Why Do People Think US Health Care is Corrupt? - The Examples of Amgen, Mallinckrodt Settling Charges of Giving Kickbacks to Doctors to Induce them to Prescribe Their Products, While No Individual Suffers Negative Consequences

We recently posted a discussion of the results of Transparency International's 2013 corruption barometer, focusing on the US results.  43% of survey respondents thought US health care is corrupt.  Our coverage, apparently the only substantial discussion of the US results published in the US, got star ranking for a while on Reddit.  But many anonymous commentators dismissed the survey results as coming from a naive public who does not understand health care economics.

I submit that one can recognize corruption without a degree in economics.  In fact, as we discussed in the initial post, there is a lot of evidence for the prevalence of health care corruption in the US, other developed countries, and globally.  It is just that such evidence rarely gets discussed in public (the anechoic effect, as we say on this blog), probably because doing so might make those who are profiting from the corruption uncomfortable.

So today let me summarize just the latest evidence about US health care corruption, as defined by Transparency International as the abuse of entrusted power for private gain.  (Note that the Transparency International definition of corruption, which is an ethical, not necessarily a legal definition, at least in most jurisdictions.)

Amgen

An article in the Thousand Oaks [CA] Acorn described the legal settlement,

Amgen Inc. paid the United States more than $15 million this month as part of a settlement agreement to resolve allegations that the biopharmaceutical company used financial kickbacks to persuade doctors to prescribe the cancer drug Xgeva to their patients.

The settlement resolves a qui tam, or 'whistleblower,' lawsuit filed Jan. 20, 2012, in federal court by William Davis and Spencer Miller—two Amgen employees who work at the company’s Thousand Oaks headquarters.

Davis, sales planning director for Amgen’s oncology business unit, and Miller, a senior marketing manager at the company, alleged their employer violated both the Medicare Anti- Kickback Statute and False Claims Act—two laws that aim to prevent Medicare fraud and abuse.

The allegations were that Amgen used a somewhat complex and deceptive strategy to pay doctors who prescribed its drug, using a survey about practice patterns as a cover story,

According to the U.S. attorney’s office, Amgen used what the company called 'Deep Dive' contracts—or data purchase agreements—in an effort to boost sales of Xgeva, which was approved by the FDA in late 2010 for use by certain cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy.

The drug is most commonly prescribed to prevent bone fractures in patients who have been diagnosed with a certain type of tumor after it has spread to the bones.

Under Amgen’s original Deep Dive program, the company paid doctors to fill out an Internet-based survey, which asked how they were treating patients with bone cancer and which drugs they used.

'That’s not illegal to do,' said Abraham Meltzer, assistant U.S. attorney in the Los Angeles civil fraud section. 'A lot of pharmaceutical companies purchase data legitimately on how various conditions are treated.'

But Amgen altered its Deep Dive program, Meltzer said, by increasing the amount of money it offered to pay the doctors who specifically prescribed Xgeva to their patients.

Also,

 The U.S. attorney’s office also alleged that Amgen paid oncologists and urologists to participate in market research surveys, audience response sessions and advisory programs that publicized the benefits of Xgeva.

As is typical in such cases, the settlement did not require any contrition on Amgen's part.  Instead,

In a prepared statement emailed to the Thousand Oaks Acorn on Tuesday, Amgen denied all allegations of wrongful conduct.

'Amgen settled this matter to avoid the delay, uncertainty, inconvenience and expense of protracted litigation,' the statement read.

As is also typical, there seemed to be no negative consequences for the human beings who must have engineered the "Deep Dive" contracts and the payments to the oncologists and urologists.  Nor was there any overt consideration of Amgen's sketchy recent ethical record, as described by the Acorn,

This month’s settlement is not the first time the biopharmaceutical giant has been held to answer for kickback allegations or false claims charges.

In December 2012, Amgen pleaded guilty to illegally selling the drug Aranesp, an anti-anemia drug, for uses or doses not approved by the FDA, according to the U.S. Department of Justice.

