You Can Check Out Any Time You Like, But You Can Never Leave - Duke and UNC Allegedly Agreed Not to Hire Each Other's Faculty
We have intermittently discussed the worsening plight of physicians trying to provide clinical care as employees of large organizations. Such corporate physicians are likely to be squeezed between professional values that put the patient first, and management that puts revenue first. Physicians employed by large corporations may find their values increasingly at risk as these organizations adapt the tactics of the robber barons.
Now it appears that even ostensibly genteel academic medical institutions may be adapting these tactics.
Allegations of Anti-Competitive Faculty Employment Practices at Duke and University of North Carolina Medical Schools
The story first appeared with little fanfare in the (Duke) Chronicle in June. An assistant professor at the UNC School of Medicine was interested in a position, also at the assistant professor level, at nearby Duke.
However,
Imagine the nerve of medical faculty thinking they should be paid more by the current employer because another institution was willling to recruit them and pay them that much.
An Agreement Comfortable for the Deans, but Disadvantageous for Their Faculty
An August article in the Chronicle suggested that the top leaders of the two medical schools felt that the "no-poaching" agreement was mutually beneficial.
According to the case file, Seaman became aware of the policy earlier this year, but the UNC chief of cardiothoracic imaging—who is unnamed in the file—believed the policy had been in place for several years after Duke had previously tried to recruit the entire bone marrow transplant team from UNC.
Also,
The Chronicle found a Duke Law professor who provided a comfortable rationale for the agreement between the two schools,
Despite the case file’s claims that such a policy is detrimental to faculty from both schools, Clark Havighurst—a former professor in the Duke University School of Law who taught healthcare policy and antitrust law for more than 40 years—also believes that this agreement would be beneficial to both institutions in the long run.
'You’d probably find relatively few instances where Duke and Carolina have poached each other’s faculty,' Havighurst wrote in an email. 'This is probably a matter of mutual restraint as much as explicit agreement, however, as each school or department would hesitate to irritate the faculty at the neighboring institution, thus undermining collegial and personal relations that are undoubtedly beneficial to each.'
What the soothing words about mutual benefit and collegiality leave out is that while the school administrations benefit from less disruption, they also likely benefited by being able to pay their faculty, especially junior faculty less. As Dr Seaman argued in her filing, as per the June Chronicle article,
The suit—filed June 9 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina—contends that the no-hire agreement had the “intended and actual effect” of suppressing competition and employee wages, therefore violating federal and state anti-trust laws.
An Aside, the Non-Poaching Agreement Defended by One of the Key Advocates for Market Fundamentalism in Medicine
As an aside, Professor Havinghurst turns out to be one of key architects of the transformation of the US health care from a regulated system emphasizing health care provided by individual professionals and small non-profit institutions to our current laissez faire commercialized system. It is more than ironic that while Prof Havinghurst now scoffs at applying anti-trust law to alleged collusion by big employers, per M Gregg Bloche in the Stanford Law Review(1),
Again, Havinghurst appears to have been one of the principal, if not the principal advocate to use anti-trust law against small groups of physicians, and against the notion that physicians can promulgate their own codes of ethical conduct. In an introduction to an article by Havinghurst in Health Affairs in 1983.(2)
How convenient that Prof Havinghurst is still affiliated with Duke and in a position to defend his university's treatment of other faculty.
I urge you to scan Health Care Renewal to see how the change from professional self-regulation of ethics to the free rein of the laissez faire marketplace turned out. Look here for our first reporting on the late Dr Arnold Relman's discussion of how medicine was pressured to accept commercialization, and how that acceptance has since decimated our core values. Look here for our discussion of the fallacy of the perfect market in health care. Look here for a rebuttal from an authority we do not often quote of the concept of health care as a commodity versus a calling.
Summary
Note that the outcome of the lawsuit against Duke and UNC is unknown. The allegations it makes are not proven. However, I chose to discuss it because the evidence, particularly the emails reproduced in the court filing, seems pretty strong that the two schools did have an actual agreement not to compete in the hiring of faculty, and the argument that his suppressed faculty wages and opportunity is prety strong and obvious.
Academic physicians, particularly at elite institutions, may feel they are in a rarefied atmosphere separate from the hurley burley or everyday health care. They may feel they are protected from, and can even ignore the health care dysfunction we discuss on Health Care Renewal. They certainly may not think of themselves as "wage slaves" from the era of trusts, monopolies, and robber barons.
