healthy4u

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 »

Ellmers Calls on Sebelius to Address Health IT Safety Concerns: A Responsible Voice in Government on Health IT and HIT Safety

<h2 style="font-family: inherit;"> The following press release is very welcome, and speaks for itself.  There is a responsible voice in the government wilderness.  It is perhaps no surprise it comes from a Congresswoman who is also a registered nurse:</h2><blockquote class="tr_bq"><h3> Ellmers Calls on Sebelius to Address Health IT Safety Concerns</h3>06/12/12 <div align="center"> </div><div align="center">Safety Risks and Health IT-Related Errors Cited in IOM Recommendations</div> WASHINGTON – House Small Business Subcommittee on Healthcare and Technology Chairwoman Renee Ellmers (R-NC) today sent a<a href="http://smbiz.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Sebelius_Health_IT_IOM_report_followup_6_12_12.pdf" target="_blank"> letter to Kathleen Sebelius</a>, Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS), inquiring about whether the Department has adopted the <a href="http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Health-IT-and-Patient-Safety-Building-Safer-Systems-for-Better-Care.aspx" target="_blank">Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) recommendations</a> for improving the safety of health information technology (IT). </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">The report, issued in November, recommended several steps to be taken by HHS and called for greater oversight by the public and private sectors. The Secretary was called upon by the IOM to issue a plan within 12 months to minimize patient safety risks associated with health IT and report annually on the progress being made.  The report further recommended that the plan should include a schedule for working with the private sector to assess the impact of health IT on patient safety, and recommended several other steps to help improve the safety of health IT. Specifically, Chairwoman Ellmers has requested a copy of the Secretary’s plan to minimize patient safety risks, a description of health IT-related errors that have resulted in patient risks, injuries and deaths, and the status of the development of a mechanism for health IT vendors and users to report health IT-related deaths.  She said that because health IT has the promise to improve health care delivery for patients, physicians and other medical professionals, she remains eager to work with the Secretary to ensure that health IT is safe, effective and affordable. In an <a href="http://smbiz.house.gov/UploadedFiles/HHS_Health_IT_Sebelius_8.11.11.pdf" target="_blank">August 11, 2011 letter</a> to Secretary Sebelius, Chairwoman Ellmers said that a modern, well-equipped office is critical to the practice of medicine, and asked the Secretary to undertake a study of health IT’s adoption, benefits and cost effectiveness, including medical error rates. On June 2, 2011, Chairwoman Ellmers’ Subcommittee <a href="http://smbiz.house.gov/Calendar/EventSingle.aspx?EventID=243286" target="_blank">held a hearing</a> on the barriers to health IT that are encountered by physicians and other health professionals in small and solo practices.   At the hearing, physicians expressed strong concerns about the cost of purchasing and maintaining health IT systems, as well as the staff training and downtime necessary to implement such a system.  Chairwoman Ellmers noted health IT’s great potential to improve health care delivery, decrease medical errors, increase clinical and administrative efficiency and reduce paperwork. For more than twenty-one years before being elected to Congress, Chairwoman Ellmers served as a registered nurse, focusing on surgical care as Clinical Director of the Trinity Wound Care Center and later helping to manage the family's small medical practice with her husband, Dr. Brent Ellmers, a licensed surgeon. As a registered nurse and the wife of a surgeon, Ellmers understands that a modern, efficient and well-equipped office is critical to the practice of medicine.     </blockquote> This voice of sanity is quite welcome.  I've spoken with Rep. Ellmers' office, pointing them to my Drexel Univ. <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/" target="_blank">writings and materials</a> and recommending Sebelius' reply be gone over with a fine-toothed comb, from the perspective of health IT realities, not merely from the perspective of the <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html" target="_blank">Ddulite's good intentions</a>.  (I also introduced her staffer to the concept of the Ddulite, the HIT hyper-enthusiast who ignores all downsides and ethical concerns.) I also pointed out the ethical lapse in IOM's position of "wait and see" while HIT is pushed nationally under penalty of law, at the cost of hundreds of billions of dollars, when their own report (along with reports from FDA <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoking-gun-internal-fda-memorandum-of.html" target="_blank">here</a><a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoking-gun-internal-fda-memorandum-of.html" target="_blank"></a>, JC <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/12/joint-commission-sentinel-events-alert.html" target="_blank">here</a> and others) admits they don't know the magnitude of benefits, risks and harms: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... While some studies suggest improvements in patient safety can be made, others have found no effect. Instances of health IT–associated harm have been reported. However, little published evidence could be found quantifying the magnitude of the risk. Several reasons health IT–related safety data are lacking include the absence of measures and a central repository (or linkages among decentralized repositories) to collect, analyze, and act on information related to safety of this technology. Another impediment to gathering safety data is contractual barriers (e.g., nondisclosure, confidentiality clauses) that can prevent users from sharing information about health IT–related adverse events. These barriers limit users’ abilities to share knowledge of risk-prone user interfaces, for instance through screenshots and descriptions of potentially unsafe processes. In addition, some vendors include language in their sales contracts and escape responsibility for errors or defects in their software (i.e., “hold harmless clauses”). The committee believes these types of contractual restrictions limit transparency, which significantly contributes to the gaps in knowledge of health IT–related patient safety risks. These barriers to generating evidence pose unacceptable risks to safety. </blockquote><blockquote class="tr_bq">[IOM (Institute of Medicine). 2012. <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/Patient%20Safety%20and%20Health%20IT%20prepub.pdf">Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care</a> (PDF). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, pg. S-2.] </blockquote> As I wrote in my Nov. 2011 post "I<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/iom-report-on-health-it-safety-nix-fda.html" target="_blank">OM Report - 'Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care' - Nix the FDA; Create a New Toothless Agency</a>", the IOM's response to their own study was reckless and unethical (at best): <blockquote class="tr_bq">... The panel also recommends that the HHS secretary publicly report on the progress of health IT safety each year, beginning in 2012. If the secretary determines at any time that adequate safety progress has not been made, only then should the FDA take the regulatory lead and be given the resources to do so, the report recommends, adding that the agency should be developing a framework now to be prepared. </blockquote> In the meantime, during each year of "watching for safety progress", innumerable patients are exposed to HIT's hazards and costs.  Pharma and other medical device industries are afforded no such special accommodation. -- SS

Ellmers Calls on Sebelius to Address Health IT Safety Concerns: A Responsible Voice in Government on Health IT and HIT Safety

The following press release is very welcome, and speaks for itself. There is a responsible voice in the government wilderness. I...

