Executive Compensation as "Legal Corruption" - and the Continuing Example of the Troubles of Wake Forest Baptist

"Legal corruption" was the description of current executive compensation practices appearing, of all places, in the Wall Street Journal.  The arguments, by Henry Mintzer of the Desautels Faculty of Management at McGill University, apply to health care, and provide a counterpoint to the usual talking points that are trotted out whenever a top health care manager, or his cronies, feels the need to justify his or her compensation. 

A Rigged Game with Other Peoples' Money

Prof Mintzer's arguments start with the assertion that executive bonuses are hopelessly rigged in favor of the managers who receive them.  In particular:

•  They represent gambling with "other people's money," in this case, "the stockholders [of large public corporations] not to mention the livelihoods of their employees and the sustainability of their institutions"

• Bonuses are given just based on the appearance of winning, for example, when a company's stock goes up short term, regardless of long-term results.

• Bonuses are given even when the company may lose, for example, the "golden parachute," or severance package that even executives forced to resign or retire may receive.

• Bonuses are given for actions that at best only provide potential gains for the company, for example prior to a merger, but before it is known that the merger will be successful

• Bonuses are given just for showing up, that is, "retention bonuses."

Thus he contended that bonuses inspire executives to be gamblers in a game rigged in their favor.

Based on False Assumptions

Furthermore, he argued that the current system of executive compensation is based on false assumptions.  These include:

"A company's health is represented by its financial measures alone - even better, the price of its stock." 

However, as Prof Mintzer noted:

Companies are a lot more complicated than that. Their health is significantly represented by what accountants call goodwill, which in its basic sense means a company's intrinsic value beyond its tangible assets: the quality of its brands, its overall reputation in the marketplace, the depth of its culture, the commitment of its people, and so on.  

I would note that this applies especially in health care, and more especially to organizations that provide direct patient care.  No hospital system, for example, could function at all without a corps of dedicated health professionals, physicians, nurses, therapists, etc. 

Furthermore, Prof Mintzer wrote,

All too often, financial measures are a convenient substitute used by disconnected executives who don't know what else to do—including how to manage more deeply.  Or worse, such measures encourage abuse from impatient CEOs, who can have a field day cashing in that goodwill by cutting back on maintenance and customer service, 'downsizing' experienced employees while others are left to 'burn out,' trashing valued brands, and so on. Quickly the measured costs are reduced while slowly the institution deteriorates 

This is obviously particularly pernicious in health care, a field in which institutions are complicated, and dependent on the efforts of some very highly trained and specialized people well beyond the management suite. 

"Performance measures, whether short or long term, represent the true strength of the company." 

Prof Mintzer pointed out the lack of accurate measures of the overall performance of a company or organization. 


"The CEO, with a few other senior executives, is primarily responsible for the company's performance."  

Prof Mintzer asked,

In something as complex as the contemporary large corporation, how can success over three or even 10 years possibly be attributed to a single individual? Where is teamwork and all that talk about people being 'our most important asset?'

More important, should any company even try to attribute success to one person? A robust enterprise is not a collection of 'human resources'; it's a community of human beings. All kinds of people are responsible for its performance. Focusing on a few—indeed, only one, who may have parachuted into the most senior post from the outside—just discourages everyone else in the company.

Again, this is obviously particularly the case in health care organizations, especially those that provide direct patient care.

Leading to the Worst Possible Leaders and Leadership

Finally, Prof Mintzer argued that the current system is designed to promote the worst possible leadership, leading likely to the worst possible outcomes.  He opened with

 Executive bonuses—especially in the form of stock and option grants—represent the most prominent form of legal corruption that has been undermining our large corporations and bringing down the global economy. 

Our argument has been that the current leadership of health care is similarly bringing down our health care system.

He later noted that current compensation practices mainly function to select out the worst possible leaders:

 executive compensation these days reinforces a class structure within the enterprise that is antithetical to its effective functioning. Because of its symbolic nature, executive compensation as currently practiced sends out the worst possible signal to everyone in the enterprise.

Furthermore,

bonuses can serve one purpose. It has been claimed that if you don't pay them, you don't get the right person in the CEO chair. I believe that if you do pay bonuses, you get the wrong person in that chair. At the worst, you get a self-centered narcissist. [Or even a full-fledged, if non-violent, psychopath, as noted here - Ed] At the best, you get someone who is willing to be singled out from everyone else by virtue of the compensation plan. Is this any way to build community within an enterprise, even to foster the very sense of enterprise that is so fundamental to economic strength?

Accordingly, executive bonuses provide the perfect tool to screen candidates for the CEO job. Anyone who insists on them should be dismissed out of hand, because he or she has demonstrated an absence of the leadership attitude required for a sustainable enterprise.

Of course, this might thin the roster of candidates. Good. Most need to be thinned, in order to be refilled with people who don't allow their own needs to take precedence over those of the community they wish to lead.

It will be interesting to see if anyone attempts a logical refutation of Prof Mintzer's arguments.  My guess is that we will see little response, based on the usual public relations dictum that it is best not to acknowledge one's detractors, even if they are right.  Furthermore, I predict that what responses there are will partake heavily of logical fallacies.

Finally, it is worthwhile to think about Prof Mintzer's points when assessing the arguments made in favor of particular executives' outsized remuneration. 

An Example - Continued Riches for Wake Forest Baptist Executives

Outsize Executive Compensation Continues

A few weeks ago, we noted that the leaders of this large medical center, while previously proclaimed as visionaries, and enjoying enlarging compensation, seemed to have lead the institution to a financial crisis due to difficulties with a poorly chosen or implemented electronic health record system. 

One follow up story updated compensation information and provided the official management rationale for the ongoing largess.  The redoubtable Richard Craver wrote in the Winston-Salem Journal,

Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center provided its top executive, Dr. John McConnell, an 11.9 percent raise in salary during 2011 to $983,777, although his total compensation dropped 18 percent, the center reported Wednesday as part of an annual regulatory filing.

McConnell was paid $2.04 million in total compensation, compared with almost $2.5 million for 2010. Although Wake Forest Baptist operates on fiscal years that end on June 30, the pay for its top executives is required to be listed on a calendar-year basis.

The main difference between the 2010 and 2011 compensation totals for McConnell was $461,575 he received as a one-time payment that replaced the retirement benefits he forfeited upon leaving the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas. McConnell was required to work at Wake Forest Baptist for two years to receive the one-time payment.

Keep in mind that in 2008-9x, Dr McConnell made a total of just over $700,000, so his compensation in 2011 was about three times that.

The benevolent board of the medical center saw to it that Dr McConnell got money for all sorts of reasons:

McConnell received $384,203 in bonus and incentives in fiscal 2010-11. The center said the amount reflects the achievement of clinical quality, academic and financial goals set by the board of directors. The bonus was down $115,797 from fiscal 2009-10 primarily because the center reduced the potential percentage of the incentive compensation from 75 percent of his base salary to 53 percent.

McConnell received $38,511 in other reportable compensation, which the center listed: as $8,797 in annual dues for Forsyth Country Club and Rotary Club membership, defined as for business purposes; $16,500 qualified deferred compensation; $3,612 in after-tax life-insurance deduction; and $9,602 in an automobile allowance.

 He also received $619,002 in contributions to retirement plans, including a supplemental executive retirement plan solely for McConnell’s benefit.

One wonders why, given his salary and bonus, Dr McConnell could not afford to pay dues to the country club and rotary on his own, or for his own car expenses, or to provide for his own retirement, for that matter?

Other executives also continued to do very well:

Donny Lambeth, former president of N.C. Baptist Hospital, received $2.47 million in total compensation. Lambeth served as president of Davie County Hospital and Lexington Medical Center before retiring last year. He is now serving as an N.C. House representative.

Lambeth’s $495,595 in base salary represented an 8 percent decrease related to his reduced job responsibilities. His bonus and incentive compensation was down 2 percent to $181,988. The bulk of Lambeth’s compensation was $1.62 million related to a fully vested deferred compensation upon his retirement.