But this case exhibits that academic medical institutions are getting closer to the ruthless world of poorly regulated, commercialized, market fundamentalist health care. Talk about collegiality is nice, but it seems pretty clear that the "non-poaching" agreement between Duke and UNC may have reflected collegiality among top medical school leadership, but limited their faculty salaries and individual faculty members' choices and opportunities. This seems like another example, however soft spoken and genteel, of the leaders of health care organizations putting the interests of their own ingroup ahead of the interests of the larger organizations and the mission they are supposed to serve.
It is time for even academic physicians to realize that they are not protected from the troubles of the larger world. If they truly believe in their professional values, if they really care about patients' and the public's health, and about medical and health care science and education, they will have to start speaking up, or they will end up wage slaves of the new health care robber barons along with nearly everyone else.
To lighten things up at the end, the Eagles doing Hotel California live in 1977 -
"We are all prisoners here, of our own device"
References
1. Bloche MG. Trust and betrayal in the medical marketplace. Stanford Law Review 2002; 55: 919-954. Link here.
2. Havinghurst C. The doctors' trust. self-regulation and the law. Health Affairs 1983; 2: 64-76. Link here.
Now it appears that even ostensibly genteel academic medical institutions may be adapting these tactics.
Allegations of Anti-Competitive Faculty Employment Practices at Duke and University of North Carolina Medical Schools
The story first appeared with little fanfare in the (Duke) Chronicle in June. An assistant professor at the UNC School of Medicine was interested in a position, also at the assistant professor level, at nearby Duke.
[Dr Danielle] Seaman had been in email communication with UNC’s Chief of Cardiothoracic Imaging beginning in 2011, when she expressed interest in a radiology position at the UNC School of Medicine, and the chief of the division encouraged her to apply, the case file describes. In 2012, Seaman was invited to visit the campus and toured the radiology department at UNC.
However,
When Seaman expressed interest in the assistant professor position again in early 2015, however, the chief responded in an email by saying he had just received confirmation that 'lateral moves of faculty between Duke and UNC are not permitted' as per a 'guideline' set by the schools’ deans.Both emails are included in the filing by Dr Seaman's lawyers.
In a later email, the chief also described to Seaman the reason the agreement was created—Duke had tried several years ago to recruit the entire bone marrow transplant team from UNC, and UNC was forced to pay them a large retention package to keep them.
Imagine the nerve of medical faculty thinking they should be paid more by the current employer because another institution was willling to recruit them and pay them that much.
An Agreement Comfortable for the Deans, but Disadvantageous for Their Faculty
An August article in the Chronicle suggested that the top leaders of the two medical schools felt that the "no-poaching" agreement was mutually beneficial.
According to the case file, Seaman became aware of the policy earlier this year, but the UNC chief of cardiothoracic imaging—who is unnamed in the file—believed the policy had been in place for several years after Duke had previously tried to recruit the entire bone marrow transplant team from UNC.
'The general rule was that we didn’t recruit there and they didn’t recruit at Duke—it certainly was in the years I was in the administration,' said John Burness, former senior vice president for public affairs and government relations from 1991 to 2008. 'I don’t know if it’s ever been a formal agreement, but it’s certainly been a practice over a long period of time.'
Burness—now a visiting professor of the practice in the Sanford School of Public Policy—noted that he could not recall an instance in which a faculty member from UNC was recruited to Duke during Nannerl Keohane’s tenure as president of the University from 1993 to 2004. Keohane also confirmed that during her time as president the University avoided poaching of UNC faculty.
Also,
'The question of whether Duke and UNC [or N.C. State] should attempt to recruit faculty from the other campus was always somewhat delicate,' Keohane, now Laurance S. Rockefeller distinguished visiting professor of public affairs at Princeton University, wrote in an email.
The Chronicle found a Duke Law professor who provided a comfortable rationale for the agreement between the two schools,
Despite the case file’s claims that such a policy is detrimental to faculty from both schools, Clark Havighurst—a former professor in the Duke University School of Law who taught healthcare policy and antitrust law for more than 40 years—also believes that this agreement would be beneficial to both institutions in the long run.
'You’d probably find relatively few instances where Duke and Carolina have poached each other’s faculty,' Havighurst wrote in an email. 'This is probably a matter of mutual restraint as much as explicit agreement, however, as each school or department would hesitate to irritate the faculty at the neighboring institution, thus undermining collegial and personal relations that are undoubtedly beneficial to each.'