Đọc thêm »

University of Miami Lays Off 800, Cuts Research Funding, Builds New Presidential Mansion

Despite the trillions of dollars flowing through the US health care systems, prominent not-for-profit health care organizations seem to be complaining more often that the money going to them is not enough.  The Lay-Offs and Research Cutbacks Recently, for example, the University of Miami announced that its medical center would have to tighten its belt.  In April, <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/24/2765289/um-medical-school-cutbacks-coming.html">according to</a> the Miami Herald, <blockquote>University of Miami President Donna Shalala announced Tuesday that the medical school will take 'difficult and painful but necessary steps' next month to reduce costs, including staff cuts.In a letter to employees, she called the cuts 'significant' but provided no details about how many employees might be laid off. 'The process will take place in stages, and affected employees will be notified during the month of May,' Shalala wrote. 'Reductions will not impact clinical care or our patients and will primarily focus on unfunded research and administrative areas.' Shalala said the cuts were necessary because of 'unprecedented factors' including the global downturn of 2008, decreased funding for research and clinical care, plus cutbacks in payments from Jackson Health System. The Jackson reductions 'have had a profound effect on our finances,' she wrote.</blockquote> Placing the blame for the medical school's financial problems on Jackson Health System, the local safety-net health system, did not sit well with that organization's leadership. In another Miami Herald <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/17/2753691/jackson-health-system-chairman.html">story</a>, its chairman stated that the real problem might be: <blockquote>'investments that they have made that may or may not have panned out,' including the purchase in 2007 of Cedars Medical Center, across the street from Jackson Memorial, for a price that several experts say was far too high.</blockquote> In fact, we discussed <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/06/embedded-networks-of-influence-in.html">here</a> allegations that the University of Miami Medical School's purchase of a facility that was renamed the University of Miami Hospital adjacent to Jackson was meant to take insured patients from that already struggling facility. Nonetheless, the Medical School proceeded with its cuts, which resulted in 800 layoffs (see Miami Herald story <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/08/2789495/um-laying-off-800.html">here</a>.) The next Miami Herald <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/12/2795449/university-of-miami-job-cuts-could.html">story</a> suggested that the cuts would disproportionately impact worthy researchers, for example, <blockquote>When Nobel Laureate Andrew Schally arrived in South Florida six years ago, he was greeted with great fanfare and named a distinguished professor of pathology at the University of Miami medical school. Now he says his work is one of the many casualties of the school’s budget slashing. Schally says UM told him several weeks ago that his annual funding of $150,000 for research would end May 31, part of widespread cuts in the medical school that could eliminate up to 800 jobs this month and trigger major reductions in research. 'I was shocked... We developed so many drugs for the university,' Schally says. 'They are killing the goose that laid the golden egg.'</blockquote>The President's New House The headline of another Miami Herald <a href="http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/05/28/2821494/um-presidents-house-sells-for.html">story</a> last week suggested that things had gotten so bad that the cuts were even going to affect top university leadership's lifestyle: <blockquote>UM president’s house sells for $9 million</blockquote> We had <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2006/02/tale-of-three-ironies-university-of.html">posted</a> about University of Miami President Donna Shalala's lavish university funded living conditions a while ago. Now it seems she would be giving up <blockquote>'tropical ambiance,' 4.6 acres of lush gardens, and a prestigious Gables Estates address.</blockquote> This "rare piece of Florida history" also had <blockquote>a guest room created specifically to host the Dalai Lama during His Holiness’ visits to South Florida.</blockquote> So can we conclude that the University is really tightening its belt when its President is forced to move out of such a lush environment? Not really. In fact, Ms Shalala may be moving to even more plush surroundings, courtesy the university's supposedly challenged budget: <blockquote>The 32-acre Pinecrest development, built on land donated to the university by UM law grad-turned-philanthropist Frank Smathers Jr., exclusively houses UM faculty. Shalala will now join their ranks as both boss and neighbor. Decades ago, the grounds were home to Smathers’ Arabian horses and world-renowned mango collection. The UM-built homes are clustered in the center one-third of the acreage 'to safeguard the botanical integrity of the estate,' according to the university’s website. The remaining land is dominated by lush plants and fruit groves, and is maintained by Fairchild Tropical Botanical Gardens.</blockquote> In particular, <blockquote>“It’s a very bold house,” Taylor said of Shalala’s new digs. “It’s a dominant house in the neighborhood.” Taylor said the all-white exterior of the new home is a noticeable contrast to the more-earthy tones of other houses nearby. The university is calling it the 'Ibis House' after UM’s beloved (and also all-white) mascot. Shalala’s new home will sit on a quarter-acre of land — dramatically less property than she enjoyed before. On the plus side, Shalala, just as in her old home, will enjoy about 9,000 or so square feet of interior space, and an in-home elevator connecting the first and second floors. The new home is also situated in a unique gated community that offers a community clubhouse, tennis courts and pool, and meticulously landscaped gardens.</blockquote> Was anyone really expecting that Ms Shalala would have to find her own housing, like the 99 percent have to? Summary So here we have another example of how the notion of CEO exceptionalism has filtered down from large for-profit corporations to even non-profit, ostensibly mission-oriented health care institutions. Leaders of health care organizations are now deemed to be so important, at least in the eyes of their hired public relations staff, that they must be given every luxury. Perhaps if housed in any space smaller than 9000 feet, Ms Shalala would be so confined as not be able to think great thoughts anymore, like how many layoffs would be needed to sufficiently cut costs. Worse, maybe without such free housing, she would just decide that the institution would not be showing enough gratitude, and so her amazingly brilliant leadership would have to seek new pastures. Maybe, on the other hand, Ms Shalala's new house is just another demonstration how health care has become dominated by leadership whose own compensation and privilege seems to come before the mission., and sees no problem in asking for "difficult and painful" cuts from those who do the real work on the ground while building itself new mansions. So as usual, it is time to say that true health care reform would foster leadership  that upholds the core values of health care, and focuses 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.

