As U.S. Presidential Campaign Ramps Up, Newt Gingrich Plays Down Support for Health IT

Presidential candidate Newt Gingrich, who I recall hearing in person as an an invited speaker at a health IT meeting some years ago (AMIA, I believe), has been pushing health IT rather uncritically in recent years.

However, he seems to have backed off that position at the election cycle heats up:

As Campaign Ramps Up, Gingrich Plays Down Support for Health IT

iHealthbeat.org

Friday, December 16, 2011

Now that he is a frontrunner in the race for the Republican presidential nomination, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) is downplaying his previous support for health IT adoption, The Hill's "Healthwatch" reports (Pecquet, "Healthwatch," The Hill, 12/15).

History of Supporting Health IT

During the George W. Bush administration, Gingrich worked with former CMS administrator Mark McClellan and former National Coordinator for Health IT David Brailer on federal efforts to promote health IT, according to the New York Times (Rutenberg/McIntire, New York Times, 12/16).

Gingrich also worked with former Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle (D-S.D.) to co-author the forward of a book titled, "Paper Kills 2.0," which gives examples of how federal funds for health IT could be used in pilot projects to improve health care (Rowland, Boston Globe, 12/16).

Shortly before the passage of the 2009 federal economic stimulus package, Gingrich criticized the legislation as a "big politician, big bureaucracy, pork-laden bill." However, at the same time, Gingrich praised a provision of the stimulus package that allocated $19 billion to promote the use of health IT. He said, "I am delighted that President Obama has picked this as a key part of the stimulus package."

His views have apparently changed somewhat:

... Campaign Plays Down Health IT Support

On Wednesday, Gingrich unveiled a new brain science initiative that does not include any mention of EHRs, even though the technology was a major component of the brain science proposals he discussed over the summer.

Politics aside (it is probably not too far from the truth to say that all politicians hold out their fingers to see what direction the wind is blowing, although Mr. Gingrich is probably becoming more aware of HIT downsides thanks to lobbying of both sides of the aisle by people such as myself and like-minded experts [1]), I cannot disagree with this:

In August, Gingrich said he aimed to bolster brain science research in part by modernizing FDA through the use of EHRs. Gingrich said EHRs would allow for "much faster [FDA] approval times because you can monitor in real time everyone who uses the drug. And if you start getting inappropriate responses, you can change within weeks" ("Healthwatch," The Hill, 12/15).

In fact, I was championing exactly this idea ca. 2001 when I was employed at Merck Research Labs in the Research Information Systems division. Unfortunately, the answer from more senior personnel was that doing so would be "impossible" due to inability to blind, to control the data quality, etc., responses I considered unreasonable at the time but did not argue with to avoid getting on the Short List early in my employment there.

I also tried to present the idea to Merck as a former employee in Nov. 2006, at an invited presentation to the Clinical Risk Management & Safety Surveillance department of MRL entitled “Medical Informatics Perspectives on Leveraging the EMR in Pharma" (PPT). Also see my 2007 paper "A Medical Informatics Grand Challenge: the EMR and Post-Marketing Drug Surveillance" where I address a number of issues related to using EHR's in this fashion (PDF).

Using EHR's (e.g., with special screens and training) for well-defined Phase IV post-marketing surveillance studies would be one of the best uses for the technology [2].

Finally, I note that we need post-marketing surveillance of EHR's, CPOE's and other clinical IT systems themselves, not just drugs. Information technology cannot improve healthcare until it itself is improved significantly regarding its current deficiencies (see "reading list" here for illustrations).

-- SS

Notes:

[1] Health IT risks are a non-partisan issue.

[2] I should note that while I believe EHR's could facilitate postmarketing surveillance of drugs and devices, I take a dim view of more grandiose proposed uses of EMR's such as for comparative effectiveness research (CER). See my essay in the Journal of the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) entitled "The Syndrome of Inappropriate Overconfidence in Computing: An Invasion of Medicine by the Information Technology Industry?" here (PDF).

BUY IT NOW!

Guest Blog: Mediator, symptom of a broken French system

Elena Pasca blogs at PharmaCritique, and is a member of the Fondation Sciences Citoyennes.  She discusses the pharmaceutical industry in France, and relationships among that industry and physicians and the government.  She demonstrates that the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal are global.

Introduction

A few weeks ago, the French health minister proposed a new law to improve pharmacovigilance, drug evaluation and transparency issues. It will be discussed in September by the Parliament. Let’s see what the actual situation is in France.


