63% of Physicians are "Very Enthusiastic" about "Limiting Corporate Influence on Physician Behavior," but Will Anyone Notice?

On Health Care Renewal, we have noted how the direct care of patients in the US is increasingly in the hands of large corporations, often for-profit.  We have noted the plight of the corporate physicians who swore oaths to put patients first, and now report to managers who put revenue first.

Health Care Renewal was hardly the first to raise these issues.  For years, the renowned editor emeritus of the New England Journal, Dr Arnold Relman, has been warning about the effects of the commercial practice of medicine, which once was illegal in most US states, and until 1980 was condemned by the American Medical Association (look here).

Yet in a world in which market fundamentalism (or economism, or neoliberalism) is increasingly dominant, there is little room for the view that turning health care into a business, and having the new health care businesses lead by people who are only interested in increasing short term revenue (financialization) and increasing their own compensation might be bad for patients' and the public's health.

However, close reading of a recent article suggests that many physicians "get" this problem, although may be reticent about protesting it.  

Summary of the JAMA Article

Tilburt et al authored an article published in July, 2013 that focused on physicians views about "controlling health care costs."(1)  They sent a survey to 3900 randomly chosen physicians less than 65 years old and in active practice.  2556 (65%) responded.

The survey included questions about who should be responsible for reducing health care costs, and about the physicians' enthusiasm for various means of cutting costs.  The results that got the most publicity were that physicians thought others (trial lawyers, health insurance companies, pharmaceutical and device manufacturers, hospitals and health care systems, patients, and government) were more responsible for controlling costs than physicians. 

Nonetheless, the physicians were relatively enthusiastic about potential cost control measures that would improve "quality and efficiency of care," for example, promoting 75% were very enthusiastic about continuity of care, 69% about promoting chronic disease care coordination, and  70% about "rooting out fraud and abuse."  They were also relatively enthused about "improving conditions for evidence-based decisions," for example, 51% were very enthusiastic about "expanding access to quality and safety data," and and 50% about "promoting head-to-head trials of competing treatments" (also known as a type of comparative effectiveness research).

Strikingly, however, 63% of physicians were "very enthusiastic" about "limiting corporate influence on physician behavior."  The article did not further explain that item.

An Almost Unnoticed Result

The article's results section noted "some or strong enthusiasm for improving conditions for evidence-based decisions," including "limiting corporate influence on physician behavior." It included no further comments on this issue.

The public discussion it generated largely ignored physicians' views on corporate influence..

An accompanying editorial by Dr Ezekiel Emanuel and Mr Andrew Steinmetz (2) called the survey's findings "discouraging" and chided physicians for not having an "all hands on deck" approach to controlling health care costs, stating they "must lead" on this issue, because they "captains of the ship."   It ignored the notion that the physicians may have  thought that their first responsibility was to "individual patients best interests," and thus controlling costs (especially costs that do not accrue directly to patients) should be a secondary concern.  It also belittled their enthusiasm about curbing "fraud and abuse," implying that it was "sufficiently vague" that it "may offer only modest improvements but certainly will not transform the health care system."   Instead, Emanuel and Steinmetz wanted physicians to support six strategies for transforming health care delivery, without citing evidence in support of these strategies.  The Emanuel and Steinmetz editorial ignored the physicians' views on corporate influence.


A post on the In My Humble Opinion blog by Dr Jordan Grumet in turn wondered why physicians should support "Ezekiel's fantasies about healthcare [which] are unsubstantiated."  Dr Grumet decried how particularly primary care physicians have been marginalized, and suggested that if Emanuel and Steinmetz want physicians to act like the captains of the ship they perhaps should not dictate their navigation.  But Dr Grumet apparently did not notice that physicians may realize that their captaincy has been challenged by corporate influence.  .   

Media coverage in, for example, the Los Angeles Times, Fox News, and the Pioneer Press focused on the question of whether physicians were denying a responsibility to control costs, and whether that responsibility was really theirs.  It did not comment on the issue of corporate influence.

However, so far the striking result that a large, well conducted survey showed that the majority of physicians support limiting corporate influence on their behavior remains almost completely unnoticed. 

Summary

We now have some reasonably good data suggesting that the majority of physicians are very troubled by "corporate influences" on them.

It could be that they are troubled by the most direct corporate influences, the practice of medicine by physicians who are employees of corporations, often large, and for-profit.