University of Miami Lays Off 800, Cuts Research Funding, Builds New Presidential Mansion

Despite the trillions of dollars flowing through the US health care systems, prominent not-for-profit health care organizations seem to be c...

Đọc thêm »

Cart Before the Horse, Part 3: AHRQ's "Health IT Hazard Manager"

<div style="text-align: center;">(Addendum: the AHRQ hazards manager taxonomy report can see seen at <a href="http://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/citation/HealthITHazardManagerFinalReport.pdf.">http://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/citation/HealthITHazardManagerFinalReport.pdf.</a>)</div> In a July 2010 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/07/meaningful-use-final-rule-have.html" target="_blank">Meaningful Use Final Rule: Have the Administration and ONC Put the Cart Before the Horse on Health IT?</a>" and an Oct . 2010 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/10/cart-before-horse-again-institute-of.html" target="_blank">Cart before the horse, again: IOM to study HIT patient safety for ONC; should HITECH be repealed?</a>" I wrote about the postmodern "ready, fire, aim" approach to health IT: In the first post, I wrote: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... These "usability" problems require long term solutions. There are no quick fix, plug and play solutions. Years of research are needed, and years of system migrations as well for existing installations. Yet we now have an HHS Final Rule on "meaningful use" regarding experimental, unregulated medical devices the industry itself admits have major usability problems, along with a growing body of literature on the <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/cases/?loc=cases&sloc=2009">risks entailed</a>. <div dir="ltr"></div><div dir="ltr">For crying out loud, talk about putting the cart before the horse... </div> <div dir="ltr" style="text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbxjl-AlGATfarPayjaUYkCOG4sUrulp4D88Nk7_z-eEbaWRl-xi1g0neGKWDhEL1w6-_-FCu4iBoJx9AUlU-bccaAmEcMfmGI1uoa4gTohjch5gzcx5tA9Ru-uMB0Mip6NE0PuUsfDXJ5/s1600/horse-cart.jpg"><img alt="" border="0" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5493460657310735298" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhbxjl-AlGATfarPayjaUYkCOG4sUrulp4D88Nk7_z-eEbaWRl-xi1g0neGKWDhEL1w6-_-FCu4iBoJx9AUlU-bccaAmEcMfmGI1uoa4gTohjch5gzcx5tA9Ru-uMB0Mip6NE0PuUsfDXJ5/s320/horse-cart.jpg" style="cursor: pointer; display: block; height: 168px; margin: 0px auto 10px; text-align: center; width: 253px;" /></a>Something's very wrong here...</div> However, this situation is anything but humorous. How more "cart before the horse" can government get?</blockquote> In the second post, I wrote: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... So, in the midst of a National Program for Health IT in the United States (NPfIT in the U.S.), with tens of billions of dollars earmarked for health IT already (money we don't really have, but it can be printed quickly, or borrowed from China) the IOM is going to study health IT safety, prevention of health IT-related errors, etc. ... only now?</blockquote> Here we go yet again. The problem with the AHRQ (<a href="http://www.ahrq.gov/" target="_blank">Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality</a>, a division of HHS) announcement below of a webinar about a new tool for identifying, categorizing, and resolving health IT hazards, as I have written before, is putting the "cart before the horse" and throwing medical ethics to the wind. If we've just developed a tool "for identifying, categorizing, and resolving health IT hazards", the magnitude of which others such as IOM admit are unknown to our detriment (e.g., <a href="http://www.ischool.drexel.edu/faculty/ssilverstein/Patient%20Safety%20and%20Health%20IT%20prepub.pdf">Health IT and Patient Safety: Building Safer Systems for Better Care</a>, pg. S-2), then health IT is, it follows, an experimental technology. If it is an experimental technology, AHRQ and others in HHS should probably be raising the issue of a slow down or moratorium on widespread rollout under HITECH until risk management and remediation is better understood.  At the very least they should be calling for patient informed consent that a device that will largely regulate their care is experimental, that a competency "gap" exists among healthcare practitioners within the "health IT environment" (meaning patients are at risk), and that patients should be offered the opportunity for informed consent with opt-out provisions.  The principals should not just be announcing a webinar: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2012 12:23 PM To: OHITQUSERS@LIST.NIH.GOV Subject: Register Now! AHRQ Health IT Webinar "Purpose and Demonstration of the Health IT Hazard Manager and Next Steps" June 11, 2:30 PM ET Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Purpose and Demonstration of the Health IT Hazard Manager and Next Steps June 11, 2012 — 2:30-4 p.m., EST The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) has identified a gap in a health care/public health practitioner’s competency within the health IT environment. This webinar is designed to increase practitioners’ competencies in several areas: improving health care decision making; supporting patient-centered care; and enhancing the quality and safety of medication management by improving the ability to identify, categorize, and resolve health IT hazards. The Webinar will explore the Health IT Hazard Manager—a tool for identifying, categorizing, and resolving health IT hazards. When implemented, the tool allows health care organizations and software vendors alike to learn about potential hazards and work to resolve them, including the use of data to communicate potential and actual adverse effects. The session will discuss how the Health IT Hazard Manager was tested and refined as well as strategies and implications for deploying it. The target audience includes AHRQ grantees/researchers; health care providers, including physicians and nurses; consumers/patients; and health care policymakers. ... Webinar learning objectives include: 1. Describe the rationale for developing the Health IT Hazard Manager and how it evolved through alpha and beta testing. 2. Explain the process for identifying and categorizing health IT-related hazards. 3. Demonstrate how the Health IT Hazard Manager would be used [i.e., it's not yet in use, despite mandates for HIT rollout with penalties for non-adopters - ed.] within and across care delivery organizations and health IT software vendors. 4. Discuss policy and process implications for deploying the Health IT Hazard Manager via different organizations (i.e., AHRQ; Office of the National Coordinator for Health IT; Patient Safety Organization(s); Accrediting bodies; IT entities). </blockquote> In effect, HHS seems to be saying "we're working on the HIT risk problem, but roll it out anyway; if you get harmed or killed, tough luck."  This seems a form of negligence. Have we thrown out all we know about <a href="http://grants.nih.gov/grants/policy/hs/ethical_guidelines.htm" target="_blank">medical research and human subjects protections</a> in face of the magical powers and profits of computers in medicine? -- SS

