Who Benefits? - Hospital Profits and Quality May Fall, But Hospital Executives' Compensation Keeps Rising

boards of trustees executive compensation hospital systems hospitals Lahey health market fundamentalism MetroHealth Medical Center pay for performance

Who Benefits? - Hospital Profits and Quality May Fall, But Hospital Executives' Compensation Keeps Rising

Unknown 5/03/2016 Komentar

Despite recent attempts at health care reform, US health care dysfunction seems to proceed inexorably with ever rising costs, and continuing problems with access and quality.  A likely reason is that those who find the current system personally profitable are in a position to resist real reform.  The people who seem to gain the most from the status quo are top hired executives of big health care organizations.

In particular, stories about huge pay for hospital and hospital system managers continuously appear in the media.  For example, starting in October, 2015, we saw the following headlines:

- Pittsburgh, PA, October, 2015: "Former Highmark CEO Made Nearly $10 Million in 2014, Tax Records Show"
- Regarding Rochester General and Unity health systems in Rochester, NY, November, 2015: "Here's Why Execs Got Millions After Health Merger"
- Regarding the CEO of North Shore-LIJ Health System in NY, November, 2015: "This Guy Makes $10M a Year to Head a Nonprofit"
- In Idaho, February, 2016, "Pay for 9 Treasure Valley Nonprofit Hospital Employees Hits or Tops $1 Million"

Even more interesting are stories that show massive compensation of executives despite their hospitals' apparent poor performance.  Since October, 2015, we also found the following (in chronological order)


Let Go After "Uneven Financial Performance," CEO of Kaleida Health Got $1.6 Million of Severance in One Year, with More to Come

In November, 2015 the Buffalo (NY) New reported that James R Kaskie, the CEO of Kaleida Health, the "largest healthcare provider in Western New York," per its website, was "forced out" when

the board cited a need for a change in leadership amid an uneven financial performance for the system....

Nonetheless,

Kaleida Health paid $1.6 million in 2014 to its former CEO, James R. Kaskie, after forcing him out early last year, according to its most recent federal regulatory filing.

Also,

Kaleida will pay Kaskie 24 months of severance under the terms of Kaskie’s employment contract with the system, John R. Koelmel, chairman of the Kaleida board, told The Buffalo News on Thursday.

Kaskie was paid 10 months of severance plus deferred compensation, which is the $1.6 million reflected in the latest regulatory filing. He will be paid 12 months of severance in 2015 and a final two months of severance in 2016.

Mr Kaskie was paid even better the year before:

Kaskie earned $1.9 million in 2013, his last year as CEO.

Furthermore, other executives who were let go after Mr Kaskie's departure also were very well paid,

Dr. Margaret W. Paroski, former executive vice president and chief medical officer, who was replaced by Lomeo after he took over as CEO last year, $763,552.

Joseph M. Kessler, former executive vice president and chief financial officer, who was replaced by Lomeo, $608,454.

The article explained that

Hospitals, corporations and other entities negotiate severance agreements as part of the employment contracts when they hire top executives

So not only to these executives earn top dollar, but their earnings continue even if they lose their jobs because of poor performance. When asked to explain these levels of remuneration, and contracts that allow executives to get continuing pay even after being "forced out" for "uneven financial performance," John R Koelmel, the chairman of the system's board, said

Companies pay at market. To recruit the best talent, you need to pay at least market.

Public Hospital MetroHealth Medical Center Scored Below Average on Patient Satisfaction and Quality, but CEO Got $1.1 Million

In March, 2016, Cleveland Ohio television station NewsNet5 reported

MetroHealth Medical Center is a public hospital that is supported with $32.4 million of taxpayer money--roughly 5 percent of the hospital's budget.

Also,

a check with a federal database of patient satisfaction levels and quality measures at hospitals across the country found MetroHealth fell below the national average.

Nonetheless, its CEO, Dr Akram Boutos, got $1.1 million in salary, and presumably considerably more in bonuses.