Dr Arnold Relman reminded us that physicians used to shun the commercial practice of medicine (look here).  Yet now increasing numbers of physicians are employees of for-profit corporations.  Physicians and other health professionals who sign on as full-time employees of large corporate entities have to realize that they are now beholden to managers and executives who may be hostile to their professional values, and who are subject to perverse incentives that support such hostility, including the potential for huge executive compensation.  It is not clear why physicians seem to be willing to sign contracts that underline their new subservience to their corporate overlords, and likely trap them within confidentiality clauses that make blowing the whistle likely to lead to extreme unpleasantness.

It could also be that physicians are troubled by slightly less direct corporate influences.  We have blogged about 
- suppression and manipulation of clinical research by corporations sponsoring such research to assess their own products and services
- deceptive corporate practices like stealth marketing of stealth lobbying
-  financial arrangements among physicians (and other health professionals) and health care corporations (e.g., drug, biotechnology and device corporations) which often seem to deliberately produce conflicts of interest meant to help market products and services, particularly the use of paid "key opinion leaders" as marketers
- institutional conflicts of interest that involve academic institutions, disease advocacy organizations, and other non-profit groups in corporate marketing and public relations

 Furthermore, stories about and criticisms of these issues remain markedly muted in the media, and even more muted in medical and health care scholarship and scholarly journals.  We have attributed this anechoic effect to individual and institutional conflicts of interest, fear of offending conflicted friends, relatives, colleagues and supervisors, and fear of offending the rich and powerful.

 Despite the anechoic effect, the article by Tilburt et al suggests that physicians want to reduce corporate influence in medicine.  Yet this evidence of physicians' discomfort with corporate influences itself has been greatly muted by the anechoic effect.

While the survey results are reminiscent of opinions I have heard from many physicians, it is striking that there is no perceptible organized movement by physicians against excess corporate influence.  At best, public expression of concerns about excess corporate influence has been muted and fragmented, often relegated to blogs and sometimes derided as coming from malcontents, dissidents, disgruntled employees, and other assorted trouble-makers.  But again it looks like the majority of physicians may (often silently) agree with these "whiners and complainers." 


Physicians need to realize that they mostly agree that to fulfill their oaths to put patients first, they have to reduce the influence of rich and powerful organizations, like health care corporations, with other agendas.  Maybe once they realize this, they will be able to start doing something to reduce such influences.  Maybe once they start, they will be able to rethink the notion that direct health care should ever be provided, or that medicine ought to be practiced by for-profit corporations. I submit that we will not be able to have good quality, accessible health care at an affordable price until we restore physicians as independent, ethical health care professionals, and until we restore small, independent, community responsible, non-profit hospitals as the locus for inpatient care.


Roy M. Poses MD on Health Care Renewal


References

1.  Tilburt JC, Wynia MK, Sheeler RD et al.  Views of physicians about controlling health care costs.  JAMA 2013: 310: 380-388.  Link here.

2.  Emanuel EJ, Steinmetz A. Will physicians lead on controlling health care costs? JAMA 2013; 310: 374-375. Link here.

Shut Up and Sell - the Corporate Physician's New Motto?

Evidence has been seeping into public view about the extent physicians who sign up to take care of patients as corporate employees give up their professionalism.

Shut Up...

In April, 2013, Medscape published an article whose striking title was "Can You Speak Out Without Getting Fired or Being Labeled a Troublemaker?"  The answer was basically "no."

Physicians often see problems at their workplaces relating to patient quality of care, financial practices, mistreatment of staff, and other issues. But as more doctors take jobs as employees of hospitals, medical groups, and other large organizations, they increasingly face the same dilemmas as millions of other working stiffs. When they come across actions or policies that they don't think are right, they have to decide whether it's worth it to speak out and get labeled as a troublemaker -- or perhaps even get fired.

 Across the country, a growing number of physicians are indeed losing their jobs -- and often their hospital staff privileges -- after protesting employment conditions. Such complaints may involve patient quality-of-care problems, short staffing, misallocation of funds, improper financial incentives, fraud and abuse, discrimination, overuse or withholding of medical services, or other misconduct, say organized medical groups, employment attorneys, and physician recruiters.

