What Sorts of People are "Most Influential in Healthcare?"

Modern Healthcare just put out their list of the "100 Most Influential People in Healthcare" for 2013.  A look at what sorts of people are on this list says a lot about who runs US health care, and raises questions about who should.

Some Health Care Professionals, Lots of Hired Managers

I did some quick descriptive categorizations. (Counts were double checked but I am not guaranteeing accuracy.  Categorizations were sometimes difficult for highly diversified organizations.)

First, less than one third of list members are physicians (31% by my count).  I did not see any other health professionals on it (although I confess I did not look up the biographies of all 100).

Of these physicians, most are now functioning as hired managers, usually at the CEO level, of big health organizations.  I found only a few who could be characterized as somewhat academic: Dr Atul Gawande, professor at Harvard Medical School, Dr Eric Topol, chief academic officer at Scripps Health, Dr Harvey Fineberg, President, Institute of Medicine, Dr Brent James, chief quality officer and executive director, Institute for Health Care Delivery Research, Intermountain Healthcare,  and probably Dr Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief of the New England Journal of Medicine. 

My counts of hired managers on the list included

CEOs of For-Profit Health Insurers - 5%

CEO of For-Profit Hospital Systems - 8%

CEOs of Non-Profit Hospital Systems - 21%

CEOs of Other For-Profit Care Delivery Corporations - 7%

CEOs of Drug/ Device/ Medical Supply Corporations - 2%

CEOs of Health Care Information Technology Corporations - 1%

CEOs of Non-Profit Trade Associations - 14%

CEOs and other Leaders of Professional or Medical Association - 5%

CEOs of Health Care Charities - 4%

CEOs of Other Non-Profit Organizations - 15%

Elected Government Leaders - 6%

Leaders of Government Agencies, Departments - 10%

Union Leaders - 2%

People Whose Organizations Have Issues

The list included quite a few people who lead organizations which have had issues of the sort we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  For example, the list included the following among its top 10 most influential, in order of listed influence -

4.  Stephen Hemsley, CEO of UnitedHealth Group - We have discussed concerns about his executive compensation and how it does not fit his organization's stated mission, or his organization's long list of ethical misadventures (most recently summarized here)

6. Mark Bertolini, CEO, Aetna - We most recently discussed how Aetna's leaders' pontifications on health policy seem mainly based on self-interest (here)  We also discussed various other management, ethical and legal issues.

7.  Richard Bracken, CEO, HCA - A long time ago, HCA was one of the first big health care corporations to have to make a billion dollar plus settlement for fraud, among other issues (look here).  The company has had legal, ethical, and management issues since.

8.  Joseph Swedish, CEO, WellPoint - He is new as CEO, but under previous leadership, the company amassed a record of misadventures while making its leadership very rich (summarized here, and look here for details.)

The list also included many other people whose organizations have been frequent fliers on Health Care Renewal.  For example, the CEOs of Epic Systems (ranked 13),  Tenet Healthcare (18), Cigna (20), McKesson Corp (24), Sutter Health (42), Johnson & Johnson (46), Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) (48), HealthSouth (59),  UPMC (69), and  Steward Health Care System (86).

There are many other people on the list who lead organizations that have gotten unfavorable notice on this blog, and a few whose own extreme executive compensation garnered comment.  As my science professors used to say, I leave their identification as an exercise for those interested.

Who Is Not on the List

It is interesting who is not on the list.  There are no physicians in private practice.   I would argue there are no physicians who are "pure" academics at the moment.  There are no other health care research, health policy research, or public health academics.

I saw only one person on the list (Senator Charles Grassley - R, Iowa) who has been identified with the sorts of real health care reforms we discuss here.  (Senator Grassely has investigated many instances of alleged conflicts of interest and fraud, and sponsored the Sunshine Bill to disclose better physicians' conflicts of interest.)  I do not see anyone else who in my humble opinion is identified as a dissident within the current environment. 

Many of the media accounts we have noted include people identified as experts who decried such issues as excessive executive compensation, mission-hostile management, conflicts of interest, ethical issues leading to legal settlements, or crime and corruption in health care.  None of them save Senator Grassley  are on this list. 

Summary

The Modern Healthcare list of 100 most influential people in health care demonstrates the enormous influence of hired managers in modern health care.  The vast majority of list members were hired managers.  While the list did include some physicians, most of them were currently working as hired managers.