As part of the false claims case, which was also brought on by a whistleblower lawsuit, Amgen agreed to pay a $612-million civil settlement to the U.S. and individual states, as well as $150 million in criminal penalties.

Then in April, the Thousand Oaks-based company paid the U.S. another $24.9 million to settle whistleblower allegations that it gave financial kickbacks to long-term care pharmacy providers in exchange for switching Medicare and Medicaid benefi- ciaries from a competing drug to Aranesp, a DOJ press release states.

We discussed the guilty plea in the cases of Aranesp misbranding and alleged kickbacks to pharmacists.  Also, in 2013, we noted that Amgen settled allegations that it overpriced its products sold to government health programs in 36 states.  We also noted that despite, or perhaps because of all this misbehavior, the current CEO of Amgen received over $13 million in compensation in 2012, while his predecessor walked away with over $9 million that year.

Mallinckrodt

A small news item from the Associated Press, via the Nanaimo (MO) Daily News, outlined this legal settlement,

A St. Louis-based drug maker will pay $3.5 million to settle allegations that it paid doctors to prescribe 'outdated, third rate' antidepressants and sleep aids, the U.S. attorney's office in San Francisco announced.

In particular,

The lawsuit alleged the company targeted doctors who prescribed the type of antidepressants and sleep pills Mallinkrodt manufactured.

Again, the company was allowed to settle without admitting anything.

'While we deny the allegations in this matter, we are glad they are resolved,' company spokeswoman Erica Abbett said in a statement.

Again, although human beings would have had to engineer any payments to the doctors to induce them to prescribe, no human beings suffered any consequences as a result of this settlement.

Mallinckrodt, a storied corporate name, had been acquired by Covidien, and then was spun off again as a separate company in June, 2013 (look here).  It had been acquired in 2000 by Tyco International, which later spun off its health care operations as Covidien.   According to its 2013 proxy statement, Covidien's CEO received over $10 million in total compensation in 2012.


[Note that Tyco was the subject of one of the major scandal stories of the early 21st century.  In 2005, at a time when law enforcement authorities were still pursuing actions against elite corporate executives,  its former CEO and CFO were convicted of stealing millions from it (see USAToday summary)].

Summary - Why do People Think US Health Care is Corrupt?  

Again, the Transparency International definition of corruption is abuse of entrusted power for private gain.  I would argue that pharmaceutical companies are entrusted with the power to honestly sell drugs whose benefits to patients outweigh their harms.  I would further argue that paying physicians, who are entrusted with providing the best possible care to each individual patient, to prescribe drugs which may not be the best treatment for individual patients is an abuse of both the company's and the physicians' entrusted power.  Further, such payments provide private gain to the physicians.  They also may increase revenues for the company who makes these payments, and very likely these increased revenues lead to better compensation for those in the company who authorized, directed or directly provided the payments, that is to private gain for these corporate insiders.  Thus it seems that kickbacks to physicians to prescribe drugs is a form of corruption.

While both cases above were settled without admissions of guilt, such settlements do not refute the contentions that kickbacks were given.  Why would the law enforcement officials have brought the cases in the absence of evidence, and why would the companies have settled if the cases were completely baseless?  So I would argue that these settlements provide evidence, although not legal proof, that kickbacks were given.  People with far more legal knowledge than I possess have remarked on the absurdity of settling cases of alleged wrongdoing without any acknowledgement or statement of the facts (see posts here and here).

We have posted lots of instances of conflicts of interest affecting health care, many of which likely involved payments providing private gain that raised the risk of abuse of entrusted power.  We have also discussed many instances of crime, kickbacks, bribery, fraud other kinds of health care corruption.

So were the people who answered the Transparency International survey naive and foolish about health care corruption?  Or did they have reasonable beliefs about a topic that the powers that be really do not want to discuss?

EHR importance vastly oversold? Community health center battles for electronic patients' records - but patient care goes on anyway

There are two lessons from the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel story below.

1) Beware outsourcing the ownership of your hospital or clinic's medical records.

