Is the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation a Charity or a Venture Capital Firm?

We have often discussed how health care organizations now seem prone to diversion from their stated missions, often when money is the object.  While the organizations in question are frequently academic, teaching hospitals, academic medical centers, or medical schools in particular, in May, the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel presented an example of a disease specific charity.  This article deserves considerably more attention than it apparently initially received.

Background

The background was,

What happens when a disease-fighting charity dives into venture capitalism?

In the first case of its kind, the results include one of the planet's most expensive pills, huge sales projections for a drug company and windfalls for executives who sold stock in the glow of enthusiastic news releases about the drug.

Kalydeco is a breakthrough drug designed from knowledge of the genetic roots of cystic fibrosis, a lung disease that kills most victims before they reach middle age. Developed by Vertex Pharmaceuticals with a $75 million investment from the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, it is an early example of 'venture philanthropy,' where a nonprofit helps finance development of a treatment in return for a cut of sales.

Remember that while disease specific charities often sponsor basic and clinical research, in this case, the CFF sponsored drug development.  In fact, much of the research on which this development was based was sponsored by charities and the US National Institutes of Health:

In the 1980s, Francis Collins, now director of the National Institutes of Health, was a researcher at the University of Michigan and on his way to becoming a renowned gene hunter.

Collins and a team headed up by Lap-Chee Tsui at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto collaborated to identify the gene responsible for cystic fibrosis. That breakthrough involved funding from the NIH, the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, said Collins.

Another decade of intense basic science followed, much of it funded by NIH.

The Price to Patients 

Despite, or perhaps because of the funding provided by CFF, Vertex chose a stratospheric price for its new drug.

 Yet it costs each patient $307,000 a year to take two Kalydeco pills a day - a price borne by taxpayers through Medicaid and other government programs and by the workers and companies who finance employee health insurance plans.

In 2012, with less than a full-year on the market, Vertex sold $172 million worth of Kalydeco....

To put that in perspective, the yearly cost of Kalydeco is approximately six times the median family income in the US.


Minimizing the Harms

To put it further into perspective, keep in mind that for the moment, the data from the single best published clinical trial on Kalydeco suggests that while the drug seems to help the average patient, it is not without risks, and it is certainly not a cure.

The largest published trial that followed patients for a reasonable amount of time appeared in 2011 in the New England Journal of Medicine.  [Ramsey BW, Davies J, McElvaney G et al.  A CFTR potentiator in patients with cystic fibrosis and the G551D mutation. N Engl J Med 2011; 365: 1663-1672.  Link here.]  The study followed 161 patients for 48 weeks.  The patients treated with Kalydeco on average showed improved lung function (increase of FEV1 [forced expiratory volume in one second] of 10% compared to essentially no change (-0.2 percent) in the placebo group.  Treated patients were less likely to have an exacerbation of their pulmonary disease requiring hospitalization (31% vs 49%).  So the drug certainly seems to have benefits at least in the short term.  The number needed to treat to prevent one exacerbation requiring hospitalization in one year is five, which seems quite respectable.

On the other hand, the drug may have significant harms, even thought the report of the study seems to have attempted to minimize them.  The article stated

there was a lower rate of serious adverse events in the ivacaftor [Kalydeco] group than in the placebo group (24% vs 42%).  

However, this statement depended on a rather peculiar definition of severe adverse events.  In particular, pulmonary exacerbations of cystic fibrosis were included among severe adverse events.  Yet these are, as the term suggests, manifestations of the disease that is being treated.  Reduction of pulmonary adverse events should be and was considered a measure of efficacy.  So placing exacerbations within the definition of adverse events essentially double counts these incidents. 

Furthermore, the presence of these within the category of adverse events swamps out other events which may in fact be adverse results of the study drug.  If one subtracts pulmonary exacerbations and hemoptysis from the counts of serious adverse events, what remains is that patients on Kalydeco were more likely to have a serious adverse event (10%) than those on placebo (4%).  Thus the apparent number needed to harm was 17.  Thus, using this peculiar definition of adverse events appears to be a way to manipulate the analysis to minimize the apparent harmfulness of the drug.

While the study did appear to show that more patient received the benefit of avoiding a hospitalization due to a pulmonary exacerbation of cystic fibrosis than had a serious adverse event, the study did not show that the drug had overwhelming efficacy, or tremendous safety.   The study did not last long enough to show long term advantages, or to rule out rare but severe side effects.

This is the only drug available of this type, and it may well provide benefits that outweigh harms, at least over the short-term, but it is not a wonder drug, and the rationale to charge so much money for it, other than that is what the market will bear, is not obvious.  

A Windfall for Corporate Executives, and a Question of Insider Trading

The drug's approval has lead to a lot of financial success for stock holders, particularly Vertex executives:

 Last month, news about success of the drug sent Vertex stock soaring more than $6 billion in a single day. That surge and a similar one last May allowed top executives and directors of the company to sell stock and options worth more than $100 million.

The executives' lavish windfall occurred in somewhat questionable circumstances:

Vertex and its executives have benefited greatly from Kalydeco and foundation funding.

Last May, when Vertex and the foundation reported positive results from a clinical trial involving Kalydeco and whether it could be combined with another drug to treat more patients, the company's stock jumped more than 70%, from $37.41 to $64.85 a share.

Five executives and two directors sold off more than $35 million in shares, mainly at prices from about $55 to $64 a share. Many of the options were priced between $16 and $40 a share.

Three weeks later, the company said it overstated the effectiveness of the drug in that trial and the stock dropped about $7 a share, ultimately falling back under $40 by December.

Vertex spokeswoman Nikki Levy said in an email the company does not comment on individual stock sales.  She said the executive stock sales either were part of pre-existing 10b5-1 plans or followed the company's internal stock trading policy. A 10b5-1 plan is an automatic trading tool in which executives specify timing or pricing of sales to avoid questions about inside information the seller had at the time.

U.S. Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) wrote a letter to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, saying it could appear that Vertex executives took advantage of the situation, knowing the overstated clinical trial results would eventually be made public and cause the stock price to drop.

The letter said the stock sales were troubling for industry investors and the federal government, which pays billions of dollars a year for drugs through Medicaid and Medicare.

