested that the ostensible editorial assistant they had in common was substantively involved in the content of the papers, that is, was truly an author. Her presence was not ghost-like. However, the substance of her contribution may have been downplayed.  So let's call her an "undercover author."  (If someone has a better term, please leave a comment to that effect.)<br /><br /><strong>Summary</strong><br /><br />So the reasons I rarely read narrative review articles except to make teaching points about health care dysfunction are:<br />- They often are based on idiosyncratic, if not biased selections of data<br />- They may employ logical fallacies to make their points<br />- They may be written by people with conflicts of interest, that is, with financial arrangements with companies seeking to market products, particularly drugs and devices.<br /><br />My conclusions for health care professionals are: be very skeptical of non-systematic review articles, look for evidence that they are parts of stealth marketing campaigns, and do not assume all conflicts of interest are disclosed and all authorship roles revealed.<br /><br />My conclusions for journal editors are: strictly demand more complete disclosure of conflicts of interest, or risk losing the trust of your readers. <br /><br />My conclusions in general: until we start to sweep away the pervasive web of conflicts of interest that is draped over medicine and health care, expect further discombobulation.

Why I Shouldn't Read Non-Systematic Review Articles: Special Pleadings and Undercover Authors

I usually resist looking at non-systematic review articles in medical journals, but because the title interested me, and things seem to be getting slow this holiday season, prompted by an update email…

Đọc thêm »

Another Haunting Tale

Halloween is more than two months away, but the ghost stories just keep on coming. The latest version was <a href="http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iUKEK0btRTAsKW5IDK5GtDQz_DWQD9A669802">reported</a> by the Associated Press (with a hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan <a href="http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=16497">on the University Diaries blog</a>). To quickly summarize,<br /><br /><blockquote><br /><em>Drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline used a sophisticated ghostwriting program to promote its antidepressant Paxil, allowing doctors to take credit for medical journal articles mainly written by company consultants</em>, according to court documents obtained by The Associated Press.<br /><br />An internal company memo instructs salespeople to approach physicians and offer to help them write and publish articles about their positive experiences prescribing the drug.<br /><br />Known as the CASPPER program, the paper explains how the company can help physicians with everything from 'developing a topic,' to 'submitting the manuscript for publication.'<br /></blockquote><br /><br />The actual document is now available from the PharmaGossip blog <a href="http://pharmagossip.blogspot.com/2009/08/gsk-paxil-caspper-read-file-for.html">here</a>. Reviewing that document suggests that the CASPPER program was a bit different from other ghost-writing schemes (for example, see previous posts <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/ghost%20writing">here</a>.)<br /><br />A typical ghost-writing scheme would entail ghost-writers employed by a medical education and communications company (MECC) drafting manuscripts of a scholarly-appearing review articles. The articles would be written to support the marketing of a product made by the (usually pharmaceutical) company which hired the MECC. Then, the MECC would recruit well-known medical academics as (guest) authors for the articles. The guest authors might make some minor revisions in the draft manuscripts, which would then be submitted to scholarly journals. The MECCs would handle the submission process, while maintaining the pretense that the articles were the work of the guest academic authors. The ultimate purpose of such schemes apparently would be to market the product in the guise of scholarly publication.<br /><br />CASSPER, on the other hand, was meant to produce more modest articles, ostensibly written by practicing, rather than purely academic physicians. Review of the CASSPER document leads to some interesting conclusions about the project<br /><br />- <strong>The project was purely a marketing project</strong>. "<em>The objectives of CASSPER, from a publication standpoint, are to <strong>strengthen the product positioning and overcome competitive issues</strong>.</em>" The document clearly was written by marketers, and directed to pharmaceutical representatives ("drug reps.") It did not mention any involvement by GSK scientific or medical personnel. The closest it came to making a pretense about any scientific or clinical usefulness of the project was, "publication of such articles will <em>benefit the sales force</em> by expanding the database of published data to support PAXIL."<br /><br />- <strong>It was as much about promoting closer relationships among pharmaceutical representatives ("drug reps") and doctors as about publishing articles</strong>. The project was to be implemented by drug reps, and "your participation will establish and/or strengthen your relationships with key physicians and thought leaders in the psychiatric field." The drug reps would handle, and presumably shape all communications between their physicians and the MECC.<br /><br />- <strong>Articles were to arise from instigation by the drug reps</strong>, rather than from physicians' initiatives. For example, a scenario for recruiting authors began, "a physician tells you that he or she has had treatment success with PAXIL in certain indications or difficult-to-treat patient populations." Then, "ask the physician if any consideration has been given to publishing a case study based on this clinical experience."<br /><br />- Although the document is somewhat ambiguous about the role of the putative author in the process, <strong>an extensive list of services available from the MECC (Complete Healthcare Communications [CHC] ) would have left little for the author to do</strong>. "The full range of editorial assistance that CASSPER can offer contributing physicians includes: developing a topic, coordinating the editorial review process, submitting to the target journal." The company's role would include "coordinating" manuscript preparation, which was defined as "development of an outline and first draft, editorial reviews, and revisions." The company would make available "published literature, available internal support, literature search results, and a database of journal submission criteria." Also, "the numerous details that CHC is prepared to coordinate ... [include] copy editing and proofreading, production of tables and graphics, preparation of the submission package, and follow-up."<br /><br />So CASSPER seems to be a not really so friendly example of a newly recognized species of ghost-writing, targeted more at promoting relationships among drug reps and physicians than at producing ostensibly scholarly articles. Nonetheless, this example of the haunting of medicine is as fundamentally deceptive as previously described ghost-writing schemes. In the CASSPER project, physicians would be reduced to little more than ectoplasm, goaded by drug reps into token involvement in a writing process exclusively handled by the MECC, and mediated by the friendly appearing drug reps. I wonder whether physicians who participated escaped with any psychological independence from the drug reps who magically turned them into acclaimed "published authors?"<br /><br />In any case, the disclosure of CASSPER, a ghost who was friendly only in appearance, adds more evidence about how deception and dishonesty now haunts our health care system. To achieve real health care reform, we will have to find a new group of ghost-busters. Who you gonnna call?<br /><br />ADDENDUM (25 August, 2009) - See also<a href="http://brodyhooked.blogspot.com/2009/08/friendly-ghosts-why-should-academic.html"> comments </a>by Dr Howard Brody in the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma Blog.