2) The value of EHRs has been massively and repeatedly exaggerated.  Milwaukee Health Services have been operating without access to electronic patient charts for almost a month, yet there are no reports of massive casualties.  There are numerous reports on this blog of EHR system downtimes lasting weeks, loss and sabotage of electronic records, and other mishaps, yet patient care is claimed to have not been compromised.  Perhaps those who make such claims need to be taken at face value.

It follows that expenditures of hundreds of billions of dollars for EHR systems is simply unnecessary and the technology's importance vastly oversold.

Excerpts are below; read the full story at the hyperlink.

-- SS

Community health center battles for patients' records

By Guy Boulton of the Journal Sentinel
July 20, 2013

Doctors at Milwaukee Health Services have not had access to the medical records of 40,000 patients since June 30, when an Atlanta company cut off the community health center's access to its electronic medical records after their contract ended.

Milwaukee Health Services sued Business Computer Applications Inc., the Atlanta company, last week in federal court and is seeking a court order to restore access to patients' medical records.

The records include patients' medications, problem lists, allergies, immunization records, treatment plans and other clinical information.

The doctors and other health care providers at the community health center can get key information, such as medication lists and lab results, from pharmacies and other sources, said Tito Izard, a physician and chief executive of Milwaukee Health Services.

But access to patients' medical records is "obviously important," Izard said.

Milwaukee Health Services sought a court order last week to require Business Computer Applications, known as BCA, to restore access to the medical records, contending that the safety of patients was at serious risk.

The court denied the request for a temporary restraining order.

... Milwaukee Health Services, which provides care to about 30,000 people a year and has medical records for about 40,000 people, entered into a five-year agreement with BCA on July 1, 2008.

The community health center contends that BCA's system was not fully functional after paying the company $3.1 million over the past five years.

"There was a never-ending request for more money to fix the system," Izard said.

... In its complaint, Milwaukee Health Services alleges BCA violated the Wisconsin law that requires health care records to be released upon the request of a health care provider in the care of patients.

The community health center plans to seek a court order in the next several weeks that requires BCA to provide access to the medical records of its patients.

More here:  http://www.courthousenews.com/2013/07/17/59431.htm.  Looks like the patients affected are predominantly poor and/or minorities:

... A computer firm is "jeopardizing the health and safety of about 40,000 people" - many of them uninsured or underinsured - by freezing a hospital out of access to its own medical records because of a billing dispute, the hospital claims in court ...  Milwaukee Health Services Inc. "specializ(es) in the care of underserved populations," the hospital says in its complaint. It says it "serves everyone regardless of income or third party coverage."

-- SS

Electronic siloing: An unintended consequence of the electronic health record - Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine

EHR systems have largely been designed by those of a manufacturing, mercantile, and management computing background, largely due to abdication of responsibility and acquiescence by medical professionals, and political impotence of organized medicine and medical informatics organizations.

The results were predictable - a toxic effect on healthcare.  One such toxic effect is an impairment of essential communications between caregiving personnel - exactly the opposite effect the hundreds of billions of dollars spent on today's health IT was intended to improve.

From the Cleveland Clinic Journal of Medicine:

Electronic siloing: An unintended consequence of the electronic health record
July 2013

JAMES K. STOLLER, MD, MS
Chair, Education Institute; Staff, Department of Pulmonary, Allergy, and Critical Care Medicine, Cleveland Clinic; Jean Wall Bennett Professor of Medicine, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine, Cleveland, OH

For all the purported benefits of the electronic health record (EHR), an unintended adverse effect is “electronic siloing.”

I define electronic siloing as the isolating effect of the EHR on clinical workflow that drives caregivers to work in silos, ie, alone at their workstations, thereby discouraging spontaneous interaction. To the extent that increasing evidence supports the importance of interaction among clinical colleagues and of teamwork to optimize clinical outcomes, electronic siloing threatens optimal practice and quality.

Not only does it "threaten" optimal quality, it causes that quality to deteriorate to the point where a recent volunteer study at 36 hospitals by the renowned ECRI Institute (http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2013/02/peering-underneath-icebergs-water-level.html) found more than 170 health IT-related mishaps in a mere 9 weeks, 8 of those incidents resulting in patient harm and 3 possibly contributory towards patient death.

