"A Kind of Blackmail": A Not-for-Profit Health Insurance Company CEO's Salary So Large It "Had Broken the Law"

Here is another case in the annals of over-paid executives of not-for-profit health care organizations, this time from the Burlington (VT) Free-Press,

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont overpaid its former chief executive officer by $3 million over an eight-year period and has been ordered to pay the money back to its subscribers by 2012 in the form of reduced premiums, a top state regulator said Wednesday.

The action by the state Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration Department follows last year’s disclosure that William Milnes, the nonprofit firm’s former CEO, received a $7.2 million payout when he stepped down in 2008.

Furthermore, note that

[Commissioner of the Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration Department Paulette] Thabault said her department had concluded Blue Cross had broken the law by paying Milnes more money than necessary to perform his functions as head of the nonprofit health-benefits provider.

The Department's review found obvious flaws in how Blue Cross Blue Shield set its former CEO's pay:

The department’s review found that Milnes’ salary package while at Blue Cross was excessive, and in some years, he was paid more in bonuses than he received in base pay. In 2005, for example, Milnes was paid $425,000 in salary and $489,800 in bonuses.

'Other health insurance or managed care organizations of a similar size to the Vermont company compensate their chief executive officers at a level of about 45 percent to 50 percent less than the compensation levels set by the company for Mr. Milnes,' the department order said in part.

The department said Blue Cross used a 'peer group' study to justify the pay it gave Milnes, but regulators concluded the study was flawed because it put Milnes’ position on the same level of chief executive officers of much larger Blue Cross sister companies.

'The peer group ... used in 2007 included 14 companies, all but one of which were substantially larger in terms of annual gross premiums,' the department’s order said. 'Nine of the 14 companies had gross premiums in excess of $1 billion.' Blue Cross gross premiums for 2007 were $590 million.

This story is striking because it seems that the overpayment of a not-for-profit health care organization's executive this time seemed to rise to the level of crime. However, current Blue Cross leaders seemed unconcerned.

'The company accepts the findings of the department, and it just wants to move on at this point,' [Blue Cross and Blue Shield spokesman Kevin] Goddard said.

Somehow, whenever a health care organization's conduct is publicly revealed to be shameful, the response is not sorrow or apology, but let's just "move on." Moving on, of course, minimizes the accountability of those initially responsible for the bad behavior.

Furthermore, do not expect corporate leadership to acknowledge anything wrong with how the pay for the top hired corporate executive was determined.

Goddard said the company thought the peer group numbers it was using were sound.

'Our board used a comprehensive analysis to come up with a compensation package for Bill,' he said. 'We relied on what we thought was professional information.'

One begins to feel a little sorry for the poor spokesman who is obligated to mouth these sorts of sentiments. Whether the analysis was rational, or the "professional information" was relevant or correct seems not to have bee anyone's concern.

In addition, although Blue Cross and Blue Shield is now obligated to reimburse its policy-holders for former CEO Milnes' excessive pay, do not expect the money to come out of his pocket:

None of the $3 million the company has to pay back will come from Milnes. Blue Cross asked Milnes, through his attorney, if he would give back some of the money but was rejected, according to documents in the case made public Wednesday.

'He has made it quite clear that Mr. Milnes is not willing to make a voluntary repayment of any portion of the Supplemental Executive Retirement Program distribution,' Christopher Gannon, a Blue Cross vice president, wrote in a letter to Thabault’s department Jan. 21.

One would think that the current company management would be so upset about its new $3 million obligation, that it would aggressively try to recover the money from the person who benefited from it. However, it seems that all the current Blue Cross and Blue Shield management was willing to do was politely requesting that Mr Milnes return it. Suing a former CEO, of course, is just something that is not done. Perhaps it would be too disturbing to  the cozy atmosphere now prevailing among top executives and the boards of trustees who are supposed to be supervising them. This seems to make clear that no one at Blue Cross and Blue Shield ever really was responsible for what Mr Milnes was paid.

