The Mystery of the Fugitive Founder (and Longterm President of an Offshore Medical School for US Students)

We recently wrote about for-profit medical schools located offshore from the US, but catering to American students, not students from the countries in which they operate.  Now some new media reports raise further questions, if not mysteries about another set of such schools.  

Two Bloomberg articles on a trial underway focused on the alleged use of offshore accounts to avoid US taxes.  These accounts were connected to the former long-term President and founder of two offshore medical schools, and his spouse, a dean at one of the schools.  


The first Bloomberg article opened thus:

Patricia Hough, according to her lawyers, is an altruistic psychiatrist who helped her husband build two Caribbean medical schools. To prosecutors, she is a tax cheat who used offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on millions of dollars from the schools’ sale.

Jury selection began today in federal court in Fort Myers, Florida, where Hough, 67, is accused of using accounts at UBS AG, the largest Swiss bank, and elsewhere to hide assets and income from the Internal Revenue Service, including almost $34 million she and her husband made when the schools were sold in 2007. 

The Bloomberg article asserted,

 At the heart of the case is whether she misused accounts associated with the Saba University School of Medicine Foundation.

The main question to me is not whether Dr Hough is guilty or innocent, which I cannot tell.  There are more intriguing  mysteries raised by this case.

How Did Non-Profit Medical Schools Become For-Profit?
 
According to Bloomberg,

  Hough’s lawyers say she helped [her husband, David] Fredrick build Saba University School of Medicine, on the island of Saba in the  Netherland Antilles, and the Medical University of the Americas, or MUA, on Nevis in the West Indies.

To do so,

 Through the Saba foundation, which they first funded in 1988, according to a government trial brief filed Oct. 3, the couple opened the Saba University School of Medicine in 1993. Fredrick served as president and a foundation director. Hough was associate dean for clinical medicine. 

Also,

In 1999, Fredrick and Hough began the Medical University of the Americas, a for-profit school on Nevis in the West Indies, according to the government filing.

There seems to be no question that the schools were started by a foundation based in the Netherland Antilles.  A report of a site visit of the Saba University School of Medicine by the Division of Licensing of the Medical Board of California in 2004 summarized this history,

In 1986, the government of the Netherlands Antilles proposed to a group of American educators that a medical school be established on the small island of Saba, N.A.  It was to be relatively small, of high quality and established for the dual ppurpose of benefiting the economy of the island (of only 1500 population) and attracting N.A. citizens to medical careers in the N.A.

A committee of Dutch citizens from Curacao, the seat of the N.A. government, approved the preliminary plans and the school was founded as a non-profit foundation under Dutch law....

The Saba University website still states that the school is accredited in the Netherlands,

Saba University School of Medicine’s Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) program is accredited by the NVAO (in Dutch: Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie). The NVAO is the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders. This organization was established by international treaty and ensures the quality of higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders.

So apparently Saba University was started as a non-profit organization meant to focus on medical education for the Netherlands Antilles, and thus accredited there.  But then, somehow,  according to Bloomberg.

Equinox Capital, a private-equity firm based in Greenwich, Connecticut, bought the Saba school and MUA for $36 million in 2007. The transaction included $34 million for land held in the name of Fredrick’s daughter from an earlier marriage, according to prosecutors.

Hough and Fredrick didn’t tell the IRS about most of the proceeds of the sale and transferred money among various undeclared accounts to buy the plane and real estate, make gifts to family members and pay personal expenses, prosecutors said.

There also seems to be no question that Equinox Capital did buy the schools.  The summary of a 2007 press release from the company stated,

 Equinox Capital III, L.P. announced that it has completed the recapitalization of Saba University School of Medicine B.V. ('Saba'). Founded in 1986, Saba is a leading for-profit university that awards four-year graduate degrees in Doctors of Medicine (M.D.). 

A statement from Prairie Capital, which is now an investor in the schools, noted that now

 R3 Education is a Massachusetts-based holding company that controls The Saba University School of Medicine ('Saba'), The Medical University of the Americas ('MUA') and St. Matthew University ("SMU").

After,

 Prairie Capital partnered with Equinox Capital to acquire the three universities.