Dr J B Silvers, '"a nationally recognized expert on hospital CEO compensation and professor at Case Western Reserve's business school," who is a MetroHealth board member,

insisted that Dr. Boutros is being fairly compensated when compared to his peers. 

Furthermore,

He admitted the salary is first tied to profits--then a series of other quality measures like patient care, diversity, hospital improvements and employee satisfaction.

But the ties to satisfaction and quality may not bind, because he then tried to explain away the quality and satisfaction data,

Silvers argues those surveys may be misleading.

'Populations like ours, Medicaid populations, uncompensated care--poor people tend to rate organizations lower,' said Silvers.

But then admitted it was really about the money,

'We have to have a target in terms of financial performance because if you don't make the money you can't be in business,' said Silvers.

In Massachusetts, "As Hospital Profits Fall, Executive Pay Soars"

In April, 2016, the Lowell (MA) Sun published a long report on local hospital executive compensation.  It started

It has been a lean couple of years for the region's hospitals.

Drawn by the higher reimbursement rates that insurers pay to academic teaching hospitals, such as those in Boston, more physicians are affiliating themselves with those institutions. Patients are following, and so is the money.

Some community hospitals, including Lowell General Hospital and Emerson Hospital in Concord, saw profit margins drop by more than half from 2012 to 2014.

Other hospitals' financial indicators, like ratios of assets to liabilities, are also weakening,...

However,

As they look to weather those storms and protect their space in a rapidly changing health-care landscape, the boards of directors of the region's hospitals have doubled down on a key investment: their executives.

'Each organization has to make its own decisions about how it can best compete in the marketplace,' said Gary Young, director of Northeastern University's Center for Health Policy and Healthcare Research.

Senior executives of hospitals and health-care systems -- there's a competitive market for that kind of talent ... some would say when organizations run into trouble, they need to spend more to get leaders.'

So,

At Lawrence General Hospital, compensation paid to top non-physician administrators increased 41 percent from 2012 to 2014, according to tax documents. President and CEO Dianne Anderson, who heads the list, was paid a total package of $884,092 in 2014.

Also,

From 2012 to 2014, Lahey Health's non-physician executives saw a compensation increase of 36 percent. A large part of that increase was in the salary of Dr. Howard Grant, who was promoted from president and CEO of Lahey Clinic to president and CEO of the entire Lahey Health system. The system includes facilities throughout northeastern Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire. Grant received $1.7 million in 2014.

In addition,

Lowell General Hospital's executives saw a slightly smaller increase during that three-year span, at 18 percent, although CEO Normand Deschene remains the highest-paid hospital executive in the region with a package worth $1.9 million in 2014. The hospital also pays the taxes on retirement benefits, which are worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, for Deschene and several other executives.

The justifications for these increases in times of financial trouble were similar.  For example, re Lawrence General Hospital,

'Because we're resource-limited, compared to (academic) hospitals, we're even more dependent in these challenging times to bring in somebody who can manage risk,' said Richard Santagati, chairman of Lawrence General's executive compensation committee. 'It takes a different breed and there's real competition for these people ... and once you have them there, you want to keep them because there's a learning curve there that is unique to each hospital.'

Re Lahey Clinic,

'Our executive compensation is comparable to the programs of other, similarly sized health networks and is reflective of the complex role of an executive leader at a leading health system,' Lahey Health said in a statement.

Finally, at Lowell General Hospital, the CEO defended his own pay:

'Lowell General has weathered significant changes in the delivery of health care,' Deschene said. 'At a time when many hospitals have failed, it's very crucial and critical that we have very talented individuals to lead the hospital.' 

The Usual Talking Points Again Invoked

Hospital management used the usual talking points to justify the pay they received,  As I wrote last year 

It seems nearly every attempt made to defend the outsize compensation given hospital and health system executives involves the same arguments, thus suggesting they are talking points, possibly crafted as a public relations ploy. We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use. here, here here, here, here, and here, here and here. 