Cart Before the Horse, Part 3: AHRQ's "Health IT Hazard Manager"

(Addendum: the AHRQ hazards manager taxonomy report can see seen at http://healthit.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/citation/HealthITHazar...

Đọc thêm »

More Electronic Medical Record Breaches: You Could Not Do This With Paper

I have written repeatedly on the dangers posed by poorly managed health IT regarding information breaches.  See "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/01/2011-closes-on-note-of-electronic.html" target="_blank">2011 Closes on a Note of Electronic Medical Record Privacy Breach Shame</a>" and other posts at this query link:   <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/medical%20record%20confidentiality">http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/medical%20record%20confidentiality</a> Now this, from Kaiser Health News and The Washington Post: <blockquote class="tr_bq"><a href="http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2012/June/04/electronic-health-records-theft-hacking.aspx" target="_blank">As Patients' Records Go Digital, Theft And Hacking Problems Grow </a> <div class="byline">By David Schultz</div><div class="timestamp">Jun 03, 2012</div> As more doctors and hospitals go digital with medical records, the size and frequency of data breaches are alarming privacy advocates and public health officials. <div class="nosyndication"><div class="inlineImage300"> </div></div>Keeping records secure is a challenge that doctors, public health officials and federal regulators are just beginning to grasp. And, as two recent incidents at Howard University Hospital show, inadequate data security can affect huge numbers of people.  </blockquote> With paper, you'd need a stream of trucks to accomplish this magnitude of theft: <blockquote class="tr_bq">On May 14, federal prosecutors <a href="http://dl.dropbox.com/u/37285095/Napper%20Information.pdf" shape="rect" target="_blank">charged</a> one of the hospital's medical technicians with violating the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, or HIPAA. Prosecutors say that over a 17-month period Laurie Napper used her position at the hospital to gain access to patients' names, addresses and Medicare numbers in order to sell their information. A plea hearing has been set for June 12; Napper's attorney declined comment. Just a few weeks earlier, the hospital <a href="http://huhealthcare.com/healthcare/hospital/data-breach/FAQ" shape="rect" target="_blank">notified</a> more than 34,000 patients that their medical data had been compromised. A contractor working with the hospital had downloaded the patients' files onto a personal laptop, which was stolen from the contractor's car. The data on the laptop was password-protected but unencrypted, which means anyone who guessed the password could have accessed the patient files without a randomly generated key. According to a hospital press release, those files included names, addresses, and Social Security numbers -- and, in a few cases, "diagnosis-related information."</blockquote> I add that they could also probably have booted the laptop from alternate media, and/or removed the hard drive and inserted into another computer, to access the contents. <blockquote class="tr_bq">Ronald J. Harris, Howard University's top spokesman, said in an e-mail that the two incidents are unrelated, but declined to answer further questions. In its press release about the stolen laptop, the hospital said it will set new requirements for all laptops used by contractors and those issued to hospital personnel to help protect data. Still it could have been worse. Much worse. Just days after Howard University contacted its patients about the stolen laptop, the Utah Department of Health <a href="http://www.health.utah.gov/databreach/" shape="rect" target="_blank">announced</a> that hackers based in Eastern Europe had broken into one of its servers and stolen personal medical information for almost 800,000 people -- more than one of every four residents of the state.</blockquote> How many trucks (and Stargate SG-1 style invisibility cloaks) would it take to inconspicuously steal 800,000 paper charts, I ask? <blockquote class="tr_bq">And last November, TRICARE, which handles health insurance for the military, <a href="http://www.tricare.mil/breach/old.htm" shape="rect" target="_blank">announced</a> that a trove of its backup computer tapes had been stolen from one of its contractors in Virginia. The tapes contained names, Social Security numbers, home addresses and, in some cases, clinical notes and lab test results for nearly 5 million patients, making it the largest medical data breach since the Department of Health and Human Services began tracking incidents two and a half years ago.</blockquote> Five million charts in a country of 300 million people... <blockquote class="tr_bq">As recently as five years ago, it's possible no one outside Howard University would have known about the incidents there. But, <a href="http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/privacy/hipaa/administrative/breachnotificationrule/index.html" shape="rect" target="_blank">new reporting rules</a> adopted as part of the 2009 stimulus act insure the public knows far more about medical data breaches than in the past. When a breach occurs that affects 500 or more patients, health care providers now must notify not only HHS, but also the media.</blockquote> Meaning there were breaches the public does not know about. <blockquote class="tr_bq">Deven McGraw, director of the health privacy project at the <a href="https://www.cdt.org/" shape="rect" target="_blank">Center for Democracy & Technology</a>, a Washington-based Internet advocacy group, said the number of incidents is growing with the increased use of digital health records. The health care industry, she added, has been slow to respond.</blockquote> A problem is not enough "motivation." <blockquote class="tr_bq">"Many financial companies have used encryption for years and they probably wonder what the heck is going on with the health care industry," McGraw said. "It's much cheaper to deploy safeguards than to suffer a breach."</blockquote> I offer a one word answer:  complacency. Now for the "spin control": <blockquote class="tr_bq">This growing problem puts HHS in a tough spot. It is pushing hospitals and doctors to adopt electronic health records, but it's also responsible for punishing health care providers who fail to properly secure their patients' records. "Mistakes happen, incidents happen, corners get cut from time to time," said Susan McAndrew, deputy director for health information policy at HHS's Office of Civil Rights. "That's where we come in."</blockquote> "From time to time" is a rather modest description of the millions of breaches mentioned in just this posting.  But as I've written before, don't worry, your records are safe. Just don't tell the doctor about that "incident" at that seedy club the other night, and find some other excuse to get the antibiotics you need, and that information will be safe, too. -- SS