Of course, physicians swear oaths to put the needs of their individual patients first, and doing so within a large organization might well involve protesting conditions and practices that may affect the quality of care or even endanger patients.  But woe unto physicians who try to fulfill their professional responsibility when doing so goes up against the top executives to whom the physicians must now report.

'We were naive when we went into this,' says Maria Rivero, MD, who with her professional colleague and significant other Derek Kerr, MD, filed administrative complaints against their long-time hospital employer in 2010. 'We thought if we just brought it to people's attention, they would fix the problem and leave us alone. But if you blow the whistle on high-level executives, you need to prepare to be harassed and lose your job.'

Even working within the system to fix problems can lead to big trouble,

Still, the formal professional approach doesn't always work either. Cloyd Gatrell, MD, an emergency physician who was employed by EmCare, says that he and his wife Kathryn, a nurse, voiced concerns and presented data to executives at Carlisle Regional Medical Center in Pennsylvania in 2008 and 2009 on what they saw as inadequate nurse staffing levels that endangered patients.

After getting no results, Dr. Gatrell contacted the state health department, prompting a state inspection that found insufficient staffing. In 2010, he was fired by EmCare at the request of the hospital, according to his 2011 lawsuit against the hospital and EmCare claiming violation of whistleblower protection laws. His wife was fired earlier, and she sued separately. The hospital issued a statement declining comment on the litigation.

'We're supposed to be advocates for patients, but being employed puts us in a precarious position in taking a position on patient interests that's against what the hospital administration favors,' says Dr. Gatrell, whose suit is in the discovery stage. 'I think a physician still has that responsibility.'

Physicians who sign contracts with corporate employers, perhaps thinking that they will have less bureaucracy with which to contend and a more certain salary than they did in private practice, seem blissfully, or willfully unaware that those contracts may take away their ability to control their practices and stand up for their patients.

Still, federal and state whistleblower laws only provide protection from retaliation for physicians in certain situations, such as those employed by public entities or those who complain about civil rights violations or Medicare and Medicaid fraud and abuse. Otherwise doctors may have to rely on contract provisions or on state employment law, which may not offer much protection.

[An anesthesiologist on the AMA Board of Trustees and his hospital system's board,] Dr. Annis says that the AMA's new statement of principles for physician employment -- which asserts that physicians should not be retaliated against by their employers for speaking out on patient care issues -- provides support for doctors when they raise legitimate professional concerns with their employers. He says it's best for physicians to work through their medical staff organization.

But Dr. Gatrell points out that the AMA statement explicitly accepts that physician employment contracts may allow hospitals to strip doctors of their medical staff membership and clinical privileges at the same time they are terminated, known as a 'clean sweep' clause. 'If that's accepted by the AMA, the rest of the principles protecting physicians are meaningless," he argues. "If physicians can be fired without cause and then automatically lose their medical staff membership and its due process protection, how many will dare be a patient advocate?'

Some experts advise physicians not to sign employment agreements with such onerous provisions. But others say that physicians often have little leverage to remove them. 'It's not an equal negotiating table,' says Dr. Gatrell, who's now working for a small urgent care practice.

A May, 2013 article again in Medscape about the "4 Top Complaints of Employed Doctors," explained why physicians often see a lot they could or should protest to assure the quality of their patients' care,

 Some doctors report that hospital administrators treat them with a lack of respect. One female doctor said, also on condition of anonymity, that her biggest challenge on her job was 'how to handle nonphysician high school grads bossing you around when they function as your 'superiors' in your employer's organization. They manage their insecurities by bullying physicians and through passive aggressiveness, but always seem to gain the upper hand with those at the top.'

These are the sorts of brilliant administrators often hired by brilliant top executives, maybe at a cheap price to keep the bottom line and executive compensation healthy..  Furthermore, given that as we have discussed, "financialization" of hospital management often puts a bigger priority on short-term revenue than on quality care, as per one senior physician,

 'physicians are being increasingly targeted when they get in the way' of hospitals' agendas

To make more money faster, many hospital systems now seem to want physicians to only make referrals for lucrative tests and treatments within the system, even if some patients might be better served elsewhere,

The AMA recently issued guidelines for physician employment stating that 'a physician's paramount responsibility is to his or her patients.' Employers should not retaliate against physicians for asserting their patients' interests, according to these guidelines. 'In any situation where the economic or other interests of the employer are in conflict with patient welfare, patient welfare must take priority,' the AMA says.

