Vested Interests and Their Influence on Physicians- New Understanding from Cognitive and Social Psychology

Evidence-based medicine proposes patient care decisions based on the best evidence from critically reviewed clinical research, knowledge of biology and the biopsychosocial context, and patients' values and preferences.  Yet physicians often fail to make evidence-based decisions, despite many efforts to educate, or incentivize them to do so.  We used to think that the main reason was physicians' lack of knowledge and understanding of EBM, and human cognitive limitations that make such evidence-based thinking difficult.  However, now we realize that physicians are deluged by  attempts to influence their decisions so as to favor vested interests, whether or not that is good for patients.

We have discussed various kinds of deception used in marketing meant to increase physicians' prescriptions for drugs, and recommendations for devices and health care services.  Physicians have not proved to be very resistant to these methods.

Now a new article provides a different perspective on how marketers use cognitive and social psychology to manipulate physicians.(1)  Sunita Sah's and Adriane Fugh-Berman's introduction stated,

Physicians often believe that a conscious commitment to ethical behavior and professionalism will protect them from industry influence.  Despite increasing concern over the extent of physician-industry relationships, physicians usually fail to recognize the nature and impact of subconscious and unintentional biases on therapeutic decision-making. Pharmaceutical and medical device companies, however, routinely demonstrate their knowledge of social psychology processes on behavior and apply these principles to their marketing. 

The article then listed a number of findings from social (and cognitive) psychology that marketers may use to their advantage on naive physicians.

Psychological Mechanisms Promoting Acceptance of Conflicts of Interest and Dubious Marketing Ploys

First, marketers may take advantage of cognitive biases and psychological mechanisms that allow physicians to accept marketing maneuvers while denying the effect of marketing on their decision making.

Confidence and Over-Confidence

People are strongly influenced by messages delivered with confidence and do not take the trouble to ascertain the accuracy of these messages if doing so requires effort or money.

I would add that many humans, including physicians, are also over-confident in the accuracy of their own judgments.  (In 1989 we showed  that physicians often were excessively confident in their judgments of patients' outcomes, in particular, about survival of critically ill patients.)(2)

Of course, marketers often state their messages with great confidence regardless of their accuracy.

So physicians need to try to restrain their own over-confidence, and be more skeptical of the confidence of others. Maybe this would just be an exercise in simple humility.

Self-Serving (or Ego) Biases

People tend to believe that the results of their decisions, or of their groups' decisions, are better than average.  This can be called the Lake Wobegon effect (from Garrison Keilor's fictional town in which all the children are above average.)

We and others have shown that physicians may be overly optimistic about the outcomes of their own (versus others') patients, or their clinical units' (versus others') outcomes, again in the context of predicting survival of critically ill patients.(3)  We have also posted about how corporate boards of directors seem to almost always think that their hired executives are better than average, at least when determining their executive compensation.

Similarly, Sah and Fugh-Berman wrote,

Physicians believe that their own prescribing behavior is unaffected by industry influence, although they concede that other physicians are susceptible to such influence.

Furthermore,

Social psychology research confirms that people have a 'bias blind spot,' namely, they are more likely to identify the existence of cognitive and motivational biases in other than in themselves.

But, as Dana and Lowenstein wrote,

It cannot both be true that most physicians are unbiased and that most other physicians are biased.

So, to put it bluntly, physicians ought to be more humble about their own ability to resist outside influences and the resulting biases. Again, some simple humility might help.

Cognitive Dissonance

Sah and Fugh-Berman pointed out that

While articulating and believing in the importance of scientific objectivity, physicians' biases to accept industry gifts create cognitive dissonance; that is, discomfort that arises from discrepancy between conflicting beliefs, or between beliefs and behaviors.

So,

Cognitive dissonance theory specifies three methods - not mutually exclusive - by which people manage or reduce dissonance.  Changing one of the dissonant beliefs, opinions or behaviors (possibly a difficult or painful process that requires sacrificing a pleasurable behavior or treasured belief); Lowering the importance of one of the discordant factors which can be accomplished by denial - forgetting or rejecting the significance of one or more of the conflicting cognitions; and adding consonant elements that resolve or lessen the dissonance (this may involve rationalizations to buffer the dissonance between conflicting cognitions.)

Physicians may use denial and rationalization to reduce cognitive dissonance caused by their concurrent desire for relationships with marketers and others with vested interests on one hand, and their professionalism and its obligation to put patients' needs first on the other hand.  Sah and Fugh-Berman cited Chimonas and colleagues,

Denial included (a) avoiding thinking about the conflict of interest; (b) rejecting the notion that industry relationships affect physician behavior, and (c) disavowing or universalizing responsibility for problems that arose from conflicts of interest ('there's always a conflict of interest...').  Rationalizations included (a) asserting techniques that would help maintain impartiality and (b) reasoning that meetings with drug reps were educational and benefited patients.

We have discussed various public justifications for accepting conflicts of interest by physicians and other health care decision makers that employed a variety of logical fallacies along these lines.

So physicians need to re-examine their treasured beliefs and the gratification they get from relationships with industry (as opposed to those with patients, colleagues, friends and families).  They could remember the advice that no one can serve two masters.

Sense of Entitlement

Physicians' sense of entitlement, especially given the increasing stress upon them, may be used to rationalize relationships with drug, device and biotechnology companies since these corporations seem to be among their few friends (versus insurance companies, government agencies, and sometimes hospital administrations whom physicians feel may be more burdensome.).  So, in one study,

Implicitly reminding physicians of the burdens of medical training and their working conditions more than doubled reported willingness to accept gifts....

So physicians need to reconsider that to which they feel entitled.  This is the third instance in which some humility might help. 

Principles of Influence Used by Marketers

Markets seem to also be well acquainted with the six principles of influence and persuasion identified by Cialdini and colleagues.

Reciprocity

The norm of reciprocity - the obligation to help those who have helped you - is one of the guiding principles of human interaction

This is the foundation of the effect of relatively small conflicts of interest, such as giving of small gifts.

Physicians pay off industry gifts through changes in their practice

Furthermore,

Gifts associated with a subtle implicit request may be more likely to achieve compliance than gifts that call for explicit reciprocation. 

So physicians need to be wary of Greeks, or anyone else bearing gifts, even those less conspicuous than wheeled horses.

Commitment and Consistence

Consistency is highly valued in our society and associated with rationality and stability.  After committing to a decision or opinion, people justify that choice or opinion by remaining consistent with it.

So marketers try to get physicians to make small commitments to leverage larger ones.  This is

why drug reps, ask, for example, 'will you try my drug on your next five patients?'

So physicians should remember there is no virtue in commitment to erroneous beliefs.  "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

Social Proof

This is basically the deliberate deployment of the logical fallacy of the appeal to common practice.

Social proof, also referred to as social validation or conformity, is the practice of deciding what to do by looking at what others are doing.

So,

If accepting industry gifts is a cultural norm in medicine, physicians will continue to do so.  The opinions of colleagues are often used by industry representatives to sway physicians to adopt a particular therapy. 

This may be why industry works so hard to sign up health care academics.

Trainees in an institution, for example, are affected by the institution's stated policies but also - and sometimes more so - by what they see their mentors do.

So physicians, who often pride themselves on independence, need to be skeptical about the need to follow the crowd.

Liking or Rapport

The more you like someone, the more you are apt to follow their advice, even if your feelings towards them have been manipulated.

This is obviously why drug representatives, for example, are so nice to physicians.

Physicians often feel overworked, underpaid, and unappreciated [ed note -  and their is plenty of evidence, some of which we have discussed on this blog, that this is not unreasonable.]  Drug reps dispense sympathy, flattery, food, gifts, services and income-enhancing opportunities and seek to ask nothing in return but scholarly consideration of the benefits of drugs.

So physicians need to reconsider who really are their friends, and be skeptical of "friends" with something to sell. 

Authority and Security

This is basically the deliberate deployment of the logical fallacy of the appeal to authority.  The best example is industry's efforts to recruit key opinion leaders, that is health professionals who are perceived as authority figures, but have really been hired to market.

From an industry perspective, the best KOLs radiate status and authority while successfully convincing their peers (and perhaps themselves) of their illusory independence and lack of bias.

Note that

KOL speakers not only influence audience members' prescribing behavior, but also - as predicted by cognitive dissonance theory - become more convinced themselves of the benefits of the products they endorse.

So physicians need to be skeptical of those claiming to be authorities, especially when they are connected with people who have something to sell.

Summary

We used to strongly believe (and Dr Wally Smith and I used to teach a course to the effect that) the major barrier to true evidence-based practice was the cognitive limitations that physicians share with all humans.  We thought in terms of cognitive biases and the inappropriate use of cognitive heuristics leading physicians to inaccurately judge the probabilities of diagnoses and medical outcomes, and thus make less than optimal decisions.