More Electronic Medical Record Breaches: You Could Not Do This With Paper

I have written repeatedly on the dangers posed by poorly managed health IT regarding information breaches. See " 2011 Closes on a Note...

Đọc thêm »

WSJ "There's a Medical App for That—Or Not" - Misinformation on Health IT Safety Regulation?

There's a health IT meme that just won't die (patients may, but not the meme). It's the meme that health IT "certification" is a certification of safety. I expressed concern about the term "certification" being misunderstood even before the meme formally appeared, when the term was adopted by HHS with regard to evaluation of health IT for adherence to the "meaningful use" pre-flight features checklist.  See my mid-2009 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/08/cchit-has-company.html" target="_blank">CCHIT Has Company</a>" where I observed: <blockquote class="tr_bq">HIT "certification." ... is a term I put in quotes since it really is "features qualification" at this point, not certification such as a physician receives after passing Specialty Boards.</blockquote> The "features qualification" is an assurance that the EHR functions in way that could enable an eligible provider or eligible hospital to meet the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services' (CMS) requirements of "Meaningful Use."  No rigorous safety testing in any meaningful sense is done, and no testing under real-world conditions is done at all. I've seen the meme in various publications and venues.  I've even seen it in legal documents in medical malpractice cases where EHR's were involved, as an attempted defense. Now the WSJ has fallen for the health IT Certification meme. An article "<a href="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303674004577432742562311810.html" target="_blank">There's a Medical App for That—Or Not</a>" was published on May 29, 2012.  Its theme is special regulatory accommodation for health IT in the form of opposition to FDA regulation of devices such as "portable health records and programs that let doctors and patients keep track of data on iPads." In the article, this assertion about health IT "certification" is made: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... The FDA's approach to health-information technology risks snuffing out activity at a critical frontier of health care. Poor, slow regulation would encourage programmers to move on, leaving health care to roil away for yet another generation, fragmented, disconnected and choking on paperwork. The process already exists for safeguarding the public for computers in health care. It's not FDA premarket review but the health information technology certification program, established under President George W. Bush and still working fine under the Obama Health and Human Services Department. The government sets the standards and an independent nonprofit [ATCB, i.e., ONC Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies - ed.] ensures that apps meet those standards. It's a regulatory process as nimble as the breakout industry it's meant to monitor. That is where and how these apps should be regulated.</blockquote> It's a wonderful meme.  Unfortunately, it's wrong.  Dead wrong. Certification by an ATCB does not "safeguard the public."   Two ONC Authorized Testing and Certification Bodies (ATCB's) admitted this in email, as in my Feb. 2012 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/02/hospitals-and-doctors-use-health-it-at.html" target="_blank">Hospitals and Doctors Use Health IT at Their Own Risk - Even if Certified</a>".  I had asked them, point-blank: <blockquote>"Is EHR certification by an ATCB a certification of EHR safety, effectiveness, and a legal indemnification, i.e., certifying freedom from liability for EHR use of clinical users or organizations? Or does it signify less than that?"</blockquote> I received two replies from major ONC ATCB's indicating that "certification" is merely assurance that HIT meets a minimal set of "meaningful use" guidelines, not that it's been vetted for safety.  For instance: <blockquote class="tr_bq">From: Joani Hughes (Drummond Group) Sent: Monday, March 05, 2012 1:06 PM To: Scot Silverstein Subject: RE: EHR certification question Per our testing team: It is less than that. It does not address indemnification although a certification could be used as a conditional part of some other form of indemnification function, such as a waiver or TOA, but that is ultimately out of the scope of the certification itself. Certification in this sense is an assurance that the EHR functions in way that could enable an eligible provider or eligible hospital to meet the CMS requirements of Meaningful Use Stage 1. Or to restate it more directly, CMS is expecting eligible providers or eligible hospitals to use their EHR in “meaningful way” quantified by various quantitative measure metrics and eligible providers or eligible hospitals can only be assured they can do this if they obtain a certified EHR technology. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Joani. Joani Hughes Client Services Coordinator Drummond Group Inc.</blockquote> The other ATCB, ICSA Labs, stated that: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... Certification by an ATCB signifies that the product or system tested has the capabilities to meet specific criteria published by NIST and approved by the Office of the National Coordinator. In this case the criteria are designed to support providers and hospitals achieve "Meaningful Use." A subset of the criteria deal with the security and patient privacy capabilities of the system. Here is a list of the specific criteria involved in our testing: <a href="http://healthcare.nist.gov/use_testing/effective_requirements.html" target="_blank">http://healthcare.nist.gov/use_testing/effective_requirements.html</a> In a nutshell, ONC-ATCB Certification deals with testing the capabilities of a system, some of them relate to patient safety, privacy and security functions (audit logging, encryption, emergency access, etc.). What was suggested in the email below (freedom from liability for users of the system, etc.) would be out of scope for ONC-ATCB testing based on the given criteria. [I.e., certification criteria - ed.] I hope that helps to answer your question.</blockquote> I had noted that: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... My question was certainly answered [by the ATCB responses]. ONC certification is not a safety validation, such as in a document from NASA on aerospace software safety certification, "<a href="http://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20040014965_2004000657.pdf">Certification Processes for Safety-Critical and Mission-Critical Aerospace Software</a>" (PDF) which specifies at pg. 6-7:</blockquote><blockquote><blockquote>In order to meet most regulatory guidelines, developers must build a safety case as a means of documenting the safety justification of a system. The safety case is a record of all safety activities associated with a system throughout its life. Items contained in a safety case include the following: • Description of the system/software • Evidence of competence of personnel involved in development of safety-critical software and any safety activity • Specification of safety requirements • Results of hazard and risk analysis • Details of risk reduction techniques employed • Results of design analysis showing that the system design meets all required safety targets • Verification and validation strategy • Results of all verification and validation activities • Records of safety reviews • Records of any incidents which occur throughout the life of the system • Records of all changes to the system and justification of its continued safety</blockquote></blockquote> A CCHIT ATCB juror, a physician informatics specialist, has also done a guest post in Jan. 2012 on HC Renewal about the certification process, reproducing his testimony to HHS on the issue.  