Judith Burns, a spokeswoman for the SEC, declined to comment on the Grassley letter.

Last month, the company's stock shot up more than 60% again, from $52.87 to $85.60, after positive early data from a clinical trial of Kalydeco and another drug it is developing with funding from the foundation. On April 19, the day after the news was released, the company's market value jumped by more than $6 billion.

That same day, two company executives sold huge chunks of stock options. Executive Vice President and Chief Financial Officer Ian Smith alone sold 745,685 shares worth more than $60 million. Most shares were sold at $81.50, with options purchased from $29 to $39.

So at least Senator Grassley raised the question of whether Vertex executives may have taken advantage of their insider knowledge to personally profit even more from this useful but not miraculous drug meant to be used on vulnerable patients.

Keep in mind that those huge trading gains were layered on top of already lavish compensation.  The 2013 Vertex proxy statement, the total compensation and stock holdings of its top executives in 2012 was:

Jeffrey M Leiden, CEO                                $5,656,684      441,160 shares
Ian F Smith, CFO                                           $3,109,193      795,434
Stuart A Arbuckle, Chief Commercial Officer   $4,808,697         66,477
Kenneth L Horton, Chief Legal Officer             $2,802,735         41,161
Peter Mueller, Chief Scientific Officer              $3,614,890        997,651
Matthew W Emmens, Former CEO                  $6,896,029    1,486,748
David T Howton Jr, Fomer Chief Legal Officer $3,447,898           3,105



So the top executives of Vertex, while their company got $75 million from an ostensible charity to develop what became an extremely expensive drug, got very rich in the process, although how they got rich may yet attract attention from the SEC.

A Windfall for the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation and its Executives

Furthermore, it appears that the supposedly charitable Cystic Fibrosis Foundation also made quite a bit of money, and its executives, while not getting quite as rich as their associates in Vertex, did not do at all badly.

As the Journal Sentinel noted,

the foundation cashed in by selling future royalties from the drug to an undisclosed firm for $150 million.

Keep in mind that since the CFF was to receive royalties, the money it gave for drug development was not a grant, but an investment.

Furthermore, according to the Foundation's 2011 form 990 (the latest available), its executives received the following total compensation from the foundation and its affiliated organizations:

Robert J Beall, CEO                                                      $1,073,725
C Richard Mattingly, COO                                              $759,799
Preston W Campbell MD, Exec VP of Medical Affairs     $736,031
Vera H Twigg, CFO                                                         $445,183
Ann Palmer, Senior VP                                                     $276,029 
Daniel Klein, Senior VP                                                    $277,300
Gregory August, CIO                                                       $262,698
David McLoughlin, Senior VP                                          $316,122
Glen Goldmark, VP                                                          $253,215
Amy DeMaria, Senior VP                                                 $241,672
Mary Dwight, Senior VP                                                   $246,232

These compensation amounts may be much lower than the gargantuan pay dealt out to for-profit health care corporate executives, but they are very high for those who are managing a supposed charity meant to help vulnerable patients.

A More Complex Web

While profiting from its underwriting of the development of Kalydeco, the CFF also sponsored guidelines about the treatment of cystic fibrosis, with not unexpected results.

Last month, new treatment guidelines for doctors who handle cystic fibrosis patients strongly recommended use of Kalydeco. The guidelines were funded by the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation.

Three of the 10 authors of the guidelines were employees of the foundation and four others worked for institutions that received grants from the foundation. The chairman, Peter Mogayzel, is a professor of pediatrics at Johns Hopkins University, which foundation tax records show received more than $2 million in grants from 2009 through 2011.

These guidelines hardly look like they would be deemed trustworthy according to the Institute of Medicine's standards (look here).  However, they certainly look like they might help sell ivacaftor, and hence help justify higher pay for the executives listed above.

Criticism of Venture Philanthropy

Merriam-Webster online suggests one definition of a charity is an institution funded by a gift for public benevolent purposes.

The Cystic Fibrosis Foundation appears to be such a charity, but now one that functions more as a venture capitalist.  In this case, it did provide venture capital to develop a new drug for its disease of interest.  However, the foundation appeared to have done so not to provide public benevolence, but to generate a  return on its investment.  It is using that return not for public benevolence, but to provide more venture capital to other drug companies, presumably with the goal of getting further returns.  Meanwhile, its executives make generous compensation for people who are supposed to be running a charity.  Finally, the drug has an astronomical price, and its pricing has helped make investors in and executives of the company supported by the CFF very rich.

This has not been lost on some dissidents, per the Journal Sentinel,

'The concept of a charitable, not-for-profit taking on the role of a venture capitalist is new and difficult to digest at the moment,' said Paul Quinton, a cystic fibrosis researcher at the University of California, Riverside and the University California, San Diego.

Quinton, who has cystic fibrosis, is one of 28 doctors and scientists who sent a letter to Vertex calling the price of Kalydeco 'unconscionable.' A copy of the letter was provided to the Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today. Kalydeco, the doctors wrote, costs 10 times more than what a typical cystic fibrosis patient pays in total drug costs.

'This action could appear to be leveraging pain and suffering into huge financial gain for speculators, some of whom were your top executives who reportedly made millions of dollars in a single day,' the doctors wrote.

Vertex responded with seeming contempt,

 Since receiving the letter last July, Vertex has raised the annual price of Kalydeco another $13,000.

The funding by the supposedly charitable CFF of guidelines that promote the drug it financed has also drawn criticism,

 'It is definitely a conflict of interest,' said Eric Campbell, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School who has researched conflicts of interest in patient treatment guidelines.

In the past, drug companies have been criticized for funding treatment guidelines that recommend their drugs. It is no different if the guidelines are funded by a foundation that gets royalties from drug sales, Campbell said.

Also,

'It is concerning that the organization now stands to profit when patients choose to use the drug,' ... [Prof Lisa Schwartz of Dartmouth Medical School] said. 'Financial entanglement with industry, even with the best of intentions, creates a conflict of interest.'

However, the very well paid CEO of the CFF pooh poohed concerns about conflicts of interest,

Robert Beall, president of the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, said that without its financial support, drugs such as Kalydeco would never get to patients. Neither insurance companies nor patients have voiced any concern to him about conflicts of interest, he said.