It also demonstrates the influence of the for-profit, industrial part of health care.  It included 5 for-profit insurance CEOs, 8 for-profit hospital corporation CEOs, 7 for-profit health care delivery corporation CEOs, 2 for-profit drug/device company CEOs, and 1 for-profit health care IT CEO, a total of 23.  It also included CEOs of multiple trade associations, some of which represent the for-profit side of health care (e.g., PhRMA, America's Health Insurance Plans).  While it included leadership of many non-profit organizations as well, some of these organizations have clear financial links to the for-profit industrial side.  These ties may include significant financial support from industry, significant holdings of health care corporate stock, or managers or board members with their own relationships to industry.  (For example,  see this discussion of conflicts of interest affecting the Gates Foundation, whose co-chair is 76 on the Modern Healthcare list.)  Many of the large, non-profit hospital systems, 21 of whose CEOs are on the list, have major institutional conflicts of interest, and have many people with individual conflicts of interest among their leadership and on their boards of trustees.

As opposed to the influence of the for-profit industrial part of health care, the influence of government seems muted.  The list included only 6 politicians and 10 government managers.  Some of the politicians are notable proponents of smaller government, e.g. Senator Grassley, and specifically of a smaller role of government in health care, e.g., Governor Bobby Jindal, R, Louisiana.    Nor do unions have much influence.  Only two union leaders were on the list.  There was little counterweight provided to industrial influence from academia, and an almost complete absence of those who might question the current US status quo of dominance of health care by commercial interests. 

So here is the latest evidence that US health care is dominated by commercial interests (in an era of regulatory capture, revolving doors, and financialization) and professional, if often generic managers.  This suggests why our health care system seems more about revenue (and thus is very expensive), and less about improving patients' and the public's health.  True health care reform would require increasing the influence of people who have different priorities than the currently most influential. 

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

Tales of the Wayfaring Generic Manager - from Ritz Carlton Hotels to Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital to Cancer Treatment Centers of America

In 2006, we wondered what a former hotel manager, Mr Gerard van Grinsven, admittedly known for putting the "wow" back in the Detroit Ritz-Carlton, would be doing as a hospital CEO.  This seemed at the time like a real "wow" example of how generic managers were taking over health care.  Mr Grinsven had extensive experience in the hospitality field, but no known background in health care. 

Organic Local Produce, "Wellbeing Centers," Gourmet Dining, Wedding Receptions, and Corporate Functions

Over the next few years, Mr van Grinsven's Henry Ford West Bloomfield hospital did make a name for itself.  In 2009, Becker's Hospital Review reported on some of Mr Van Grinsven's innovations. 

First, he lead an apparent change in the hospital's mission from acute care to recreating:

the hospital experience into one focused on promoting wellbeing and healthy living. The hospital has already begun to realize its mission statement, which reads 'to take health and healing beyond the boundaries of imagination.'

The new hospital apparently was designed to look like a luxury hotel:

The hospital is located on 160 acres of woodlands and is designed to resemble a Northern Michigan lodge. The facility also features a retail 'main street' which looks like an actual main street in a Northern Michigan town and includes stores focused on sleep, pregnancy, organic food and healthy cooking as well as a pharmacy.

Apparently it is now a favored site for weddings:

The hospital also holds free concerts for the community and has already received nine wedding inquiries. 

It had a "wellness center"

Henry Ford West Bloomfield also features a unique, integrated wellness center called Vita. Vita offers acupuncture, therapeutic message, yoga and relaxation classes, an aqua therapy suite, a spa and health coaches who provide lifestyle and exercise consultations. In addition to offering one-time services, the hospital offers memberships to community members to encourage frequent use of the center.

What really stood out was its food service:

Henry Ford brought in top Michigan chef Matt Prentice to transform traditional hospital food service. The hospital features 24-hour room service for patients, all of which is served by the hospital's on-site gourmet, organic restaurant, Henry's. All food served in the hospital is organic, promotes sustainable agriculture and, in many cases, is procured from local farmers.

A 2011 article in Fortune noted that

the hospital is on track to generate millions of dollars a year hosting and catering functions for companies and community groups.

It all sounds great, if it were describing a luxury hotel.

The Fortune article ended with the gushing summation:

While it will be years before anyone can say whether this model works, there's no question that it captures a spirit of innovation that just might be a cure for what ails so many organizations. We are living today through the age of disruption. You can't do big things if you're content with just doing things a little better than everyone else or a little differently from how you've done them in the past. In an era of intense competition and non-stop reinvention, the only way to stand out from the crowd is to stand for something special. Originality has become the acid test of strategy.