That post is "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/01/dr-monteith-hit-testimony-to-hhs.html" target="_blank">Interesting HIT Testimony to HHS Standards Committee, Jan. 11, 2011, by Dr. Monteith</a>."  Dr. Monteith testified (emphases mine): <blockquote class="tr_bq"><div class="MsoNormal">... I’m “pro-HIT.” For all intents and purposes, I haven’t handwritten a prescription since 1999.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">That said and with all due respect to the capable people who have worked hard to try to improve health care through HIT, here’s my frank message:</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">ONC’s strategy has put the cart before the horse. HIT is not ready for widespread implementation. </div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">... ONC has promoted HIT as if there are clear evidence-based products and processes supporting widespread HIT implementation.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">But what’s clear is that we are experimenting…with lives, privacy and careers.</div> ... I have documented scores of error types with our certified EHR, and literally hundreds of EHR-generated errors, including consistently incorrect diagnoses, ambiguous eRxs, etc. <div class="MsoNormal">As a CCHIT Juror, I’ve seen an inadequate process. Don’t get me wrong, the problem is not CCHIT. The problem stems from MU.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">EHRs are being certified even though they take 20 minutes to do a simple task that should take about 20 seconds to do in the field.  [Which can contribute to mistakes and "use error" - ed.] Certification is an “open book” test. How can so many do so poorly?</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">For example, our EHR is certified, even though it cannot generate eRxs from within the EHR, as required by MU.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">To CCHIT’s credit, our EHR vendor did not pass certification. Sadly, our vendor went to another certification body, and now they’re certified.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">MU does not address many important issues. Usability has received little more than lip-service. What about safety problems and reporting safety problems? What about computer generated alerts, almost all of which are known to be ignored or overridden (usually for good reason)?</div><div class="MsoNormal">  </div><div class="MsoNormal">The concept of “unintended consequences” comes to mind.</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">All that said, the problem really isn’t MU and its gross shortcomings, it is ONC trying to do the impossible:</div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">ONC is trying to artificially force a cure for cancer, basically trying to promote one into being, when in fact we need to let one evolve through an evidence-based, disciplined process of scientific discovery and the marketplace.</div></blockquote><div class="MsoNormal"> </div><div class="MsoNormal">Needless to say, as was learned at great cost in past decades, a "disciplined process" in medicine includes meaningful safety regulation by objective outside experts. </div><div class="MsoNormal"> </div>Further, the certifiers have no authority to do important things such as forcibly remove dangerous software from the market.  An example is the forced Class 1 recall of a defective system as I wrote about in my Dec. 2011 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/12/fda-recalls-health-it-software-because.html" target="_blank">FDA Recalls Draeger Health IT Device Because This Product May Cause Serious Adverse Health Consequences, Including Death</a>".   Class 1 recalls are the most serious type of recall and involve situations in which there is a reasonable probability that use of these products will cause serious adverse health consequences or death. In that situation, the producer had been simply advising users (in critical care environments, no less) to "work around the defects" that could indicate incorrect recommended dosage values of critical meds, including a drug dosage up to ten times the indicated dosage, as well as corrupt critical cardiovascular monitoring data.  As I observed: <blockquote class="tr_bq">... I find a software company advising clinicians to make sure to "work around" blatant IT defects in "acute care environments" the height of arrogance and contempt for patient safety. </blockquote> Without formal regulatory authority to take actions such as this FDA recall, "safeguarding the public" is a meaningless platitude. It's also likely the ATCB's, which are private businesses, would not want the responsibility of "safeguarding the public."  That responsibility would open them up to litigation when patient injuries or death were caused, or were contributed to, by "certified" health IT. I have in the past also noted that the use of the term "certification" might have been deliberate, to mislead potential buyers exactly into thinking that "certification" is akin to a UL certification of an electrical appliance for safety, or an FAA approval of a new aircraft's flight-worthiness. The WSJ needs to clarify and/or retract its statement, as the statement is misinformation. At my Feb. 2012 post "<a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/02/health-it-ddulites-and-disregard-for.html" target="_blank">Health IT Ddulites and Disregard for the Rights of Others</a>" I observed: <blockquote class="tr_bq">Ddulites [HIT hyper-enthusiasts - ed.] ... ignore the downsides (patient harms) of health IT. This is despite being already aware of, or informed of patient harms, even by reputable sources such as <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/08/smoking-gun-internal-fda-memorandum-of.html">FDA</a> (Internal FDA memo on H-IT risks), <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/12/joint-commission-sentinel-events-alert.html">The Joint Commission</a> (Sentinel Events Alert on health IT), the <a href="http://www.isb.nhs.uk/documents/isb-0160/dscn-18-2009/0160182009specification.pdf">NHS</a> (Examples of potential harm presented by health software - Annex A starting at p. 38), and the <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/12/ecri-healthcare-it-in-top-ten-health.html">ECRI Institute</a> (Top ten healthcare technology risks), to name just a <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/02/updated-reading-list-on-health-it.html">few</a>. In fact, the hyper-enthusiastic health IT technophiles will go out of their way to incorrectly dismiss risk management-valuable case reports as "anecdotes" not worthy of consideration (see "Anecdotes and medicine" essay <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/08/from-senior-clinician-down-under.html">at this link</a>). They will also make unsubstantiated, often hysterical-sounding claims that health IT systems are necessary to, or simply will "transform" (into what, exactly, is usually left a mystery) or even "revolutionize" medicine (whatever that means). </blockquote> Health IT is a potentially dangerous technology.   It requires meaningful regulation to "safeguard the public."  How many incidents like <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/11/lifespan-rhode-island-yet-another.html" target="_blank">this</a> and <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/12/yet-another-glitch-affecting-thousands.html" target="_blank">this</a> will it take before that is understood by the hyper-enthusiasts? I've emailed the ATCB's that had responded to my aforementioned query for clarification on the WSJ assertion about their role, being that the statement is in contradiction to their earlier replies to me.  I also advised them of the potential liability issues. However, if it turns out to be true that the ONC-ATCB's do intend themselves as the ultimate watchdog and assurer of public safety related to EHR's, that needs to be known by the public and their representatives. -- SS