The guidelines also call for employers and employed physicians to disclose to patients any agreements or understandings they have that restrict, discourage, or encourage particular treatment or referral options.

Nevertheless, employed physicians are often expected to refer patients within their own groups and send tests to a hospital laboratory or imaging center. Hospitals may tell employed surgeons which kinds of joint implants to use, and according to a New York Times article even whether to implant defibrillators in Medicaid patients. It's unclear how often any of this is disclosed to patients.

'What we doctors say is that we're ethically bound to our patients because we took an oath, and that's what our license is based on,' says Linda Brodsky. 'But many hospitals say, 'No, you're employed here, and what we say goes.'

Note that so far there seems to be little evidence that the AMA guidelines about physician employment are being honored other than in the breach.  It is also disappointing that the leadership of the medical society that represents internists seems so unworried,

 David L. Bronson, MD, President of the American College of Physicians, disputes Brodsky's assertion that hospitals tend to squelch doctors who criticize leadership for policies that they believe harm patient care. In fact, he says, healthcare organizations may identify outspoken physicians as potential leaders, 'as long as they're collaborative and trying to solve problems, and not just be a thorn in the side of everyone they know. Organizations are looking for physician leaders, and physicians who can collaborate and not just be adversarial can go far inside organizations.'

I would guess, having seen so many examples of generic management, mission-hostile management, management that seems more focused on the money than patient care, and management that seems to be able to make itself rich without evidence that it has done anything noteworthy to uphold hospitals' clinical missions, that hospital systems that promote physicians who are willing to speak out against hired executives are vanishingly rare.

And Sell

In June, 2013, Beckers Hospital Review published an article suggesting that now hospitals are going beyond just pressuring employed physicians to refer potentially profitable patients within the system, and now are pressuring physicians to act as salespeople to their colleagues,

 A few hospitals are beginning to train their employed physicians to "sell" the hospital, which involves asking referring doctors in the community to send patients their way....  the pressure to bring doctors into sales is mounting.

The author, the former publisher of Modern Healthcare, made a remarkable argument based on a definition that seems wildly optimistic,

 Customer service lies at the core of salesmanship. The Business Dictionary defines salesmanship as satisfying customer needs through a sincere and mutually beneficial process aimed at a long-term relationship.

Of course, skeptical physicians used to exposure to the sales tactics pharmaceutical and device companies use (look here, here, and here,  for example) might wonder why the author did not discuss such marketing tactics as the employment of half-truths and biased information, and the use of emotional appeals to trump reason and logic.

That the author was serious was shown by his list of seven pointers for hospitals seeking to transform its employed physicians into marketers.

Of course, physicians who are already "key opinion leaders" employed by drug and device companies, whose marketing executives may think. that "key opinion leaders were sales people for us," (see this post), might not be fazed by now being asked to market their own hospital.  Never mind about Principle II of the AMA Code of Ethics

II. A physician shall uphold the standards of professionalism, be honest in all professional interactions, and strive to report physicians deficient in character or competence, or engaging in fraud or deception, to appropriate entities.

The Moral of the Story

We have previously discussed various aspects of the travails of the brave new world of the corporate physician.  Physicians and other health professionals who sign on as full-time employees of large corporate entities have to realize that they are now beholden to managers and executives who may be hostile to their professional values, and who are subject to perverse incentives that support such hostility, including the potential for huge executive compensation.  Physicians seem to be willing to sign contracts that underline their new subservience to their corporate overlords, and likely trap them within confidentiality clauses that make blowing the whistle likely to lead to extreme unpleasantness.

It is disappointing that even medical societies that ostensibly support physicians' professional values have been afraid to warn against such employment, or do much to help physicians trapped within it.

Physicians who go to work for big corporations have to realize that they may be forced to put corporate executives' vested interests ahead of their patients.  Patients whose physicians work for big corporations must realize that their health care will now be corporate, with all that entails.

  As I have said before, we need to challenge the notion that direct health care should ever be provided, or that medicine ought to be practiced by for-profit corporations. I submit that we will not be able to have good quality, accessible health care at an affordable price until we restore physicians as independent, ethical health care professionals, and until we restore small, independent, community responsible, non-profit hospitals as the locus for inpatient care.