They are:
- We have to pay competitive rates
- We have to pay enough to retain at least competent executives, given how hard it is to be an executive
- Our executives are not merely competitive, but brilliant (and have to be to do such a difficult job).

So in the stories above, we found, for example:

- Competitive Rates: "you need to pay at least market" (Kaleida), and "there's real competition for these people" (Lawrence General)
- Retention: "you want to keep them" (Lawrence General)
- Brilliance: "the best talent" (Kaleida),  "very talented individuals" (Lowell General)

It appears that those justifying huge executive payments have all been handed these same talking points.

Yet none of them quite make sense.  The brilliance argument is particularly suspect in cases like those above of CEOs whose hospitals' performance was clearly not brilliant according to the metrics supposedly used to judge them. 

Economists Challenge the Management Dogma Justifying Huge Executive Compensation

Furthermore, these talking points seem to derive from decreasingly credible current management dogma about executive compensation propagated by business schools.

The Invisible Hand, or A Hand on the Scales?

For example, writing in the Independent during January, 2016, Ben Chu questioned the market fundamentalist theory that all employees pay has been perfectly chosen by the infallible invisible hand of the market:

When confronted with an outburst of public anger over massive corporate pay for a privileged few, a common response of the libertarian right is to invoke the economics of the free market.

Such spectacular rewards, we’re informed, are delivered by individuals selling their labour in a free market. And because such pay levels were set through this natural process, no one has the moral right to question them. Further, to interfere with such natural processes would be economically inefficient, making us all worse off in the end.

Such contentions are based on

a venerable economic theory [that is] behind this kind of reasoning. At the end of the 19th century, the American economist John Bates Clark hypothesised that in a perfectly competitive economy, demand for labour is determined by its 'marginal productivity' and wage rates are determined by the 'marginal product' of labour.

To translate, if a firm can make a profit by adding another worker to its payroll, it will do so. And the amount a firm will be willing to pay for that labour in wages will be determined by the additional profit the individual worker adds to the company’s bottom line. So if a worker adds a lot of profit, he or she can command a lot of compensation. But if they add only a little profit, he or she will get only a little. This means people with low personal productivity get small amounts. But people with high personal productivity (chief executives for instance) receive big bucks.

For a start, how does a company know what the marginal product of an individual worker is, or will be? This isn’t something that is directly measurable. The vast majority of us work in teams; how is it possible for management to determine our individual contribution to the financial success of that team, or of that team to the company? How can a business know how much of the profit added was due to the individual’s particular skills? The conditions necessary for the Clark theory that everyone gets what they 'deserve' don’t exist.

But isn’t the marginal product of bosses, who make big strategic decisions, easier to measure? The ASI cites the late Steve Jobs of Apple as an employee who was clearly worth a lot. However, there are plenty of other chief executives whose individual contribution is impossible to measure. Yes, the company’s share price might have gone up. But was this because the boss was smart? Or just lucky?

Furthermore,

The economist Dani Rodrik, in his latest book Economics Rules, argues that such broad theories of income distribution by the market are best viewed as intellectual 'scaffolding', adding: 'They are shallow approaches that identify the proximate causes but need to be backed up with considerable detail'.

And there are other theories of wage determination that are likely to be relevant. One important one is bargaining theory. This suggests that those who have political power within a firm can extract more than those without it. Maybe the reason chief executives tend to get paid ever growing multiples of the pay of the average worker is not because they are 'worth it' but because they are powerful. As the economist JK Galbraith put it: 'The salary of the chief executive of a large corporation is not a market award for achievement. It is frequently in the nature of a warm personal gesture by the individual to himself.'

The Dangers of Pay for Performance

In a February, 2016, article in the Harvard Business Review, Cable and Vermeulen challenged the dogma that managers' (and in health care, physicians' and other professionals') pay should largely be based on "performance."

performance-based pay can actually have dangerous outcomes for companies that implement it.