WSJ "There's a Medical App for That—Or Not" - Misinformation on Health IT Safety Regulation?

There's a health IT meme that just won't die (patients may, but not the meme). It's the meme that health IT "certification...

Đọc thêm »

Dartmouth's Governance and Wall Street

While the money spent on health care in the US continues to increase, care becomes less accessible and its quality becomes more dubious.  Most public health care discourse seems at a loss to explain how we can keep spending more to get less. Of many possible explanations, one that has become more credible is continuing erosion of health care stewardship.  The <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/search/label/boards%20of%20trustees">boards of trustees</a> of health care organizations, those charged with their stewardship, seem increasingly preoccupied with self-interest rather than the health care mission.  As more information about how such boards currently operate sneaks into public view, the problems appear more serious and salient. New information about the governance of Dartmouth College, an issue we have <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/09/oceania-in-new-hampshire.html">followed since 2007</a>, is illustrative. The Case So Far The problems at Dartmouth were notable because in many ways its governance was superior to that of many US higher educational and health care institutions.  At the time we first <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/09/oceania-in-new-hampshire.html">stumbled on</a> these problems, Dartmouth was unusual in that nearly half of its board of trustees were elected by alumni, rather than being self-appointed.  That made its governance both more representative  and more accountable.  In 2007, however, a dispute was ongoing about the extent that the institution's board of trustees ought to represent the alumni at large, or instead, ought to be a self-elected body not clearly accountable to anyone else.  The unelected, or "charter" board members were pushing to increases their numbers.  In 2007, what really got our attention was the stated rationale for this push towards less representative and accountable governance. Mr Charles Haldeman, then the chairman of the board of trustees, announced a smaller proportion of elected trustees would ensure that the board "has the broad range of backgrounds, skills, expertise, and fundraising capabilities needed," and that the board members would possess "even more diverse backgrounds."  However, despite his appeal to diversity, Mr Haldeman seemed most intent on reducing "divisiveness," especially dissent that challenged his own authority.  At the time, we thought his argument for more diversity to reduce dissent and increase his own authority seemed Orwellian. Yet when we examined the backgrounds of the self-appointed trustees, we found that they exhibited little diversity. Furthermore, rather than resembling followers of Ingsoc, they resembled more the group that the radical left traditionally reviled.  Remarkably, three-quarters (6/8) were leaders of the finance sector, of what is popularly called "Wall Street." In 2007, they seemed not very diverse, but why the majority should be in the financial sector, and what implications that had, was then obscure. After the fall of Lehman Brothers and the onset of the global financial collapse/ great recession, the implications of this Wall Street majority on the board of an institution of higher education became more troubling.  Since 2008, growing concerns about the extent that finance is driven by a "greed is good" culture increasingly suggest that domination of university, medical school, or hospital boards by leaders in the finance sector may increasingly divorce boards from the missions which they are supposed to uphold. Yet in 2008, the unelected "charter" members of the Dartmouth board succeeded in increasing their numbers, and hence their proportion of total board seats.  The new board was no more diverse.  Of its 13 charter members, 9 were from finance, and one more was the CEO of a corporation with a major finance subsidiary.  (Look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2008/11/leadership-of-elite-american-university.html">here</a>.)  By 2009, the charter board members had succeeded in ousting a dissident alumni-elected member, labeling him a member of a "radical cabal," and rewriting a board loyalty oath apparently to discourage further dissent.  (Look <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2009/04/investment-bankers-strike-back.html">here</a>.) All this spoke to the increasing power of the culture of finance among members of the board.  Perhaps, though, there were reasons that the financial majority on the board wanted to suppress dissent other than to make themselves more comfortable with their own dominant culture,  In 2010, as the global financial crisis continued, "<a href="http://www.tellus.org/publications/files/endowmentcrisis.pdf">Educational Endowments and the Financial Crisis: Social Costs and Systemic Risks in the Shadow Banking System</a>," published by the Center for Social Philanthropy, Tellus Institute, focused on how prominent educational institutions, including Dartmouth College, came to invest much of their endowments in risky, illiquid "alternative" investments, the sort provided by the "shadow banking system."  (See this <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/05/stewards-of-elite-university-or.html">post</a>.)  The report noted extensive conflicts of interest on the Dartmouth board involving trustees who were also leaders of finance.  Their firms, it turned out, were managing a substantial fraction of the money in the college's endowment.  Half of the charter trustees were also being paid to manage the finances of the institution for whose stewardship they were responsible.  Trustees of non-profit organizations are supposed to exhibit a duty of loyalty, that is, they "must give undivided allegiance when making decisions affecting the organization."  (For a summary of their duties, look <a href="http://www.boardsource.org/Knowledge.asp?ID=3.364">here</a>.)   