And we return to the parade of legal settlements, which is still marching along. The next entrant to the parade was described by the Miami Herald:
The details of the allegations were:
Of course, the company's statement had all the expected elements:
I leave it to my dear readers to decide on how ethically the company's previous business operations were, based on the above.
I would note that not only did the company want to put this case behind it, it seemed to want to put its old name behind it too. Ela Medical is now apparently known only by the name of its Italian parent company, the Sorin Group.
To add a final disturbing note, this case illustrates why people who see what appears to be unethical, or even illegal behavior are not rushing to report it:
One would hardly have expected Ms Lee to have kept her job at Ela once she reported what was going on there. However, it was worse than that. Being known as a whistle-blower may make one radioactive enough to preclude any employment in a segment of health care that is at all related to the one in which one blew the whistle.
The Herald article did note that Ms Lee stands to get part of the settlement. Yet this will come at least four years after the case began, as her lawyer said:
As we just noted, in health care, the incentives are strongly tilted to favor financial productivity , or "making the numbers," and to disfavor ethical conduct, especially when it requires dissenting with top managers. If we really want accessible, affordable, high-quality health care, we will have to get rid of these sorts of perverse incentives.
So the march of legal settlements continues. As in many previous cases, note that the monetary cost of the above settlement, while it seems large to normal humans, would be just slightly more than round-up error for a large multi-national company. As I have said repeatedly, penalties that only appear to be (relatively small) costs of doing business are unlikely to deter future bad behavior. Until the people who actually authorized, directed and implemented the bad behavior have to suffer some negative consequences, expect the bad behavior to continue.
In a four-year-old case with nationwide implications, Ela Medical has agreed to pay $9.2 million to settle a whistle-blower case brought by a former Miami technician who charged the company used several schemes to pay kickbacks to South Florida doctors.
The details of the allegations were:
In the Miami case, brought by May and Ben Kuehne, Lee alleged that Ela gave money to doctors for questionable studies, had Ela techs do work on patients that doctors later billed Medicare for, gave doctors free trips and helped doctors get monitoring equipment that to led to more Medicare billing.
The moves were made by the company to boost sales in the multibillion-dollar field of cardiac devices, where pacemakers can cost up to $7,000 and defibrillators up to $18,000.
These devices have batteries that run down in about three years, the lawsuit said, and patients need to be monitored to see how much battery life their devices have left. An Ela tech performed the tests in doctors' office.
'Although Medicare required a physician to be present during the battery test, physicians never attended these battery check appointments,' the lawsuit alleged. Doctors then billed Medicare for the techs' work.
Other times, doctors were paid $2,500 to $4,000 for each Ela patient enrolled in a study, even though patients were never informed and never gave the required permission, the lawsuit said. 'The physicians had no role and in fact did nothing in furtherance of the study,' the lawsuit stated. 'However, Medicare was billed each time the study was conducted, as if the physician had participated.'
Of course, the company's statement had all the expected elements:
Closure of this investigation places this legacy issue firmly behind us and clearly enhances our ability to execute on our plans for CRM [cardiac rhythm management] in the United States. Our commitment to provide patients and healthcare providers with life-saving and life-enhancing innovation, and to conduct our business in a highly ethical manner is stronger than ever.
I leave it to my dear readers to decide on how ethically the company's previous business operations were, based on the above.
I would note that not only did the company want to put this case behind it, it seemed to want to put its old name behind it too. Ela Medical is now apparently known only by the name of its Italian parent company, the Sorin Group.
To add a final disturbing note, this case illustrates why people who see what appears to be unethical, or even illegal behavior are not rushing to report it:
On Monday, May, the attorney, said Lee 'is not talking to anybody. This has been a difficult experience.' She quit Ela when, after complaining about the company's questionable practices, she was told to transfer to California. She took a job with a competitor, but was dropped when the industry learned she had filed the lawsuit.
'She was blackballed,' May said. 'She's basically gone from $100,000 a year to minimum wage.'
One would hardly have expected Ms Lee to have kept her job at Ela once she reported what was going on there. However, it was worse than that. Being known as a whistle-blower may make one radioactive enough to preclude any employment in a segment of health care that is at all related to the one in which one blew the whistle.
The Herald article did note that Ms Lee stands to get part of the settlement. Yet this will come at least four years after the case began, as her lawyer said:
the 'money will allow her basically to start over.' If she had kept her mouth shut, 'she would have made far more money in her lifetime than she will get as a percentage of the settlement.'
As we just noted, in health care, the incentives are strongly tilted to favor financial productivity , or "making the numbers," and to disfavor ethical conduct, especially when it requires dissenting with top managers. If we really want accessible, affordable, high-quality health care, we will have to get rid of these sorts of perverse incentives.
So the march of legal settlements continues. As in many previous cases, note that the monetary cost of the above settlement, while it seems large to normal humans, would be just slightly more than round-up error for a large multi-national company. As I have said repeatedly, penalties that only appear to be (relatively small) costs of doing business are unlikely to deter future bad behavior. Until the people who actually authorized, directed and implemented the bad behavior have to suffer some negative consequences, expect the bad behavior to continue.