Dr. Thomas Sibert, president of Wake Forest Baptist Health and chief operating officer, received a 14 percent increase in total compensation to $1.13 million, including $631,297 in salary (up 15.7 percent) and $234,540 in bonus and incentive compensation (up 41.3 percent). Sibert took over his role in September 2010.

Edward Chadwick, chief financial officer, received a less than 1 percent increase in total compensation to $979,420. His salary rose 4.6 percent to $527,216, while his bonus and incentive compensation fell 5 percent to $189,929.

Russell Howerton, chief medical officer, was paid $295,714 in salary, $300,786 in bonus and incentive compensation and $657,025 in total compensation. Doug Edgeton, former president of Piedmont Triad Research Park (recently renamed as Wake Forest Innovation Quarter), received $490,485 in salary, $162,367 in bonus and incentive compensation and $710,729 in total compensation.

The Chief Information Quietly Departs, with Some More Money

Meanwhile, Mr Craver also reported the quiet departure of the executive who presided over the troubled implementation of the EHR,

The chief information officer for Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is stepping down, effective May 31, the center confirmed Friday.

Sheila Sanders has served in that role, as well as vice president of information technology, since being hired in 2009 to direct the center’s overhaul of its IT system.

She is leaving at a time when the center is struggling financially and operationally with implementing the Epic electronic health records system — one of the largest overall projects Wake Forest Baptist and most health care systems have undertaken in recent years.

Note that Ms Sanders was well rewarded for her questionable efforts,

Sanders was paid $333,961 in salary, $89,145 in bonus and incentive compensation and $464,543 in total compensation in 2011, according to a regulatory filing that Wake Forest Baptist made public Wednesday. The center’s executive-compensation data typically is about 18 months old when released.

In terms of salary, Sanders ranked sixth among the center’s 27 listed management officials. 

It was clear that Ms Sanders ought to have been directly responsible for the EHR implementation,

 The center said Sanders’ duties included clinical information, administrative, business, academic and research support systems, as well as core IT functions that include a central IT help desk, email, computer desktop support, IT security and telecommunications.

Nonetheless, the extremely well-paid top leadership did not seem to have hard feelings.

Dr. John McConnell, the center’s chief executive, said in a statement that Sanders decided in January to take 'a brief career break' after completing major portions of the overhaul. He said Sanders is relocating to Florida to spend more time with her family.

Wake Forest Baptist spokesman Chad Campbell stressed it was Sanders’ decision to leave her positions, and it was not related to Epic, which went live in September on the center’s main campus.

Also,

'We are deeply grateful to Sheila for her numerous contributions that will serve the medical center for years to come,' McConnell said. McConnell said senior IT officials will manage day-to-day IT operations with his oversight while the center conducts a national search for her replacement.

But to reiterate,

 The center said May 2 it had launched another round of 'multi-million dollar' cost-cutting measures that will last through at least June 30, the end of its 2012-13 fiscal year, related to fixing Epic revenue issues.

 Perhaps any attempt to saddle the chief information officer with responsibility would point out the lack of responsibility imposed on even higher level and better paid executives for apparently approving and authorizing her previous work.

The Usual Talking Points

Instead, the official statement from hospital system management about top executives' compensation trotted out the usual talking points in defense of all this lavish pay,

Wake Forest Baptist said in a statement explaining its executive compensation packages that as an academic medical center, it requires management with 'a special set of skills and experience to manage relationships with physicians and researchers, the university, its patients and community. … It takes proven talents possessed by a small group of health care executives.'

'Compensating executives, as we do all of our employees, competitively and appropriately, is crucial to the success of Wake Forest Baptist and to Northwest North Carolina.'

In addition,

 Baptist said its executive compensation is based primarily on comparisons with 32 academic medical centers, including Duke University Hospital and UNC Hospitals. 

With regard to Dr McConnell's special retirement plan,

'This is a common benefit for executives at academic medical centers and health systems to encourage retention and provide competitive retirement benefits,' the center said in its statement.

We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use here, here and here.   The official administration discussion above does seem to include: 
- 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.

Left out was any evidence about the executives' performance, much less their degree of responsibility for their institution's performance.  Why the few top paid executives should continue to get credit for the institutions' supposed, but unspecified successes, while escaping any accountability for its failures (including the looming problems with its commercial health care information technology) was of course not mentioned. 

So here is a great, current example of how top health care executives are gambling with other peoples' money, in a game rigged so that they always win.  As long as we continue such perverse incentives in health care, they will continue to inspire leaders to line their own pockets at the expense of our health care institutions, and ultimately to the detriment of patients' and the public's health. 

Conclusion

So let me conclude with Prof Mintzer's conclusion,

All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit.

Too many large corporations today are starved for leadership—true leadership, meaning engaged leadership embedded in concerned management. And the global economy desperately needs renewed enterprise, embedded in the belief that companies are communities. Getting rid of executive bonuses, and the gambling games that accompany them, is the place to start.

NYU Faculty Vote No Confidence in their President

Faculty at large American universities, in which most of the country's medical schools and teaching hospitals are embedded, are becoming increasingly concerned about the leadership and governance of their organizations, and whether the universities are putting their academic (and clinical) missions ahead of other concerns, like making money and rewarding top executives.

In January, 2013, we discussed a an informal, anonymous vote faculty at the University of Miami medical school expressing no confidence in their dean and his chief lieutenant.

The NYU No Confidence Vote

The faculty of a major component of another big US university have just openly voted no confidence in their president, and are raising questions about their board of trustees.  The setting was New York University.  Some background comes from a New York Times article this month:

 Embarking on an ambitious expansion at home, constructing a network of new campuses around the globe, wooing intellectual superstars and raising vast amounts of money, John Sexton of New York University is the very model of a modern university president — the leader of a large corporation, pushing for growth on every front.
 

To some within N.Y.U., Dr. Sexton is a hero who has transformed the university. The trustees have thanked him by elevating his salary to nearly $1.5 million from $773,000 and guaranteeing him retirement benefits of $800,000 a year.

But to others, he is an autocrat who treats all but a few anointed professors as hired help, ignoring their concerns, informing them of policies after the fact and otherwise running roughshod over American academic tradition, in which faculty members are partners in charting a university’s course.

'He has a very evangelical sense of purpose,' said Andrew Ross, a professor of social and cultural analysis, 'that does not extend beyond the concept that the university should be an entity of his own making.' 

'I think,' he added, 'when other administrations see that they say, Well that’s what leadership should be. And when faculty see that they say, That is not what university leadership should be. It’s the style of a maverick C.E.O.'

The debate over Dr. Sexton’s presidency will come to a head this week. The faculty of the university’s largest school, Arts and Science, has scheduled a five-day vote of no confidence. Given Dr. Sexton’s international stature, the vote may serve as the most important referendum yet on the direction of American higher education. 

President Sexton lost the no-confidence vote, as noted in another NY Times article a week later:

The vote, 298 to 224 (with 47 abstaining), took place via electronic balloting from Monday through Friday. Full-time tenured and tenure-track professors were asked to respond to the statement: 'The faculty of Arts and Science has no confidence in John Sexton’s leadership.' Voter participation was 83 percent.

Top Executives Usurp Power from Faculty

An op-ed in the NY Times by a leading dissenting faculty member further explained the issues.  He charged that the President ignored faculty concerns about an ambitious plan to expand the physical plant of the university:

How did Dr. Sexton lose the confidence of so many faculty members? By ignoring us. Of course, many professors everywhere feel overlooked by today’s generation of jet-setting university presidents. But we have very specific complaints: above all, Dr. Sexton has consistently refused to address concerns about plans to expand N.Y.U. offices and dorms into the part of Greenwich Village south of Manhattan’s Washington Square Park, where many of us live. 

This expansion plan is known as N.Y.U. 2031, indicating the year in which all the building will be complete. The very name told us that we’d be living on a construction site for a couple of decades.

Not surprisingly, this did not go over very well with many faculty members. We were also concerned about where the money would come from to pay for this expansion, as no business plan for the project has been made public.