As an editorial in the Rutland Herald put it:

On its face, it was an outrage. Blue Cross is a nonprofit corporation that insures about 150,000 Vermonters. That a nonprofit with a mission of providing health care coverage should be a source of extravagant personal profit was an affront to all Vermonters, including those struggling to pay escalating premiums, those struggling to find adequate care, or those with no coverage at all.

The usual excuse from companies is that big money is necessary to attract big talent. It's a marketplace. But this excuse is really a kind of blackmail that allows corporate executives to collude in the inflation of their own worth.

So the notion of the "imperial CEO" who can virtually set his or her own pay, unencumbered by any real accountability to a board of trustees who would dare not ruffle the imperial feathers has now been imported even into relatively small health care organizations in New England states once famed for their common-sense and frugality.

So here we go again.... We have discussed numerous examples of compensation of health care organizations' leadership that seems orders of magnitude above that which would be rationally justified. These latest examples of the wealth being accumulated by leaders of supposedly mission-centered not-for-profit organizations are a product of the current management culture that has been infused into nearly every health care organization in the US. That culture holds that managers are different from you and me. They are entitled to a special share of other people's money. Because of their innate and self-evident brilliance, they are entitled to become rich. This entitlement exists even when the economy, or the financial performance of the specific organization prevents other people from making any economic progress. This entitlement exists even if those other people actually do the work, and ultimately provide the money that sustains the organization.

Although the executives of not-for-profit health care organizations generally make far less than executives of for-profit health care corporations, collectively, hired managers of even not-for-profit health care organizations have become richer and richer at a time when most Americans, including many health professionals, and most primary care physicians, have seen their incomes stagnate or fall. They are less and less restrained by passive, if not crony boards, and more and more unaccountable. In a kind of multi-centric coup d'etat of the hired managers, they have become our new de facto aristocracy.

Or as we wrote in our previous post, executive compensation in health care seems best described as Prof Mintzberg described compensation for finance CEOs, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit." As it did in finance, compensation madness is likely to keep the health care bubble inflating until it bursts, with the expected adverse consequences. Meanwhile, I say again, if health care reformers really care about improving access and controlling costs, they will have to have the courage to confront the powerful and self-interested leaders who benefit so well from their previously mission-driven organizations. It is time to reverse the coup d'etat of the hired managers.

An Attempt to Hold Health Care Leaders Accountable for Their Organizations' Bad Behavior?

We have frequently noted how health care organizations accused of kickbacks, fraud, and other unethical and sometimes illegal behavior involving how they produce or market health care products or services often are allowed to settle the charges only with a fines to the companies, and sometimes with corporate integrity agreements.  Almost never are the people who authorized, directed, or implemented the unethical behavior required to pay any sort of penalty.  We recently commented on a case in which an executive of a medical device company accused of exaggerating the performance of a diagnostic test in development was charged, not with misleading doctors or patients by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), but with misleading investors by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).  That executive lost her job, and will be barred from leading any public company.

So up to now, a corporate executive responsible for misleading doctors or patients about issues that could affect clinical decisions or outcomes likely would never pay a penalty, but one responsible for misleading  investors about similar issues could lose his or her job and livelihood.

Now, per an article in Fortune, it appear the situation may be changing,

The federal government is fed up with the amount of fraud, especially recurring fraud from the same companies, happening in the pharmaceutical industry. So regulators have decided that when it comes to punishments, it's time to get personal.

From now on, individual executives risk being ejected from their jobs -- and perhaps even barred from the industry -- for fraud their companies commit, even if they did not participate or even know about the crimes.

Furthermore,

The new approach, emerging from the unusually powerful Inspector General's office in the Department of Health and Human Services, reflects frustration with corporate recidivism even in the face of ramped-up fines, penalties and disgorgements.

'We are going to start to use that authority in the appropriate circumstances to get high level executives out of companies, so that the company has a better shot at changing its behavior, so that it does not become a recidivist,' explains Lewis Morris, chief counsel to the Inspector General.