'They applaud the decision and our business model to the utmost,' Beall said. 'The patients are excited.'

He rejected the idea of using the royalty money to help patients pay for the medical care, noting that the foundation needed the money to entice drug companies to get involved in risky cystic fibrosis drug research.

One wonders when patients would ever have the opportunity to voice any "concerns" to Mr Beall, who also disdained any restraints on the price of the drug,

.Beall said the foundation did not ask Vertex to price the drug more affordably.

'That would have been a deal-breaker,' he said.

That seems to put making money ahead of patients' needs.  Was this venture philanthropy, or vulture philanthropy? 

 Summary

We have discussed numerous cases in which non-profit health care organizations seem to put short term revenue ahead of their missions to further patients' and the public's health.  In this case, a disease specific charity seems to have foregone its mission to directly support patient care, teaching, or research to provide venture capital, an action which lead to a profit for the organization, huge profits for a drug company, large rewards for the charity's executives, and even greater wealth for the drug company's executives.  It did also lead to the marketing of a beneficial drug, but at a breathtaking price that no middle-class patient without exceedingly good insurance could afford.  

Where is the public benevolence here?  Where is the charity?  How much is about patients and how much is about  making insider executives wealthy? 

As we have said until blue in the face, true health care reform would ensure health care organizational leadership that upholds the health care mission, not their personal finances.  

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.

Clouded "Visionary" Leadership - Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center's EPIC "Business Cycle Disruptions"

A typical excuse for the multi-million dollar compensation now enjoyed by many leaders of health care organizations is these leaders' supposed brilliance.

For example, in 2011 we noted  that the total compensation of Dr John McConnell, the CEO of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center, a non-profit teaching hospital, rose from over $700,000 in 2008-2009 to over $1.6 million in 2009-2010.  Other top executives in the system made nearly one million a piece.  An official statement from the hospital system claimed that this level of compensation was needed to "retain skilled executives and visionary leaders for the medical center."  Furthermore, in 2012 we noted that in 2010-2011 Dr McConnell's compensation had grown to nearly $2.5 million, while other top executives received from over $900,000 to over $1.1 million. 

Recent events, however, suggest that the "visionaries" may need new glasses.

An EPIC Challenge

Last month, the Winston-Salem Journal reported that Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is facing some unexpected fiscal challenges, especially from its new electronic health record (EHR):

Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s struggles to implement its Epic electronic records system contributed to additional costs and lost revenue during the first half of its fiscal year 2012-13.

The center provided the information in a second-quarter financial report submitted to bond agencies in which it also reported a $49.6 million operational loss and a gain of $7.4 million in overall excess revenue.

That is interesting.  There have been many criticisms of EHRs, particularly for how they may impede, rather than help health professionals, and more importantly for their risks of causing adverse effects affecting patients, in the absence of clear data from controlled clinical trials that they provide benefits that outweigh their potential harms to patients.  Some of these problems may stem from design and implementation that prioritizes benefits to managers and institutional finances over effects on patients and doctors.  As InformaticsMD noted, even the AMA now admits that

 As the healthcare industry moves to EHRs, the medical record has essentially been reduced to a tool for billing, compliance, and litigation that also has a sustained negative impact on doctors' productivity, according to Steven J. Stack, MD, chair of the American Medical Association’s board of trustees.

Yet in this case, a well known commercial EHR did not even help out the hospital system's finances.

Furthermore,

Wake Forest Baptist said it spent as of Dec. 31 about $13.3 million directly on the Epic electronic-record system, which went live in September.

And,

 The center also cited $8 million in 'other Epic-related implementation expense' that it listed among 'business-cycle disruptions (that) have had a greater-than-anticipated impact on volumes and productivity.' Also listed was $26.6 million in lost margin 'due to interim volume disruptions during initial go-live and post go-live optimization.'

Note that InformaticsMD frequently criticizes proponents of commercial health care information technology for glossing over potentially bad effects on patients and practice with management-speak (e.g., as "glitches," or "hiccups.").  Here is a great example of an attempt to gloss over bad effects on finance with management-speak.

Bond Downgrades and Furloughs, Wage Reductions, Hiring Freezes, Retirement Contribution Reductions, and Bonus Eliminations

As a consequence,

 On March 20, Moody’s Investors Service downgraded the center’s long-term debt rating below the lowest level of high-grade investment quality. The downgrade to A1 from Aa3 affects $597.2 million of rated debt outstanding.

The rationale was clear,

 Moody’s said the A1 rating 'reflects the unexpected decline in financial performance through the first half of fiscal 2013, largely due to the installation of a new information technology platform (Epic), encompassing 95 percent of all revenue components of the enterprise.'

You know when you see bond downgrade by rating agencies that  financial matters are really going badly.  

By May, 2013, month, the problems were evidently still not solved, and the hospital was forced to take more drastic measures.  As again reported by Richard Carver writing for the Winston-Salem Journal,

The workforce at Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center is paying a paycheck price to make up for the financial shortcomings to date of its Epic electronic records system.

The center said in a statement Thursday it has begun another round of cost-cutting measures that will last through at least June 30, the end of its 2012-13 fiscal year.


The measures include attempts at volunteer employee furloughs and hour-and-wage reductions, a hiring freeze, a reduction in employer retirement contributions, and elimination of executive incentive bonuses for 2013.

Management made clear that the cuts were in response to the Epic debacle,

Even though management said Thursday the center is making progress with fixing the Epic revenue issues, it acknowledged it 'will not meet projected financial targets for the current fiscal year.'

'Wake Forest Baptist has identified immediate multimillion-dollar savings with a series of short-term measures that impact personnel,' according to the statement.

To give credit where it is due, at least the cuts will apparently not affect line clinical employees:

 Those primarily affected by the volunteer furloughs and hour-and-wage reduction requests are nonclinical full-time employees, including administrative staff. They can volunteer to work as few as 30 hours a week with no loss of health or dental benefits for May and June. In the memo, management said employees can volunteer to continue the reduced-hour work week into fiscal year 2013-14.

However, it seems likely that they will affect many employees, including some proportion who likely had not responsibility for the problems with Epic.