Thirty-nine departments and schools passed resolutions last year against the 2031 plan. These resolutions were typically passed unanimously or nearly unanimously. And yet Dr. Sexton’s response was a deafening silence.

Academic Values, Particularly Academic Freedom and Free Speech Ignored

Furthermore, the faculty were concerned about plans to expand the university overseas to nations not known for their vigorous support of academic freedom and free speech:

 Many of us are also concerned with Dr. Sexton’s plans to expand N.Y.U. overseas, including branch campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai, with inadequate faculty involvement or oversight. It is doubtful that faculty members would have chosen to build campuses in countries where academic freedom, and free speech generally, are so parlous. 

Executives Enriching Themselves at University Expense

Finally, the faculty were concerned about top university executives immodestly enriching themselves from the coffers of a non-profit university:

As the faculty vote approached, more trouble arose for Dr. Sexton in the form of news reports about lavish compensation for NY administrators.  The central but by no means sole figure in this scandal is Jacob J Lew, the Obama administration’s new Treasury secretary, who worked at N.Y.U. in the early 2000s for a salary that eventually reached $900,000, larger even than Dr. Sexton’s at the time. 

Mr. Lew received loans to buy a nice home, which apparently were largely forgiven. He also received a severance of some $700,000 when he left for a well-paid position at Citigroup. Severance? For someone who leaves voluntarily?

 Dr. Sexton himself is to receive a salary of more than $1.4 million this year, and a 'length of service' bonus of $2.5 million in 2015. (Full disclosure: the university gave me a set of mugs when I completed 25 years of teaching.) And he will receive $800,000 a year after he retires. 

Other top administrators make similarly extravagant salaries. Some experts believe there may even be something illegal in the way Dr. Sexton has rewarded them; N.Y.U.’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors has asked New York States’s attorney general to investigate. 

All of which raises a question for many N.Y.U. faculty members: Should administrators be able to enrich themselves like this at educational institutions? N.Y.U. is not a Wall Street firm, but a tax-exempt university that gets millions in taxpayer dollars, not least from student loans. In fact, our students have the highest total debt load of any university in the country. Rather than expanding, or paying huge salaries to top administrators, why doesn’t N.Y.U. do more to help its alumni pay off their debts?

Forsaking the Academic Mission

An article in Inside Higher Education underlined how the dispute is really about the mission of the university in this brave new corporate era:

As Rebecca Karl, an associate professor of East Asian studies and history recently told Inside Higher Ed, 'We’ve become very critical of the whole idea of ‘expand or die,’ which of course is a corporate maxim, but we don’t understand why it needs to become our maxim.'

Also,

 Mark Crispin Miller, a professor of media, culture and communication in NYU's Steinhardt School of Culture, Education and Human Development, who has been an outspoken critic of the Greenwich Village plan [said]. 'The fact is we see NYU as a school, we see our mission as educational. Sexton and the trustees who support him view NYU as a bundle of assets whole value they will apparently do anything to maximize on paper. We believe that this approach is destroying this university.'

By the way, maybe in retrospect the trustees' role should not be so surprising.  Back in 2011 we posted about a group of extremely rich corporate and finance leaders who attacked critics of their growing power as "imbeciles," among other terms.  Several of the individuals featured in the news article which inspired this post were trustees of New York University.  These included   Kenneth Langone and John Paulson.  A quick look at the list of current trustees shows that it includes  many top leaders of finance firms, including firms whose actions were alleged to have helped cause the great recession/ global financial collapse or have been subsequently accused of other financial shenanigans, e.g., Steven S Miller, a Vice President of JP Morgan Chase, and Maurice Greenberg (a life trustee), former leader of AIG, E John Rosenwald Jr (a life trustee), Vice Chairman Emeritus of JP Morgan Chase, and William R Salomon (a life trustee), honorary chairman of Citigroup.

Summary

In summary, the issues that inspired the no-confidence vote against the President of New York University appeared to be allegations that university:
-  administration usurped power, particularly from the faculty
-  administration used this power to put corporate priorities, like expansion for its own sake, and increasing short-term revenue ahead of the academic mission
-  administration took advantage of their power to enrich themselves
-  trustees, who are supposed to exert stewardship that ensures the university upholds its mission, instead aided and abetted all this

All of these should be very familiar issues to Health Care Renewal readers.  We have discussed the rise of generic managers of health care organizations, trained supposedly in general management skills, but not in health care, and indifferent at best to the values of health care professionals.  At times their power has gotten so great as to constitute a manager's coup d'etat.   We have discussed how managers of health care organizations often put short-term revenue ahead of all other concerns, sometimes called financialization.  In doing so, they may end up perpetrating mission hostile- management.  We have discussed how managers are able to command often outrageous levels of  executive compensation.   Boards of trustees, who are supposed to exert stewardship over the organization, and see that its leadership upholds its values, often come from management backgrounds themselves, and are at best clueless about, if not hostile to the mission. 

It is time for university faculty to defend their institutions' mission.  Students, alumni, and patients at academic medical centers, medical school clinics, and of academic health professionals ought to be equally fervent in support of the academic and academic health care missions.  Academic medicine needs to be lead and stewarded by people who understand that mission, value it, uphold it, and are accountable for that.  These leaders and stewards should eschew management fads, cronyism, and excess personal enrichment.

Maybe the vote of no confidence at NYU is a small step on the path back to the academic and academic medical missions.  But do not expect those who are enriching themselves in the current system to go quietly.

ADDENDUM - see also this post by Prof Margaret Soltan on the University Diary blog.

Minimizing Legal Liability or Upholding the Mission? - the Markingson Case Redux

There are new, and troubling developments in the long running case of Dan Markingson, the psychiatric patient and research subject who committed suicide while enrolled in a trial of anti-psychotic drugs at the University of Minnesota nearly 10 years ago.

Summary of the Case

A good quick summary of this case just appeared in the Center for Law and Bioscience blob out of the Stanford Law School. 

Dan Markingson – a vulnerable, psychotic young man – was forced to choose between enrolling in a Pharma-funded drug study or being involuntarily committed (in other words, locked up).  A UMN [University of Minnesota]  doctor enrolled him in the study despite having just determined that Dan 'lack[ed] the capacity to make decisions regarding [his] treatment,' rendering it highly unlikely that Dan could have given valid informed consent to participate.  As Dan's mother, Mary Weiss, observed his mental condition deteriorating, she repeatedly tried to have Dan removed from the trial – at one point asking  'Do we have to wait until he kills himself or someone else before anyone does anything?'  But the UMN co-investigators in the drug study refused to terminate his participation.  Shortly after Ms. Weiss made her desperate plea, Dan Markingson killed himself by cutting his own throat.

Our most recent (2011) post on the case was here.  In it we also noted that there was reason to think:
-  The design of the controlled trial was flawed.
-  Financial conflicts of interests may have influenced the trial investigators' actions, particularly their questionable enrollment of Mr Markingson in the trial and their retention of him in it despite his apparent clinical deterioration.
Despite that, when bioethicists and the University of Minnesota called for a new investigation of the trial and what happened to Mr Markingson, the university rebuffed them.

Worse, as detailed in a 2012 post in the Center for Law and Bioscience blog, not only did university officials rebuff this call, but the university general counsel, who had been operating at the heart of this case, appeared to threaten the leading bioethicist dissident, Dr Carl Elliott:

 After Carl Elliott, the University of Minnesota bioethicist, refused to drop the matter, Rotenberg asked the university’s Academic Freedom and Tenure Committee to take up the question of '[w]hat is the faculty[’s] collective role in addressing factually incorrect attacks on particular university faculty research activities?' – a question that appeared both to accuse Elliott of 'factually incorrect attacks' and to call for some unspecified action to 'address' them.  Other faculty, including the president of the Minnesota chapter of the American Association of University Professors, viewed this as an attempt to intimidate Elliott into silence.  If so, it backfired.  The story ended up in the press, putting the Markingson case back in the public eye and once again making the University of Minnesota look really bad.