Now it seems apparent that the deliberate influencing of health professionals' judgments and decisions by external actors, mainly those interested in selling more products and services, but sometimes by those with ideological or political motives, is currently a much more important challenge to evidence based practice.  It looks like the influencers may be very knowledgeable about human cognitive limitations and how social psychology influences judgment and decisions, and may use this knowledge to pursue their vested interests, at the financial and physical expense of patients, and ultimately the public.

 True health care reform would encourage professional education designed to increase resistance to external influences that put self-interest ahead of patients' and the public's health, and careful regulation that would decrease some of the more dangerous practices used.  Of course, much more resistance might be achieved if physicians used a little more common sense when dealing with people who are obviously trying to sell them on goods, services, or ideas.  A good proportion of the deceptive methods discussed above could be countered by remembering the usefulness of humility, skepticism, and a few simple aphorisms.   

Again, as we have written repeatedly, not only should all conflicts of interest be disclosed for the sake of honesty, but physicians and other health professionals ought to consider repudiating most of all of them, maybe at some personal expense, but in the interest of re-establishing their commitment to putting the patient, not their own self-interest, or the vested interests of others, first.  
 

References

1.  Sah S, Fugh-Berman A. Physicians under the influence: social psychology and industry marketing strategies.  J Law Med Ethics 2013; 14:  . Link here:

2. Poses RM, Bekes C, Copare F, Scott WE.  The answer to "what are my chances, doctor?"  depends on whom is asked: prognostic disagreement and inaccuracy for critically ill patients.  Crit Care Med 1989; 17: 827-833.  Link here.

3. Poses RM,  McClish DK, Bekes C, Scott WE, Morley JN. Ego bias, reverse ego bias, and physicians' prognostic judgments for critically ill patients. Crit Care Med 1991; 19: 1533-1539.  Link here.

Market Fundamentalism and the Denial of Conflicts of Interest, and of Worse Offenses

While we often point out the pervasiveness of conflicts of interest in medicine and health care, and the likely ill effects of this state of affairs, it seems that the powers that be in health care tend to airily dismiss conflicts of interest as at most a minor problem that needs management (e.g., look here.) 

How Market Fundamentalist Ideology Nullifies the Concept of Conflicts of Interest

On the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, Dr Howard Brody discussed how application of the reigning orthodoxy in economics, sometimes called neoliberalism, market fundamentalism, or economism, can be used to dismiss the concept of conflicts of interest.

Basically, supporters of market fundamentalism et al seem to assume that all markets are idealized free markets, and that free markets are like a super computer combining all human thought to provide wisdom in the form of price information.  Furthermore, since the market is based on supposedly rational choices made by free individuals, one cannot go back to question such choices.

 So when, for example, an academic physician makes the "free choice" to accept thousands of dollars from a drug company as a "market consultant," and then also gives talks about clinical topics that happen to favor that drug company's products, such choices cannot be questioned.  Therefore, the notion that these choices constitute a conflict of interest, and that the choice to accept the drug company money in particular might increase the likelihood of abuse of the physician's entrusted responsibility to make the best decisions for individual patients, and to teach other physicians honestly and without bias, essentially makes no sense within this framework.

Dr Brody further enlarged on the internal contradictions within the ideology of neliberalism/ market fundamentalism/ economism, in another post on his Economism Scam blog.

Of course, the ideology seems to ignore the possibilities that 1) people's choice may not be free, may not be rational, and may not be based on coldly rational cognition and the best possible knowledge; and 2) one person's economic choice may limit another person's choices, or directly harm another person.

 By Extension, Fraud and Corruption Denialism

Furthermore, not only does neoliberalism et al seem to deny the existence of meaningful conflicts of interest, it also could be used to deny the meaningful existence of deceptive marketing, of market domination through oligopoly or monopoly, and then of outright fraud, bribery, and extortion. 

See for example how former US Federal Reserve chairman Alan Greenspan seemed to deny the existence of fraud, which he asserted would always be nullified by the ideal market.  As we posted here, according to an article in Stanford Magazine,  Greenspan told Ms Brooksley Born, the federal regulatory agency head who tried to develop some effective regulation of financial derivatives,

'Well, you probably will always believe there should be laws against fraud, and I don’t think there is any need for a law against fraud,' she recalls. Greenspan, Born says, believed the market would take care of itself.

By further extension, market fundamentalism could be used to deny the evils of chattel slavery.

The Conflicted as Defenders of Conflicts of Interest

Finally, notice that neoliberalism/ market fundamentalism/ economism ideology seems to have conveniently been adopted by pundits, both in economics and in medicine and health policy who may be personally profiting from conflicts of interest on one hand, and whose conflicts seem to arise from payments from large corporations whose management seem to be personally profiting even more so. 

For example, we have discussed examples of how defenders of existing financial relationships - which in my humble opinion are actually conflicts of interest - employ logical fallacies to make their points.  Some of these defenders seem to have obvious conflicts of their own (for example, this post included examples of physicians rationalizing their financial ties to drug companies,  and this post included fallacies employed by a current medical school leader, but former extremely well paid biotechnology company executive.).  On the other hand, I have yet to find a logical, reality-based defense of these conflicts of interest made by anyone who demonstrably does not have such conflicts of their own.  

Summary

Human beings have been wrestling with corruption since the dawn of history.  There are ancient arguments against bribery in the Bible  (e.g., in the Old Testament, in Exodus and Deuteronomy), and fraud (e.g., in Leviticus, the Proverbs, and the Gospel of Mark).  One can argue that a fundamental purpose of civilization is to reduce self-serving misbehavior such as bribery, fraud, and extortion, and other varieties of corruption.  The notion that free markets make the concepts of fraud, and of conflicts of interest (that are risk factors for corruption - look here) meaningless is nothing more than school playground sophistry.

To truly reform health care, we need to return it from its current Wild West mentality to a state more resembling civilization.  We need to reject silly notions that free markets erase the concepts of conflict of interest, or of fraud, or of other aspects of corruption.     

Health Care Revolving Door Roundup

Increasingly, the regulatory and law enforcement functions of the US government in the health care sphere seem to be blending with the management of large health care organizations.  One mechanism for this is the "revolving door," the constant interchange of personnel between government agencies and corporate management. 


Here is a list of some of this year's interesting cases of people transiting the revolving door between US government agencies that are supposed to regulate health care organizations or enforce the relevant laws and the organizations subject to these regulations and laws.   Note that this list may not be complete.  It is difficult to keep track of these transitions. 

Leader of Health Care Fraud Section of Philadelphia US Attorney's Office to Teva Pharmaceuticals

Via MainJustice.org in March, 2013,

John Pease, who led the government and health care fraud section in the U.S. Attorney's Office in Philadelphia, has left the Justice Department for a job with a pharmaceutical company.

Pease, 45, is a new senior counsel at Teva Pharmaceuticals, where he oversees government investigations of the company for the Americas.  'I was just ready to try something different,' Pease said in an interview.

 Leader of US Department of Justice Fraud Section in Charge of Health Care Issues to Law Firm as Defender of Companies and Senior Executives

The initial notice again was via MainJustice.org in March, 2013

Sam Sheldon, the deputy chief in the Criminal Division's Fraud Section who oversaw health care fraud prosecutions, is leaving the Justice Department to join Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP.

Mr Sheldon's new job was made clear on the firm's website,

Sam Sheldon is head of the firm’s Health Care Practice Group.  He is a trial lawyer who represents companies and senior executives in litigation before the United States federal government including Department of Justice and Department of Health and Human Services, and other law enforcement and regulatory agencies.

FDA Deputy Commissioner for Global Regulatory Operations and Policy to Mylan

This story, in April, actually made it (briefly) to Reuters,

 Generic drugmaker Mylan Inc said on Tuesday it hired Deborah Autor, deputy commissioner for global regulatory operations and policy at the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, to help oversee its global regulatory strategy.

Leader of Health Care Fraud Enforcement of Philadelphia US Attorney's Office to Law Firm as Industry Defender

From Bloomberg, in August, 2013,

Marilyn May, a False Claims Act litigator at the U.S. Justice Department, joined Arnold & Porter LLP’s Washington office as litigation counsel with a focus on healthcare, pharmaceutical and medical device industry defense work. 

May was the head of healthcare fraud enforcement in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. She coordinated healthcare fraud cases and investigations as well as handled False Claims Act cases involving pharmaceutical and medical device companies, hospitals, nursing homes and other healthcare providers, the firm said. 