Guest Post: A Physician Rebels Against Micromanagement by "'Leadership-Trained' Management Extenders"

Health Care Renewal presents a guest post by Dr Howard Brody, John P McGovern Centennial Chair of Family Medicine, Director of the Institute for Medical Humanities at University of Texas - Medical Branch at Galveston, and blogger at Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma.

I recently heard from a physician whom I knew well in an earlier stage of her training—I’ll call her Pauline. She completed her training at one of the top children’s hospitals in the US, and served in several capacities in academic medical centers before her most recent job with a physician-owned for-profit practice. She called me to express her frustrations and to ask if the right course for her was to quit doing clinical medicine.

Pauline had become skilled in her earlier jobs in providing primary care for children with severe chronic conditions. Her reputation was such that when she was settled in her current post, pediatric subspecialists started to refer their difficult cases to her for follow-up. This patient mix did not suit her current employer for two reasons. First, these children were hard to take care of and even though they could have their visits “up-coded” to reflect their complexity, the practice much preferred to see healthy children with colds and earaches that could be moved through quickly and who did not demand much staff time and attention. Second, most of these children with special needs were on state insurance, which did not pay as well (even after up-coding) as the private insurance the practice coveted.

Pauline found herself constantly struggling with her co-workers and superiors in order to deliver all of her patients—not just the special-needs kids—the quality of care she had been trained to demand. As far as the practice was concerned, it was Pauline, and the medically complex kids she was attracting into the practice, who were the problem.

One recent incident had especially concerned Pauline. She had set up a visit to see a new medically complex patient and had blocked off 40 minutes, the amount of time she felt she needed to do a good job. The child had a complex genetic disorder, cerebral palsy, and heart, lung, and kidney problems.  Both the cardiologist and the nephrologist had called asking her to take this patient.  She agreed.  After she had scheduled the visit, a manager called her and told her that she was being allowed only 15 minutes to see that patient. After some fruitless discussion with him, Pauline finally said, “Okay, I guess that means that you’ll be seeing the patient instead of me, right?” The shocked voice at the other end of the phone line replied, “What do you mean? I don’t know how to take care of patients.” “That’s exactly my point,” Pauline put in.

Pauline explained that this manager assigned to her office is not even a college graduate. Physicians cannot access the schedule electronically and have no control over scheduling. These functions are controlled by the office manager and (amazingly) by some of the medical assistants who have received some “leadership” training. These medical assistants are even allowed to evaluate the clinical competency and skills of the physicians.

Now, at this stage, I can imagine a response from a management-trained person. Pauline is obviously one of those starry-eyed idealist physicians who believe that money grows on trees and that costs should never be a factor in caring for patients. Somebody who actually knows what it means to make a payroll and keep the lights on has to step in and rein in these physicians. There has to be somebody in the system someplace with a head for business, who can recognize the stark realities of what today’s practice demands from all parties. Physicians should get off their high horses and stop imagining that they can give orders to everyone else.

So let me add a further nugget about Pauline’s background. In one of her previous jobs, she was made the manager of a pediatric outpatient center within a county hospital caring for a largely indigent population. This center had been running in the red for a good while. Pauline took over and within 28 months she’d streamlined the place and had them running well in the black, while still administering a quality of care that Pauline and her colleagues could be proud of. In short, Pauline could probably tell the managers of her current practice a thing or two about how to optimize patient scheduling without compromising care or cost —if they’d listen.

Pauline probably has a nearly-unique skill set in her community and has put in a lot of years of training and experience to get there. Due to the present state of American medicine, and those who want to run it as if it were an industrial operation to make a profit, Pauline is thinking about leaving clinical practice altogether despite her relatively young age – and she has several colleagues, who trained in the same way that she did, who are considering this option.

Fortunately, Pauline has at least for now postponed any final decision about leaving clinical medicine entirely. Here’s what she last told me:

I am leaving the organization - I cannot remain in an organization where profit comes ahead of quality - and as a former medical director who had financial accountability/responsibilities, I know it does not HAVE to be a choice.  I do not know what my next steps will be from here.  For me, working with integrity, compassion and a desire for excellence is not negotiable.

Physicians MUST become better advocates for our profession.  For too long, we have been asleep at the wheel while insurance companies and corporations shaped the environment in which we practice.  We cannot allow this to continue.  We are professionals, not vocationally educated medical automatons  who need every moment of work day micromanaged by 'leadership-trained' management extenders who have no idea what it means to take responsibility for patients.  

Dr Howard Brody