New Evidence Unearthed

In 2013, Dr Elliott made public what may be important new evidence in the case.  As summarized by the Minneapolis Star-Tribune,

The professor, Carl Elliott, says he has obtained consent documents for two separate schizophrenic patients that appear to be exact copies — not just in the subjects’ apparent replies, but in the positions of the lettering on the pages.

Elliott said it is improbable that separate patients would provide identical responses to the questionnaire, which includes open-ended questions about the risks and requirements of clinical research. And that, he said, raises questions about whether the university was really examining patients to determine their ability to consent to research.

 One crucial question about the case is how a patient who was actively psychotic - out of touch with reality - could give true informed consent to participation in a drug trial.  These new documents suggest major irregularities in the process used in the trial to assure that patients did give informed consent. 

Furthermore, as reported by the Minnesota Daily, other documents that Dr Elliott found suggested problems with records that related to whether study investigators would have had legal authority to access Mr Markingson's medical records, also suggesting major problems with trial administration. 

These documents, unknown until recently, suggest new concerns with how the study in which Mr Markingson was enrolled, and during which he died, was run.  Yet, the University of Minnesota's official response to them, once again orchestrated by university counsel Mark Rotenberg, attacked the legitimacy of the documents (and indirectly, attacked Prof Elliott again), as reported by the Star-Tribune,

the university’s general counsel, Mark Rotenberg, challenged the authenticity of the documents and disagreed that study recruiters failed to obtain proper and independent consent from mentally ill patients.

'I am challenging these allegations directly,' he said. 'We have no reason to believe the consent forms were prepared inappropriately.'

As Matt Lamkin wrote in the Stanford Law and Bioscience blog,  the University's responses all through this case have been focused  not on the welfare of patients, maintaining the trust of research participants, or the integrity of clinical trials, but on the legal defense of  the University and its leaders

Despite all this (and much more), the University has never acknowledged any errors or taken any disciplinary action related to the Markingson case and has repeatedly rejected calls for an independent investigation.  That’s probably because from the start the University has handled this case as a litigation matter.  Rather than trying to determine whether there were problems with the way its personnel treated Markingson, the University has focused on minimizing its potential liability.  Accordingly, the University appears to run every inquiry related to the case through the office of its General Counsel, Mr. Rotenberg.  When Carl Elliott (my mentor as a grad student at UMN) wrote a damning article about the case in Mother Jones, the University’s response came from Rotenberg.  When UMN bioethicists called on the University’s Board of Regents to launch an independent investigation, the Regents deferred to Rotenberg.  Not surprisingly, he declined.

When you turn to your lawyer, you’re going to get a particular kind of response.  The GC isn’t in a position to take an objective look at the circumstances.  He’s an advocate.  His role is not to make sure the client has conducted itself ethically, but to minimize the client’s risk.  Asking your lawyer to respond to allegations of wrongdoing is like asking your PR flacks to do so.  Their job is to make their clients look good, not to make sure they’ve acted properly.

Note that this still begs the question of who the client is.  Is it the university, or the university's leaders?

Furthermore, as Mr Lamkin pointed out, the general counsel would appear to have a conflict of interest.  It may be he has an interest in defending his own actions, as well as those of his client(s), whether they are the university, its leaders, or both. 

In addition to Mr. Rotenberg’s role as the University’s top defender and advocate, there is another reason he cannot impartially consider requests for an investigation: the General Counsel’s Office is an important player in some of the disturbing events at issue.  As noted above, Rotenberg himself has been accused of attempting to intimidate and silence the bioethicist who has most doggedly sought an investigation.  The University’s lawyers are also responsible for the disgraceful silencing of Markingson’s mother, Mary Weiss.  After avoiding liability by arguing the University was immune from suit, these lawyers then threatened to force Weiss – whose son had died in a University doctor’s 'care – to pay the University’s legal costs of some $57,000.  The University used that threat as leverage to get Weiss to forgo an appeal of the trial court’s decision.

So as the University continues to refuse any new consideration of this this seemingly never-ending case, Dr Elliott has posted an online petition calling for an outside investigation.   We will see how Mr Rotenberg reacts to this.

Summary


A very troubling aspect of this case is that it has shown that the university leadership has seemed to care, at best, more about fending off litigation than upholding the university's mission.  The mission of the university is supposed to be discovering and disseminating the truth in a spirit of free inquiry.  Added to the mission of medical schools and university teaching hospitals is taking good care of patients, and putting the patients' interests ahead of all other concerns.  Yet, in this case, university leaders have not seemed to care whether in their haste to push back legal liability they were stepping on their faculty's academic freedom and free speech, the integrity of the medical research done at the university, and most importantly the rights of their patients and research subjects.  Furthermore, it is not clear whether they mainly feared the impact of litigation on the university, or how litigation might actually end up holding them accountable.

As Dr Judy Stone wrote in her Scientific American blog,

  it appears that UMN believes, as do many other institutions, that protecting itself from scandal and its consequences comes first and foremost and that, like the big banks, that it is too big to be punished.

Again, note that UMN cannot itself believe or protect.  People acting ostensibly on its behalf may have been protecting themselves from scandal, and believing that the size and status of their institution gave them, the leaders, impunity.

The case of Mr Dan Markingson is a continuing reminder that to reform health care, health care organizations need to be lead by people who put the health care mission first and are willing to be accountable for that mission.   I hope that eventually there is an honest investigation of this case, and a commitment to reform based on its conclusions.

See additional thoughts from Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog, on the 1BoringOldMan blog, on the Periodic Table blog, and last but certainly not least, many comments by Dr Carl Elliott on the Fear and Loathing in Bioethics blog. 

More Cause for Hope - After Novartis Chairman's Rescinded Golden Parachute, Swiss Voters Give Control of Hired Executives' Salaries Back to Owners

Recently, we discussed the latest stupefyingly big golden parachute given to a departing pharmaceutical executive.  Former Novartis CEO and outgoing chairman Daniel Vasella was to be given more than $75 million, after making multiple millions previously, ostensibly so he would not go to work for a competitor.  After a public outcry, the company cancelled the plan, and Vasella admitted a "mistake."  This was the only instance in recent memory in which a big health care organization pulled back some huge executive pay package due to public protest.

Swiss Voters Give Control of Pay of Hired Executives Back to Company Owners

Now Swiss voters have approved a referendum which would actually let the owners of public companies, the stockholders, decide how much to pay hired executives.  As summarized by the New York Times,

Swiss citizens voted Sunday to impose some of the world’s most severe restrictions on executive compensation, ignoring a warning from the business lobby that such curbs would undermine the country’s investor-friendly image.

 The vote gives shareholders of companies listed in Switzerland a binding say on the overall pay packages for executives and directors. Pension funds holding shares in a company would be obligated to take part in votes on compensation packages.

In addition, companies would no longer be allowed to give bonuses to executives joining or leaving the business, or to executives when their company was taken over. Violations could result in fines equal to up to six years of salary and a prison sentence of up to three years. 

The new rules in Switzerland would be unprecedented in the current era.  

Those who are Ostensibly Pro-Business Defend Hired Executives, not Owners

Despite the fact that the new rules would give control over one type of hired employees, hired executives, back to the shareholders, the owners of companies, spokespeople for big companies, but presumably really for their top executives, claimed that the rule would be bad for shareholders.

 

Ahead of the vote, [the Swiss business federation] EconomieSuisse and Mr. Minder’s other opponents warned of dire consequences if the referendum passed, notably in terms of keeping Switzerland attractive to foreign companies and investors. 

But [chief proponent of the new rules] Mr. Minder argued that Switzerland would benefit if it gave shareholders control over the companies in which they invested.

Furthermore, the Guardian reported, 

Minder says the massive sums demonstrate that company boards have lost control of pay and prefer to fork out 'astronomical' salaries rather than pay dividends to shareholders.

Minder told the Swiss daily Le Temps that the only solution was to give shareholders the power to set pay.

 A Bloomberg article suggested that driving the vote were how the Swiss are

 worried about how long they can fend off the crisis that has engulfed the rest of Europe, and dissatisfied with a feeling of being ripped off by their elites.