What the soothing words about mutual benefit and collegiality leave out is that while the school administrations benefit from less disruption, they also likely benefited by being able to pay their faculty, especially junior faculty less. As Dr Seaman argued in her filing, as per the June Chronicle article,
The suit—filed June 9 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina—contends that the no-hire agreement had the “intended and actual effect” of suppressing competition and employee wages, therefore violating federal and state anti-trust laws.
An Aside, the Non-Poaching Agreement Defended by One of the Key Advocates for Market Fundamentalism in Medicine
As an aside, Professor Havinghurst turns out to be one of key architects of the transformation of the US health care from a regulated system emphasizing health care provided by individual professionals and small non-profit institutions to our current laissez faire commercialized system. It is more than ironic that while Prof Havinghurst now scoffs at applying anti-trust law to alleged collusion by big employers, per M Gregg Bloche in the Stanford Law Review(1),
Since the mid- 1970s, market-oriented scholars have challenged a broad range of legal principles previously assumed to sustain the trustworthiness of physicians and health systems. Doctrines shielding physicians from antitrust law, insulating them from insurers' and hospitals' influence over clinical practice, and reinforcing the precept of undivided clinical loyalty to patients came under attack as protection for the medical profession at consumers' expense. These scholars, including Clark Havighurst, Richard Epstein, and Mark Hall, urge contractual ordering of clinical standards of care; relationships among physicians, hospitals, and health care payers; and physicians' conflicting obligations to patients, payers, and other third parties.
Again, Havinghurst appears to have been one of the principal, if not the principal advocate to use anti-trust law against small groups of physicians, and against the notion that physicians can promulgate their own codes of ethical conduct. In an introduction to an article by Havinghurst in Health Affairs in 1983.(2)
For a decade or more, Clark Havighurst has been a philosophical thorn in the side of organized medicine, preaching a view of the health sphere that rejects decision making by professional self-regulation in favor of a system based on marketplace principles.Note that in retrospect, this article seemed to stake out Health Affair's position as an important organ to promote market fundamentalism in health care.
How convenient that Prof Havinghurst is still affiliated with Duke and in a position to defend his university's treatment of other faculty.
I urge you to scan Health Care Renewal to see how the change from professional self-regulation of ethics to the free rein of the laissez faire marketplace turned out. Look here for our first reporting on the late Dr Arnold Relman's discussion of how medicine was pressured to accept commercialization, and how that acceptance has since decimated our core values. Look here for our discussion of the fallacy of the perfect market in health care. Look here for a rebuttal from an authority we do not often quote of the concept of health care as a commodity versus a calling.
Summary
Note that the outcome of the lawsuit against Duke and UNC is unknown. The allegations it makes are not proven. However, I chose to discuss it because the evidence, particularly the emails reproduced in the court filing, seems pretty strong that the two schools did have an actual agreement not to compete in the hiring of faculty, and the argument that his suppressed faculty wages and opportunity is prety strong and obvious.
Academic physicians, particularly at elite institutions, may feel they are in a rarefied atmosphere separate from the hurley burley or everyday health care. They may feel they are protected from, and can even ignore the health care dysfunction we discuss on Health Care Renewal. They certainly may not think of themselves as "wage slaves" from the era of trusts, monopolies, and robber barons.
But this case exhibits that academic medical institutions are getting closer to the ruthless world of poorly regulated, commercialized, market fundamentalist health care. Talk about collegiality is nice, but it seems pretty clear that the "non-poaching" agreement between Duke and UNC may have reflected collegiality among top medical school leadership, but limited their faculty salaries and individual faculty members' choices and opportunities. This seems like another example, however soft spoken and genteel, of the leaders of health care organizations putting the interests of their own ingroup ahead of the interests of the larger organizations and the mission they are supposed to serve.
It is time for even academic physicians to realize that they are not protected from the troubles of the larger world. If they truly believe in their professional values, if they really care about patients' and the public's health, and about medical and health care science and education, they will have to start speaking up, or they will end up wage slaves of the new health care robber barons along with nearly everyone else.
To lighten things up at the end, the Eagles doing Hotel California live in 1977 -
"We are all prisoners here, of our own device"
References
1. Bloche MG. Trust and betrayal in the medical marketplace. Stanford Law Review 2002; 55: 919-954. Link here.
2. Havinghurst C. The doctors' trust. self-regulation and the law. Health Affairs 1983; 2: 64-76. Link here.