... THE EHR BRINGS CHANGES, GOOD AND BAD [the latter especially from bad health IT - ed.]

The EHR represents a major change in health care, with reported benefits that include standardized ordering, reduced medical errors, embedded protocols for guideline-based care, data access to analyze clinical practice patterns and outcomes, and enhanced communication among colleagues who are geographically separated (eg, virtual consults). On the basis of these benefits and the federal Medicare and Medicaid financial incentives associated with “meaningful use,” the EHR is being increasingly adopted.

The literature supporting those benefits is scarce, of poor quality, and refuted by other literature by credible authors - not the optimal environment to justify spending hundreds of billions of dollars (e.g., see http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2011/02/updated-reading-list-on-health-it.html).

Yet for all these benefits and the promise that technology can enhance interaction among health care providers, unintended risks of the EHR paradoxically threaten optimal clinical care.6Recognized risks include the threat to care should the EHR fail, the time and inefficiency costs of typing and multiple log-ons, and the perpetuation of errors in the medical record caused by the cutting and pasting of clinical notes.

To name just a few, all covered on this blog in various posts.

... Niazkhani et al noted that computerized ordering can change communication channels and collaboration mechanisms. More specifically, they point out that these systems can “replace interpersonal contacts that may result in fewer opportunities for team-wide negotiations."

This is, in fact, obvious to any practicing physician or nurse and requires no academic "proof."

Similarly, Ash et al cited the unintended consequences of patient care information systems, especially increased overreliance on the system to communicate, which can undermine direct communication between healthcare providers ... Taken together, these observations suggest that the EHR and computerized order entry in particular can disrupt interaction between physicians and other health care providers, such as nurses and pharmacists.

Similarly, that this needs to be stated in 2013 is akin to stating that it's a good idea to use sterile technique in surgery.

...  the EHR can inadvertently lessen spontaneous interaction between physicians as they care for outpatients. I have proposed the term electronic siloing to reflect the isolating impact of the EHR on clinical workflow that drives caregivers to work alone at their workstations, thereby discouraging spontaneous interaction between colleagues (eg, between primary care physicians and subspecialists, and between subspecialists in different disciplines). Because spontaneous face-to-face encounters and conversations among clinicians can encourage clinical insights that benefit patient care, electronic siloing can undermine optimal care. My thesis here is that the EHR predisposes to electronic siloing and that the solution is to first recognize and then to design care to prevent this effect.

The solution is first to force the industry and its pundits to admit the problem is poor design and hyper-enthusiasm that resulted in a premature national program for health IT diffusion, and abandon claims that clinicians are "Luddites" (see "Doctors and EHRs: Reframing the 'Modernists v. Luddites' Canard to The Accurate 'Ardent Technophiles vs. Pragmatists' Reality" at http://hcrenewal.blogspot.com/2012/03/doctors-and-ehrs-reframing-modernists-v.html).

Defenders of the EHR will point out that the EHR does not preclude such face-to-face encounters.

"Defenders of the EHR" will frequently default to fictitious and often ad hominem "blame the user" canards, since their scientific rationale for the proliferation of today's very poor systems is very weak.

While technically this is correct, it is also equally true that such encounters are less likely because they no longer flow naturally from the workflow of writing a note side-by-side with colleagues with the films displayed nearby. Pressured for time, clinicians learn efficiency of motion and are simply less likely to leave their workstations to seek another colleague who, in turn, may be tethered to a workstation and absorbed in keyboarding and monitor-watching. The net effect is that such spontaneous face-to-face encounters are clearly less common in the EHR era.

Again, this thinking will be countered by the hyper-enthusiasts by blaming users.  My response is that good health IT never depends on users to compensate for poor design or implementation, and there's nothing else to debate on that point.

... So, given the many clear benefits of the EHR and its current wave of adoption in health care, how can we maximize the benefits of the EHR while minimizing the adverse effects of electronic siloing?