Another Haunting Tale

Halloween is more than two months away, but the ghost stories just keep on coming. The latest version was reported by the Associated Press (with a hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Dia…

Đọc thêm »

"Man's Best Hospital," Run by the Boss of a MECC (Medical Education and Communications Company)?

In January, 2009 we <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/01/to-whom-did-scorpions-in-bottle-owe.html">posted</a> about how the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts and of Partners HealthCare, made a secret oral agreement that BCBS would pay Partners at a higher rate than that given to other hospitals.<br /><br />Why BCBS would want to pay so much to this one hospital system was never clear. Partners does include some extremely prestigious hospitals, including the Brigham and Womens Hospital, and the Massachusetts General Hospital, ("Man's Best Hospital" in the House of God), but there are some other very prestigious teaching hospitals in Boston that were not blessed by BCBS' largess.<br /><br />We speculated about one possible cause: the leadership of the two organizations may have felt they had more in common with each other than with the constituencies of their own organizations. A few leaders of each organization had direct ties to the other. Many leaders of both organizations were simultaneously leaders of finance, the same sector that has brought us what is now called the Great Recession. Leadership of both organizations had conflicted loyalties. The organizations' CEOs at the time, and many members of their boards had divided loyalties and apparent conflicts of interest. For example, Jack Connors, the chair of the Partners HealthCare board, <a href="http://www.adclub.org/2008_Legends/jack.html">is also </a>the Chairman Emeritus of marketing communications company Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopoulos Inc, whose clients include pharmaceutical and pharmacy benefits manager CVS / Caremark, and is also a member of the board of directors of Covidien, a medical device company.<br /><br />The Boston Globe just published <a href="http://www.boston.com/business/healthcare/articles/2009/05/31/partners_leader_questioned_on_outside_ties/">a report </a>that Mr Connors had even more intense conflicts that had not heretofore been made public.<br /><blockquote>He's chairman of New England's largest healthcare company, and that position atop Partners HealthCare has tested the limits of Jack Connors's considerable corporate dexterity.<br /><br />Though he has no background in medicine, Connors has been Partners' chief overseer, champion, and its most public face for 13 years.<br /><br />[One board member] is the cofounder and chairman emeritus of Partners' advertising firm. That would be Jack Connors. And that potential point of conflict has been disclosed....<br /><br />But to the chagrin of some former board members, <em><strong>never brought up for board review was Connors's stake in a leading medical education firm whose sale in 2004 made Connors a very wealthy man.<br /></strong></em><br /><em><strong>Nor has the board notified public officials of Connors's ownership of a fledgling home healthcare firm that has directly solicited Partners' hospitals for business.</strong></em><br /><br />Connors and top Partners officials defended the decision not to publicly disclose Connors's potential conflicts, saying that because Partners did not directly contract with either of Connors's firms there were no conflicts to report. Connors also defended his right to be an entrepreneur in the healthcare business while also chairing Partners' board, and strongly denied ever using his position for personal or financial advantage.<br /><br />The larger company, <em>M/C Communications, grew to become the biggest commercial provider of continuing education to physicians in the decade between its inception in 1994 and when Connors sold it in 2004. It profited hugely from <strong>an exclusive commercial relationship it maintained with Harvard Medical School, whose faculty teach at seminars the company holds.</strong> Partners' signature institutions, Massachusetts General Hospital and Brigham and Women's Hospital, are major teaching affiliates of Harvard Medical School.<br /></em><br />In addition, <em>M/C Communications benefited financially from <strong>millions of dollars in sponsorship revenue paid it from major pharmaceutical firms</strong> eager to play to this professional audience</em>.<br /><br />Connors said he was under no obligation to disclose his ownership of M/C Communications to the Partners board. He said that <em>while there is an 'affiliation' between Harvard Medical School and the two Partners hospitals, there is no formal contract between them.<br /></em><br />Connors said he informed Partners executives of his ownership of M/C Communications, and that they determined it did not warrant disclosure to the full Partners board.