'It is scandalous. No one deserves to be paid such monstrously high salaries, especially when their employees get paid not much in comparison,' Marianne Lecoultre, a pensioner who lives in a modest flat on the outskirts of Geneva, told me. 

The Germans are Thinking of Making Hired Executives More Accountable

The German media outlet Deutsche Welle reported that there is now more interest in returning control of hired executive pay to company owners there as well.

 After Swiss citizens voted Sunday to impose controls on executive pay, a similar debate has started in Germany. 

Furthermore,

Joachim Poß, the parliamentary leader of the opposition Social Democratic Party, told the daily Neue Osnabrücker Zeitung that the outcome of the referendum was an important step towards restricting the money-grabbing prevalent in corporate management,

He noted that the referendum was encouragement for an initiative at the EU level, and added that 'people do no longer accept perverted bonus systems, neither in banks nor in the real economy.'

Summary: Ripped Off by Health Care Elites

I can start to imagine how supposedly pro-business people in the US will dismiss actions taken by European countries as anti-business and probably "job killing," even though these actions actually gave more control of publicly held business to their owners, not to government, which would seem to be fully in support of capitalism.  Again, maybe some people making the loudest pro-business noises are really sympathetic to, if not paid by, the hired managers of businesses who have put their enrichment ahead of the interests of other employees, customers, clients or patients, the business owners (stockholders, that is), and the public at large. 

Enormous compensation of hired health care executives, out of all proportion, if related at all to whether their work had any positive effect on patients' or the public's health, has long been a concern on Health Care Renewal.  For example, back in 2006, we posted repeatedly (look here for links) about the billion dollar plus fortune amassed by the then CEO of UnitedHealthcare which vividly contrasted with the company's avowal to "make health care more affordable."  That seemed to be an example back then of a rip off by a member of the health care elite.  Now the notion that our top elites have been generally ripping us off is becoming more widespread.

In my humble opinion, the perverse incentives generated by a system that allows top executives to make almost unlimited amounts, regardless of all other considerations, has been a major reason for US and global health care dysfunction.  Making executive compensation less perverse, and ultimately making health care leaders accountable for the effects of what they do on patients' and the public's health may be an absolutely necessary step to make our health care system more functional.  Now at least there is some precedent, admittedly from Europe, for making top hired managers more accountable. 


As Pierre Briancon wrote in Reuters,

 Corporate boards had better take notice: public outrage at what looks like persistent and unapologetic greed in the most severe economic slump in decades is forcing governments to step in. Throughout Europe, indignation at private excess has become a policy problem for administrations trying to explain the need to cut public spending.

In addition,

Self-moderation doesn’t work and self-interest continues to prevail. Throughout the Western world, corporate boards have paid lip service to the need to take into account public opinion, and nothing much has changed either in the banking industry – the symbol of immoderation – or in the wider corporate world. In desperation, governments are taking more forceful action – sometimes reluctantly: the Swiss referendum followed a failure by the country’s parliament to heed to public indignation.

Government intervention can often be clumsy, and it is fraught with the risk of unintended consequences. But it is the right of governments to legislate on social ills – and excessive and provocative private-sector pay has become one. Meanwhile the lobbies promising economic apocalypse have failed to make their case – and to scare anyone with warnings that 'talent' – as they call it – may relocate to friendlier countries. It would be in the interest of all if they stopped turning a deaf ear to calls for decency emanating even from countries like Switzerland, which is hardly a hotbed of Soviet-style command economics.

Even though the final impetus for the overwhelming majority vote on the Swiss referendum came from a ridiculous golden parachute from a pharmaceutical company, the discussion so far has not centered on health care.  So I get to close with something I have repeated on and on, now with a little hope that it may not be considered so extreme....

 Health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research. On the other hand, those who authorize, direct and implement bad behavior ought to suffer negative consequences sufficient to deter future bad behavior.

If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.

It is Harder to Run a Small Public Hospital System than California? - Deep Seated Myths and Logical Fallacies Underpinning Health Care Executive Compensation

Hospital executive compensation, the gift that keeps on giving... 

A Public Hospital CEO's Current Compensation

A recent, somewhat obscure news article shows how deeply rooted is the current practice of paying top hired managers of health care organizations amounts that seem outlandish given the context.

The article, in the Argus - San Jose (CA) Mercury News, discussed the compensation given the CEO of a small public hospital district.  It opened with,

 Amid a budget crunch that has forced sweeping cutbacks at its medical facilities, the Washington Township Health Care District board of directors on Wednesday awarded its CEO $162,783 in incentive pay that raises her total annual compensation and contract perks this year to more than $800,000.

The bonus pushes Farber's total 2012-13 compensation past $813,915, less than the $936,349 she made in 2011 or her $912,519 pay in 2010, when she was among the top five paid government employees statewide in a survey by the state controller's office. 

Note first that Washington Township Health Care District is a public health district.  As an article from January, 2013 in The Argus - San Jose Mercury News explained,

The Washington Township Health Care District is a public agency in southern Alameda County and receives tax money from 320,000 district residents under voter-approved bond measures. 

The District is also under financial stress.  As the earlier Argus - Mercury News article stated,

Physician assistants, nurses and medical directors were among the 200 jobs recently eliminated by the Washington Township Health Care District to cut costs, according to new information released by the district.

In response to a request under the California Public Records Act, the district provided a list this week of the 75 job titles included in the approximately 132 vacant and 68 filled positions eliminated in recent months as part of a 13 percent workforce reduction.

Furthermore, as the newer Argus - Mercury News article noted,

 Farber was overseeing a 13 percent workforce reduction that eliminated 200 mostly vacant jobs. The district had seen operating profits plummet tens of millions of dollars last year from recent years.

So Ms Farber got a large salary plus bonus at a time when hospital "profits" were declining and many employees, including health care professionals with direct patient care responsibilities were being laid off. 

A Long History of Outsize Compensation

Note that this small public hospital system actually has a long history of paying its CEO a lot.


In 2003, the (Fremont-Newark, CA) Argus editorialized (the full article requires payment),

 HOW MUCH is too much?

We don't know the answer to that, but we're pretty sure $479,600 a year qualifies.

That's how much Washington Hospital is paying CEO Nancy Farber.

Farber will make a base salary of $406,000 during the 2003-04 fiscal year, a 10 percent raise from her 2002-03 salary of $368,000, plus she is getting a $73,000 bonus.

That editorial did not seem to prevent Farber from getting raise after raise in the subsequent years.

In 2011, the Los Angeles Times published an article with the headline, "Hospital executives occupy top tier of California's public workers."  It said this about the pay given Nancy Farber, still the CEO of Washington Township Health Care District,

The hospital's chief executive, Nancy Farber, is the second-highest-paid official covered in Chiang's database [of pay to public officials] so far. She was paid about $874,000 in 2009.

So Ms Farber's compensation has about doubled in the last 10 years, during which US cost of living has increased about 24% (look here).  And at least one local editorialist thought she was paid too much in 2003.

Justifying Large Payments with the Usual Talking Points

So why should the pay of the CEO of a relatively small public hospital system keep rising so fast, despite criticism.  To some extent in 2011, and quite clearly in 2013, her supporters trotted out the usual suspect arguments.

We previously have described (most recently here) how whenever anyone bothers to try to justify extravagant executive compensation at hospitals, and for that matter, most other health care organizations throughout the US, they seem to repeat the same set of talking points.    We first listed the talking points here, and then provided additional examples of their use here, here and here.   The talking points are:
-  we pay what everyone else pays
-  CEOs work hard and are brilliant, and so deserve high pay
-  high pay is needed to attract and retain competent, if not brilliant people.

In 2011, per the Los Angeles Times, "officials" of the health district combined all three in a single sentence, :

Officials at the Washington Township Health Care District in Fremont, Calif., also argued that they needed to pay 'market rate' to obtain top-quality staff.

In 2013,  the Argus - Mercury News described how Ms Farber's defenders used them all at length. 


CEOs Work Hard and are Brilliant

Board member Bernard Stewart, a local dentist who has served for more than a decade on Washington's board, said the salary comparison with other public employees was unfair.