The article noted some cases in which even large fines and corporate integrity agreements seemingly failed to deter future bad behavior by the companies which paid these penalties. For example,

In the government's most recent major settlement -- in which AstraZeneca agreed to pay $520 million -- the fine represented 16.5% of the $8.6 billion income (between 2001-2006) from U.S. sales of Seroquel, a powerful anti-psychotic. AstraZeneca (AZN) turned this narrowly approved drug into a cash cow by marketing it for much wider use, including by the elderly and children, even though they are particularly vulnerable to 'serious and debilitating side effects.'

All the while, AstraZeneca was operating under a corporate integrity agreement (CIA) with the Inspector General, imposed after a 2003 off-label marketing case.

We discussed the AZ settlement here in October, 2009. We asked then, "Does anyone really still believe that integrity agreements, and settlements assessed against huge corporations deter such profitable bad behavior?"

Another example:

Drug company Pfizer (PFE, Fortune 500), which was fined $2.3 billion just last September, is now on its third CIA. Steeper fines and harsh individual penalties should help put more teeth into these agreements and keep companies from flouting them.

We discussed the repeated lack of effect of settlements by Pfizer here in September, 2009. We concluded, "So will even a $2,300,000,000 settlement and yet another corporate integrity agreement make Pfizer or any other health care corporation act more ethically? I doubt it."

The Fortune article quoted Peter Rost, former Pfizer executive turned whistle-blower and ethics advocate (and to whose blog I offer a hat tip for first mentioning the Fortune article), on aspects of corporate culture and corporate incentives that foster repeated unethical behavior by management,

'Usually by the time someone becomes a senior executive they are very aware of the pitfalls in the organization, and they have become masters at not doing something wrong or not getting caught doing something wrong,' explains Peter Rost, a former senior Pfizer executive turned industry gadfly.

Incentive-based compensation systems -- typically 40% to 50% of salespeople's income comes from hitting their numbers -- are one weak point. 'They are going to work real hard to increase those numbers and do whatever it takes, and if they think somebody gave them a wink about doing this or that, they are going to run with it.' says Rost.

Booting senior executives out for any fraud under their watch might end the wink-and-nod system, giving hope to critics.

In my humble opinion, the government's new approach looks like real progress. Giving corporate executives personal impunity was a recipe for increasing unethical, and sometimes criminal behavior. The sorts of marketing fraud they authorized or directed certainly lead to increasing costs, and overuse of unnecessary and sometimes harmful tests and treatments. While there have years of complaints about health care's increasing costs and decreasing quality in health policy circles, it is just amazing that until now, there has been so little action against the bad behavior that was undoubtedly responsible for much of these problems.

So three cheers for making health care organizations' leaders accountable for the bad behavior of their organizations.

After cheering, however, there ought to be some serious inquiry about why they were not held accountable much sooner.  It turns out that there has been legal justification for holding leaders so accountable available for a long time:

All that's required for the government to flex this remarkably broad authority -- embedded in the Responsible Corporate Officers Doctrine -- is that the executives were in a position to have stopped the fraud that resulted in a criminal conviction or plea.

Note that the Responsible Corporate Officers Doctrine apparently derives from a US Supreme Court case about the selling of misbranded or adulterated drugs into interstate commerce under the US Food and Drug Act, decided in 1943.

However, it looks like in the hyper laissez faire climate of the last 20 or more years, no one wanted to bother to invoke it. After all, the formerly highly regarded leader of the US Federal Reserve believed there was no need for regulators to punish fraud, because the magic of the market would take care of it. US health care has paid a heavy price for such breathtaking naivete (see the PBS Frontline show, "The Warning." )

HAPPY TIMES AT NIMH – PART III

Happy Times at NIMH – PART III

The unraveling of Thomas Insel, MD, Director of the National Institute of Mental Health continues. His ties with the poster boy for conflict of interest in psychiatry, Charles Nemeroff, MD, are getting new exposure. The story is notable not only for what it says about Insel and Nemeroff, but also for what it says about the ethical culture within NIMH.