<br /><br />'There is no contract between Partners and Harvard,' Partners said in a statement to the Globe.<br /><br />Connors made a name for himself as an executive with Hill, Holliday, Connors, Cosmopulos, the Boston advertising company that he helped found and guided throughout a long career. <em><strong>Less well known is that he made most of his fortune from M/C Communications, which he sold to Bain Capital for $450 million in 2004.</strong></em><br /><br /><em>The sale was the largest of a private healthcare-related company in Massachusetts that year</em>, according to TM Capital Corp., an investment banking company. <em><strong>Connors, who led an investor group that bought the firm outright for $13 million in 2000, made about $250 million from its sale.<br /></strong></em><br /><em>After his 2004 windfall, he founded a company that helps elderly patients readjust to life at home after a hospitalization.<br /><br />That company, Dovetail Health, has - Connors acknowledged - <strong>solicited business from hospitals owned by Partners</strong></em>. And <em>Connors confirmed that after Dovetail executives failed to convince Blue Cross Blue Shield of Massachusetts to contract with the firm,<strong> he personally spoke to the giant insurer's president, Cleve L. Killingsworth, on Dovetail's behalf</strong>. Partners and Blue Cross Blue Shield regularly negotiate over $2.5 billion worth of medical business a year</em>.<br /><br /><em>Connors acknowledged in an interview that it might have appeared 'inappropriate' to some for him to pitch Killingsworth. But he said the conversation stemmed from a shared belief that new ways must be found to reduce frequent return trips of elderly patients to the hospital.</em> More recently, however, he said he does not believe his approach to Killingsworth was inappropriate.<br /></blockquote>So let's try to recap this.<br /><br />While Jack Connors has been chairman of the board of Partners HealthCare, the largest and most prestigious hospital system in Massachusetts, he also ran an advertising agency that did business with Partners, and has been on the board of Covidien, a medical device company. Both of these relationships he disclosed to his fellow board members, although no one seemed troubled by them.<br /><br />However, while a Partners board member, Connors was also the founder, and ultimately profited very handsomely from the sale of M/C Communications. M/C Communications apparently begat <a href="http://www.mc-comm.com/live/MCHCGateway.html">M/C Holding Corporation</a>, which in turn owns M/C Communications and Pri-Med Institute LLC. M/C Communications now <a href="http://www.mc-comm.com/live/MC/">describes itself </a>as " established in 1994 and has become a leading provider of medical education event management solutions for health care professionals and others around the globe." M/C Communications runs <a href="http://www.pri-med.com/pmo/Home.aspx">Pri-Med</a>, which is <a href="http://www.pri-med.com/industry/">described</a> thus: "Pri-Med is a platform for science and medicine that includes meetings, resources, online, and new media tools designed to meet the information and education needs of today’s practicing physician." Pri-Med <a href="http://www.pri-med.com/industry/conference.htm">markets itself to industry</a>, presumably the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and device industry, "Sixty percent of doctors’ offices restrict rep access, making it more challenging than ever to get in front of your customers. But with Pri-Med, you get to meet clinicians in a professional environment where they seek you out. More than 66% of attendees say they come to Pri-Med events to meet you, industry representatives." So Connors' company was a medical education and communication company (MECC), which provided what appeared to be educational programs to physicians that in fact were also sold to the health care industry as marketing opportunities.<br /><br />So Partners HealthCare, which includes two of the world's most prestigious teaching hospitals, has been run by the boss of a MECC? Say it ain't so.<br /><br />Not only did Connors own a company that had an exclusive contractual relationship (as described above) with the Harvard faculty who staff the main Partners HealthCare hospitals, that company was engaged in marketing the products of sponsoring drug and device companies disguised as education. Finally, Connors denied that this presented any kind of conflict of interest, because Partners HealthCare has no explicit contract, just an "affiliation" with Harvard Medical School.<br /><br />Finally, just to ice the cake, Connors' latest venture is a home health care company that did business with Partners, and tried to do business with BCBS, spearheaded by Connors' direct conversations with the BCBS CEO.