Neither it nor the Becker's rather uncritical discussions dealt with what any of this had to do with the fundamental mission of a hospital, to care for the sick, what it has to particularly do with quality of care, especially care of severely acutely or chronically ill patients, traditionally those whom hospitals were meant to serve.  Would a patient desperately sick from a myocardial infarction (heart attack), stroke, sepsis (bacterial blood stream infection) or the other major ills that bring people to hospitals really care that if he or she were to survive without major sequelae, organic, locally grown food would be served in the hospital's fancy restaurant?  Is there any evidence that provision of any of these fancy hotel amenities would affect important clinical outcomes for such patients?  Could the funds needed for all these fancy hotel services be better spent to improve patients' the the population's health?

On to a More Ethically Challenged Environment

We may never know.  But what we do know is that Mr van Grinsven, having brought "wellness" centers and organic, locally grown, gourmet food to an acute care hospital, is now moving on.

Crain's Detroit Business just reported:

Henry Ford West Bloomfield Hospital President and CEO Gerard van Grinsven has resigned from the position effective June 1, according to an internal email sent Friday to employees from Henry Ford Health System President and COO Bob Riney.

Van Grinsven is leaving the hospital to become the president and CEO of Chicago-based Cancer Treatment Centers of America, Riney said in the email. He will oversee the CTCA's five hospitals and medical centers in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Oklahoma, Arizona and Georgia. The CTCA is expected to announce van Grinsven's new position later today.

Henry Ford Health System CEO Bob Riney saluted van Grinsven thus,

'Gerard's leadership talents and his tremendous global experience made the transformation of this innovation and distinctive vision a reality,' Riney told employees in the email.

He did not apparently mention anything about the quality of care for acutely and chronically ill patients.  The press release from CTCA proclaimed

'Gerard's arrival is an exciting and dramatic step in the evolution of our leadership that will herald new opportunities for all of our talented Stakeholders and the thousands of patients we serve,' said [executive chairman and former CEO Stephen B] Bonner. 'Our expertise in Patient Empowerment Medicine® and track record implementing change is unparalleled. Nothing we do today is the same as we did two years ago. Gerard is uniquely qualified to provide the leadership required to advance our commitment to patient-centered care in all we do,' concluded Bonner.

Of course, there was nothing about how van Grinsven's expertise in wellness centers and organic produce would be useful to an organization supposedly devoted to cancer patients, whose care may involve risky treatment choices and who may become desperately ill.

There was also nothing about how van Grinsven's background would help CTCA to avoid new ethical misadventures.  Earlier this year, we posted about issues involving CTCA making unsubstantiated survival claims; promoting "integrative" treatments that are unsupported by evidence; and manipulating survival statistics, in part by turning away patients with poor prognoses.  Of course, it is not clear that given van Grinsven's background he would even understand why such behavior is unethical. 

Summary

As a physician, it is hard not to laugh at all this, at least to keep from crying.  As we have noted frequently, health care has been taken over by generic hired managers.  At best, while well meaning, many of them seem clueless about the nature and context of health care, and health care professionals' values.  At worst, the manager's coup d'etat has turned managers into manager-kings, queens and nobles, while driving up health care costs, and sacrificing the health of patients and the public.  The depth of this phenomenon is demonstrated by the absolute lack of skepticism about the worthiness of a former Ritz-Carlton executive to run either a community hospital or a system of cancer treatment centers.

I say once again that true health care reform would put in place leadership that understands the health care context, upholds health care professionals' values, and puts patients' and the public's health ahead of extraneous, particularly short-term financial concerns. We need health care governance that holds health care leaders accountable, and ensures their transparency, integrity and honesty.

BLOGSCAN - An Ex-Pharmaceutical Company CEO to Run the American College of Cardiology?

Marilyn Mann's blog discussed the appointment of a former pharmaceutical company executive, most recently at Actelion, and previously at Hoffman La Roche, Abbott Canada, Nordic Labs and Marion Merrill Dow (now known as Aventis), as president of the American College of Cardiology.  Although Mr Jacobovitz, who boasts a bachelor's degree in biology but no obvious experience in direct health care or biomedical science, was touted by the ACC as having "developed a strong patient- and customer-centered corporate strategy," Ms Mann provided documentation that his trajectory at Actelion seemed more money- than patient-centered.  

During his watch, Actelion was cited for not reporting 3500 deaths of patients taking two of its drugs to the US Food an Drug Administration (FDA).  Actelion blocked availability of samples of one of its drugs to generic drug companies, an action that the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC) alleged violated anti-trust laws.  Actelion purchased a company that was working on a drug that could have become a competitor to Actelion's most remunerative product, and then shut down development, possibly preventing a drug that might help patients from reaching them.  Finally, Acetelion's marketing practices seem to be currently under investigation by a US Attorney.   

One wonders why cardiologists would want such an individual representing them as leader of their premier organization? 

(Dr Wes wondered as well.)