The latest exposé is from Paul Basken in yesterday’s Chronicle of Higher Education. Mr. Basken laid out the appearance of hypocrisy within NIH, with Insel leading an NIH initiative for strengthening ethics rules for medical researchers while he was “quietly help(ing) one of the most prominent transgressors get hired by the University of Miami after a decade of undisclosed corporate payments…” That, of course, would be Nemeroff.

Nemeroff’s new boss at the University of Miami was reassured by Insel last July “that Charlie was absolutely in fine standing" with the NIH. Pascal Goldschmidt, MD, the dean at U Miami, told Mr. Basken “…he was pleased to hear from Dr. Insel that Dr. Nemeroff not only could begin applying for NIH grants as soon as he arrived in Coral Gables, but that he could also continue to serve on the NIH's expert panels that help decide on which grant applications win federal financing.”

Let’s think about what is going on here. If Insel wanted to do favors for Nemeroff, because he owes Nemeroff big time, his rationalization was that Nemeroff has not (yet) been adjudicated a felon. Nemeroff’s case was referred to the Inspector General of HHS by Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) and we don’t know what the outcome will be. So Insel encourages Nemeroff to apply for NIH grants and he allows Nemeroff to begin new service on NIH review committees. As one of Insel’s lieutenants put it, “The NIH must "treat everyone equally unless they have been 'debarred' from funding… " Thus do federal bureaucrats cover their asses by invoking procedural technicalities in order to help their cronies. For NIMH under Insel’s leadership to extend these privileges to a compromised individual like Nemeroff makes as much sense as would allowing the unindicted Michael Corleone to serve on the jury in the trial of Hyman Roth, upon the recommendation of Senator Pat Geary (consult the plot of The Godfather, Part II). Paul Basken’s exposé contains much additional information about cozy, private E-mail traffic between Insel and Nemeroff. As I have commented before, maybe it is time for Insel to recalibrate his ethical compass.

All of this new information validates concerns that I raised over recent months here and here. I said then that Dr. Insel appeared disingenuous in trying to put distance between himself and Dr. Nemeroff. These new revelations by Paul Basken confirm the cronyism in their relationship. In his recent published commentary, Insel downplayed the gravity of the ethical issues surrounding Dr. Nemeroff and some other academic psychiatrists. Basically, he allowed for them to cop a plea on the issue of disclosing payments from corporations, and he tried to point fingers at other medical specialties, while he glossed over the evidence of their wider corruption. With some sadness, one needs now to say that the Director of NIMH cannot or will not recognize the corruption of his cronies. Is that the style of ethical leadership we should expect from an NIH Institute Director?

Bernard Carroll.

Sequenom Executive Pleads Guilty, Banned from Leading Any Public Company (for Misleading Investors About the Performance of a Diagnostic Test?)

We have frequently noted how health care organizations accused of kickbacks, fraud, and other unethical and sometimes potentially illegal behavior involving how they produce or market health care products or services often are allowed to settle the charges only with a fines to the companies, and sometimes with corporate integrity agreements.   

This report from Bloomberg describes a case in which a health care corporation was accused of lying to investors about the performance of a product which it hoped to market. The product was a diagnostic test, and so exaggerating its performance could have affected medical decisions, and hence patients' outcomes, as well as affecting investors' finances. Note how this case was handled.

Elizabeth A. Dragon, former senior vice president of research and development at Sequenom Inc., pleaded guilty today in federal court to conspiracy to commit securities fraud for lying to investors about the company’s prenatal test for Down syndrome, U.S. officials said.