When in Doubt, Lobby the Government

What the hospital system did not seem to be cutting was lobbying and public relations.  Perhaps this was a response to its unexpected inability to manage its own commercial health care information technology?  What bad management can lose, maybe government can supplant.  Once again Richard Carver had the story for the Journal:

Stung by a series of unusual setbacks at the General Assembly, the North Carolina hospital industry is launching a public relations campaign aimed, in part, at protecting revenues and staving off competition from lower cost surgery centers.

In a social media initiative targeted at lawmakers and their constituents, the N.C. Hospital Association says hospitals are 'fighting for their economic survival.' [It was not said whether they were fighting in part because they had already managed to shoot themselves in their economic feet - Ed]


The association and some of the state’s bigger hospitals also are hiring more GOP lobbyists to make inroads with the Republicans who control the state House, Senate and governor’s mansion.

The hospital association recently began promoting a new website — www.healthyhospitalsnc.org — that describes an array of financial threats.

Wake Forest Baptist is a big part of this initiative:

When asked about its lobbying efforts, Wake Forest Baptist spokeswoman Paula Faria said last week that the center’s Office of Government Relations monitors proposed legislation and regulations at both the federal and state levels.

'It informs North Carolina’s congressional delegation, members of the General Assembly and their staff about how proposed language could impact the day-to-day operations of the medical center.'

Maybe they should be first worrying about the impact of badly chosen, designed, or implemented commercial health care information technology on "day-to-day operations of the medical center" first.

 Summary

So the top executives of Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center have seen compensation rising at a rate greater than inflation and than the general public's income over the last few years.  In particular, the CEO has seen his compensation go up three and one-half times in three years!  The hospital system administration has justified this extraordinary increase by referring to supposedly "visionary" leadership.  Yet over this time frame these "visionaries" decided to implement an EHR whose first effects were to lose the hospital system a lot of money.  Based on previous anecdotes about the Epic system, it is quite possible it had other adverse effects.  For example, InformaticsMD discussed a case in which an EPIC system apparently lead to a large disruption in patient workflow and hence large increases in waits for acute care, and lead to errors that could have adversely affected patients.  So this underscores some important lessons:

So beware that "visionary" behind the curtain. As we have noted repeatedly, top health care managers can now easily make themselves rich.  They, their boards of directors (who may be their cronies), and their public relations flacks often justify their exorbitant compensation by their supposed brilliance, if not visionary status.  Such claims are rarely further explained, and mostly seem be be humbug, for want of a better term.  It seems that most top leaders of health care organizations have participated in the managers' coup d'etat, and become at least manager nobility, if not manager-kings  At least, the public should know that their compensation is what they can grab, and its justification is often nonsense. 

Note that contrary to a red herring argument often made, outrageous compensation is important not so much because of how much money it drains out of health care, although that can be large in the aggregate.  It is important because it reflects a system that is no longer accountable, and leaders who follow perverse incentives.

Such management compensation is almost never revisited to determine whether it turned out to be justified.  Instead, the public, watchdog organizations, health care professionals, and even politicians ought to demand accountability of health care management, good  justification for their compensation, and rationality for the incentives they are provided.  True health care reform would encourage well-informed, competent, mission-focused, honest, responsible, accountable and transparent management, leading organizations of manageable size.  But as long as things stay the same, expect the craziness to continue.   

UnitedHealth CEO Continues to Prosper While His Company's Behavior Appears to Contradict its Mission Statement

Tis spring, the season in the US for legal settlements, government findings, and proxy statements revealing executive compensation.  Therefore, maybe there should be no surprise that we are seeing a series of cases in which health care corporate leaders continue to enrich themselves while their organizations' behavior raises ethical questions.

Following on the Amgen example, we now present the latest UnitedHealth example (in a post organized similarly.)

The CEO Gets Richer

Last week, the Associated Press (via the Washington Post) summarized UnitedHealth CEO Stephen J Hemsley's growing pile of money:

UnitedHealth Group Inc. kept CEO Stephen J. Hemsley’s salary stable in 2012 but bumped up his total compensation for a year in which the nation’s largest health insurer grew earnings and enrollment and launched a major acquisition.

The Minnetonka, Minn., insurer gave its top executive a compensation package valued at about $13.9 million last year, according to the company’s proxy statement filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. That’s up 4 percent from the $13.4 million total he received last year.

Hemsley, 60, received a $1.3 million annual salary in 2012, like he has the past several years. He also received $7 million in stock awards, which is the same total as 2011. But his performance-based bonus climbed 7 percent to $5.3 million, and he received $287,443 in other compensation, up from $154,804 in 2011.

Other compensation included savings plan contributions and a $125,000 Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvement Act filing fee payment UnitedHealth made on behalf of the CEO so he could maintain and increase his stock ownership in the company.

At the same time, Hemsley continued to cash in stock options which also added to his riches:
 

Outside AP’s calculation of his 2012 total compensation, Hemsley also acquired 284,836 shares that had vested with a value of $15.3 million. He also exercised options to acquire 600,000 shares and realized a value of $12.5 million. Those options and stock awards had been previously given to the executive.

The proxy said Hemsley directly owned UnitedHealth shares valued at about $140 million, as of March 1.

The Mission Promises Much but the Company Delivers Less

On one hand, the rate of rise of Hemsley's compensation at least seemed comparable to the company's financial performance:

Overall, UnitedHealth shares climbed 7 percent to close 2012 at $54.24, a smaller gain than the 13.4 percent advance from the Standard & Poor’s 500 index.

On the other hand, the largess given to the CEO ought to be contrasted with the how UnitedHealth failed to deliver what its mission promised.  

Most recently, a jury found the company failed to live up to its legal obligation (in the state of Nevada) to review the quality of the clinicians on its panel.  As reported by Bloomberg,

Two UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH)  units must pay $24 million in damages for failing to properly monitor a doctor who gave two colonoscopy patients hepatitis C by employing substandard medical practices, a Nevada jury ruled.

Jurors in state court in Las Vegas deliberated about five hours over two days before finding officials of Health Plan of Nevada and Sierra Health Services were negligent in their oversight of Dipek Desai.  The former gastroenterologist has been blamed for infecting patients with hepatitis C by reusing vials of the anesthetic Propofol and failing to sterilize equipment.