Reasonable suggestions follow; see the article at the link above. 

The problem is that the reasonable suggestions are being proffered in an unreasonable, industry-dominated environment.

The first step is political action and activism by clinicians to take charge of the clinical information technology playing field.  Until and unless that occurs, even thoughtful articles from Cleveland Clinic, Harvard, Yale etc. will simply be shelved.

-- SS

Pharmaceutical Industry "'Mobilised' an Army of Patient Groups to Lobby Against" Improving Clinical Research Integrity

I had guessed that this sort of thing was going on all the time, but being kept very well hidden.  Now we have some more evidence.

An article in yesterdays Guardian showed how the pharmaceutical industry is using pet patient advocacy groups in a public relations campaign to defeat calls for for measures against suppression and manipulation of clinical research. In summary,

The pharmaceutical industry has 'mobilised' an army of patient groups to lobby against plans to force companies to publish secret documents on drugs trials.

More specifically,

The strategy was drawn up by two large trade groups, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), and outlined in a memo to senior industry figures this month, according to an email seen by the Guardian.  The memo, from Richard Bergström, director general of EFPIA, went to directors and legal counsel at Roche, Merck, Pfizer, GSK, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Novartis and many smaller companies. It was leaked by a drugs company employee.

The email describes a four-pronged campaign that starts with 'mobilising patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data'. Translated, that means patient groups go into bat for the industry by raising fears that if full results from drug trials are published, the information might be misinterpreted and cause a health scare.

The lobbying is targeted at Europe where the European Medicines Agency (EMA) wants to publish all of the clinical study reports that companies have filed, and where negotiations around the clinical trials directive could force drug companies to publish all clinical trial results in a public database.

The argument for continuing to allow clinical trials to be suppressed was to be,

The patient groups focus on the concern that if companies release all of their clinical trials data, the information might be misconstrued, or intentionally cherry-picked, and spark damaging health scares around certain drugs or vaccines.

The Guardian story did not disclose which patient groups were cooperating with this effort.

By the way, the other parts of this strategy involved using scientific associations and academics to push the pharmaceutical companies' agenda,

 Two other strands of the campaign include discussions with scientific associations about the risks of data sharing, and work with other businesses that are concerned about the release of trade secrets and confidential data. The final strand calls, in the long term, for a network of academics across Europe that can be called on to correct false interpretations of the data. 

Several of the large multinational drug companies contacted by the Guardian issued the usual non-denial denials

In response to queries from the Guardian, GSK said: 'This is not something we are doing. One of the reasons we're involved in this is we want more companies to move towards greater transparency. I don't think it's for us to be mobilising patient groups to campaign on a negative level.'

A Roche spokesperson said the company consulted patient groups to understand their concerns about clinical trials, but 'to our knowledge Roche has not been involved in any EFPIA's potential activity in mobilising patient groups to express concern about the risk to public health by non-scientific re-use of data'.

A Lilly spokesman said: 'Lilly is committed to working with Europe-based patient advocacy organisations for the benefit of patients in a way that is true to the EFPIA code of practice and Lilly's integrity in business policy.'

Summary

We have long discussed and decried how vested interests, chiefly health care corporations with services and products to sell, have manipulated clinical research to make their wares look better, and suppressed research whose results, even if manipulated, could not be made sufficiently favorable. This has resulted in making drugs and devices look more efficacious and/or less hazardous than they really are.  See this post for our latest discussion, and information on the latest effort to counter suppression and manipulation of clinical research.

It is not surprising that pharmaceutical companies do not want to have to publish every clinical trial they sponsor, or expose their manipulations of these trials.  Instead, the Guardian article suggests that companies and their trade associations, including the US based pharmaceutical trade association, and several large US companies, and well as large companies based elsewhere, are using a third-party public relations strategy.  Wendell Potter's muckraking book on the US commercial health care insurance industry, Deadly Spin, revealed how similar strategies were used by US based health insurance companies to defeat the Clinton administration's attempt at health care reform, and other measures targeted to make the US commercial health care insurance system more equitable and ethical  (see post here).  Third party strategies are fundamentally deceptive.   