It is enough to cause some dizziness.  Let me recap.  Mr Fredrick and Dr Hough somehow founded two medical schools apparently under the auspices of a foundation, the Saba University School of Medicine Foundation, which the couple ran.  The goal of the foundation was to attract Netherland Antilles citizens to medical careers in the NA.   However, the Saba University school became an off-shore facility for US medical students.  The two schools were later acquired by Prairie Capital and Equinox Capital, and they are now run as for-profit operations by R3 Education.

So somehow Saba University transitioned from being a non-profit meant to serve the medical education needs of the Netherlands Antilles to a for-profit owned by US private equity firms (and apparently now focused on serving Americans.)

How did that happen?  What was the rationale for the change?  Did any Dutch authorities consider the implications for their country?  Did any American organizations concerned with the quality of education and credentials of US physicians consider the implications?

Where Did the Money Go?

According to Bloomberg, US prosecutors made some striking allegations,

Both the foundation and MUA failed to tell the IRS about accounts held at UBS, Liechtenstein Landesbank and other banks, the U.S. charges.

Singenberger and Luetolf helped the foundation and MUA move money through British Virgin Islands or Hong Kong entities they controlled called Top Fast Finance Ltd., Ample Dynamic Trading Ltd., New Vanguard Holdings Ltd. and Apex Consultants Ltd., according to prosecutors.

'Hough and Fredrick were the beneficial owners of and had signatory authority over all over these accounts and owned and controlled each of them,' prosecutors said in their brief. 

The prosecution also alleged that Mr Fredrick and Dr Hough spent the money they allegedly got from selling the two medical schools rather lavishly.  Per the second Bloomberg article,

[Prosceutor] Kessler said Hough and her husband used the proceeds of the school sales to buy a $1.6 million airplane, a $1.1 million house in Asheville, North Carolina, a $590,000 house in Greenville, North Carolina, and an $800,000 condominium in Sarasota, Florida. She said they also gave money to relatives.

The prosecutors charged that the money the private equity firms paid went to Mr Fredrick and Dr Hough.  But while Mr Fredrick was President of Saba University, and apparently ran the foundation that was supposed to support it, he did not own either.  So why would the money go to him, and his wife?  If the money did not go to them, where did it go?

As the trial continued, as documented in a second Bloomberg article, Dr Hough's lawyer denied that she got the money,

Dan Saunders, an attorney for Hough, said his client never believed the money held at UBS AG (UBSN), the largest Swiss bank, and in other offshore banks belonged to her. Rather, he said, she thought it belonged to the foundation that ran the schools.

'It wasn’t her money, and she never believed it was,' Saunders said in his opening statement. 

If that is true, however, why is money that supposedly belongs to a foundation sitting quietly in a Swiss bank?

Dr Hough's lawyer said,

 Saunders said the accounts did serve a business purpose: to protect the assets of their nonprofit foundation from people attempting a hostile takeover.

Hostile takeovers of publicly held corporations do occur, of course.  However, how could a hostile takeover of a foundation occur, and who would possibly want or be able to do so?

So thus far, no one has offered a rationale explanation for how the schools were sold, why they were sold, and where the money resulting from the sale went.

Where in the World is Mr Fredrick?

So far, while the defendant is Dr Hough, the role of her husband, Mr Fredrick, apparently the President of Saba University from its founding at least until 2007, seems key.  Yet little of the coverage focused on Mr Fredrick.  The reason for that suggests the next mystery, per  the first Bloomberg article,

Fredrick vanished after the indictment, leaving Hough to face trial alone. U.S. District Judge John Steele, who is overseeing the trial, has declared Fredrick a fugitive.

So why did Mr Fredrick flea, and of course, where did he go?

Obviously, the fact that Mr Fredrick, who was the President of Saba University for many years, chose not to defend himself against charges that he hid the money he somehow obtained from the sale of that and another medical school, but rather fled, suggests that he may not have had a very good defense against those charges.  What does that say about the leadership of these medical schools?

 Summary

So the coverage of this intriguing trial, when added to some other publicly available information, suggests a wealth of mysteries about the founding, current nature, and leadership of two Caribbean medical schools which currently are run as for-profit firms and owned by US private equity firms, and whose student bodies come almost exclusively from the US.

So the really big mysteries are those about the implications for the medical education these schools provide, the students they attract, the physicians who graduate from their programs, the US patients of such physicians, and the US government which largely provides the loans which paid for these students' education (look here).