The panel ordered the two UnitedHealth units to pay $15 million in compensatory damages to Bonnie Brunson and her husband and $9 million to Helen Meyer. The two women contend they got hepatitis during colonoscopy procedures at Desai’s clinic. Their lawyers said earlier in the case they may ask the jury to award more than $1 billion in punitive damages.

The verdict reflects 'what’s wrong with health insurance companies in the U.S.' Robert Eglet, Brunson’s lawyer, said in an interview after the verdict was announced. 'They put profit before patient safety.'

Note that the state of Nevada does explicitly hold managed care organizations accountable for the clinical quality of its health care professionals' practice,

 

Meyer and Brunson sued under a Nevada law requiring HMOs to file annual reports showing officials reviewed the quality of health services provided to their members.

The women’s lawyers argued officials of the UnitedHealth units knew Desai had a reputation for sloppy practice before giving him a contract to handle colonoscopies and then didn’t check the quality of his work. At one point, Desai was a member of Nevada's Board of Medical Examiners,  which oversees the licensing of doctors in the state.

The plaintiffs contend the insurer didn’t properly monitor Desai’s practices and procedures even though they received complaints about his practices.

During the trial, witnesses said Desai adopted a cavalier attitude toward patient safety, speeding through procedures so he could see as many as 20 patients in a three-hour period.

The women’s lawyers argued the insurers’ executives had an obligation to insure Desai was providing quality care to their HMO members and were required to vet his practices before hiring him.

Also note that managed care organizations and other health insurers often boast about the quality of their provider panels.
For example, see the UnitedHealth mission statement:

- Our mission is to help people live healthier lives. Our role is to help make health care work for everyone.
 - We seek to enhance the performance of the health system and improve the overall health and well-being of the people we serve and their communities.
- We work with health care professionals and other key partners to expand access to quality health care so people get the care they need at an affordable price.
- We support the physician/patient relationship and empower people with the information, guidance and tools they need to make personal health choices and decisions.

It seems reasonable to interpret the italicized parts above as a statement of accountability for the quality of care provided by the health care professionals within the United network.

To reinforce that accountability, a subsequent Bloomberg story added,

Two UnitedHealth Group Inc (UNH) units must pay $500 million in punitive damages for failing to oversee a doctor blamed for giving colonoscopy patients hepatitis C through shoddy medical practices, a Nevada jury found.

Jurors in state court in Las Vegas deliberated more than six hours yesterday before handing down the punitive-damages award against Health Plan of Nevada and Sierra Health Services for turning a blind eye to Dipak Desai's actions. 

Furthermore, the lofty UnitedHealth mission statement should be compared to two recent government findings.

In the state of California, as reported by the Los Angeles Times,

California Insurance Commissioner Dave Jones said the nation's largest health insurer, UnitedHealth Group Inc., is imposing unreasonable rate hikes on about 5,000 small businesses. 

Jones said Wednesday that UnitedHealth couldn't justify the average annual increase of nearly 8%, which reflects both higher premiums and a reduction in benefits. He said the rate hike, which went into effect Wednesday, affects up to 45,000 small-business employees and dependents and represents $12.5 million in higher costs.

'At a time when small businesses are struggling to survive, UnitedHealthcare's rate increase is just one more unwarranted economic burden on California's small business owners and their employees,' Jones said. 

Such behavior seems to contradict the mission statement's assurance that the company will seek to provide health care at "an affordable price."

Meanwhile, Bloomberg just published a story about how UnitedHealth has been running an insurance program for US military families.

The Pentagon rebuked UnitedHealth (UNH) Group Inc, the nation’s largest insurer, after military families began experiencing long delays getting medical-care referrals from the company. 

The backlogs occurred almost as soon as Minnetonka, Minnesota-based UnitedHealth took over a contract, valued as much as $20.5 billion, from TriWest Healthcare Alliance Corp. It assumed responsibility on April 1 for the western region of the military’s health-care system, known as Tricare.

UnitedHealth’s 'failure to meet contractor requirements' has prevented a large number of beneficiaries in one Tricare health plan from obtaining timely access to specialty care, Jonathan Woodson, assistant secretary of defense for health affairs, said in a memo yesterday to other military leaders.

Woodson, calling the situation 'extraordinary,' said the Pentagon stepped in to grant a temporary waiver so the plan’s members in the western region could get specialty care without UnitedHealth’s authorization and not incur penalties.. 

This behavior seemed to contradict the mission statement's assurance that the company seeks to "expand access to quality health care."

The Song Remains the Same 

Of course, UnitedHealth actually has a very long record of preaching about its aspirational mission, while paying its top hired managers extraordinary amounts and contradicting that mission, and at times ethical norms. Our posts on UnitedHealth are here. Recently we wrote,

 UnitedHealth would be the company whose CEO once was worth over a billion dollars due to back dated stock options, some of which he had to give back, but despite all the resulting legal actions, was still the ninth best paid CEO in the US for the first decade of the 21st century (look here). UnitedHealth would be the company whose then CEO made a cool $106 million in 2009 (look here).

Moreover, UnitedHealth would also be the company known for a string of ethical lapses:
- as reported by the Hartford Courant, "UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest U.S. health insurer, will refund $50 million to small businesses that New York state officials said were overcharged in 2006."
- UnitedHalth promised its investors it would continue to raise premiums, even if that priced increasing numbers of people out of its policies (see post here);
- UnitedHealth's acquisition of Pacificare in California allegedly lead to a "meltdown" of its claims paying mechanisms (see post here);
- UnitedHealth's acquisition of Sierra Health Services allegedly gave it a monopoly in Utah, while the company allegedly was transferring much of its revenue out of the state of Rhode Island, rather than using it to pay claims (see post here)
- UnitedHealth frequently violated Nebraska insurance laws (see post here);
- UnitedHealth settled charges that its Ingenix subsidiaries manipulation of data lead to underpaying patients who received out-of-network care (see post here).
- UnitedHealth was accused of hiding the fact that the physicians it is now employing through its Optum subsidiary in fact work for a for-profit company, not directly for their patients (see post here).