They cited five points based on at least some research evidence to back up their contention.

1. Contingent pay only works for routine tasks. Companies should abolish contingent pay for their top executives because theirs is the least appropriate job for it. Decades of strong evidence make it clear that large performance-related incentives work for routine tasks, but are detrimental when the tasks is not standard and requires creativity.

***

2. Fixating on performance can weaken it. The goal of most executive incentive plans is to focus leaders on hitting goals and achieving outcomes. After all, that’s why it’s often called performance-based pay.' But as researchers have found, if you want great performance, performance is the wrong goal to fixate on.

Several studies have shown that when employees frame their goals around learning (i.e., developing a particular competence; acquiring a new set of skills; mastering a new situation) it improves their performance compared with employees who frame their work around performance outcomes (i.e., hitting results targets; proving competence; seeking favorable judgments from others).

***

3. Intrinsic motivation crowds out extrinsic motivation. When people feel intrinsically motivated, they do things because they inherently want to, for their own satisfaction and sense of achievement. When people are extrinsically motivated, they do things because they will receive bigger rewards. The goal of contingent pay is to increase extrinsic motivation – but intrinsic motivation is fundamental to creativity and innovation.

***

4. Contingent pay leads to cooking the books. When a large proportion of a person’s pay is based on variable financial incentives, those people are more likely to cheat. In academic terms, we would put it this way: extrinsic motivation causes people to distort the truth regarding goal attainment.

When people are largely motivated by the financial rewards for hitting results, it becomes attractive to game the metrics and make it seem as though a payout is due. For example, different studies have shown that paying CEOs based on stock options significantly increases the likelihood of earnings manipulations, shareholder lawsuits, and product safety problems. When people’s remuneration depends strongly on a financial measure, they are going to maximize their performance on that measure; no matter how.

***

 5. All measurement systems are flawed. Incentive plans demand that some metric be used as the trigger for a payout. The problem is that whatever package you construct – bonds, stocks, or bonuses – whatever performance criteria you decide on will be imperfect. For a complex job such as senior management, it is simply not possible to precisely measure someone’s “actual” performance, given that it consists of many different stakeholders’ interests, tangible and tacit resources, and short- and long-term effects. Even with HR executives clamoring for enhanced “people analytics” (and technology companies bending over backwards to deliver them) any measure you choose is going to be an inadequate representation of how you would like your CEO to behave.

Note first that these points suggest that the increased use of performance based pay for health care organizations' top managers may explain why many health care organizations actually perform so badly, and point 4 may help explain why pay for performance may actually help increase health care corruption.  

Note further that pay for performance (P4P) for health care professionals has been strongly pushed by many health policy experts, yet all these points also seem applicable to that usage.

Conclusion - Change Will be Resisted

So even when non-profit hospitals and hospital systems perform poorly, their executives continue to receive ever greater remuneration.  The executives, their public relations flacks, and their often compliant boards of trustees continue to cite the same stale talking points to justify their pay.  Yet these talking points are based on market fundamentalist theory and business school dogma whose credibility is increasingly challenged.  In the absence of anyone willing to confront them with these criticisms, the apologists for soaring health care executive pay continue to prattle their tired talking points.    

Meanwhile, as corporate governance expert Robert A G Monks said in a 2014 interview,

Chief executive officers' pay is both the symptom and the disease.

Also,

CEO pay is the thermometer. If you have a situation in which, essentially, people pay themselves without reference to history or the value added or to any objective criteria, you have corroboration of... We haven't fundamentally made progress about management being accountable.

Moreover, top health care executives' power to make warm personal gestures to themselves correlates with the ability to defend this power, per Mr Monks,

People with power are very reluctant to give it up. While all of us recognize the problem, those with the power to change it like things the way they are.

So I expect that many hospital and health system CEOs, like leaders of other big health care organizations, may talk about health care reform, but will avoid talking about, and will likely oppose attempts at real reform using their command of their organizations' marketers, public relations flacks, lobbyists, and lawyers.