Dragon admitted to making false claims to investors and analysts about the effectiveness of the San Diego-based company’s test as well as attempting to 'inflate and sustain' the price of Sequenom’s shares, said Laura E. Duffy, the U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of California in San Diego, in a statement. Dragon said in a court appearance before U.S. Magistrate Judge Barbara Major that she and others manipulated data to make the Down syndrome test appear more accurate than it was, Duffy said.

Dragon also was accused of lying to investors in a civil complaint filed today in San Diego by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. Dragon settled the claims without admitting or denying wrongdoing and agreed to be barred from serving as an officer or director of a public company, according to the agency’s statement.

Here was how the SEC summed it up:

'Elizabeth Dragon knew the truth about Sequenom’s Down syndrome test, yet she told the public it was a near-perfect success,' Rosalind Tyson, director of the SEC’s Los Angeles office, said in a statement. 'Her actions misled investors with exaggerated information about a significant new product that never materialized.'

What had the company done about this in the past?

In June 2009, the company announced an SEC investigation, and, in September, Sequenom said it dismissed Dragon and Chief Executive Officer Harry Stylli and couldn’t rely on the earlier test results.

And how did it respond to the latest news?

'At this time the company has no comment to make other than we continue to cooperate fully with the government agencies and their investigations,' said Ian Clements, Sequenom’s senior director of corporate communications, in an e-mail.

We have discussed multiple new entrants to the parade of legal settlements by health care organizations. We posted about the most recent entrant here.

It is instructive to compare what happened to the company and personnel involved in that settlement (which happened to be St. Jude Medical) to the events of the current case. As we noted above, when accusations are made about how a company produced or marketed health care products or services, the worst result for the company is usually a fine, rarely amounting to more than a small fraction of the sales of the product or service in question, and sometimes a corporate integrity agreement. Often meanwhile the company may make a statement that it did nothing wrong, and merely settled the case to get on with things.

In the Sequenom case, however, the accusation was of misleading investors (by statements that perhaps just coincidentally could have also misled doctors and patients were the product to have been marketed). The results, however, were that the executives who seemed to be responsible were fired as soon as the government investigation was made known, and a later guilty plea by the executive who seemed most immediately responsible, accompanied by her banning from future service as an "officer or director of a[ny] public company."

It is striking that misleading investors, and thereby potentially endangering their financial health, may result in severe penalties to the individuals involved. However, up to now, misleading doctors or patients, and thereby potentially endangering the former's reputations, and more importantly, the latter's health and even survival, rarely has resulted in any penalties to the individuals involved.

What is wrong with this picture?

If executives who endanger investors' finances can lose their jobs, and be barred from leadership positions in any public company, why can't executives who endanger patients also lose their jobs, and be barred from leadership positions in health care? Inquiring minds would really like to know.

As we have repeated endlessly, the usual sorts of legal settlements we have described do not seem to be an effective way to deter future unethical behavior by health care organizations. Even large fines can be regarded just as a cost of doing business. Furthermore, the fine's impact may be diffused over the whole company, and ultimately comes out of the pockets of stockholders, employees, and customers alike. It provides no negative incentives for those who authorized, directed, or implemented the behavior in question. My refrain has been: we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

St. Jude Medical Settles

We could not let more than a week go by without discussing another legal settlement by a major health care organization.  From the Pioneer Press,

Little Canada-based St. Jude Medical will pay $3.7 million to resolve allegations the medical device company provided kickbacks to hospitals in Kentucky and Ohio to secure sales of heart devices, the U.S. Department of Justice announced Friday.

The government alleged that St. Jude Medical provided rebates that were retroactive and paid based on a hospital's previous purchases of heart device equipment from the company. Prosecutors also charged that St. Jude Medical paid rebates for purchases of heart-device equipment sold by its competitors to induce purchases of similar equipment from St. Jude Medical in the future.