The law firm's website states,

 Her litigation practice focuses on pharmaceutical, medical device and healthcare defense matters.

Summary

In each of these cases, a person with responsibility for regulation of and/or law enforcement for health care organizations went through the revolving door to either work for health care corporations subject to such regulation and/or law enforcement, or work for legal firms that specialize in defending such corporations and their leaders in regulatory and law enforcement actions.

As far as I know, none of these instances was the least bit illegal.  However, like previous examples of the revolving door, they raise the concern that people in government regulation or law enforcement who think that they may have future lucrative job prospects helping health care organizations attenuate regulation and law enforcement may not be the most enthusiastic, aggressive, or persistent regulators or law enforcers.  Why would one want to upset one's future employer?

While these cases of the revolving door are legal, they are clearly conflicts of interest in the sense that the prospect of such future employment likely may increase the risk of compromising a government official's devotion to serving the public and enforcing the law, if not in the legal sense.  In some particular case, the revolving door may actually lead to corruption according to the Transparency International definition, abuse of entrusted power for private gain, if not according to the legal definition.  Thus the continuing occurrence of government officials blithely transiting the revolving door no doubt was a reason that more than 40% of the public consider the US health care sector to be corrupt (see this post.)

True health care reform would require curtailing the severe sorts of conflicts of interest created by the revolving door.  This might require both improving pay and working conditions for government regulators and law enforcers, and specific laws to prevent immediate transitions from being a regulator/ law enforcer to handling corporate responses to or defenses of such regulation and enforcement.

Of course, I can already hear the protests of those people who decry paying more for government or increasing government regulation.  I can at least hope that the protests are not from those who personally profit from the current seemingly corrupt system.  

The Mystery of the Northwestern Settlement

Watson, quick, the game's afoot.  We have discussed a large number of legal settlements by large health care organizations that serve as markers of misbehavior and often lack of leaderships' responsibility for same.  These settlements often follow a common pattern.  Yet this week a settlement appeared that was quite different, and hence raised some important questions.

The Basics of the Settlement

I will summarize the settlement as described by the Wall Street Journal.  The basic points were:

Northwestern University agreed to pay nearly $3 million to settle claims that a former cancer researcher fraudulently used federal grant money for personal expenses, including food, hotels and airfare for family trips between 2003 and 2010.

The settlement in the civil suit was unsealed Tuesday by the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois, which investigated claims brought by a whistle blower under the False Claims Act.

The settlement seemed to be more about the researcher, Dr Charles L Bennett, than Northwestern,

At the time of the alleged fraud, Dr. Bennett was the principal investigator on research funded by the National Institutes of Health, studying adverse drug events, multiple myeloma, a blood disorder known as thrombotic thrombocytopenic purpura, and quality of care for cancer patients.

According to the settlement agreement, he allegedly billed federal grants for family trips, meals and hotels for himself and friends, and for 'consulting fees' for unqualified friends and family. Northwestern also allegedly improperly subcontracted, at Dr. Bennett's request, with various universities for services that were paid for by the NIH grants.

'Allowing researchers to use federal grant money to pay for personal travel, hotels, and meals and to hire unqualified friends and relatives as 'consultants' violates the public trust and federal law,' U.S. Attorney Gary S. Shapiro said in a statement.

Meanwhile,

 Northwestern, which is in Evanston, Ill., cooperated with the investigators and didn't admit to any wrongdoing, according to a statement by the university.

The settlement was the result of the actions of a purported whistle-blower,

The whistleblower, Melissa Theis, worked as a purchasing coordinator in the Feinberg school's department of hematology and oncology, processing invoices when she 'noticed some red flags,' according to her attorney, Linda Wyetzner, of the Evanston firm Behn & Wyetzner Chartered.

The federal False Claims Act allows private citizens who allege government programs are being defrauded to file actions on behalf of the government and receive a portion, usually 15% to 30%, of any recovered damages. Ms. Theis will get $498,100 in settlement proceeds, according to the agreement.

The settlement resulted from the efforts of multiple federal agencies,

 The allegations were investigated by the NIH, Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General and the U.S. attorney's office.

Curious Aspects and the Questions They Raise

So here is yet another settlement by a large health care organization, in this case, the prestigious academic medical center of a well known university.  This one, however, does not follow the usual pattern, and includes some quite curious aspects.

Media Attention vs Severity

The settlement so far has generated articles in the WSJ (above), the Chicago Tribune, the Chicago Sun-Times, Crains Chicago Business, Medscape, Modern Healthcare, UPI, Bloomberg, other local Chicago and university publications, and local outlets in South Carolina, the state in which Dr Bennett currently works.
 
The amount of the grants that Dr Bennett allegedly misused was $8 million, according to the University Herald.

There are no allegations that any activities of Dr Bennett or the university affected the quality of clinical research, clinical teaching, or patient care.

Contrast that substantial media attention to that generated by another recent settlement we just discussed, that of Pfizer misbranding of Rapamune (look here.)  This involved the excess promotion of a relatively dangerous drug that likely resulted in harm to many patients.  The over-promotion may have caused up to 90% of the drug's $200 million yearly sales.  The settlement itself was for $491 million.  Yet while it got more coverage, mainly from local media outlets which covered it because the settlement will result in payments to individual states, only four big national outlets have covered it so far, again the Wall Street Journal, and  the New York Times, Reuters and Businessweek.

Why did a relatively small settlement of alleged financial misbehavior without clinical implications get nearly as much attention as a settlement fifty times bigger that involved actions that likely harmed patients?

Intensity of the Government Response

Dr Bennett's alleged misuse of grant funds required investigation by four different federal agencies, including the FBI.  Pfizer's misbranding of a dangerous drug seemingly was handled only by one, and the FBI was not obviously involved.  In fact, the FBI rarely has rarely been mentioned in the media coverage of most of the legal settlements we have discussed.

Why did again a case of relatively small alleged financial misbehavior require such massive federal resources when much bigger cases which had implications for clinical care, policy, or research seemed to command lesser resources?

Naming and Shaming

The settlement did not involve any admission of any wrongdoing by Northwestern.

In contrast, nearly all the news coverage of this settlement emphasized the role of Dr Charles L Bennett.  The coverage seemed to be following the lead of the Department of Justice press release, which included,

 Northwestern allegedly allowed one of its researchers, Dr. Charles L. Bennett, to submit false claims under research grants from the National Institutes of Health. The settlement covers improper claims that Dr. Bennett submitted for reimbursement from the federal grants for professional and consulting services, subcontracts, food, hotels, travel and other expenses that benefited Dr. Bennett, his friends, and family from Jan. 1, 2003, through Aug. 31, 2010.

Yet Dr Bennett appeared not to be a party in this settlement, and it was unclear whether he had a direct opportunity to respond to it.  The Wall Street Journal did note that after it was announced,

 James M. Becker, an attorney for Dr. Bennett, said, 'We deny the allegations.…We are actively engaged in discussions to resolve the allegations.'

We have discussed numerous legal settlements by large health care organizations, often involving hundreds of millions or even billions of dollars, sometimes involving guilty pleas by the companies involved or their subsidiaries.  Almost never do these settlements name or involve in any way persons who authorized, directed, or implemented the misbehavior.  In fact, we have commented again and again about the impunity of health care organizational managers and executives.  For example, the recent $491 million Pfizer settlement did not name or punish any individuals.  Furthermore, Pfizer's $2.3 billion settlement for deceptive marketing of a drug later pulled from the market (Bextra) did not name much less penalize any responsible individuals (look here.)  Also, GlaxoSmithKline's $3 billion settlement of numerous unethical practices did not name much less penalize any responsible individuals (look here).

So why was naming and shaming Dr Charles L Bennett such an important part of the relatively small Northwestern settlement, when much larger settlements, many involving unethical behavior that could have harmed patients or distorted medical research, and some of which involved corporate guilty pleas to criminal charges did not involve naming and shaming any responsible person?    
 
How Accountable was Dr Bennett?

As in the Wall Street Journal version, the settlement implies that Dr Bennett was the person most responsible.  The Chicago Sun-Times put it this way,

 Dr. Charles L. Bennett allegedly took his wife on personal trips, then illegally billed the flights, hotels and meals to the National Institutes of Health, claiming it was part of his cancer-fighting work. And he allegedly submitted phony bills for his work over a seven-year period beginning in 2003.