Despite the extraordinary nature of this case (again, involving the longterm president of an offshore medical school that sought to educate a substantial number of US physicians, and who is now a fugitive from justice), the only interest in it so far seems to be its implications for US prosecutions of hidden offshore accounts.

This case illustrates why we must reexamine our fascination for "market based" approaches to health care, when almost nothing about any part of health care resembles, or could resemble a free market (see this post).  We need to make health care more transparent, and shine more sunshine on the nooks and crannies, like off-shore but US corporate owned medical schools.  We need to facilitate health care leadership and governance that puts patients' and the public's health first, way ahead of the personal enrichment of the participants.  

The Door Revolves Again: the Former White House Health Reform Czar Goes to Private Equity Firm Looking for Investments Created by Health Reform

Round and round it goes, and when it will stop, nobody knows.

Background: The Former Health Care Reform Czar's Past Career

It appears that Ms Nancy DeParle, formerly a White House Deputy Chief of Staff, and before then, from 2009 - 2011, the Director of the White House Office of Health Care Reform, has gone through the revolving door again.

We raised concerns about Ms DeParle's strong ties to the commercial side of health care at the time she was put in charge of getting health care reform legislation passed (look here.)  Specifically, her background for shepherding this legislation included being on the boards of directors of three large health care corporations, Boston Scientific, a medical device company, Cerner, a vendor of health care information technology, and Medco, and pharmacy benefits company.   She had previously been on the boards of DaVita, a commercial kidney dialysis care delivery company, and Triad Hospitals, a for-profit hospital system.  At the time, I wondered whether this set of relationships with multiple  health care corporations would lead to "health care reform" that was more about the interests of big health care corporations and their top executives than about us, the people.

As it turned out, there is a case to be made that a lot of the health care reform legislation that eventually passed was in the interests of big corporations.  It enabled for-profit health care insurance companies to continue to dominate the insurance market, and created no "public option" that could have competed with them.  It fostered the development of "accountable care organizations," (ACOs), and thus fostered a wave of consolidation in the hospital market favoring ever larger hospital systems, including for-profit ones, and the rise of the corporate physician.  It pushed the use of commercial health care information technology without requiring these devices' effects on patients to be rigorously assessed, and with no obvious concerns about the risks posed by these systems.  It did nothing to stop concentration of power in health care, nothing to support small private practices, small non-profit hospitals, or non-profit health insurance.  While it required more disclosure of conflicts of interest affecting physicians, it did nothing to reduce them, or to combat deception in health care marketing and public relations, or to reduce manipulation or suppression of clinical research to serve commercial vested interests, or even to combat blatant health care corruption.

A Brief Stop at a Think Tank

At any event, Ms DeParle left the government early this year.  She did not immediately go back to the commercial world, however.  Instead, as reported by The Hill, she went to a think tank.

Nancy-Ann DeParle, a White House deputy chief of staff and the president's point person on his signature health care law, is leaving the West Wing to join the Brookings Institution. 

Brookings president Strobe Talbott announced in a post on Twitter that the longtime Obama staffer would work as a guest scholar for the think tank.

Through the Revolving Door to Private Equity

That position did not last long, however.  A few days ago, a Wall Street Journal blog announced she was moving again,

As health care-focused private equity firms navigate the nuances of the Affordable Care Act, one such shop, Consonance Capital, has decided to go straight to the source, hiring Nancy-Ann DeParle, the former director of the White House Office of Health Reform.

So now she will be with private equity, and in particular, with a private equity firm specializing in, of course, health care:

Consonance has been out targeting between $350 million and $450 million for its debut fund.

The fundraising effort appears to have gained traction in recent months. LBO Wire reported in February that the firm had raised $30.3 million for Consonance Private Equity PV LP.  According to a person familiar with the fundraising, the vehicle has gathered as much as $200 million so far from investors including Ohio Public Employees Retirement System, Travelers Insurance and LGT Group.

The fund is earmarked for buyouts and recapitalizations of health-care providers, payors, pharmaceutical and specialty distributors and device manufacturers with between $20 million and $150 million in annual revenue.

Finally, it seems Ms DeParle will be suited to this new employment opportunity since she knows so much about how the new supposed health care reform will create investment opportunities,

 Ms. DeParle said the changing regulatory environment will give rise to a host of new investment opportunities. 'There’s a lot that’s changing in health care,' said Ms. DeParle. 'There will be millions of new customers for hospitals and health care providers, much stronger demand for health care services....'