We need true health care reform that would enable 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.  What we will get is endless resistance to such reform from those who personally profit from the current dysfunctional, and increasingly corrupt system.

Baca selengkapnya

"The Scourge of Managerialism" - Generic Management, the Manager's Coup D'Etat, Mission-Hostile Management Rolled Up, as Described by Some Men from Down Under

economism generic managers global health managerialism managers' coup d'etat market fundamentalism Medical Journal of Australia neoliberalism

"The Scourge of Managerialism" - Generic Management, the Manager's Coup D'Etat, Mission-Hostile Management Rolled Up, as Described by Some Men from Down Under

Unknown 10/21/2015 Komentar

I just found an important article that in the June, 2015 issue of the Medical Journal of Australia(1) that sums up many of ways the leadership of medical (and most other organizations) have gone wrong.  It provides a clear, organized summary of "managerialism" in health care, which roughly rolls up what we have called generic management, the manager's coup d'etat, and aspects of mission-hostile management into a very troubling but coherent package.  I will summarize the main points, giving relevant quotes.

Recent Developments in Business Management Dogma Have Gravely Affected Health Care

Many health practitioners will consider the theory of business management to be of obscure relevance to clinical practice. They might therefore be surprised to learn that the changes that have occurred in this discipline over recent years have driven a fundamental revolution that has already transformed their daily lives, arguably in perverse and harmful ways.

These Changes Have Been Largely Anechoic

these changes have by and large been introduced insidiously, with little public debate, under the guise of unquestioned 'best practice'.

See our previous discussions of the anechoic effect, how discussion of facts and ideas that threaten what we can now call the managerialist power structure of health care are not considered appropriate for polite conversation, or public discussion

Businesses are Now Run by Professional Managers, Not Owners

The traditional control by business owners in Europe and North America gave way during the 19th century to corporate control of companies. This led to the emergence of a new group of professionals whose job it was to perform the administrative tasks of production. Consequently, management became identified as both a skill and a profession in its own right, requiring specific training and based on numerous emergent theories of practice.

These Changes Were Enabled by Neoliberalism (or Market Fundamentalism, or Economism)

Among these many vicissitudes, a decisive new departure occurred with the advent of what became known as neoliberalism in the 1980s (sometimes called Thatcherism because of its enthusiastic adoption by the Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher in the United Kingdom). A reaction against Keynesian economic policy and the welfare state, this harshly reinstated the regulatory role of the market in all aspects of economic activity and led directly to the generalisation of the standards and practices of management from the private to the public sectors. The radical cost cutting and privatisation of social services that followed the adoption of neoliberal principles became a public policy strategy rigorously embraced by governments around the world, including successive Liberal and Labor governments in Australia.

Note that this is a global problem, at least of English speaking developed countries.  The article focuses on Australia, but we have certainly seen parallels in the US and the UK.  Further, note that we have discussed this concept, also termed market fundamentalism or economism.

Managerialism Provides a One-Size Fits All Approach to the Management of All Organizations, in Which Money Becomes the Central Consideration

The particular system of beliefs and practices defining the roles and powers of managers in our present context is what is referred to as managerialism. This is defined by two basic tenets: (i) that all social organisations must conform to a single structure; and (ii) that the sole regulatory principle is the market. Both ideas have far-reaching implications. The claim that every organisation — whether it is a mining company, a hospital, a school, a professional association or a charity — must be structured according to a single model, conforming to a single set of legislative requirements, not so long ago would have seemed bizarre, but is now largely taken for granted. The principle of the market has become the solitary, or dominant, criterion for decision making, and other criteria, such as loyalty, trust, care and a commitment to critical reflection, have become displaced and devalued. Indeed, the latter are viewed as quaint anachronisms with less importance and meaning than formal procedures or standards that can be readily linked to key performance indicators, budget end points, efficiency markers and externally imposed targets.