Here I will have to interject a bit of information about how federal grants work.  As I learned when I was a young faculty member, and as I confirmed with several other experienced researchers who have run and reviewed federal grants, these grants are made to institutions.  In the current case, the grant apparently went to Northwestern University.  The institution that receives the grant is responsible for making all payments and disbursements related to that grant.  The grant's Principal Investigator is responsible for the scientific conduct of the grant, but NOT payments, disbursements, business management or accounting.  The Principal Investigator can request that payments be made for various things, including travel expenses and consulting work.  But the Principal Investigator cannot directly authorize or make these payments.  They are authorized, signed, and made by institutional administrators, usually in grants and contracts offices or the equivalent, and usually only after copious paperwork to justify the payments.

So Dr Bennett may have requested reimbursement for travel expenses, or requested the university to hire a consultant.  But university managers must have made those payments, unless the university's grants administration mechanism had completely broken down.  Note that given the usual ways grants are administered, it would appear that Ms Theis, the ostensible whistle-blower, who will receive nearly one half of a million dollars from this settlement, actually may have had more direct responsibility for making the payments in question than did Dr Bennett.

Presumably, that is why the settlement was made by Northwestern.

Why then did the settlement, the DOJ press release, and the media coverage so emphasize Dr Bennett's responsibility, and so minimize the role of the university?  

Was Anyone Else Accountable?

The DOJ press release, and all the media articles on the case,  save one, mention only Dr Bennett as the person at fault.  Crain's Chicago Healthcare Daily, however, suggested someone else was responsible,

Northwestern University's nearly $3 million settlement of fraud claims by the federal government protects the director of the school's cancer center, who allegedly failed to supervise a researcher who used grant money to cover personal expenses over a seven-year period.

Dr. Steven Rosen, director of the Robert H. Lurie Comprehensive Center for Cancer, and Dr. Charles L. Bennett, a researcher who is no longer with the center, were both named in a whistleblower complaint unsealed on Tuesday, when the settlement was announced.

Dr. Bennett used federal grant money for family trips and fraudulent consulting fees for his brother and cousin from 2003-10, the government alleges.

Dr. Rosen 'failed to exercise appropriate responsibility,' Randall Samborn, a spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's office said. 'It was a supervisory function that he didn't adequately fulfill.'

When the settlement was announced, Mr. Samborn said the agreement did not cover either doctor. On Wednesday, he corrected himself, saying that settlement covered Dr. Rosen, but not Dr. Bennett.

As I noted above, the way federal grants work, it was the university, and its managers and leaders, who were responsible for making all payments on this and other federal grants.

Why did the government press release and the media coverage emphasize Dr Bennett's alleged role, while ignoring any possible responsibility of anyone else, especially his supervisor?


Backgrounds of the Principles

Dr Bennett and Dr Rosen, who seemingly were treated so differently in this settlement, travel in very different circles.

Most media articles described Dr Bennett as a prolific researcher and medical academic.  Although some described his areas of interest in hematology and oncology, only Medscape described one particular project of his.  

Dr. Bennett's research efforts included a 2008 study on which he was the first author (JAMA. 2008;299:914-924). The study was the first meta-analysis to identify an increased mortality risk in cancer patients associated with erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.(1)

In fact, as we discussed here,  Dr Bennett was the first author of a meta-analysis that was the first to show that epoetins increased the rates of adverse effects and death for cancer patients.  This evidence lead to reduced use of some very expensive drugs made by Johnson and Johnson and Amgen, and hence reduced revenues for both companies.

The JAMA article noted that at the time he wrote it, Dr Bennett had financial relationships with Amgen.  He and a coauthor "reported serving as consultants to AMGEN and Dr Bennett reported he has received grant support from AMGEN previously."

Note that Amgen pleaded guilty to misbranding its epoetin, Aranesp, and therefore paid fine and a civil settlement totaling $762 million.  Given the data on this drug class' adverse events, as shown by Dr Bennett and others, it is likely that the misbranding lead to patients being harmed by the drug without receiving any benefits (look here.) 

After writing that article, Dr Bennett became known as a strong skeptic of the pharmaceutical industry.  Just before the JAMA article was published, he coauthored an editorial which wondered if conflicts of interest would ever prove to be acceptable once sufficient research was done.(2)  In that article, he disclosed consulting for, and receiving honoraria and research grants from Amgen.  In 2010, he published research showing the effects of conflicts of interest on reporting of possible adverse effects based on basic science research about epoetins.(3)  By then he apparently no longer had financial relationships with Amgen.  In 2011, he reported a survey of major cases of pharmaceutical fraud resulting in legal actions.(4)

Dr Bennett became known for skepticism about the practices of pharmaceutical companies, and for publishing about the harms of specific drugs, despite his previous financial relationships with Amgen. 

However, Dr Rosen apparently has continued to work closely with industry.  His faculty disclosure page revealed  the following industry relationships

Consulting / Related Activities
Faculty member engaged in activities such as speaking, advising, consulting, or providing educational programs for the following companies or other for-profit entities:

• Allos Therapeutics, Inc.
• Carden Jennings Publishing Co., Ltd.
• Cerner Corporation
• Dava Oncology, LP
• Elorac, Inc.
• Envision Communications
• Health Practices Consulting - unverified entity
• Plexus Communications
• Prostrakan, Inc.
• Seattle Genetics, Inc.
• Studio ER Congressi (Triumph Group, Inc.)
• The Medal Group Corp.

In addition, faculty member received compensation for medical record consultation and/or expert witness testimony.

Ownership or Investment Interests
Faculty member had an ownership or investment interest in the following companies:

• AuraSense, LLC
• Nanosphere, Inc.

Royalty Payments and Inventor Share
Faculty member has the right to receive payments or may receive future financial benefits for inventions or discoveries related to the following companies or other entities:

• Nanosphere, Inc. 

We have seen various important effects of individual and institutional conflicts of interest in health care.  We have seen corporatism and regulatory capture affecting government and its dealings in health care.  

Did Dr Bennett's break with a powerful industry make it easier to set him up as the villain in this story?

Summary   

The settlement by Northwestern University, which was mainly about allegations made against Dr Charles L Bennett, who was not a party to the settlement, was very different that the vast majority of the march of legal settlements whose continuation we have frequently discussed.

The settlement and its media coverage raised important questions whose answers would be important to the assessment of  our current regulatory and legal response to misbehavior by and within large health care organizations.  Health Care Renewal is about raising such issues by commenting on public information, media reports, and research.  I hope those with capacity to investigate will consider these questions.  Inquiring minds want to know.

Roy M. Poses MD in Health Care Renewal 

References

1.  Bennett CI, Silver SM, Djulbegovic B et al.  Venous thromboembolism and mortality associated with recombinant erythropoietin and darbepoetin adminstration for the treatment of cancer-associated anemia.  JAMA 2008; 299: 914-924.
2.  Djulbegovic B, Angolotta C, Knox KE, Bennett CI. The sound and the fury: financial conflicts of interest in oncology.  J Clin Oncol 2007; 25:3567-3568.  Link here 
3.  Bennett CI, Lai SY, Henke M et al.  Association between pharmaceutical support and basic science research on erythropoiesis-stimulating agents.  Arch Intern Med 2010; 170: 1490-1498.  Link here.
4.  Qureshi Z, Sartor O, Xirasagar S, Liu Y, Bennett CI.  Pharmaceutical fraud and abuse in the United States, 1996-2010.  Arch Intern Med 2011; 171: 1503-1506.  Link here.

More than Just a Conflict of Interest? - Should Rutgers University's Own Contract Research Organizations Report to the Board of Covance?

Transparency International's 2013 global survey showed that over 40% of Americans think the country's health care is corrupt (see this post).  Transparency International defines corruption as abuse of entrusted power for private gain.  It is likely that one reason many US citizens feel this way is that they have become aware of the web of conflicts of interest that now permeates health care.

The Institute of Medicine defined conflicts of interest in medicine as occurring "when an individual or institution has a secondary interest that creates a risk of undue influence on decisions or actions affecting a primary interest."  Since the primary interest of physicians is to provide good care that puts patients' interests first, and the primary interests of academic medicine are to provide education and research of quality and integrity, conflicts of interest affecting physicians or academic medical institutions increase the risk of abuse of the entrusted power defined by these primary interests.

The most striking conflicts may occur when one person simultaneously runs two different health care organizations whose missions and interests are at odds.  For example, we have been documenting since 2006 how some top leaders of academic medicine simultaneously sit on boards of directors of health care corporations.  Thus, for example, the dean of a prestigious medical school may sit on the board of a large pharmaceutical company.  That person is supposedly responsible both for the honest education of students, including unbiased education about the use of drugs, and for a company whose revenue depends on selling more drugs at higher prices.