'It's a temptation for all of us to compare the CEOs salary with other elected officials or other public officials, but I can't stress in the strongest means possible, that is an absolute error,' Stewart said. 'We in this hospital are a public hospital. We are a publicly elected board, but we are engaged in an incredibly competitive and difficult business and we are different from any other public organization in that regard.'

So one board member explicitly argued that being the CEO of a small public hospital system is much harder than any other kind of state government leadership position.

Since the article also included a comparison of Ms Farber's pay with that of the Governor of California,

By comparison, Gov. Jerry Brown will make just over $165,000 this year.

the board member implied that it is much harder to run a small public hospital district than the whole state.  That is breathtaking.


The board also more generally praised the CEO, 

 Ahead of the vote for the bonus Wednesday, all five board members praised Farber's leadership and said that, because of the difficulties facing the hospital, experienced leadership was needed.

In addition, note that hospital district board members suggested specific aspects of Ms Farber's performance worthy of high remuneration.

Board members credited Farber with implementing a new electronic records system, the construction of the district's new center for joint replacement on time and on budget, and for various accolades the district received last year. Among them, the district was ranked the fourth best hospital in the Bay Area by U.S. News & World Report and among the top 10 in the state for joint replacements by HealthGrades, a designation received for the last seven years.

Board members said Farber's decision to reduce the workforce was evidence of her exemplary leadership.

'Making the decision to downsize, or right-size, when necessary, is as much a part of being a responsible administrator as is building, growing and improving the health care system,' Nicholson said.

Board member Michael Wallace said Farber, 'has made tough and unpopular choices. The easy thing would have been to kick the can down the road, which is what we see happening all the time in Washington, but she didn't do that,'....

So we see here that the CEO is given personal credit for all good things, even good things that obviously required considerable work by other people.  I am certain that the CEO did not personally implement the EHR, did not construct the joint replacement center, and did not directly care for patients.   All the other employees who contributed to these apparent successes implicitly got no credit, and it is likely that some employees who actually contributed were laid off.

Furthermore, note that the board somehow believed that laying off employees in a time of financial stress, a hardly original business strategy in this day and age, and one presumably only undertaken due to a crisis, was somehow a sign of brilliant leadership.  Again, this is breathtaking.  

I would argue that asserting the CEO has a harder job than the state governor, giving the CEO credit for numerous activities that obviously required the work of many others, while denying her responsibility for financial distress amount to a prolonged logical fallacy, a prolonged appeal to authority.  The argument that whatever the CEO does MUST be brilliant, and its assessment should not be the subject of critical thought.


We Pay What Everyone Else Pays
High Pay is Needed for Recruitment and Retention

Admittedly, Ms Farber's defenders did not belabor these points as much, but, board member Michael Wallace said

'I don't want our leadership and management team wooed away by those monolithic systems willing to pay market compensation, which is a risk if we are not willing to do so.'

 He provided no evidence that this supposedly brilliant group of hired managers was in any danger of being recruited elsewhere.  As we have noted before, the evidence suggests that most top executives are recruited from within the organization, and hence this assertion is at best another kind of logical fallacy, an appeal to common practice.  

The Myth of the Divine Right of CEOs

We have seen again and again how top executives of health care organization, particularly CEOs, are given credit for everything good that happens, while avoiding responsibility for everything bad, and have the ability to continually enrich themselves regardless of the evidence about their personal performance, or about the context in which they work.  

Thus they are treated by those around them as some sort of aristocracy,  just short of omnipotent, minor deities.  In fact, as we wrote here, there is reason to think that some trends in economic thinking, combined, as we wrote here, with some trends in religious, or pseudo-religious thinking, have combined to promote something akin to the "divine right" of CEOs.

Yet CEOs and other health care executives are demonstrably human, and hence flawed.  Furthermore, shielding them from all accountability is a tremendous perverse incentive that is likely to lead to ever more incompetent, self-interested, mission-hostile, and even corrupt leadership.  

Somehow we need to start combating the talking points used to justify the lack of accountability and self-interest of top health care organizational leadership, and ultimately the whole notion of hired managers and executives as super human. 
As a society we need to wake up from our dazed acquiescence to ideas that border on crazy.  We need to challenge rote justifications and talking points for that which makes no sense, but serve to make the powerful more powerful.

"Why Do We Always Need to Blame Somebody?" - An Investment Banker Pushes Back Against Health Care Leadership Accountability

One of the many dramatic stories generated by the destructive Hurricane Sandy illustrated, oddly enough, the influence of big finance on American academic medicine.

Vivid video showed patients being carried down darkened stairways after flooding and a power failure at Langone Medical Center in New York (for example, see this CNN story.)  Amazingly, all the patients survived, thanks to heroic work by health care professionals and first responders.  CNN noted, "Some 1,000 staff members -- doctors, nurses, residents and medical students -- along with firefighters and police officers evacuated the patients."

The medical center suffered significant damage beyond that caused by the blackout.  A New York Times story about the problems was entitled, "A Flooded Mess that was a Medical Gem."  It noted the hospital's basement flooding destroyed major equipment like MRI machines, a linear accelerator and a gamma knife.  An animal research facility was destroyed and most of the animals died.  A renovated lecture hall and the library were ruined.

What Went Wrong?

However, soon after the debate began about why the hospital flooded and power failed.  A Bloomberg story stated,  

New York University Langone Medical Center, the 705-bed hospital in lower Manhattan that assured city officials it was ready for Hurricane Sandy, stood dark and empty a day after the storm rolled through.

That story raised questions whether hospital leadership gave adequate priority to infrastructure like generators, or put too much emphasis on spending likely to produce more rapid rewards.

Blame is being placed on the building’s outdated backup power system, which has raised concern that aging infrastructure at U.S. hospitals has created a risk for similar outages that jeopardize patient care.


'Hospitals are careful to get the latest and greatest medical equipment, but then they don’t spend on the infrastructure,' Michael Orlowicz, a principal at consulting company Lawrence Associates LLC, said....

A story on ProPublica (available on Salon) noted,

Experts say such failures are troubling but not entirely surprising. Dr. Arthur Kellermann founded the emergency department at Emory University and headed it from 1999 to 2007. Now, he’s Paul O’Neill-Alcoa Chair in Policy Analysis at RAND Corporation think tank.


The other night, as the NYU evacuation was unfolding, he tweeted, 'Hospital preparedness and well-functioning backup systems are a costly distraction from daily business, until they are needed. Like now.'


In an email interview with ProPublica, Kellermann elaborated: 'I have no doubt when the hospital assured the Mayor that their backup systems were ready, they believed they were. They were wrong. What I find most remarkable about this story is that [more than seven] years after Hurricane Katrina, major hospitals still have critical backup systems like generators in basements that are prone to flooding.'

Similarly, a Reuters story included another quote from Dr Kellermann,

'I've been asking hospitals to look at their own survivability' after a natural or manmade disaster, 'and I just can't get it on their radar screens,' said Dr. Art Kellerman,...

 
It added,

For hospital administrators trying to keep their institutions in the black, disaster-resistant infrastructure is expensive and lacks the sex appeal of robotic surgery suites and proton-beam cancer therapy to attract patients.

'People don't pick hospitals based on which one has the best generator,' Kellerman said. 

The notion that hospital leaders may put short-term revenue ahead of long-term infrastructure development, even when such development might be critical for patient safety, should not surprise Health Care Renewal readers.  Hospitals are often lead or influenced by those who believe maximizing short-term revenue should be the main goal of all management, an over-generalization of the idea promoted in business schools for a generation that business leaders should maximize "shareholder value," which has come to be defined as short-term stock price (see this post).

  Who Defended the Disaster Planning

 In response to this or anticipated criticism, leaders of Langone Medical Center deployed.  Not unexpectedly, one was Richard Cohen, the vice president for facilities, as reported by ProPublica, via the Huffington Post,  

After Hurricane Irene, officials at NYU Langone Medical Center spent several million dollars protecting its backup power system from flooding, according to Richard Cohen, vice president of facilities operations.