Summary

So to recapitulate, Ms DeParle came from roles as a steward of multiple large health care corporations to lead the health care reform efforts of the executive branch.  In that capacity, she helped to create and enact legislation that she would later say created many "new investment opportunities."  Now, as the legislation is going into operation, she has spun over to private equity to take advantage of these opportunities.

This seems to be a great example of why the revolving door is bad for government, health care, and the American public.  People in responsible government positions, in which they are supposed to represent all the people, may be constantly thinking about impressing those who might employ them in the private sector when they leave government service.  What better way to impress these potential employers than to take actions which may later improve these companies'  commercial prospects, whatever effect they may have on us, the people?

I am no political scientist, but in my humble opinion, there should be multi year cooling off periods before someone who worked in the commercial world can get a job in a government agency whose work has direct effect on his or her previous employer or industry sector, and before someone who worked in a government agency whose work had direct effect on a particular economic sector can accept a job for a company in that sector.  Now that would be a real reform. 

Deadly Over-Doses and Private Equity - the Case of Bain Capital's Methadone Clinics

Some reporting by Bloomberg provides more evidence about what happens when direct care of the most vulnerable patients is commercialized.  The vulnerable patients in this case were narcotic addicts.

By way of introduction, one method of treating narcotic addiction is the use of methadone.  Methadone is a narcotic that may block the "high" produced by other narcotics and thus may lead to the abuse of these drugs.  Because methadone is long-acting and can be given orally in liquid form, methadone clinics traditionally provided patients one dose a day which they swallowed on the spot.  The methadone would presumably block their craving for other narcotics for that day, and the method of administration would prevent diversion of the drug.  Methadone clinics became more prevalent starting in the 1960s, and like most "health care provider organizations," as we now call them, were then largely non-profit.

On a personal note, in the 1980s, I was the internal medicine physician for a non-profit hospital based methadone clinic designed for patients who had become addicted to prescription narcotics.  It was a challenging task, but the challenges seemed manageable.  That was then.

Nowadays, methadone clinics are more likely to be for-profit.  In this brave new world of for-profit "health care delivery," there may be problems unlike those seen "back in the day."   For example, Bloomberg just reported on a case with a distinctly colorful title

Dead Man Spurs Methadone Probe at Bain’s CRC Clinic in Baltimore 

Maryland state regulators are investigating an addiction-treatment clinic owned by Bain Capital Partners LLC after the methadone-related death of a Baltimore man. 

The probe is focused on the Pine Heights Treatment Center in Baltimore, one of dozens of clinics operated by Bain’s CRC Health Corp., the largest methadone-treatment provider in the U.S. It was triggered by a complaint from the public, said Dori Henry, a spokeswoman for the state Alcohol and Drug Abuse Administration. She declined to comment on the investigation’s details.

The complaint alleges that Warren Lumpkin, 34, a forklift operator, died on Jan. 4 after ingesting methadone that was given to him by a CRC patient, according to a copy obtained by Bloomberg News. An autopsy found that 'methadone intoxication' contributed to his death, records show.

Lumpkin’s ex-wife, Sabrina M. Lumpkin, who filed the complaint, said in it that he wasn’t a patient at the CRC clinic. He had a friend who was, and that friend gave half a dose of methadone from the clinic to Lumpkin, according to the complaint. 

Note that "back in the day," such an event would have been nearly impossible.  As noted above, patients were given a cup of liquid containing their daily methadone dose, and drank it under observation.   Practically, they could not "cheek" or otherwise divert the drug.  Of course, that approach required personnel to observe each patient each day.  Paying those personnel made the operation more expensive.  "Back in the day," though, non-profit hospitals and clinics were willing to provide the service in the interest of making sure the patients, and only the patients got the prescribed treatment.

Things may be different when methadone clinics are run for a profit.  A Bloomberg investigative report published in February looked into the operations of the company that owned the clinic in Maryland.  That too had a provocative title and started with a similarly disconcerting case.

Drug Users Turn Death Dealers as Methadone From Bain Hits Street 

 After Jennifer Vanlieu turned to methadone treatment to beat an addiction to heroin and pain pills, she morphed from drug user to convicted drug dealer.
 