Rutgers University President, Director of VWR International and Covance

Such conflicts attracted little public notice when we first blogged about them, but now occasionally attract more attention.  For example, the NorthJersey.com just reported on the conflicts affecting the President of Rutgers University, which includes two medical schools and many other academic health care components,

As he leads the transformation of the state’s flagship university into a medical research hub with national aspirations, Rutgers University President Robert Barchi is also collecting hundreds of thousands of dollars for privately advising two firms that do millions of dollars of business with Rutgers related to scientific research.

In particular,

both firms have a business relationship with Rutgers. Those relationships predate Barchi’s appointment. They could expand, however, with Rutgers’ recent merger with most of the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey.

Rutgers has paid VWR International, a publicly traded lab supply company, and its subsidiaries a total of $15 million since 2008, records show. It is on pace to pay the company $2 million this calendar year, even though a contract with the firm expired in 2012. A university spokesman said the deal was extended, but an official who handles public records requests said a copy of the extension was not on file. Covance Inc., a pharmaceutical research firm, has been paid about $100,000 by Rutgers since 2008. It supplies products and services used in biological research.

Those two companies paid Barchi a combined $317,000 in fees and stock awards last year to sit on each company’s board, part-time advisory positions he has held more than seven years. Barchi has also accumulated stock in both companies — in the case of Covance, worth the equivalent of $2.5 million as of Friday, according to corporate filings. The annual fees supplement Barchi’s annual pay at Rutgers, which is worth up to $747,000 after bonuses.

Dr Barchi argued that since he had disclosed these relationships to the university board of governors, it is all good,

'I disclosed my membership on the board fully during the search process, both on my résumé and in discussions with Rutgers board of governors members,' Barchi wrote in a statement issued in response to questions and an interview request submitted through a spokesman. 'Rutgers University recognizes the value of having its chief executives serve on corporate boards. ... Recognizing the potential for a conflict, however, since becoming president at Rutgers I have not been involved in any decisions at Rutgers involving' the companies.

Members of the university governing board did not seem too troubled either.

'It was fully disclosed,' said Gordon MacInnes, a member of the governing board. 'I don’t see any inherent conflict.'

However, NorthJersey.com found some people who thought there could be a real issue since the university has direct financial relationships with both companies on whose board Dr Barchi sits.

Cary Nelson, a past president of the American Association of University Professors who has written a dozen books on higher education policy and conflicts of interest, said Barchi’s arrangement 'is not an ambiguous case, unfortunately,' calling it a clear conflict.

There’s a danger of impropriety, Nelson said, even if Barchi never actively exerts influence on behalf of the companies he advises. For example, officials who make large buying decisions for the university may choose contracts with the companies to curry favor with the president or because they 'don’t want to make waves,' he said.

Nelson is the co-author of an extensive report for the professors’ association due out at the end of this year that will suggest university policies to avoid such problems.

'What we say is that no administrator should serve on a corporate board or have any kind of financial relationship with a company that does business with the university,' he said. 'That’s a fundamental principle that has to be honored.'

Public Notice

Unlike some cases we have previously discussed (for example, here and here), this one produced an immediate kerfuffle, if not an uproar.  The New York Times reported on it.  Already editorialists (e.g., here) and a few politicians (look here) have called for Dr Barchi to step down from his corporate board positions. For example, per again NorthJersey.com,

'This is a two-way financial arrangement that creates a textbook example of a conflict of interest,' said Senate Majority Leader Loretta Weinberg, a Teaneck Democrat, who called on him to resign from his advisory posts for the companies, VWR International and Covance Inc. 'The president of the university is on the payroll of companies that are paid millions of dollars by the school. Even if Mr. Barchi avoids direct involvement in business decisions between Rutgers and these firms, the appearance of a conflict could undermine his credibility at a key time in the evolution of the university.'

Some Additional Perspective

Dr Barchi's conflicts of interest have drawn considerable more coverage than similar conflicts of other academic health care leaders whom we have discussed in the past. Unlike these previous cases, they have also provoked upset, if not some outrage.

Yet there could be more outrage, because this case is actually worse than it has been so far publicly described.

First, the public discussion seems not to have taken into account the nature of Dr Barchi's responsibilities to VWR International and Covance.  He is not on advisory boards to these two companies, as implied by the initial NorthJersey.com report.  He is a member of both these companies' boards of directors.

As we noted in 2008,  the issue goes beyond just the often generous payments board service entails. The important consideration is that directors of public for-profit corporations have a duty to "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders" [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.]   (Many people would now argue that many current corporate directors function more like cronies of top management than representatives of the shareholders).

But the important message is the boards of directors are responsible for the governance and overall direction of the company.  For example, the 2013 Covance proxy statement includes, "The Board of Directors provides oversight of senior management in its operation of the Company."   The members of the board have a fiduciary duty to align with the companies' interests which goes beyond whatever loyalty their compensation from the company ought to inspire.  Thus, the extreme conflict between, for example, one person's roles as a university president responsible for education, including unbiased education of physicians about drugs,  and a director of a drug company ought to be obvious.

Dr Barchi, is not a director of a drug company, but the director of a contract research organization.  The description of Covance in the NorthJersey.com article above was incomplete.  In fact, the Covance web-site describes the company as "one of the world’s largest and most comprehensive drug development services companies."  In particular, Covance functions as a contract research organization (CRO).  Its work includes running clinical research for pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, including "Early Patient Studies,Clinical Development (Phase II-III)."

As university president, Dr Barchi is simultaneously responsible for educating students about clinical research, and for the integrity of clinical research performed within the university.  More acutely, however, he actually is responsible for several contract research organizations that appear to be competing with Covance.

As more clinical research has been taken over by CROs, some academic institutions have decided to compete directly with CROs.  In particular, Rutgers University, in particular, seems to have its own CROs.  First, as proclaimed by its Biopharma Educational Initiative, "Rutgers Biomedical and Health Sciences is one of the largest health care research institutions in the US with our own (emerging) contract research organization."  The Rutgers Clinical Research Organization asserts "Rutgers CRO connects industry, patients and academic collaborators with the University's state-wide academic resources."  Meanwhile the Rutgers New Jersey Medical School Institute of Genomic Medicine states "the IGM functions as an academic contract research organization (CRO) dedicated to biomarker discovery and the clinical evaluation of biomarkers.".

Thus, not only does Dr Barchi's role in the governance of Covance seem to present a conflict with his role in upholding the integrity of research at Rutgers, but it could conceivably be anti-competitive.  While one may question whether university's should directly compete with CROs, as long as they do, it seems they ought not to be run by those responsible for the governance of the CROs with which they are ostensibly competing.

Summary

As the web of conflicts of interest that entangles health care becomes more visible, the risks of corruption that it generates become more obvious.  I hope as disclosure improves, public outrage about health care corruption will increase.   Ultimately, true health care reform requires more than disclosing conflicts of interest.

The IOM  report  on conflicts of interest suggested full disclosure of all payments that could be considered conflicts of interest, banning clinical research by conflicted individuals, prohibiting academic physicians from giving "drug talks" whose content was provided by industry, and developing methods to fund continuing medical education independent from industry.  This report, and its recommendations have gotten scant attention, maybe because they would threaten a status quo that enriches conflicted health professionals and the companies that create these conflicts.  However, in my humble opinion, implementing all the report's recommendations would only be a beginning down the road of restoring the integrity of clinical care, teaching, and research.

Hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog.

See also the comments by Dr Carl Elliott on the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog.  

ADDENDUM (24 July, 2013) - see additional comments here and here by Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diaries blog. 

A Call to Restore the Integrity of Clinical Research - but Will Anyone Heed it?

Concerns about suppression and manipulation of clinical research to serve vested interests have finally gotten a little more mainstream.

Background: Suppression and Manipulation of Clinical Research

For a long time, we have decried and discussed examples of manipulation of clinical research done to increase the likelihood that its results would please vested interests, often drug, device or other corporations that sponsored the research and often exerted considerable control over its design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination.  We have also decried and discussed examples of suppression of research whose results offended such vested interest, sometimes done when manipulation did not succeed in producing such pleasing results.


I wrote about suppression of research in my 2003 paper on health care dysfunction,(1)

The integrity of medical research has been violated by the deliberate suppression of its results.

That assertion was based on several important, although understandably largely anechoic cases.

I first wrote about systematic attempts to manipulate clinical research in 2005, based on Richard Smith's PLoS Medicine commentary which listed specific tactics that vested interests could use to make it more likely that research studies would provide them with favorable results.

Although striking cases of manipulation and suppression appeared more frequently starting in the 1990s, in the last few years it has become more apparent that these are widespread problems.