Originally conceived as a strategy to manage large and increasingly complex organisations, in the contemporary world, no aspect of social life is now considered to be exempt from managerialist principles and practices. Policies and practices have become highly standardised, emphasising market-style incentives, devolved budgets and outsourcing, replacement of centralised budgeting with departmentalised user-pays systems, casualisation of labour, and an increasingly hierarchical approach to every aspect of institutional and social organisation.

We have frequently discussed how professional generic managers have taken over health care (sometimes referred to as the manager's coup d'etat.)  We have noted that generic managers often seem ill-informed about if not overtly hostile to the values of health care professionals and the missions of health care organizations.

Very Adverse Effects Result in Health Care and Academics

In the workplace, the authority of management is intensified, and behaviour that previously might have been regarded as bullying becomes accepted good practice. The autonomous discretion of the professional is undermined, and cuts in staff and increases in caseload occur without democratic consultation of staff.   Loyal long-term staff are dismissed and often humiliated, and rigorous monitoring of the performance of the remaining employees focuses on narrowly defined criteria relating to attainment of financial targets, efficiency and effectiveness.

The principles of managerialist theory have been applied equally to the public and the private sectors. In the health sector, it has precipitated a shift in power from clinicians to managers and a change in emphasis from a commitment to patient care to a primary concern with budgetary efficiency. Increasingly, public hospital funding is tied to reductions in bed stays and other formal criteria, and all decision making is subject to review relating to time and money. Older and chronically ill people become seen not as subjects of compassion, care and respect but as potential financial burdens. This does not mean that the system is not still staffed by skilled clinicians committed to caring for the sick and needy; it is rather that it has become increasingly harder for these professionals to do their jobs as they would like.

In the university sector, the story is much the same; all activities are assessed in relation to the prosperity of the institution as a business enterprise rather than as a social one. Education is seen as a commodity like any other, with priority given to vocational skills rather than intellectual values. Teaching and research become subordinated to administration, top-down management and obsessively applied management procedures. Researchers are required to generate external funding to support their salaries, to focus on short-term problems, with the principal purpose being to enhance the university's research ranking. The focus shifts from knowledge to grant income, from ideas to publications, from speculation to conformity, from collegiality to property, and from academic freedom to control. Rigid hierarchies are created from heads of school to deans of faculties and so on. Academic staff — once encouraged to engage in public life — are forbidden to speak publicly without permission from their managers.

Again, we have discussed these changes largely in the US context.  We have noted how modern health care leadership has threatened primary care.  We have noted how vulnerable patients become moreso in the current system, e.g., see our discussions of for-profit hospices.  We have discussed attacks on academic freedom and free speech, the plight of whistle-blowers, education that really is deceptive marketing, academic institutions mired in individual and institutional conflicts of interest, and the suppression and manipulation of clinical research.  We have noted how health care leaders have become increasingly richly rewarded, apparently despite, or perhaps because of the degradation of the health care mission over which they have presided.

The Case Study

The article provided a case study of the apparent demise of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians as a physician led organization, leading to alleged emphasis on "extreme secrecy and 'commercial in confidence," growth of conflicts of interest, risk aversion on controversial issues.  When members of the organization called for a vote to increase transparency and accountability, the hired management apparently sued their own members.

Authors' Summary

Whether the damage done to the larger institutions — the public hospitals and the universities — can be reversed, or even stemmed, is a bigger question still. The most that can be said is that even if the present, damaging phase of managerial theory and practice eventually passes, its destructive effects will linger on for many years to come.

My Summary

I now believe that the most important cause of US health care dysfunction, and likely of global health care dysfunction, are the problems in leadership and governance we have often summarized (leadership that is ill-informed, ignorant or hostile to the health care mission and professional values, incompetent, self-interested, conflicted or outright criminal or corrupt, and governance that lacks accountability, transparency, honesty, and ethics.)  In turn, it appears that these problems have been generated by the twin plagues of managerialism (generic management, the manager's coup d'etat) and neoliberalism (market fundamentalism, economism) as applied to health care.  It may be the many of the larger problems in US and global society also can be traced back to these sources.