Summary

The US dysfunctional health care system has produced a long string of big corporations that promise warm and fuzzy health care yet deliver something less, all the while mightily enriching their top hired managers. Given the deadly serious nature of the health care system, these companies' promises, marketing, public relations and mission statements cannot be dismissed as fluff and puffery. Market fundamentalists and executive apologists have touted our system as market based. If patients must act as consumers, they cannot make good consuming decisions if they are awash with deceptive marketing and advertising. It is one thing for Hollywood to advertise blockbuster movies that are duds. It is another for health care corporations to advertise quality care and deliver bad care.

As we have said far too many times, 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.

Amgen CEOs Prosper Despite (or Because of) Continuing Ethical Questions

This is becoming a familiar narrative on Health Care Renewal: top health care leaders continue to enrich themselves while their organizations' behavior continues to raise ethical questions.

For our latest example we return to the ongoing adventures of biotechnology giant Amgen.

CEOs Get Richer

An AP story (via the LA Times) documented the continuing enrichment of its current CEO:

Amgen Inc's new chief executive, Robert A. Bradway, received total compensation of $13.6 million in 2012, more than his predecessor, according to an analysis of a company regulatory filing.

Bradway, who was promoted from chief operating officer to chief executive May 23, saw his compensation nearly double from $7.1 million in 2011.

Last year Bradway, 50, was paid a salary of $1.26 million and received stock awards worth $8.57 million, incentive payments of $3.32 million and miscellaneous compensation totaling $420,059. That included nearly $314,000 in retirement plan contributions, $65,000 for personal use of company aircraft, more than $20,000 for his personal expenses and those of guests during business travel, and $15,000 for financial planning services.

The former CEO also did very well in his final year in office.

Former CEO Kevin W. Sharer, who stepped down from his seat on Amgen's board when he retired Dec. 31, received compensation totaling $9.13 million last year.

Sharer was paid a 2012 salary of $1.81 million and received stock awards worth $3.66 million, incentive payments of $2.31 million and miscellaneous compensation totaling $1.36 million. That included $801,000 in retirement plan contributions, nearly $262,000 for personal use of company aircraft, more than $38,000 for his personal expenses and those of guests during business travel, $15,000 for financial planning services and more than $255,000 for secretarial, information technology and travel support. Much of that support runs through 2017.

You would think they could both afford financial planning on their own.

Legal Settlements Pile Up

Keep in mind that as we discussed in late 2012 and early 2013, Amgen pleaded guilty to a charge of misbranding for promoting its epoetin drug Aranesp for unapproved indications, and settled allegations of giving kickbacks to physicians to increase the drug's use, among other charges, for a total of $762 million.

Furthermore, soon after the CEOs' compensation was announced, tiny articles in local media announced two more settlements by Amgen.

A small AP story (again via the LA Times) noted another settlement regarding allegations of unethical promotion of Aranesp:

The US Department of Justice said Tuesday that biotech drug maker Amgen Inc. will pay $24.9 million to resolve claims it paid kickbacks to increase sales of its anemia drug Aranesp.

The Justice Department said Amgen paid kickbacks to Omnicare Inc. and PharMerica Corp., which sell drugs to long-term care providers such as nursing homes and hospitals, and Kindred Healthcare Inc., which runs long-term acute-care hospitals and nursing and rehabilitation centers.

Amgen wanted the companies to switch Medicare and Medicaid beneficiaries to Aranesp from competing drugs and tried to get consultant pharmacists and nursing home staffers to encourage the use of Aranesp in patients who didn't have anemia associated with kidney failure, the Justice Department said.

The Thousand Oaks company made payments based on the sales volume or market share of Aranesp, the agency said.

Then a few days ago, a story in the San Fernando Valley Business Journal described yet another Amgen settlement:
 

Thousand Oaks biotech Amgen Inc. has reached an $11 million settlement with 36 states over charges it inflated pricing data and caused Medicaid to overpay for six of its drugs, the New York State Attorney General said Monday.

The charges allege Amgen inflated cost benchmarks for drugs used to treat kidney disease and cancer patients. The drugs involved were Aranesp, Enbrel, Epogen, Neulasta, Neupogen and Sensipar. Those benchmarks are used to set pharmacy reimbursement rates for drugs dispensed to state Medicaid beneficiaries.

Keep in mind that all these recent settlements involved allegations of efforts made to oversell Aranesp.  As we noted previously, this drug carries a "black box" warning about serious and potentially fatal side effects.  The official Aranesp label states (in a black box warning, in capital letters):

 ESAs INCREASE THE RISK OF DEATH, MYOCARDIAL INFARCTION, STROKE, VENOUS THROMBOEMBOLISM, THROMBOSIS OF VASCULAR ACCESS AND TUMOR PROGRESSION OR RECURRENCE

So the overselling of Aranesp not only appeared unethical, it seemed to put short term revenue ahead of patient safety, and could conceivably have lead to patients dying so that the company could make more money.   

Summary

So while the evidence mounts that health care organizations, and in this case, Amgen, continue to aggressively pursue short-term revenue even is their means of doing so endangers patients.  However, legal efforts to challenge such reckless practices continue to fail to impose any negative consequences on those who personally profited from this behavior, and particularly those corporate executives who authorized and directed the bad behavior.  Moreover, while such evidence mounts, the top leaders of these organizations continue to pile up riches.  It seems that CEOs of health care organizations continue to prosper despite, or perhaps because of their organizations' continuing unethical and dangerous behavior.

As we have said far too many times, 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.

WellPoint's Former Manager-Queen Got $20.6 Million and Its Nobility Got Millions

Score another for our new would be royalty, that is, for the hired managers who run big corporations.  Early this month a few scattered reports came out showing just how much even apparently failed executives of big health care organizations can make on their way out the door. 

A New Fortune for the Abdicating Queen of WellPoint

Last year we discussed the abdication of Angela Braly, the former queen of giant insurance company WellPoint.  We then speculated about how much she might abscond with.  Now the Associated Press has reported:

 The compensation paid to outgoing Wellpoint Inc. CEO Angela Braly last year rose 56 percent, even as the company's shares slid on lower enrollment in its Blue Cross Blue Shield health plans.