A Call to Restore Integrity

This week, the British Medical Journal published a special article calling for restoration of suppressed or manipulated clinical trials(2), accompanied by an editorial entitled, "restoring the integrity of the clinical trial evidence base."(3)

The article used slightly different terminology than we do, replacing suppression with invisibility, and manipulation with distortion, thus,

Two basic problems of representation are driving growing concerns about relying on published research to reflect the truth. The first is no representation (invisibility), which occurs when a trial remains unpublished years after completion. The second is distorted representation (distortion), which occurs when publications in medical journals present a biased or misleading description of the design, conduct, or results of a trial.

The article boldly asserted

Both go against the fundamental scientific and ethical responsibility that all research on humans be used to advance knowledge and are symptomatic of a general culture of data secrecy. The end result is that the healthcare, biomedical research, and policy communities may, despite best intentions and best practices, end up drawing scientifically invalid conclusions based on only those parts of the evidence base they can see.

The editorial went further, asserting that

This crisis of hidden or misreported information from clinical trials—and the resulting distortion of the clinical evidence base—is widely recognized and commonly decried. It is one of the leading scientific problems of our time, but few solutions have been put forward.

Furthermore, it concluded with a warning about the immorality of continuing on the current course,

The results of clinical trials are a public, not a private, good. The public interest requires that we have a complete view of previously conducted trials and a mechanism to correct the record for inaccurately or unreported trials. If we do not act on this opportunity to refurbish and restore abandoned trials, the medical research community will be failing its moral pact with research participants, patients, and the public. It is time to move from whether to how, and from words to action.

Thus the notion that suppression and manipulation of clinical research is a systemic, severe problem that confounds health professionals and hurts patients is no longer a concern of only a few fringe dissidents, but a matter for discussion in the foremost mainstream medical journals.

Will Anyone Heed the Call?

Furthermore, this dire problem formulation suggests the need for a strong solution, as proposed by the article, and seconded by the editorial.  Using the term "abandoned trials" for " unpublished trials for which sponsors are no longer actively working to publish or published trials that are documented as misreported but for which authors do not correct the record using established means such as a correction or retraction (which is an abandonment of responsibility)," Doshi and colleagues wrote,

We call on institutions that funded and investigators who conducted abandoned trials to publish (in the case of unpublished trials) or formally correct or republish (in the case of misreported trials) their studies within the next year.

Starting in 2005, we have repeatedly called for protection of " researchers' rights to speak truth to power," but then noted that "right now, it is more often power that speaks to truth."  The question is whether without some bigger allies, individual clinical researchers will stand up on their own to restore the integrity of clinical research.

The big reason to worry is that most of these researchers work within a context which strongly favors vested interests, rather than scientific truth, or the rights of research subjects.  The researchers who would be most likely to be able to heed the call by Doshi et al are those within academic medicine. Yet clinical research in the academic medical world now functions within a strong and deep web of individual and institutional conflicts of interests, subjects that we also have written about incessantly.

There is evidence suggesting that the majority of medical faculty,(4) and the majority of their academic departmental leaders(5) have important financial ties to the health care corporations most likely to have reason to want to suppress or manipulate research.  Furthermore, most academic medical institutions have stated their interest in increasing "collaboration" with industry, usually giving the rationale that this will lead to "innovations" that will bring better tests or treatment to patients. (See posts here,  here and here for some examples.)  Such collaboration also tends to bring a lot of money to institutional budgets.  Further collaboration with industry is likely favored by academic leaders' own financial ties to the same sorts of corporations discussed above.  Thus it should be no surprise that a study by Mello et al in 2005 suggested that most of the managers of academic medical institutions who control research contracts are willing to give significant control of of research design, implementation, analysis, and dissemination to the sponsors, not the researchers.  (See this post.) (6)


Thus, a researcher who volunteers to restore suppressed or manipulated clinical studies might become suddenly very unpopular with his or her colleagues or supervisors, and perhaps with people who are already paying him or her.

So as long as health care professionals, policy makers, and the public at large are willing to go along with the notion that academic medical institutions' "collaboration" with "industry" is absolutely necessary to foster "innovation" and hence medical progress, it is very unlikely that academic medical researchers will be willing to help restore the integrity of clinical research.  In fact, while we continue on our present course, the integrity of clinical research will probably get even worse.
 
Since questioning the integrity of contemporary clinical research might make those with vested interests who have been willing to suppress or manipulate research very uncomfortable, perhaps it should be no surprise that the paired articles in the British Medical Journal have been relatively anechoic.  For example, while one might think the publication of these simultaneous articles might get at least a little coverage in the "main-stream media," I can find not a single mention of them there.  (So far, only the Chronicle of Higher Education, MedScape the Science Insider blog and The Scientist blog have provided news coverage.)


So I hope the brave people who wrote the article and editorial are also willing to join us in decrying the web of individual and institutional conflicts of interest that have entangled health care professionals and academic medicine.  Individuals and institutions who make medical or health care decisions, or who are involved in medical and health care education and research should reveal all their conflicts of interest, at least in the interests of honesty.  Furthermore, in the interest of patients' and the public's health, clinical research meant to assess medical tests, treatments, and programs should be done completely independently from the corporations that sell them.  


References

1.  Poses RM.  A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of American health care.  Eur J Int Med 2003; 14: 123-130.  Link here..
2.  Doshi P, Dickersin K, Healy D et al.  Restoring invisible and abandoned trials: a call for people to publish the findings.  Br Med J 2003;  BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f2865  Link here.
3.  Loder E, Godlee F, Barbour V et al.  Restoring the integrity of the clinical trial evidence base.  Br Med J 2003;  BMJ 2013; 346 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f3601  Link here.
4. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al.  A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. Link here.
5. Campbell EG, Weissman JS, Ehringhaus S et al. Institutional academic-industry relationships. JAMA 2007; 298: 1779-1786.  Link here.
6.  Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 2005; 352:2202-2210. Link here.

Long After the Start of the "War on Terror," a Conflict of Interest about an Anthrax Scare Comes to Light

In May, David Willman writing for the Los Angeles Times broke a story of a somewhat new variant on the conflict of interest theme, one that has not gotten a lot of attention, but should.

The issue was medical, with a twist, - how to best treat a bioterror attack with anthrax engineered to be resistant to multiple drugs, an event that luckily is not known to ever have occurred.  The story came from the bad old days of the "war on terror," but only has now come to light years later.

The Alarm Raiser

The story opened thus,

Over the last decade, former Navy Secretary Richard J. Danzig, a prominent lawyer, presidential advisor and biowarfare consultant to the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security, has urged the government to counter what he called a major threat to national security.

Terrorists, he warned, could easily engineer a devastating killer germ: a form of anthrax resistant to common antibiotics.

In particular,

Danzig began warning about antibiotic-resistant anthrax after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and the mailings of anthrax-laced letters that fall.

The powdered anthrax in the letters killed five people but was not resistant to common antibiotics. Asked what gave rise to his concern about resistant strains, Danzig cited conversations with 'people whose technical skills exceed mine.' One of them, Dr. Robert P. Kadlec, a bioterrorism advisor in the Bush White House, said he and others were concerned that terrorists could develop such a weapon.

Danzig has sounded the alarm in published papers and in private briefings and seminars for biodefense and intelligence officials.

In a 2003 report funded by the Pentagon, "Catastrophic Bioterrorism — What Is To Be Done?" he wrote that it would be 'quite easy' for terrorists to produce antibiotic-resistant anthrax. He has expanded on that theme over the years, including in a 2009 paper for the Pentagon.

In the 2003 report, published while raxi [raxibacumab, an anthrax anti-toxin] was in development at Human Genome, Danzig said a drug to combat resistant strains of anthrax should be produced 'as soon as possible' and that stockpiling such a treatment, 'even if expensive and in limited supply' would deter an attack.

John Vitko Jr., a top Homeland Security official during the Bush and Obama administrations, said he turned frequently to Danzig for advice on biodefense matters — and read and 'paid attention to' his 'Catastrophic Bioterrorism' report.

Note that while Danzig is a lawyer, and certainly not a physician or biomedical researcher, he had major credibility in the defense field, particularly in anti-terrorism, so his recommendations had great influence.

He served as a Pentagon appointee during the Carter administration and as undersecretary and then secretary of the Navy under President Clinton. He has a long-standing interest in biowarfare.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, Danzig advised then-Sen. Barack Obama on national security and bioterrorism. After Obama's election, Danzig was named to the Pentagon's Defense Policy Board and the President's Intelligence Advisory Board, in addition to his consulting positions with the Defense Department and Homeland Security.

So apparently at least partly due to Mr Danzig's persistent warnings, the government took action,

 In 2004, President Bush signed into law Project BioShield, which provided billions of dollars for biodefense drugs.