The hospital removed a fuel tank and a set of emergency generators at street level and chose to depend on what Cohen termed an 'extremely modern, extremely reliable' system of rooftop generators.

The hospital also built a new, flood-resistant house for pumps that draw fuel from the hospital's sealed underground tank and feed it to the generators that make electricity when New York City's power fails.

One vulnerability remained, and it proved to be the system's Achilles Heel. A portion of the hospital's power distribution circuits, which direct the generated electricity out into various areas of the hospital, were located in the hospital's basement.

'It's like what happens when you have a flood in your basement and the electrical panel is in your basement,' Cohen said.

Oops.  Why a crucial component of the system meant to protect the back up power system from threats including flooding was placed in an area at risk from flooding was not clear.   Only one story I could find (in the NY Times) included a response by the Dean of the Medical School and CEO of the Medical Center Dr Robert I Grossman.

At this point, Dr. Grossman said, he could only theorize as to why the generators had shut down. All but one generator is on a high floor, but the fuel tanks are in the basement. The flood, he said, was registered by the liquid sensors on the tanks, which then did what they were supposed to do in the event, for instance, of an oil leak. They shut down the fuel to the generators.

Oops again.  Why an effort to flood proof the hospital included an undeground fuel tank which could not be operated if water got near it was also not clear. 

The most voluble defender of the hospital's management proved to be one Mr Kenneth Langone.  As noted in a blog post in the Wall Street Journal, Mr Langone is the medical center's "board chair and benefactor."  In fact, as the NY Times reported in 2008,

Kenneth G Langone, a billionaire financier and founder of Home Depot, is giving another $100 million donation to New York University Medical Center, matching the one he made anonymously in 1999. 

In return, the university plans to name the medical center the N.Y.U. Langone Medical Center,....

The WSJ blog post asserted,

Langone said the hospital 'frequently' tested its generators and they had passed the tests, and the hospital was prepared for a 12-foot storm surge. 'We anticipated 12-foot surges, which we knew we could handle. We got 14-foot surges,' he said.


Some of the hospital generators were in the basement, which flooded. Langone acknowledged that the generators were 'not in the right location,' but that was an artifact of aging facilities undergoing an extensive upgrade. 'They’ve been there for years,' he said of the generators in the basement. As part of a $3.2 billion modernization, NYU Langone was planning on buying new generators and locating them in better locations than the basement, Langone said.

Oops one more time.  Mr Langone seemed to only offer inertia as an excuse for why some generators remained in the basement after an effort to flood proof the back up electrical system.
Langone was quoted in the CNN story mentioned above,

Kenneth Langone, the chairman of the hospital's board of trustees who also happened to be a patient there until he was discharged Tuesday morning, said that regulations require the generators to be tested regularly and that they've worked every time.


Langone said the hospital is in the midst of an 'enormous' building campaign. The generators are going to be replaced in a renovation, he said.

In a Bloomberg story, Langone was quoted again,

'We believed the machines would work, and we believed everything we were told about the scope and size of the storm,' Langone said.

 In that story, he tried to deflect attention from tha apparent infrastructure failure, and presumably the responsibility of the organization's leadership for it, to the efforts of health professionals,

'The backup generators failed, it’s that simple, but the story here is the magnificence of the effort of all of our people and what they did,' Langone, 77, said yesterday....

He also defended the relatively silent Dean and medical center CEO,

'What this dean has done is nothing short of spectacular, in every respect,' Langone said of Grossman. 'So last night God decides to give us a test and our machines failed.'

The story ended with yet another of his attempts to deflect attention to management's responsibility,

'Machines fail, airplanes take off in great shape and they have malfunctions,' Langone said. 'Why do we always need to blame somebody for something that could just have happened? Why not write a story about what people did because things happened? Let’s be a little positive once in a while.'

And in the WNYC News Blog, Langone appeared yet again with this apologia, 

He said hospital pumps failed, because they were overwhelmed by an event that was 'unprecedented' and 'an act of god.'


'The generators are on the seventh floor, and the fuel supply is in cement vaults in the basement, where they're supposed to be according to code,' Langone said. 'Moisture sensors shut down the pumps, but they did what they're supposed to do.'

Summary

Certainly the survival of all the former patients at Langone Medical Center due to brave efforts by health care professionals and first responders ought to be celebrated.  From the discussion so far, it is not clear whether the infrastructure failures were unavoidable due to the scope of a huge natural disaster, or whether the failures were the results of poor planning and insufficient attention to and investment in infrastructure.  Celebration of personal and professional dedication, however, ought not to distract from determining what lessons could be learned about making health care infrastructure safer in cases of natural disaster. 

It also ought not to distract from concerns about management accountability.  In this day and age, it is not surprising that no executive at Langone Medical Center would accept any responsibility for an effort to protect its electrical back-up power from flooding that included an underground fuel tank which would be shut down if any water affected it.  However, these executives are rewarded handsomely supposedly for their "spectacular" leadership.  (Dean Grossman received $1,744,780 in the 2010-2011 period according to the NYU Hospitals Center 2010 form 990.  That document listed four other executives who made over $1 million.)  One would think they would at least try to substantively address how their patients got put into such a precarious situation.

It is surprising that the silence from management was supplanted by the opinions of a very wealthy board chairman who paid hundreds of millions for some of the improvements to the hospital that were destroyed by the storm, but improvements that may not have included fully flood proofing the hospital's back up electrical system.  Why he may well be disappointed about the loss of what he spent so much to build, it is not clear why his opinions about technical aspects of disaster preparation should replace responses from those who were responsible for disaster preparedness.  After all, Mr Langone, while very wealthy, has no evident expertise in engineering, science, or anything pertaining to protecting infrastructure from natural disasters.  (Mr Langone's biography showed his background seems to be only in investment banking and finance.)  One wonders whether Mr Langone's prominence in the discussion suggests how influential the views of investment bankers, versus those of health care professionals, engineers and scientists, have become in the operation of health care systems.

Again, it appears that the culture of finance has intruded progressively into the cultures of health care and academics during an era in which finance has been increasingly irresponsible, as shown by the global financial collapse and our current economic woes.  Instead, true health care reform would develop leadership and governance that upholds health care professionals' values rather than worshiping short term revenue.

Traits that "Define a Great Hospital CFO" - Honesty, Integrity, Accountability not Included

A recent article in Becker's Hospital Review entitled, "6 Traits That Define a Great Hospital CFO" [Chief Financial Officer] was most remarkable for what traits were not included.

The Six Traits

Based on interviews with a managing director of health care recruiting for a large executive search firm, and an experienced CFO of large hospital system, the included traits were:
- "Conviction," including "some type of conviction and confidence that their decision-making abilities will lead the hospital to great healthcare outcomes, a healthy population and — as a result — a more financially stable organization."
- "Nimbleness and flexibility"
- "Calm demeanor"
- "Willingness to understand the clinical aspects," in particular, the ability to "at least understand the [clinical] processes from a layperson's point of view, and the most effective CFOs have great working relationships with physicians, nurses, technicians and others."
- "Ability to think long term"
- "Sense of humor"

To be fair, I am glad to see expectations that hospital leaders, even chief financial officers, know something about clinical care, and that they have some sort of commitment to it. This seems to be in contrast to our frequent posts about how the leadership of health care organizations often seems ignorant and uncaring about the health care context and health care values. (However, the phrase above about conviction was not clearly worded. In particular, it did not explicitly suggest quality clinical care ought to be a higher priority than revenue, and could have been read to mean that good care is just a means to increase revenue.)

I am also glad that the article promoted long-term thinking. It also seems to contrast with concerns (e.g., here) about how health care leadership may put short-term revenue ahead of all other goals, also called "financialization." However, again, the article did not explicitly give long-term goals a higher priority than short-term ones.

What was Missing

However, what was more striking were the dogs that did not bark. In particular, transparency, honesty and integrity or even being law-abiding were not on the list of key traits for a CFO. This is particularly noteworthy given how often we have discussed bad behavior by large health care organizations, including various kinds of deception and dishonest behavior, as well as outright crime, such as fraud, bribery or kickbacks, etc.