Braly, who resigned in August, received 2012 compensation valued at $20.6 million, according to an Associated Press analysis of the company's annual proxy statement. Most of the increase came from stock options.

Braly, 51, became CEO in 2007. She received a $1.2 million salary last year, up slightly from $1.1 million in 2011. Her compensation included a performance-related bonus of nearly $1.4 million. More than 85 percent of Braly's compensation came from stock options and awards, which totaled $17.8 million. That total was up from about $10 million the year before.

She also received $179,618 in other compensation, including $3,700 spent on security measures for her and her family due to concerns about her safety 'as a result of the national health care debate,' according to the proxy, which was filed Tuesday with the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Despite Bad Financial Performance and Investors' Losses

Remember, though, that Braly was asked to leave:

 investors had grown frustrated with the company's performance, leading Braly to resign last August. 

In particular, in terms of financial performance

shares fell 8 percent last year to close 2012 at $60.92, while the Standard & Poor's 500 index rose more than 13 percent.

WellPoint's 2012 earnings were nearly flat compared to 2011. The insurer earned $2.65 billion, or $8.18 per share, last year, as total revenue climbed 1.6 percent to $61.71 billion.

A slightly different analysis by the Indianapolis Business Journal came up with similar results,

 WellPoint’s membership growth came mainly from its acquisition of Virginia-based Amerigroup Corp., which operates Medicaid managed care plans for states. The rest of WellPoint’s existing business lost customers during 2012.

And while WellPoint has boosted earnings per share by continuing to buy back shares, overall profit was unchanged last year compared with about $2.6 billion in 2011.

WellPoint raised its dividend in 2012 and acquired 1-800-Contacts Inc. But its stock price fell 8 percent to close the year at $60.92 per share. Even taking into account dividends, WellPoint shares lost 6.3 percent of their value during the year.

So while the nominal owners of the company, the investors, lost money on their investments, the CEO who presided over this loss left with a huge pile of cash.

The Royal Court of WellPoint Also Prospered

Incidentally, the Indianapolis Business Journal also showed that WellPoint executives who did not leave generally got big increases in their compensation, again while the company owners to whom they ostensibly report lost money,

WellPoint Inc.’s top brass all enjoyed double-digit bumps in 2012 compensation, according to a proxy released April 2, even though the stock price fell and the company admittedly did not meet its financial goals.

The Indianapolis-based health insurer’s board of directors approved higher salaries and larger potential stock awards heading into 2012 after most of its top executives saw their pay hold steady or decline in 2011.

The company’s performance merited its executives receiving only 83 percent of their target stock awards. But because the board had already established larger pools of stock to award to executives, the value of those awards still rose over previous years. Bonus amounts fell in 2012 compared with the previous year.

The extra cash and stock drove up Chief Financial Officer Wayne DeVeydt's overall pay 11.9 percent to nearly $4.4 million.

Ken Goulet, executive vice president of WellPoint's commercial insurance business, saw his total compensation rise 18.2 percent to nearly $4.4 million.

And Lori Beer, executive vice president of information technology, enjoyed a 17.9-percent boost. She earned $3.2 million, although that was still below the nearly $4.5 million she received in 2010.

John Cannon, the general counsel, saw his compensation more than double to nearly $6.5 million. But that was partly because WellPoint hiked his salary by $350,000 and gave him a $500,000 bonus for agreeing to serve as interim CEO after the August resignation of former CEO Angela Braly.

Despite Angry Policy-Holders and Ethical Missteps

So the compensation given the outgoing CEO and some of the remaining top hired managers seemed wildly out of proportion to the company's financial results.  Could the generosity they received be based on how well the company performed in other dimensions?  That, of course, seems equally improbable.

The Los Angeles Times noted,

 Braly had also caught the ire of consumers and even President Obama in 2010 for trying to raise rates by up to 39% in California. The national outrage that ensued helped Obama win approval for his healthcare overhaul in Congress.

Furthermore, as we have discussed again and again, most recently here, WellPoint has a very sorry record of ethical misadventures.   (The updated list is at the end of this post.)  So one could certainly not justify the huge payments given WellPoint hired managers by their upstanding ethical leadership.

Summary

In a new book just published by Robert A G Monks, entitled Citizens Disunited, the author describes one of the biggest problems affecting the US economy and society as the rise of "manager-kings."  Clearly, Angela Braly could be called the former "manager-queen" of WellPoint.  The company seemed to be run primarily for the benefit of the queen and her court, while its investors lost money, its customers became outraged, and it stumbled from one ethical quandary to another.

In the eighteenth century, British colonial subjects in North America succeeded in a revolution that lead them out from under the rule of a British King.  How many examples do we have to have before there is action to repudiate the rule of our new manager-kings and queens?  And to turn health care back into a calling meant to put patients' and the public's health first, rather than a feudal society meant to benefit its nobility?

As we have said again, again, again,...

True health care reform would decrease the size and scope of health care organizations, and make their leaders accountable to ownership, when appropriate, and to the community at large for patients' and the public health. 