The contracts are administered by the Department of Health and Human Services, based on advice from federal agencies and consultants. Homeland Security must certify the need for a drug before the government can buy it.

 Danzig, through his seminars, writings and consulting duties, has helped frame the discussion over whether a given biological threat is 'material' and whether the government should stockpile medicines to defend against it.

Also,

Speaking of Danzig's broader role as a government advisor, Vitko said: 'Richard's got incredible insights into this and I think has made major contributions'

He called Danzig one of 'the major bio player' and said his views had informed a range of policy considerations, including 'how many countermeasures do you need, of what kind.'

It was in response to advice from Vitko and his staff that Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge in 2004 declared anthrax a 'material threat,' the certification required for the government to buy drugs to fight it.

The drug the government bought was raxibacumab, or raxi, an anthrax anti-toxin made by Human Genome Sciences Inc.  

In 2006, the Department of Health and Human Services finalized its first order of raxi — 20,000 doses at a cost of $174 million.

That year, Ridge's successor, Michael Chertoff, signed a second, more specific declaration, adding 'multi-drug-resistant' anthrax to the government's list of material threats.

Asked the basis for the second declaration, Vitko said: 'I think the concern was more forward-looking, and saying, 'How could the threat evolve, and are we prepared for that?''

Since 2009, the Obama administration has ordered an additional 45,000 doses of raxi for $160 million.

There was just one catch.

The Undisclosed Conflict

Mr Danzig had a largely undisclosed conflict of interest.  He was on the board of directors of Human Genome Sciences Inc, the company whose drug his constant warnings and exhortations lead the government to buy.

When Human Genome named Danzig to its board on May 24, 2001, the company's chief executive said his high-level federal experience would 'serve us well.'

He thus was on the board on September 11, 2001, and later when the events on that day and soon after apparently induced him to start sounding the alarm about resistant anthrax, and he stayed on the board as he continued sounding alarms, and after the government started buying his company's drug.

During his 11-year tenure on the board, which ended in August, Danzig collected at least $1,054,255 in director's fees and by cashing in grants of Human Genome stock and stock options, according to Fred Whittlesey of Compensation Venture Group, who reviewed the company's Securities and Exchange Commission filings for The Times.

Nearly half of Danzig's compensation came from the stock options, of which he had been granted 184,000 by the end of 2011, Whittlesey said.

Danzig did not seem to think that serving on the board of the company which made the primary drug directed at the perhaps hypothetical disease about which Danzig was sounding the warning constituted any sort of conflict of interest.

Danzig said in an interview that he believed his position at Human Genome posed no conflict.

He said he had tried to improve policymakers' understanding of biodefense issues, including the threat of antibiotic-resistant anthrax, but never lobbied the government to purchase raxi.

'My view was I'm not going to get involved in selling that,' Danzig said. 'But at the same time now, should I not say what I think is right in the government circles with regard to this? And my answer was, 'If I have occasion to comment on this, it ought to be in general, as a policy matter, not as a particular procurement.'

'I feel that I've acted very properly with regard to this'' he said.

He also apparently did not feel he needed to disclose his board membership to most of the people he was trying to persuade to be alarmed about resistant anthrax, and to pursue a treatment, such as that made by the company on whose board he sat.

 A number of senior federal officials whom Danzig advised on the threat of bioterrorism and what to do about it said they were unaware of his role at Human Genome.

Dr. Philip K. Russell, a biodefense official in the George W. Bush administration who attended invitation-only seminars on bioterrorism led by Danzig, said he did not know about Danzig's tie to the biotech company until The Times asked him about it.

Also,

 Vitko said he knew nothing of Danzig's involvement with Human Genome until a Times reporter asked him about it.

'I'm surprised I didn't,' Vitko said. 'I'm not aware of it.'

Five other present or former biodefense officials who conferred with Danzig said they, too, had been unaware of his position with the company. Danzig, they said, made no mention of it in their presence during group discussions he led or in smaller meetings.

Furthermore,

A Times search found seven papers Danzig had written on bioterrorism since 2001. In only one of those did he disclose his tie to Human Genome.

As an advisor to the federal government, Danzig is required to file confidential forms annually, revealing any outside affiliations but not his related compensation. Danzig said he had noted his position with the biotech firm on the forms.

Asked whether he mentioned his corporate role during contacts with government officials, Danzig replied: 'If I thought any of it posed a potential conflict that might cause somebody who knew about it to discount my views, I would tell them.'

Some people disagreed with Danzig's failure to perceive a conflict of interest

 'Holy smoke—that was a horrible conflict of interest,' said Russell, a physician and retired Army major general who helped lead the government's efforts to prepare for biological attacks.

The Take-Over by a Familiar Corporation

By the way, Human Genome Science was eventually bought out by a bigger company which has had its own sets of issues regarding conflicts of interest, GlaxoSmithKline,

 Human Genome was acquired by GlaxoSmithKline in August [presumably 2012] for $3.6 billion.

It may yet stand to make even more money from raxi,

 Because raxi loses its potency after three years in storage, the government's supply will expire as of 2015, according to federal documents and people familiar with the matter. 

Summary

This appears to be a variant on the "key opinion leader" (KOL) theme writ large.  Mr Danzig clearly functioned as a very major key opinion leader about bioterrorism.  Like many KOLs we have previously discussed, he had financial interests that favored the company whose drugs his key opinion leadership seemed to be favoring.  His influence seems to have lead to huge purchases of these drugs. Like many KOLs who are physicians or health care academics, Mr Danzig seems utterly blind to the possibility that his multiple efforts to emphasize the importance of the supposed disease for which his company made a drug could somehow be viewed as a conflict of interest, or to why failure to tell his audiences about his major relationship to this company might have appeared just a small bit dishonest.  We have seen many medical/ health care KOLs who deny that somehow their opinions could have been influenced by their financial relationships, or that their audiences deserved at least to be aware of these relationships.  Yet, of course, Mr Danzig is not a doctor, and he was trying to influence government purchasers of drugs, not physician prescribers of it.

It does seem that the leadership of health care organizations, particularly but certainly not limited to pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, have no lack of imagination about how to construct financial relationships with influential people who could help sell their products, whether or not they acknowledge what amounts to their marketing roles.

Given that this story involved influencing the government, it will be interesting to see at this late date whether it results in any legal action.  After all, as David Willman pointed out,

 Federal law bars U.S. officials, including consultants, from giving advice on matters in which they or a company on whose board they serve have 'a financial interest.'

It will also be interesting to see if it gets any more attention.  Only a few blogs have noted it, but at least they included The Scientist.


Yet our country has an unfortunately very long history of corporate leaders getting close to political leaders who then may overlook the legal niceties when their friends' interests are at stake.  Nonetheless, true health care reform would require all those who have decision making power over patients, health policy, or the public health to be completely transparent about their conflicts of interest, and would ban the more serious variants of conflicts of interest, even if that might cost some already rich people a bit of money.  I am not holding my breath, however, about when this might happen.

Is the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute Really More Industry-Centered?

One of the biggest reasons our health care system seems so dysfunctional is that clinicians and patients have great difficulty determining what might be the appropriate management of particular clinical problems.  Due to endless and sometimes deceptive marketing, conflicts of interest affecting health care professionals and academics, and manipulation and suppression of clinical research, making truly evidence based decisions that put individual patients interests first has become very difficult.  Instead, we may end up using excessively expensive, relatively ineffective, and more dangerous than anticipated drugs, devices, and diagnostic and therapeutic strategies, thus leading to poor patient outcomes and high costs.

Background - the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI)

One lingering hope has been that better clinical research, particularly focusing on the outcomes that are most important to patients (patient-centered outcomes), and comparing clinical strategies that may be widely used but poorly evaluated (comparative effectiveness research) would help dissipate the fog.  An attempt to promote such research in the US appeared in our recent health reform legislation, the Affordable Care Act.  It authorized the creation of the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI).

However, as we observed, how good a solution this would be would depend on the details.  Our concerns were that PCORI, which is an independent although government sponsored institute, not a government agency, might be too beholden to "stake-holders" including the large organizations, device and pharmaceutical companies, insurance companies, hospital systems, etc, that already dominate health care and may promote their and particularly their executives' interests ahead of patients.

Recently, Merrill Goozner, the editor of Modern Healthcare, raised similar concerns,

there is the law's requirement for stakeholder boards to set PCORI research priorities. They must include representatives of researchers, clinicians, patients, providers, insurers, employers and industry. The interests of those groups are not the same. Priority-setting by stakeholder boards could turn into a prescription for steering clear of the most controversial, and therefore most significant, questions.