Vanlieu said she got a carryout methadone dose at a clinic operated by CRC Health Corp. in Richmond, Indiana, in March, 2010, and then gave about 15 milligrams to her friend Carissa Plemons. Plemons died hours later, after ingesting a lethal mix of methadone and other drugs, according to police reports.

Take-home methadone -- doses patients carry out instead of taking at clinics -- enabled the abuse, said Vanlieu, 26, who was sentenced to six years in prison for dealing the drug to Plemons. While she didn’t sell it to her friend, she said in an interview that other clinic patients often resold their take- homes. CRC is owned by Boston-based Bain Capital Partners LLC and is the largest U.S. provider of methadone treatment.

'Some would sell it in the parking lot,' she said. 

As in the first case, unlike the process "back in the day," now patients, who are almost all presumably narcotic addicts, may be given multiple doses of liquid methadone to take home.  They are no longer required to take a daily dose of methadone under observation.  As the case above illustrates, it is all too easy to divert take home doses of methadone.  While methadone can be used to block the effects of other narcotics, it can also be abused.  Obviously, as in the cases above, abused methadone can cause a lethal overdose. 

Wide Use of Take-Home Methadone

The Bloomberg report found multiple instances in which CRC Health clinics handed out multiple take-home methadone doses apparently without proper consideration of the risk or supervision of the patients.

 In states where CRC has had its highest patient counts -- Indiana, West Virginia, California and Oregon -- available data and interviews show the company tries to provide take-home packages, which range from one dose to as many as 30, more often than other clinics.

In addition, 

The Richmond, Indiana, clinic gave take-home methadone to a patient who flunked a drug test, a January 2012 audit found. The company’s Williamson, West Virginia, clinic didn’t immediately revoke take-homes from a patient who had two positive drug tests in 2010, records show. In 2011, inspectors found no evidence that a physician at CRC’s clinic in Renton, Washington, used 'good clinical, judgment' in giving patients carryout doses.

A CRC center in Chattanooga, Tennessee, failed to supervise take-home doses properly in a case 'clearly indicative of drug diversion,' state authorities found in June 2011. The company’s clinics in Claymont, Delaware, and Coatesville, Pennsylvania, were faulted in May 2012 and October 2010, respectively, for giving carry-outs to patients who missed required counseling, records show.

As for the spot-checks Herschman described -- they hardly ever happened at CRC’s clinic in Goldsboro, North Carolina, said Liaudaitis, the former counselor. 

Furthermore,

In Indiana, CRC’s five clinics served 69 percent of methadone patients in 2011, while distributing 96 percent of the take-homes tracked by state records. Patients of CRC’s dozen California clinics received carryout packages of as many as 30 doses at a rate twice that of all others. In Virginia, 74 percent of patients at CRC’s three clinics got at least one take-home dose a week in August 2012, while 47 percent of patients at all other clinics did, state records show. 

The Business Model Behind Take-Home Methadone

So why would a methadone clinic hand multiple doses of an abusable narcotic to narcotic abusers?  The Bloomberg article went on to document some possible reasons which ultimately have to do with the business model of for-profit methadone clinics.

First of all, providing multiple doses of methadone requires less time from clinic personnel, which is handy when the clinics may be under-staffed by over-worked poorly paid personnel.  

'That was the culture -- keep the census up,' said Mike Liaudaitis, who worked as a counselor at CRC’s clinic in Goldsboro, North Carolina, from mid-2009 until early 2011. He recalls being swamped with a 64-person caseload that exceeded the state’s limit of 50. 

Also,

'Clearly the company is saving money if they’re distributing multiple take-home doses at one time,' said West Virginia Delegate Don Perdue, a Democrat who has pursued stricter oversight of for-profit clinics. 'They don’t have to have as many staff handing out the merchandise.'

In particular,

the Goldsboro clinic -- like others described by regulators and former CRC employees in Indiana and West Virginia -- was frequently understaffed, Liaudaitis said.

Since Jan. 1, 2009, CRC’s clinics haven’t met staffing standards more than 50 times, regulatory records from 15 states show. Clinics were cited 80 times for failing to document that they gave patients enough counseling. In response, the company agreed to hire more, recruit more aggressively and increase supervision. Competition for qualified workers is intense, CRC said in its 2011 annual report.

CRC didn’t pay well enough to attract or keep experienced counselors, said Malaysia Williams, who worked at its clinic in Huntington, West Virginia, from June 2009 through March 2010. 'Nobody stayed there,' she said. 'It paid poorly.'