Appendix: WellPoint's Ethical Misadventures

• settled a RICO (racketeer influenced corrupt organization) law-suit in California over its alleged systematic attempts to withhold payments from physicians (see 2005 post here).
• subsidiary New York Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield misplaced a computer disc containing confidential information on 75,000 policy-holders (see 2007 story here).
• California Anthem Blue Cross subsidiary cancelled individual insurance policies after their owners made large claims (a practices sometimes called rescission).  The company was ordered to pay a million dollar fine in early 2007 for this (see post here).  A state agency charged that some of these cancellations by another WellPoint subsidiary were improper (see post here).  WellPoint was alleged to have pushed physicians to look for patients' medical problems that would allow rescission (see post here).  It turned out that California never collected the 2007 fine noted above, allegedly because the state agency feared that WellPoint had become too powerful to take on (see post here). But in 2008, WellPoint agreed to pay more fines for its rescission practices (see post here).  In 2009, WellPoint executives were defiant about their continued intention to make rescission in hearings before the US congress (see post here).
• California Blue Cross subsidiary allegedly attempted to get physicians to sign contracts whose confidentiality provisions would have prevented them from consulting lawyers about the contracts (see 2007 post here).
• formerly acclaimed CFO was fired for unclear reasons, and then allegations from numerous women of what now might be called Tiger Woods-like activities surfaced (see post here).
• announced that its investment portfolio was hardly immune from the losses prevalent in late 2008 (see post here).
• was sanctioned by the US government in early 2009 for erroneously denying coverage to senior patients who subscribed to its Medicare drug plans (see 2009 post here).
• settled charges that it had used a questionable data-base (built by Ingenix, a subsidiary of ostensible WellPoint competitor UnitedHealth) to determine fees paid to physicians for out-of-network care (see 2009 post here). 
• violated state law more than 700 times over a three-year period by failing to pay medical claims on time and misrepresenting policy provisions to customers, according to the California health insurance commissioner (see 2010 post here).
• exposed confidential data from about 470,000 patients (see 2010 post here) and settled the resulting lawsuit in 2011 (see post here).
• fired a top executive who publicly apologized for the company's excessively high charges (see 2010 post here).
• California Anthem subsidiary was fined for systematically failing to make fair and timely payments to doctors and hospitals (see 2010 post here).
• management was accused of hiding the company's political contributions from the company's own stock-holders (see 2012 posts here and here).
• settled charges that its Anthem subsidiary cheated former policy-holders out of money owed when that company was converted from a mutual insurance company (see 2012 post here)

More Signs of Organized Resistance? - Proposed Legislation for More Hospital Leadership Accountability

This year we note the beginning of action against the power of large health care organizations lead by hired executives and cronies who seem to put their self-interest and self-enrichment ahead of patients' and the people's health.  In 2013 we noted no confidence votes by medical school faculty (here), and university faculty (here) against academic leaders perceived as putting their power and wealth ahead of core values, actions by a state governor (here) and a big city mayor (here) against local health care systems perceived as putting their executives' enrichment ahead of their services to patients, and a union labor action (here) against a health care system perceived as putting executive enrichment ahead of adequate health insurance for low level employees.  We have posted about numerous examples of hospital (and other health care organization) executives receiving compensation far out of proportion to any realistic measure of their organizations' performance or positive effects on patients' or the public's health, and seemingly skimmed off the top of these organizations' budgets.

Now Modern Healthcare has reported about a bill in the California legislature aimed at supposedly not for profit hospitals that put money ahead of patients:

Officials with the California Nurses Association say the proposed law—AB 975—is an attempt to bring more accountability to money-making hospitals that use tax exemptions to turn tidy profits and give hefty salaries to executives.

Furthermore,

 Charles Idelson, spokesman for the California Nurses Association, said many profitable tax-exempt hospitals have lost the public's trust in recent years by making profits their top mission and paying salaries that allow executives to buy yachts while 'chipping away' at less-profitable services for women, children, the poor and mentally ill.

'What this bill does is, it really is an effort to increase transparency and make hospitals more accountable to the communities that they purport to serve,' Idelson said. 'Hospitals that are meeting their charity care obligation should welcome this process and understand that it is an opportunity to rebuild some of the public trust that they have lost through their other policies and practices.'

Hospital Leaders Deploy Talking Points, Including Logical Fallacies 

Perhaps predictably, hospital executives are not so happy:

'This is less about good public policy than it is about politics,' said Michael Hunn, chief executive for southern California hospitals at Providence Health & Services, which has five hospitals in the state. 'I would hate to see a political agenda further harm those that are marginalized in society,' Hunn said. 'No matter what the legislative and political process is, we need to keep in mind the human beings that it is our responsibility to care for.'

Note that Providence Health & Services is the ostensibly non-profit Catholic hospital system accused of putting paying executives multi-million dollar compensation ahead of giving low level employees minimally adequate health insurance as we posted here.  According to the organization's latest 990 form, Mr Hunn got $1,576,978 total compensation in 2011.  So one wonders which human beings he is feeling most responsible for?  Note also that the unsubstantiated allusion to a "political agenda," appears to be an appeal to ridicule, "a fallacy in which ridicule or mockery is substituted for evidence in an 'argument.'"  We have noted before how public relations flacks working for top executives of health care organizations seem to be very good at using such logical fallacies.  The argument Mr Hunn made seems essentially identical to an argument used against a lawsuit to end the tax exemption of a huge Pennsylvania hospital system that has apparently angered the communities which it is supposed to serve while paying its executives millions (look here).

In addition, 

Jan Emerson-Shea, spokesman for the California Hospital Association, said the bill's union backers were hiding their real agenda with 'red herring' issues like highly compensated executives and the superficial dissonance of not-for-profit organizations with healthy margins.

''Not-for-profit hospital' doesn't mean that you don't make a profit--all hospitals need to make a profit to keep the doors open,' Emerson-Shea said

Of course, that last assertion is not true.  Non-profit organizations need to avoid sustaining repeated losses to keep their doors open, but do not need to make any surplus to do so.  And the issue was not whether hospitals make small surpluses, but whether they behave like for-profit corporations, especially in regard to how well they pay hired executives.  So while protesting "red herrings," one spokesperson for hospitals, presumably for hospitals' hired executives, seemed to be arguing that the only alternative to a very large surplus and a very large reserve is a deficit.  By ignoring another obvious alternative, having a small surplus and a small reserve, this argument thus is derived from the logical fallacy known as the false dilemma.  The spokesperson also seemed to be arguing that a deficit inevitably leads to bankruptcy.  Of course prolonged deficits might lead to bankruptcy, but a single deficit would not necessarily do so.  Thus we see the logical fallacy known as the slippery slope. Note further that the argument used by the California executive here was again essentially identical to an argument used against a lawsuit to end the tax exemption of a huge Pennsylvania hospital system that has apparently angered the communities which it is supposed to serve while paying its executives millions.  So it looks like once again the hired executives and their public relations operatives have their talking points in line.   (See this post, from which our argument about the logical fallacies employed first in Pennsylvania came.)

Summary

It really is beginning to look like there is some sort of trend, albeit still small, towards organized resistance against the hired executives and cronies who have made themselves rich from large health care organizations, putting their self-interest and enrichment apparently before taking care of patients and serving the public's health.  As we have said ad infinitum....

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.