<br /><br />Jack Connors thus seems to have just become the latest poster boy for leaders of health care organizations who put their personal financial interests ahead of their responsibilities to those organizations, and function as a power elite whose collective interests trump those of the constituents of the organizations they run.<br /><br />Quoting <a href="http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.364">from BoardSource</a>, the main duties of the leader of any US not-for-profit are:<br /><br /><blockquote><br />Duty of Care<br /><br />The duty of care describes the level of competence that is expected of a board member, and is commonly expressed as the duty of 'care that an ordinarily prudent person would exercise in a like position and under similar circumstances.' This means that a board member owes the duty to exercise reasonable care when he or she makes a decision as a steward of the organization.<br /><br />Duty of Loyalty<br /><br />The duty of loyalty is a standard of faithfulness; a board member must give undivided allegiance when making decisions affecting the organization. This means that a board member can never use information obtained as a member for personal gain, but must act in the best interests of the organization.<br /><br />Duty of Obedience<br /><br />The duty of obedience requires board members to be faithful to the organization's mission. They are not permitted to act in a way that is inconsistent with the central goals of the organization. A basis for this rule lies in the public's trust that the organization will manage donated funds to fulfill the organization's mission.<br /></blockquote><br />By leading companies that did direct business with Partners and its staff, and failing to disclose that he was doing so to his fellow Partners board members, Connors appeared to have violated the Duty of Loyalty.<br /><br />By running a MECC that helps drug and device companies market to physicians in the guise of education, using faculty from the academic teaching hospitals that he lead, Connors seems to have mocked the mission of the academic hospitals within Partners, and thus appeared to violate the Duty of Obedience.<br /><br />This episode certainly does suggest that health care, and the organizations involved in this case, are lead by an "old-boy network," as one person interviewed for the Globe article suggested. More than just an old-boy network, they seem to be lead by chummy members of the power elite whose collective personal interests supersede the missions of the organizations they are supposed to steward. When this happens, is it any surprise that health care becomes less accessible, more expensive, and of lower quality?<br /><br />Yet challenging the power elite that are increasingly revealed as controlling much of health care seems to be something that one cannot talk about when discussing health care reform. However, failing to address this problem will likely doom any effort, no matter how well intentioned, to improve health care.<br /><br />Hat tip to and see <a href="http://alison-bass.blogspot.com/2009/06/fish-rots-from-top-conflicts-of.html">comments</a> by Alison Bass on the Alison Bass Blog.<br /><br />ADDENDUM (3 June, 2009) - See also <a href="http://carlatpsychiatry.blogspot.com/2009/06/harvard-med-school-jack-connors-and.html">comments</a> by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog.

"Man's Best Hospital," Run by the Boss of a MECC (Medical Education and Communications Company)?

In January, 2009 we posted about how the CEO of Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) of Massachusetts and of Partners HealthCare, made a secret oral agreement that BCBS would pay Partners at a higher rate th…

Đọc thêm »

BLOGSCAN - An Example of Spinning Clinical Research Results

<a href="http://clinpsyc.blogspot.com/2009/03/abilify-depression-and-memory-hole.html"><span style="color:#006600;">On the Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry blog</span></a><span style="color:#006600;">, the anonymous blogger did a great job analyzing an article supported by pharmaceutical companies, and authored by in part pharmaceutical company employees, with the assistance of a medical education and communications company (MECC). The article ignored data about outcomes which were unfavorable to the companies' product, and dubbed a drug "well tolerated" even though a number of uncomfortable symptoms occurred two to four times as often on the drug as on placebo. This is a reminder of how often these days clinical research studies are spun in favor of the vested interests of their commercial sponsors. </span>

BLOGSCAN - An Example of Spinning Clinical Research Results

On the Clinical Psychology and Psychiatry blog, the anonymous blogger did a great job analyzing an article supported by pharmaceutical companies, and authored by in part pharmaceutical company employe…

Đọc thêm »