The current alleged use of the third party strategies by pharmaceutical companies to support ongoing suppression and manipulation of clinical research is more than just deceptive.  It is corrupt.

Patient advocacy groups are usually believed to represent patients' interests.  For such groups to support a public relations campaign that could allow ongoing harm of patients (by suppressing and manipulating evidence to prevent it from being used to forestall excess use of ineffective, dangerous drugs) is abuse of their entrusted power.  To do it for money, money used to support these groups, or help underwrite generous compensation for their executives, fits the definition of corruption used by Transparency International - abuse of entrusted power for private gain.

Note that the Guardian provided this viewpoint,

Tim Reed, of Health Action International, a group that has previously exposed the pharmaceutical industry's financial links with patient groups, said: 'It's incredibly ironic that this is a transparency initiative and we've now got clear indications that the pharmaceutical industry is ready to use patient organisations to fight their corner.

'It underlines the fact that patient groups who are in the pay of the pharmaceutical industry will go into battle for them. There's a hidden agenda here. The patient groups will say they think it's a great idea to keep clinical trials data secret. Why would they do that? They would do that because they are fronts for the pharmaceutical industry.

'Patient groups get traction because they are assumed to represent the voice of the suffering. But industry uses them to say we're not going to get innovative medicines if the industry is deterred from investing by having to be transparent about their clinical trials,' he added.

We have previously noted isolated examples of evidence that particular US based patient advocacy groups were being supported by commercial firms presumably to aid their marketing.  We have also found examples of conflicts of interest affecting medical societies, and many affecting non-profit hospitals and academic medical institutions, and their staff and faculty.  I begin to wonder if most health care non-profit organizations in the US, and now it appears maybe in UK and in Europe, have been paid off to support marketing and/or public relations interests of health care corporations.

This latest example suggests that health care worldwide has become deeply corrupt, even more corrupt than Transparency International's Global Report on health care corruption in 2006, or the those responding to Transparency International's global corruption survey in 2013, could envision.

I only hope that the pile up of new examples - each seemingly worse than the one before - of health care corruption, will be sufficient to overcome the anechoic effect, and create enough global outrage to give us a chance to clean up our corrupt health care before it destroys our health.

ADDENDUM (25 July, 2013) - See also comments by Dr Howard Brody on the Hooked: Ethics, Medicine and Pharma blog. 

ADDENDUM (29 July, 2013 - See the comment on the 1BoringOldMan blog. 

Johnson and Johnson Settles Suit Alleging Management Incompetence and Deception, Managers Continue to Prosper

Very quietly, pharmaceutical/ biotechnology/ medical device corporate giant Johnson & Johnson just settled another lawsuit. The most pithy version is by Ed Silverman on Pharmalot, although Reuters and Bloomberg published short accounts.

The New Settlement

Per Mr Silverman, the gist is:

The health care giant agreed to resolve the dispute brought over allegations that J&J management shirked their responsibilities and allowed a chain of events that resulted in congressional probes; lost market share, consumer confidence and revenue, and a consent decree with the FDA. In the lawsuit, a shareholder charged that J&J bungled the integration of the Pfizer consumer health acquisition, placed inexperienced execs in charges of its OTC unit and cut costs so drastically that quality control suffered.

The lawsuit, which was brought by Ronald Monk, alleged that the health care giant made misleading statements about its products before disclosing problems with the Fort Washington plant and another in Puerto Rico. He also maintained that J&J withheld material information before its decision three years ago to shut down the Fort Washington plant, where contamination led to the unpublicized recall of defective Motrin tablets in 2009.

In agreeing to the settlement, J&J refused to admit any wrongdoing

So let me review. The allegations in this case were all about problems with the management of Johnson and Johnson.  They included allegations that management was incompetent and deceptive.  The incompetence was in handling the core functions of the company, assuring that its drug products were pure and unadulterated.  The deception was of patients, the public, and the nominal owners of the company to whom management is supposed to report, and allegedly included an attempt to cover up concerns about the purity of its drug products.