In 2010, I <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2010/05/stewards-of-elite-university-or.html">noted</a>, "letting a board member's firm manage millions of dollars worth of the institution's endowment portfolio seems an obvious violation of the duty of loyalty."  So, "these sorts of conflicts of interest may be another 'missing link' explaining why the leadership and governance of health care organizations has gone so far astray."  I then posited, "as disclosure continues, maybe enough outrage will ensue so that improved leadership and governance will become possible. The Friends of Eleazar Wheelock Charge Corruption Now there seems to be more outrage.  Last month, the dissident Dartblog <a href="http://www.dartblog.com/data/2012/05/010228.php">broke the story</a> of a <a href="http://www.dartblog.com/AG%20Letter.pdf">letter</a> sent in February, 2012 to the New Hampshire Attorney General by an anonymous group called the "Friends of Eleazar Wheelock."  (Wheelock was the founder of the college.)  To the the letter was appended a report that included an even more extensive list of conflicts of interest affecting Dartmouth trustees, the college's Finance Committee and Investment Committees, and their friends and relatives.  The letter also added <blockquote>The mismanagement extends beyond the investments and endowment. 1) Over a period of seven years The College engaged Lehman Brothers in six 'interest rate swaps' totaling $550 million dollars. The current value of these 'swaps' is now in excess of two hundred million dollars. That is what Dartmouth owes on these bets. These losses are not reported in the College’s financial statements. 2) The College’s 'cash' was invested in six hedge funds. Up to 40% of it was lost. Again, this was not reported. This comprises grant money for research, advances to faculty, and other working capital which should have been invested in the safest of money market instruments. 3) over 50% of the endowment is invested with Trustees, Investment Committee members, or their friends.</blockquote>The report summary stated, <blockquote>The pattern that the Dartmouth trustees and members of the Endowment/Investment committee have engaged in for decades is clear. That pattern is that a donor/investment manager’s pledge to support Dartmouth is reciprocated with an investment of ever increasing proportions in the donor’s firm, lending the credibility of an Ivy League institution to the firm. The investment returns are of little import; most of these alum/donor/investment manager returns are average to poor.</blockquote> It rhetorically asked how the college came into <blockquote>the grip of a club of investment manager alums who have invested almost six hundred million dollars in their very own funds and directed over one billion dollars to their friends? And who have taken almost one hundred million dollars in fees to manage the endowment, often with poor results culminating in the twenty three per cent loss in 2008 and the worst performance of all the Ivies in 2011?</blockquote> The letter charged that there has been a <blockquote>quiet takeover of this great College by a cabal of external, wealthy alumni/ae of the college. They have mortgaged the College’s future through borrowing heavily in the tax exempt marketplace under NH HEFA (Health and Education Facilities Authority). They have simultaneously directed the College’s three billion dollar endowment to themselves, their firms, and their friends. They have furthered their own self-interest at the expense of the College and the Upper Valley. They have abused the non-profit status of Dartmouth College. They have enriched themselves through managing and directing Dartmouth’s three billion dollar endowment. In all cases they have taken gargantuan fund management fees through 'Private Equity', 'Venture Capital', and 'Hedge Funds' investments which they, themselves, manage and are the owners of.</blockquote>Summary A <a href="http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2012/05/corruption_charges_leveled_at_dartmouth_college_trustees.html">post</a> on the American Thinker blog noted that the letter alleged "corruption." It is impossible to tell whether these expanded allegations will result in any charges, much less convictions. The state Attorney General is currently looking into this (see <a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/05/29/dartmouth-endowment-idUSL1E8GT9CS20120529">Reuters</a>). Certainly, the allegations are at least of ethical corruption as it is defined by Transparency International, "abuse of entrusted power for private gain." The revelations since 2007 (and I could argue beginning with <a href="http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2007/09/oceania-in-new-hampshire.html">my finding</a> that the majority of the supposedly "diverse" charter trustees were leaders of finance) first raised questions whether Dartmouth governance's was attentive to the mission, then, whether it was conflicted, and now, whether it is corrupt. That these questions can be credibly raised about one of our most prestigious institutions of higher education and health care demonstrates the depth of our health care crisis. It also demonstrates how the health care crisis seems inextricably linked to the financial crisis, and to a fundamental crisis about our society and its commitment to democracy and fairness. A fair and thorough enquiry about the mess at Dartmouth, resulting in clear actions to uphold the institution's mission and ethics, and, if applicable, the law, would start us down the path of true health care reform. However, if this just gets swept under the rug, we will not have reached the bottom of our descent. ADDENDUM (2 June, 2012) - Note that Dartmouth's most recent President, Jim Yong Kim, who was appointed by and served under the Trustees in question above, is now President of the World Bank (see this LA Times<a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/dartmouths-kim-named-world-bank-president/2012/04/16/gIQArHuiLT_story.html"> article</a>.) See also <a href="http://www.margaretsoltan.com/?p=35969">comments</a> in the University Diaries blog.

Dartmouth's Governance and Wall Street

While the money spent on health care in the US continues to increase, care becomes less accessible and its quality becomes more dubious. Mo...

Đọc thêm »