As I understand it, the issue was that the rebates did not amount to a simple volume discount, but were given only if the hospital allowed St. Jude to become its dominant supplier of certain devices, for example,

One such rebate was offered to Parma Community General Hospital in Parma, Ohio, a suburb of Cleveland, according to settlement papers made available by the government on Friday. The medical center could earn discounts on products if it gave St. Jude Medical 90 percent of its annual usage of mechanical heart valves, 80 percent of its annual usage of conventional pacemakers and 50 percent of its annual usage of conventional implantable defibrillators, according to the settlement agreement.

The two-year contract began in April 2003 and St. Jude Medical at the time did not have government approval to sell newer 'biventricular' pacemakers and ICDs. A rival company, however, did have approval for such products, and the settlement agreement asserts that St. Jude agreed to give the Ohio hospital a rebate for each biventricular pacemaker and ICD purchased from the competitor so long as Parma hospital maintained market share targets on St. Jude Medical products.

'The contract also mandated that once (St. Jude Medical) gained Food and Drug Administration approval for its own biventricular devices, the rebates would end, and (Parma) could earn discounts by giving (St. Jude Medical) 80 percent of its annual usage of biventricular pacemakers, and 50 percent of its annual usage of biventricular ICDs,' the settlement agreement states.

What was the problem with this?

'Hospitals should base their purchasing decisions on what is in the best interests of their patients,' Tony West, assistant attorney general for the Justice Department's civil division, said in a statement.

St. Jude's response was that it was all so trivial and so long ago,

In a statement issued Friday, St. Jude Medical said: 'The allegations centered on small, isolated product rebates that the company paid more than five years ago. The company entered into a settlement agreement in order to avoid the potential costs and risks associated with litigation.'

So add another marcher in the parade of legal settlements. While most of the marchers in this parade seem to be pharmaceutical companies, it appears that device manufacturers are trying to catch up.

We have been noting new entrants to this parade for a while mainly as a way to document how often health care organizations, including some of the largest and seemingly most respectable organizations, have been accused of unethical conduct.  Often this conduct seems likely to increase health care costs, by driving up the prices of goods or services, or by encouraging the use of expensive tests or treatments when perhaps something simpler and cheaper would be just as good for the patient.  Sometimes, this conduct seems likely to decrease health care quality, and worsen patient outcomes because the tests or treatments being pushed by the unethical behavior may be less effective, and/or more likely to cause harm than other credible alternatives.

We also have repeatedly said that the usual sorts of legal settlements we have described do not seem to be an effective way to deter future unethical behavior.  Even large fines (and the one described above would be peanuts to a large health care corporation) can be regarded just as a cost of doing business.   Furthermore, the fine's impact may be diffused over the whole company, and ultimately comes out of the pockets of stockholders, employees, and customers alike. It provides no negative incentives for those who authorized, directed, or implemented the behavior in question. My refrain has been: we will not deter unethical behavior by health care organizations until the people who authorize, direct or implement bad behavior fear some meaningfully negative consequences. Real health care reform needs to make health care leaders accountable, and especially accountable for the bad behavior that helped make them rich.

Before we revolutionize medicine via spending hundreds of billions on IT, perhaps we should first fix this problem

Before we revolutionize medicine via spending hundreds of billions on IT, maybe we should first fix a far more tractable problem.

From Health Beat and Maggie Mahar:

A New Survey Reveals What Most Hospitals Patients Don’t Know About the Residents Who Care For Them-- Part 1

Summary: Most hospital patients have no idea that the resident treating them could be coming to the end of a 30-hour shift. If he is exhausted, the resident’s judgment may be impaired. Yesterday, the union that represents some 13,000 residents and interns nationwide (CIRSEIU), the American Medical Student Association (AMSA) Public Citizen, the consumer advocacy organization based in Washington DC, , as well as sleep scientists at the Harvard Medical School’s Division of Sleep, announced the results of survey published in BMC Medicine, revealing how little the public knows about residents’ hours.