Williams got $13 an hour, she said -- about the same amount other former counselors reported. That’s roughly $27,000 a year. 

There is evidence that under-staffing, under-payment of personnel, and the wide use of take-home methadone lead to big increases in short-term revenue for CRC Health, the for-profit corporation running the clinics.

 Until recently, there was little difference between the operations of for-profit and non-profit methadone clinics, said Thomas D’Aunno, a professor of health policy and management at Columbia University who has tracked the treatment centers for years. That changed in 2011 survey data, which showed 'significant differences,' he said: For-profit clinics had fewer staffers than public clinics.

As Williams struggled to catch up in Huntington, the clinic pushed its revenue up almost 8 percent to $5 million in 2010 -- while expenses increased less than 1 percent to $2.6 million, according to state regulatory documents. 

Private Equity's Take Over of Methadone Clinics

The potential for big revenues has drawn private equity into the world of methadone maintenance for the treatment of narcotic addiction.

 Nurtured by government spending, methadone clinics spread nationwide in the 1960s and ’70s until strapped state and local governments began decreasing their outlays. By 2010, for-profit providers controlled 52.8 percent of the 1,200 U.S. clinics.

Over the past seven years, private equity firms have invested more than $2.2 billion in substance-abuse treatment and behavioral health companies in 62 deals, according to PitchBook Data Inc., a Seattle-based research firm.

Addiction-treatment companies are 'some of the most sought-after -- and valuable -- acquisition candidates in health care,' partly because of profit margins that can top 20 percent, according to the Braff Group, a Pittsburgh-based mergers and acquisitions advisory firm.

 As it turns out, CRC Health was acquired by one of the more notable private equity firms.

Bain Capital, the private equity firm co-founded by former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, paid $723 million for CRC in 2006, corporate filings show. Romney, who left Bain in 1999, had no input in its investments or management of companies after that, he has said.

Still, Romney reported last year that he owned more than $1 million worth of a Bain fund that holds most of CRC’s shares. He reported receiving between $100,000 and $1 million in dividends, interest and capital gains from that holding, as well as income from two other Bain funds with interests in CRC, according to the financial disclosure he filed with the U.S. Office of Government Ethics in June. Bain executives declined to comment, said Alex Stanton, a spokesman. Representatives for Romney didn’t respond to requests for comment.

 CRC has reported paying Bain about $15.4 million in management fees along with $7.2 million in fees related to the merger since 2006. The company’s revenue more than doubled to $446 million in 2011 from $209 million in 2005. Methadone clinics generated more than a quarter of the 2011 revenue, $123 million.

Note that last year, when Mr Romney was running for the US Presidency, and hence his ties to Bain Capital were particularly newsworthy, several investigative reports about care at Bain owned health care provider organizations were published.  We posted about issues at another CRC Health operation, Aspen, which operates in -patient treatment centers for psychiatric patients.  Investigative reporting about that part of CRC Health also suggested that the company was putting short-term revenue ahead of patient welfare.  We also posted about issues at HCA, a for-profit hospital chain partially owned by Bain, which again suggested revenue came before patients. 

In one sense, this should be no surprise, since the business model for private equity is all about extracting the most money in the shortest time for acquired corporations.  (Look here for more details.)

Summary

We now have more evidence that patients "cared for" directly by for-profit corporations, especially those owned by private equity firms, do not do well.  Meanwhile, the top executives of these firms do exceedingly well.

We have noted how health care organizations have increasingly been "financialized," lead by executives who put short-term revenue generation ahead of all other goals, including good patient care. Furthermore, hospitals are increasingly likely to be formally for-profit, and hence likely to be lead by such executives. Worse, hospitals are increasingly likely to be owned by private equity firms, further increasing the emphasis on short-term money making. Even worse, physicians are now more frequently employed by such organizations, which may pressure them to do what it takes to increase revenue, no matter what the effect on patients' and the public's health.

The probably effects on the quality of care, access, and costs are obvious.

In my humble opinion, before the health care bubble bursts, 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. Before market fundamentalism became so prominent, many states prohibited the corporate practice of medicine, and the American Medical Association forbade the commercialization of medicine.

 It is time to heed that wisdom. 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.

 True health care reform will require an end to market fundamentalism in health care.