We now see our problems in health care as part of a much larger whole, which partly explains why efforts to address specific health care problems country by country have been near futile.  We are up against something much larger than what we thought when we started Health Care Renewal in 2005.  But at least we should now be able join our efforts to those in other countries and in other sectors.   

ADDENDUM (30 October, 2015) - This post was republished on the Naked Capitalism blog.  See the comments, which are particularly interesting and important.  

Reference

1.  Komesaroff PA, Kerridge IH, Isaacs D, Brooks PM.  The scourge of managerialism and the Royal Australasian College of Physicians.  Med J Aust 2015; 202: 519- 521.  Link here.

Musical Diversion

We have to leaven this dismal post with the 1980 live version of "Down Under" by Men at Work

Baca selengkapnya

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

antitrust corporate physician Duke University economism market fundamentalism medical schools University of North Carolina

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

Unknown 8/28/2015 Komentar

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.

[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.

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.

Both emails are included in the filing by Dr Seaman's lawyers.


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.

Baca selengkapnya

Health Care Run by Those "Who See the Practice of Medicine as a Set of Economic Transactions," or as a "Moral Endeavor?"

generic management generic managers market fundamentalism

Health Care Run by Those "Who See the Practice of Medicine as a Set of Economic Transactions," or as a "Moral Endeavor?"

Unknown 3/10/2015 Komentar

Calls are getting louder for restoring medicine and health care as a calling that puts patients first, versus a business that puts money first.  For example, in the conclusion of her opening talk for the 2015 Lown Institute Annual Conference: the Road to RightCare, Shannon Brownlee said, [with italics added for emphasis]

So today I stand before you not as a writer turned health policy expert turned health care activist, though I’m still all of those things. I stand before you as a mother, a wife, a daughter . . . and a citizen. I stand before you filled on the one hand, with dismay . . . and on the other hand with a full measure of hope. I stand here to welcome you to the work we are all doing to transform healthcare.

And our first step is to name our task. It is not just stamping out overuse, though we must do that. It is not just ensuring that patients get the care they need. Though that is unfinished business.

Getting to the right care also requires that we recognize the historic choice we face between opposing world views. On one side are those who see the practice of medicine as a set of economic transactions, and healthcare as just another business. This side thinks the market solves all ills. This side sees the health professions as the labor needed to run a highly profitable industry. You are the 'providers' of services -- the help. Patients are revenue. Excuse me, 'consumers.'

On the other side of this divide are those who see healthcare as a moral endeavor. This side seeks to serve both patients and the common social good. This side knows that ignoring the patient as vulnerable human being is the quintessential failure of our system. This side acknowledges our need for hospitals, and for companies to manufacture drugs, and devices, and scalpels and surgical gloves. But the delivery of healthcare should not be designed for their benefit.

If we want to get to the right care, we must begin to envision a vastly different system. A just system. A system whose purpose is to serve patients and communities. A system that is not just reformed, but radically transformed.

The purpose of this conference, the reason we are all here today, is to find our way towards that transformation.

[The above was reprinted with Ms Brownlee's permission.]

On Health Care Renewal, we have long been showing the consequences of health care run by generic managers who believe the business school dogma of promoting "shareholder" value, even when their organization has no shareholders, by putting short term revenue ahead of all else.  They are backed by market fundamentalists who believe all of human life can be reduced to business transactions.  The results have been very profitable to some, particularly to the very same generic managers, in terms of every rising executive compensation untethered to any clear evidence for these managers' achievements, beyond making money.  I have suggested that this has become a major cause of health care dysfunction, of ever rising costs, shrinking access, and threatened quality.  True health reform, or transformation, to use Ms Brownlee's term, would restore the priority of patients' and the public's health, and return health care to those who see it as a calling, not just a way to get rich. 

Baca selengkapnya