Sleep deprivation is likely to lead to errors; residents themselves acknowledge that lack of sleep has caused them to make mistakes that harm, and sometimes even kill patients. Exhaustion also affects how they feel about their patients.In 2008, the Institute of Medicine (IOM) recommended capping shifts at 16 hours, saying that longer shifts are unsafe for patients and residents themselves. The Accreditation Council on Graduate Medical Education (ACGME), the group that oversees the training of physicians in the U.S currently allows resident physicians to work for 30 consecutive hours up to twice per week. The ACGME has been reviewing the IOM recommendations and is expected to announce its decision later this month.

The problem: residents represent cheap labor. Some say that the ACGME faces an inherent conflict of interest because its board is dominated by the trade associations for hospitals, doctors and medical schools that benefit from the residents’ long hours.

Read the entire post at the link above.

There are fundamental social flaws in healthcare for which IT is most definitely not the solution. However, some of those hundreds of billions of dollars earmarked for IT might be better spent on additional clinical staff, so Residents can get a decent night's sleep.

-- SS

RUC Off - the New England Journal Once Again Fails to Mention the Unmentionable

Last week, the influential New England Journal of Medicine published an article by Bruce Vladek entitled "Fixing Medicare's Physician Payment System."(1)  Although only identified as working for Nexara, a health consulting business, Mr Vladek was a former administrator of what was then called the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) of the US Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), the part of the department that then ran the US Medicare program.  Vladek thus can reasonably be viewed as an expert on Medicare. 

Vladek identified two main problems with the current way physicians are paid by Medicare.  First,

Medicare is captive to an arbitrary, if elegantly conceived, formula for total payments to physicians — the sustainable growth rate (SGR). In the alternate reality of the Congressional budget process, the SGR will reduce Medicare's physician payments, which already trail those from private insurers, as far into the future as the eye can see.

Second,

there is widespread consensus that the relative fees in the current system are a significant cause of the growing imbalance in supply and utilization between primary care and specialty services in the U.S. health care system. That imbalance, in turn, is widely perceived as a major cause of both excessive costs and inadequate quality of care. This is not just a Medicare problem: the Medicare Resource-Based Relative Value Scale is used by most private insurers to set relative prices for physicians.

Vladek expanded on the second point as follows

the basic mechanics of the Medicare Physician Fee Schedule, which was supposed to change physician payment to increase rewards for primary care services at the expense of procedural and interventional services, appears to have gone totally off track. For various reasons, the fee schedule, which originally did increase the prices of evaluation and management services relative to those of surgery or invasive procedures, turned in the other direction through the process of annual updating of relative value units. Surgeons, radiologists, and some medical specialists are now paid two to three times as much per hour as providers of cognitive services, which is about where we began 20 years ago; this was the situation that the fee schedule was supposed to fix.

The question of the relative virtues of primary versus specialty care can be debated ad nauseam, but in other wealthy countries that serve their populations at least as well as we do, the ratio of primary care physicians to specialists is much higher than in the United States, and the gap in compensation is much smaller or the poles even reversed. Young physicians, burdened by increasing educational debts, may well choose a career path on the basis of a major difference in compensation, especially when the better-compensated positions require less ongoing responsibility for patients and offer better working hours.

This is about all that Vladek wrote about how the imbalance between how Medicare pays for primary care and other "cognitive services," and for procedures came about. Vladek, and many others have argued that this imbalance has lead to strong financial incentives that have been slowly destroying primary care, and strong incentives that have lead to the use of too many procedures, both strong drivers of rising costs in the most expensive health care system in the world.

Vladek noted vaguely that "through various reasons," the incentives were imbalanced by "the process of annual updating of relative value units."

However, as we have discussed in several blog posts, a lot more is known about how this process got "totally off track."