Also, the list of important traits did not include responsibility or accountability.   This is also noteworthy given that rarely if ever have the leaders of these organizations taken any responsibility or paid any penalty for bad behavior occurring on their watches. Although may large health care organizations have made numerous legal settlements of accusations that include fraud, kickbacks, etc, the leadership almost never admitted wrongdoing in any of them, and almost never had to accept any financial penalty form the organization. This parallels how the US legal system has rarely sought to punish any leader of a large health care organization in such cases, suggesting that health care leaders now have developed impunity.

Given that the article appeared in Becker's Hospital Review, a leading publication for hospital leaders, its apparent cynicism about what once were considered indispensable characteristics of good leadership was disturbing.  It is also disturbing that at the time this was written, the only comment on the on-line version of the article, also the only comment to note this lack, was written by your this humble scribbler.

Summary

This may test some CFOs' sense of humor, but instead let me propose my hopes for better health care leadership. To truly reform health care we should seek reasonable leadership that draws on the collective knowledge and values of health care professionals, and that shows accountability, integrity, transparency, honesty, and ethics.  Not asking our leaders to be honest, ethical and accountable just enables the current dysfunction. 

When Does Lavish Executive Compensation Become "Embezzlement?"

A single article in the Miami Herald raises the question of when is excessive executive compensation in health care too excessive.  To set up the question, I will be quoting from the story in an order quite differently from how the story was presented.

Background

The story is about the executives of the Miami Beach Community Health Center, described thus:

Headquartered on Biscayne Boulevard in North Miami, the Miami Beach Community Health Center is one of the oldest and most well-respected public health clinics in Florida. It opened more than three decades ago, and now includes four locations, three on the Beach, including two sites that care for people with mental illness. The center employs more than 280 people, with a monthly payroll of around $1.2 million.

The health center’s annual budget is about $36 million — about one-third of which comes from private insurance, Medicaid, the state and federal health insurance for needy people, Medicare, the federal insurer for elders, and private payments.

The CEO's Compensation

Previous stories, and public records suggested that the Center's CEO, Kathryn Abbate, was very well compensated. First,

an October 2010 Miami Herald business story ..., relying on federal tax documents, reported Abbate’s compensation package as $824,000 in 2008. In the article, Abbate said the compensation package was inflated by cashed-out sick time, vacation time and a retirement account.

She did even better in subsequent years,

The Miami Beach Community Health Center’s federal tax report for 2010 indicates Abbate’s base salary was $261,165 — but includes an additional $956,584 in 'bonus and incentive' dollars that pushed her total compensation to more than $1.2 million. The center’s IRS disclosure for the prior year reported Abbate’s base salary as $970,532, and total compensation of $987,902. In 2008, Abbate’s total reported compensation was $824,686, records show.

The CEO got very generous compensation given the size of her organization.  This compensation was documented on forms the organization submitted to the IRS that were in the public domain.

However, as we have discussed many times before (look here), many leaders of health care organizations, including non-profit organizations, have been collecting very generous compensation.

The Role of the Board of Trustees

As we have discussed before, e.g., here, exceptional compensation for top hired managers is often justified by the governing boards, that is, boards of trustees or directors, to whom the hired managers nominally report.  These governing board members often seem to be working off a common set of "talking points." 

In this case, there was a difference. The Herald reported that the Centers board of trustees "never agreed to pay Abbate more than $300,000, [Center Chief Medical Officer Dr Mark] Rabinowitz said."

The board seemed totally unaware of what their organization was paying its CEO.

Rabinowitz and a health center spokeswoman, Alia Faraj-Johnson, said that board members they spoke to had not seen the [2010] newspaper story [about the CEO's 2008 compensation]until just recently, and acknowledged its content would have raised significant red flags.

'That would have tripped everybody’s light,' Rabinowitz said.

Why the board had never thought to look at the organization's own reports (990 forms) to the US Internal Revenue Service which detailed the executives' compensation, reports that were in the public domain, and are easily available online (look here), is unknown.

The article implied that the board was somehow not up to this task even though it has fiduciary responsibilities to oversee the top hired managers, oversee the overall budget, and try to maintain both the organization's mission and fiscal stability did not seem up to the task. The article noted,

board members remained unaware until last spring. Under federal law, at least half of the board members of federally subsidized health centers such as Miami Beach’s must be consumers of the clinic, and some of the clinic’s board members were simply ill-equipped to detect what the center calls a sophisticated financial crime.

The board members seemed to think that it was the job of the CEO's subordinates to keep tabs on her compensation,

'One of the sad things about this, regrettably, is that if the gatekeeper in this case, the chief financial officer, had done his job, a large portion of this would have been discovered a long time ago,' said Bill Dillon, a Tallahassee-based healthcare lawyer who is advising the center.

The Chief Financial Officer contended that he would not have been able to successfully blow the whistle:

[CFO Stanley] DeHart, who lives in Coral Springs, said he was aware of many of Abbate’s activities, but declined to alert the board of directors. 'The board of directors was very close to her, and I really thought they would not believe me,' DeHart said. 'They held her in very high esteem.'

DeHart and members of his staff 'discussed whistle-blowing,' he said, but they all agreed taking such an action was more likely to result in their firing than Abbate’s. 'I felt at the time, and I still feel, that I had no proof that the board of directors would accept.'

And, DeHart added, blame for the scandal should include outside auditors, who failed to raise any objections when Abbate wrote dozens of checks to herself for 'community development' — a department that regularly generated an enormous amount of 'abnormal activity.' DeHart said he told auditors he suspected something was amiss in the community development department.

'The external auditors had to have known about this,' DeHart said, 'because I laid it out to them in plain view. I did not hide anything.'

In fact, the CEO's total compensation, plus a variety of other payments she seemed to direct to herself, were not made clear until

May, after a routine audit required by federal funders turned up irregularities, said Mark Rabinowitz, an obstetrician and gynecologist who is the center’s chief medical officer. Abbate had written a check for $5,000 to herself, and cashed it, labeling the expenditure a 'community development' expense....

Only after that,

Calling the actions of their former administrator an 'outrageous betrayal of trust,' authorities with the Miami Beach Community Health Center are investigating what they call the theft of almost $7 million in taxpayer money by the center’s longtime chief executive.

Members of the health center’s board of directors fired Chief Executive Officer Kathryn Abbate, saying she diverted the nearly $7 million in money intended to provide healthcare for the needy to her personal use beginning in 2008.

Summary

So let me backtrack a bit. The board of a moderately big, non-profit community health center seemed to make no attempt to monitor the organization's finances, did not even review the organization's own filings with the US government, and therefore had no idea what they were paying their CEO. Nonetheless, they seemed to assume that the organization's finances would be kept in order by an executive who reported to that same CEO. When an audit ordered externally ordered revealed that the CEO was being paid much more than the board had assumed, they charged "embezzlement," again even though a good chunk of such payments were in the form of compensation reported to the US government.

The real distinction between this case and many other cases of huge executive compensation we have discussed is that in this one the board seemed to be trying to maintain "plausible deniability" of any knowledge of the CEO's compensation, even though supervising that compensation was its direct responsibility. In other cases, board seem fully aware of enormous compensation, but blithely dismissive of any concerns about it. 

So does this case could represent "embezzlement, " why were all the other cases of hired managers lavishly compensated not so regarded, even when their compensation was completely out of proportion to their known accomplishments, their organizations' financial performance, much less their organizations' fulfillment of their missions and positive impact on patients' and the public's health?  In many of those cases, the money paid out in executive compensation was also partially derived from taxpayers, and also was partially meant to "provide healthcare for the needy."

As I have said many times before,...  Health care organizations need leaders that uphold the core values of health care, and focus on and are accountable for the mission, not on secondary responsibilities that conflict with these values and their mission, and not on self-enrichment. Leaders ought to be rewarded reasonably, but not lavishly, for doing what ultimately improves patient care, or when applicable, good education and good research.


If we do not fix the severe problems affecting the leadership and governance of health care, and do not increase accountability, integrity and transparency of health care leadership and governance, we will be as much to blame as the leaders when the system collapses.