So,

There is no shortage of drug and device firms, specialty hospitals and medical specialty societies with a vested interest in leaving certain questions unasked or muddying the waters with methodological quibbles. They shouldn't be allowed to hijack or soften the agenda.

PCORI is now in operation, but has seemingly not gotten a lot of scrutiny. What scrutiny it has received as not allayed these concerns.

The PCORI Advisory Panels

Recently, the publication of the membership of four key advisory panels for PCORI got the attention of  Michael Millenson, blogging on the Health Care Blog.  He noted that initially the members of the panels were identified only by name and city of residence, without any information on their other affiliations or characteristics.  He suggested,

PCORI isn’t a church, where all are created equal in the eyes of God, but a politically created, politically governed, controversial dispenser of a very large amount of money that a host of interest groups would like to control. PCORI staff chose the panel members in part by looking at their affiliations, and those connections (or lack of them) should be an immediate part of the public record when the appointments are announced. By being vague, PCORI obfuscates political and power relationships and makes it more difficult for the public and industry stakeholders to either approve of or criticize those choices.

Eventually, PCORI did release somewhat more information on membership of these panels, on Addressing Disparities, Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options, Improving Healthcare Systems, and Patient Engagement.  Mr Millenson was able to review the membership of one panel, and noted some strange anomalies in a comment to his original blog post. 

One panel member who supposedly represents "patients, caregivers, and patient advocates" had a full time position with a pharmaceutical company.  Another worked for a big consumer organization which is heavily funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

This raised concerns that PCORI may get guidance from people whose interests are actually different from those they are supposed to represent.

Therefore, I attempted to review the stated affiliations of all PCORI advisory panels.

Review of the what was made public about the membership of the advisory panels revealed several additional important anomalies.  Members said to be representing "patients, caregivers, and patient advocates" appeared to have positions working for organizations who might have their own, and different interests from the group they were supposed to be representing. 

Let me summarize the apparent anomalies by advisory panel.  In each case, in alphabetical order by panel,  I will list the panelists name, supposed representation, and affiliation, with my comments. 

Addressing Disparities

Monique Carter MS - Dallas, TX
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Senior Research Scientist, AROG Pharmaceuticals Inc

So this person would appear to be more of an industry (pharmaceuticals) representative.

Venus Gines, MA, P/CHWI - Manvel, TX
representing: patients, caregiver, and patient advocates
affiliation: Instructor, Chronic Disease Prevention and Control Research Center, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine

So this person appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative

Doriane C Miller MD - Chicago, IL
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Director, Center for Community Health and Vitality, University of Chicago Medical Center

So this person also appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative.

Carmen E Reyes, MA - Whittier, CA
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Center and Community Relations Manager, Los Angeles Community Academic Partnership in Research in Again, UCLA

So this person appears to be more of a health system representative.

Mary Ann Sander, MHA, MBA, NHA - Pittsuburgh, PA
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Vice President, Aging  and Disability Services, UPMC Community Provider Services

So this person appears to be more of a health system representative

Deborah Steward, MD, MBA - Jacksonville, FL
representing: clinicians
affiliation: Florida Blue

So in summary, this panel included five people who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates but who actually work for large academic medical centers or health systems, and one who was there to ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates who works for a pharmaceutical firm.  (In addition, one person supposedly representing clinicians apparently works full time for a health insurance company.)

Assessment of Prevention, Diagnosis, and Treatment Options

Karen Chesbrough, MPH - Annandale, VA
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Scientific Program Administrator, Foundation for Physical Therapy.

Note that the stated mission of the Foundation for Physical Therapy is that it "supports the physical therapy profession’s research needs," and the foundation is funded in part by companies that make physical therapy devices and supplies  (look here).  Therefore, this person appears to be more of a representative of clinicians, or perhaps industry (devices).

Bettye Green RN - South Bend, IN
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Community Outreach Nurse and Associate Director of Advocacy, Alliance for Clinical Trials in Oncology, Saint Joseph Regional Medical Center

So this person appears to be more of a health system representative.

Debra Madden - Newtown, CT
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Clinical Applications Systems Analyst, Associated Neurologists

So this person appears to be more of a clinician representative.

Daniel Wall - Spencer, WI
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Analyst, Biomedical Informatics Research Center, Marshfield Clinic Foundation

So this person appears to be more of a clinician or health system representative

So in summary, this panel included four people who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates but who actually work for health systems or clinician organizations, and one of the latter organizations appears to be heavily funded by the medical device and supplies industry.

Improving Healthcare Systems

Susan Diaz MPAS, PA-C - Jacksonville, FL
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Physician Assistant in Liver Transplant, Mayo Clinic in Florida

So this person appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative.

Anne Sales PhD-  Ann Arbor, MI
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Professor, School of Nursing, University of Michigan

So this person appears to be more of a clinician, or health system representative.

Jamie Sullivan MPH - Silver Spring, MD
representing: patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Director of Public Policy, COPD Foundation.

Note that the COPD Foundation receives support at least from "Boehringer-Ingelheim/Pfizer Inc. and Grifols" (look here).  .

So this person appears to be at least somewhat an industry (pharmaceutical) representative.

So in summary, this panel includes three people who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates, two of whom actually work for large health system, and one who works for a foundation with significant pharmaceutical industry support.  

Patient Engagement

Stephen Arcona MA PhD - East Hanover, NJ
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Executive Director, Outcomes Research Methods & Analytics, Department of Health Economics and Outcomes Research, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

So this person appears to be more of a researcher, and industry (pharmaceutical) representative.

Marc Boutin JD - Washington, DC
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer, National Health Council 

Note that while the National Health Council claims to be an advocate for people with chronic disease and disability, its core membership includes "major pharmaceutical, medical device, health insurance, and biotechnology companies." and it receives considerable industry support.  For example, it disclosed contributions in the $100,000 - $300,000 range from Amgen, Astra-Zeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pfizer, and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), and smaller but still significant contributions from other pharmaceutical companies and other industry associations.  So this person appears to be at least somewhat of an industry (pharmaceutical) representative.

Charlotte W Collins JD - Elkridge, MD
representing patients, caregivers, and patient adovcates
affiliation: Vice President of Policy and Programs, Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America

Note that while the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America claims to be a patient advocacy organization, it disclosed financial support from many pharmaceutical, device, and health insurance companies, and from major health care systems

So this person appears to be at least somewhat an industry, health insurance, and/or health system representative.

Amy Gibson, RN MS - Washington, DC
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Chief Operating Officer, Patient-Centered Primary Care Collaborative (PCPCC)

Note that the PCPCC has an executive committee that includes multiple pharmaceutical, device, and health insurance companies, and health systems.  So this person appears to be at least somewhat an industry, health insurance, and/or health system representative.

Julie Ginn Moretz - Augusta, GA
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Associate Vice Chancellor, Patient- and Family-Centered Care, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences

So this person appears to be more of health system representative.

Sara Triagle van Geertruyden - Washington, DC
representing patients, caregivers, and patient advocates
affiliation: Executive Director, Partnership to Improve Patient Care (PIPC)
(Note: this affiliation appears incomplete.  Sara van Geertruyden is listed as a current partner of Thorn Run Partners, a lobbying firm, with a major practice area in health care, boasting, "Thorn Run Partners offers one of Washington, DC’s most comprehensive, competent and effective health policy practices."


Note also that PIPC has membership that includes many specialty physician societies, and a steering committee that includes the Biotechnology Industry Organization, and PhRMA. 

So this person appears to be more of an industry (pharmaceutical and biotechnology) representative.

So in summary this panel includes six members who ostensibly represent patients, caregivers, and patient advocates, but who work for either patient advocacy organizations that get considerable industry support, or a health system, or a pharmaceutical company.  One person whose affiliation was listed as a patient advocacy organization also somehow appears to be a full-time lobbyist.  

Summary

While PCORI has set up advisory panels that seem to strongly emphasize representation of patients, caregivers, and patient advocates, a substantial fraction of the people who are supposed to provide this representation seem to work for patient advocacy groups with considerable industry support, or directly for industry or health care systems.  Some of them may work as clinicians or researchers, but many appear to have high level executive positions with these organizations.  One appears to be a full-time lobbyist at a firm that has a strong health care practice. 

Thus it appears that PCORI advisory panels actually may be as much about the interests of big health care organizations, including pharmaceutical and device companies, health insurance companies, and large hospital systems, as they are about patients, caregivers, or patient advocates.  

I am afraid my and Merrill Goozner's original fears that PCORI may end up being more about industry-centered interests than patient-centered outcomes may not be paranoid.  I do hope that PCORI leadership manages to put improving patients' and the public's health ahead of making industry executives happy. 

by Roy M. Poses MD, for Health Care Renewal