In fact, in 2007, an article by Bodenheimer et al in the Annals of Internal Medicine explained the problems in considerably more detail.(2)  As we wrote then, Its main points included

• Proceduralists are often able to learn how to do their procedures more quickly, and thus increase the volume of procedures done, while office and hospital visits can only be sped up so much.
• The process used to update the RBRVS system is biased towards procedures for three main reasons: 1. "specialty society influence in proposing RVU [relative value unit] increases," 2. the specialist-heavy RUC [Relative Value Scale Update Committee] membership," and 3. "the desire of RUC specialists to avoid increases in evaluation and management [that is, cognitive, or non-procedural] RVUs."
• Medicare now uses a formula to limit increases in overall spending. The use of this formula leads to across the board cuts in all reimbursements. Since cognitive services reimbursements were never high to begin with, and have rarely been individually increased, these cuts tend to have disproportionate decreases.
• Private insurers and managed care organizations tend to follow Medicare's lead in their reimbursement procedures, but tend to tilt the playing field even more in favor of procedures versus cognitive services. Several studies showed that such payers paid more for procedures than did Medicare, but about the same for office and hospital visits.

The role of the RBRVS Update Committee (RUC) is complex and in many ways mysterious.  As we wrote before, to update the system, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) relies almost exclusively on the advice of the RBRVS Update Committee. The RUC is a private committee of the AMA, touted as an "expert panel" that takes advantage of the organization's First Amendment rights to petition the government. Membership on the RUC is allotted to represent specialty societies, so that the vast majority of the members represent specialties that do procedures and focus on expensive, high-technology tests and treatments. However, the identities of RUC members are opaque, and the proceedings of the group are secret.

To expand on the penultimate point, the current page on the AMA web-site that describes the RUC only lists its members in terms of their specialties and organizational affiliation.  Their names do not appear.  A response to a previous post by me on the subject by the then Chair and Chair-Elect of the RUC suggested that the RUC membership is not quite secret. They stated that "a list of the individual members of the RUC is published in the AMA publication, Medicare RBRVS 2009: The Physicians Guide." This publication is available from the AMA here for a mere $71.95. However, the book is not on the web, or in my local or university library, and I have no other way to easily access it.  Thus, the RUC membership as at best relatively opaque.

To expand on the ultimate point, as Goodson(3) noted, RUC "meetings are closed to outside observers except by invitation of the chair." Furthermore, he stated, "proceedings are proprietary and therefore not publicly available for review."

The fog surrounding the operations of the RUC seems to have affected many who write about.  We have posted (here, here, and here) about how previous publications about problems with incentives provided to physicians seemed to have avoided even mentioning the RUC.  In 2010, post the US recent attempt at health care reform, the RUC seems to remain the great unmentionable.  Even the leading US medical journal seems reluctant to even print its name. 

Thus, as we noted before, however, the mysteries about it remain:

• How did the government come to fix the payments physicians receive? Government price-fixing has not been popular in the US, yet this has caused no outcry.
• Why is the process by which they are fixed allowed to be so opaque and unaccountable? Why are there no public hearings on the updates, and why is there no input from practicing physicians or organizations other than those related to the RUC?
• How did the RUC become de facto in charge of this process?
• Why does the AMA keep the membership on the RUC so opaque, and give no input into the RUC process to its general membership?
• Why is the RUC membership so dominated by procedural specialists? Why were primary care physicians, who made up at least a sizable minority of physicians when the update process was started, not represented according to their numbers?
• Why has there been so little discussion of the RUC and its responsibility for an extremely expensive health care system dominated by high-technology, expensive, risky and invasive procedures?

Without discussing how the incentives for physicians became so unbalanced, do we really expect we can fix them?  In this case, the persistence of the anechoic effect seems to be doing real damage to the discussion of the critical issues we in the US face today.
References


1. Vladek B. Fixing Medicare's physician payment system. N Engl J Med 2010; 362:1955-1957. (Link here.)
2. Bodenheimer T, Berenson RA, Rudolf P. The primary care-specialty income gap: why it matters. Ann Intern Med 2007; 146: 301-306. (Link here.)
3. Goodson JD. Unintended consequences of Resource-Based Relative Value Scale reimbursement. JAMA 2007; 298(19):2308-2310.  (Link here.)