The proposed settlement follows the current practice of allowing the defendant not to admit the allegations, leaving their truth unproven.  However, one wonders, given that the allegations are about the core responsibilities of management and were leveled by the company owners, why the management would not defend their honor more forthrightly.

The Company's Sorry Legal Record

Furthermore, this settlement also follows the current practice of being made without reference to any other seemingly relevant legal proceedings.  In fact, it is just the latest of a long string of settlements and other resolutions of legal actions, including guilty pleas, by Johnson and Johnson management.  As we summarized most recently here, these included:

- Convictions in two different states in 2010 for misleading marketing of Risperdal
- A guilty plea for misbranding Topamax in 2010
- Guilty pleas to bribery in Europe in 2011 by Johnson and Johnson's DePuy subsidiary
- A guilty plea for marketing Risperdal for unapproved uses in 2011 (see this link for all of the above)

- A guilty plea to misbranding Natrecor by J+J subsidiary Scios (see post here)
- In 2012, testimony in a trial of allegations of unethical marketing of the drug Risperdal (risperidone) by the Janssen subsidiary revealed a systemic, deceptive stealth marketing campaign that fostered suppression of research whose results were unfavorable to the company, ghostwriting, the use of key opinion leaders as marketers in the guise of academics and professionals, and intimidation of whistleblowers. After these revelations, the company abruptly settled the case (see post here).
-  Also in 2012,  Johnson & Johnson was fined $1.1 billion by a judge in Arkansas for deceiving patients and physicians again about Risperdal (look here).
-  Also in 2012, Johnson & Johnson announced it would pay $181 million to resolve claims of deceptive advertising again about Risperdal (see this post).

Even though the record includes a number of settlement in which management did not have to admit guilt, the company has made a surprising number of guilty pleas in just the last few years.  Despite all this evidence of poor, that is incompetent or unethical management, Johnson and Johnson managers have been getting very rich.

As we mentioned here, Mr William Weldon, the outgoing CEO on whose watch most of the misbehavior resulting in the legal actions above occurred, retired with a huge retirement package, after receiving extremely generous compensation prior to that.  The new CEO as of April, 2012,  Mr  Alex Gorsky, per the company's 2013 proxy statement, already owns more than 190,000 Johnson and Johnson shares,  and received $10,977,109  total compensation in 2012.  Mr Weldon received over $29 million in total compensation just for 2012, the year in which he retired.  Other top executives received from over $3.5 million to over $8 million. 

Summary

So why do the stockholders, the owners of Johnson and Johnson continue to pay so much to an executive team on whose watch so many bad things have happened?  Why did law enforcement authorities allow the company to continue to plead guilty or settle cases without imposing any negative consequences on these executives?  Maybe only the Shadow knows. Of course, the lack of any discussion beyond that on Health Care Renewal, that puts each new settlement or guilty plea in the context of the ones before, and juxtaposes them to the rewards of given to management, may not help. 

As we said the last time we addressed the contrast between Johnson and Johnson's sorry legal record and its voluminous payments to executives, we have noted again and again and again that many of largest and once proud health care organizations now have recent records of repeated, egregious ethical lapses. Not only have their leaders have nearly all avoided penalties, but they have become extremely rich while their companies have so misbehaved.

These leaders seem to have become like nobility, able to extract money from lesser folk, while remaining entirely unaccountable for bad results of their reigns. We can see from this case that health care organizations' leadership's nobility overlaps with the supposed "royalty" of the leaders of big financial firms, none of whom have gone to jail after the global financial collapse, great recession, and ongoing international financial disaster (look here). The current fashion of punishing behavior within health care organization with fines and agreements to behave better in the future appears to be more law enforcement theatre than serious deterrent.  As Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick exhorted his fellow Democrats, I exhort state, federal (and international, for that  matter) law enforcement to "grow a backbone" and go after the people who were responsible for and most profited from the ongoing ethical debacle in health care.

As we have said before, true health care reform would make leaders of health care organization accountable for their organizations' bad behavior.