The Médiator (benfluorex) scandal raises not only pharmacovigilance issues. The first question that comes to one’s mind is how could the drugmaker Servier, who knew about its dangers, keep Médiator on the market for 30 years, despite the repeated alerts and the withdrawal of other amphetamines from the same drug class?

The answer goes far behind pharmacovigilance dysfunction. Médiator is not an isolated case, but an epiphenomenon of structural failures on every organisational level of the French health care, drug evaluation and health information system. The entire system is broken, and there still are dozens of defective and too risky drugs on the French market.

Most relevant for US readers is not to list all the alerts starting in the seventies with the fenfluramines. It’s to understand that the entire system was organised in order to be as industry friendly as possible. And the announced measures aren’t going far enough to change this fact.

Private profits before public health

In July 2009, president Nicolas Sarkozy decorated Jacques Servier with the Légion d’honneur and criticised again what he considered to be a huge amount of administrative regulations in the pharmaceutical branch. For him as the former business attorney of Servier, whose electoral program stipulated “cleaning business law”, too much regulation means less business, less competitive French drugmakers.

President Sarkozy’s health policy clearly favours the pharmaceutical industry, especially Sanofi-Aventis. His choice of Alzheimer disease as the first public health issue is not naïve. Sarkozy’s brothers have multiple conflicts of interests and ties with Sanofi-Aventis, the insurance industry and the organisations and institutions involved in the health care of the elderly, as I pointed out in an investigation published on Pharmacritique. And Sanofi hasn’t yet any me-too from the anticholinesterase drug class largely prescribed to Alzheimer patients, despite repeated proof of their ineffectiveness and of their side effects.

As a direct result of Sarkozy’s policy, publicly funded research will be exploited through public-private partnerships to produce immediate results – and neglecting fundamental research bringing new knowledge and thus real therapeutic progress. The intellectual property policy clearly favours private profits.

The European research policy has the same aims: the Innovative Medicines Initiative is clearly oriented toward “innovation” meant as competitive advantage for the pharmaceutical industry, not as an improvement in disease understanding and treatment. The exploitation of public research for private corporate profits has been criticised by the Helmholtz Gemeinschat (union of the German public research centres).

A few weeks ago, 98 European NGOs and organisations wrote an open letter criticising the Common Strategic Framework for EU Research and Innovation Funding and asking for a responsible European research policy: “Public Research should benefit Society, not Big Business”.

Conflicts of interests are everywhere, corrupting the entire health care system

In France, except for two journals (Prescrire and Pratiques), the entire medical press is completely dependent on drugmakers and their advertising. Especially family physicians receive such journals for free. They include no disclosures, so there’s no possibility to sort out advertising from information. Most of those journals are owned by a trust whose leader is Gérard Kouchner, brother of the former health minister Dr. Bernard Kouchner. (See this post on PharmaCritique.)

To this misinformation by the sponsored press has to be added another source of bias: continuing medical education [CME] is funded up to 98% by the pharmaceutical industry. And up to 97% of self-employed physicians still receive drug reps and consider them to be a comfortable, if not reliable, information source.

As long as I can go back, all health ministers have had conflicts of interest. In a hearing by the Parliament’s committee on Médiator, Gérard Kouchner was questioned about his journals’ silence about the risks of this drug and about the book written by the whistleblower Dr. Irène Frachon. He answered those journals are serious, no odd news, no sensationalism… As if informing physicians about severe side effects of a drug and experts’ conflicts of interests and drugmaker influence wouldn’t be serious enough…

The state can’t control conflicts of interest and implement oversight because the medical corporation is well organised (trade unions…) and opposes every reform or measure restricting its freedom. And the medical lobby knows how to use its political influence. Commercial interests, entrepreneurship, industrial funding (research, travel, professional activities, CME…) are organised and encouraged by the Order of Physicians. Despite of the 1994 law prohibiting gifts, dining, wining and lodging continues. Daily corruption is widely accepted, since it is approved by the Order of Physicians… Organised medicine’s unusually strong influence over France’s health care system is well described by Marc Rodwin in his book “Conflicts of Interest and the Future of Medicine. The United States, France, and Japan” (Oxford University Press 2011).

The French FDA – AFSSAPS - is financed up to 80% by the pharmaceutical industry, via taxes. Up to 70% of the AFSSAPS experts have conflicts of interest. But the real percentage must be higher, because the recently introduced disclosures aren’t verified, and omissions or false declarations aren’t prosecuted. In a 2007 report, AFSSAPS officials had to acknowledge their strategy of “managing” conflicts of interests wasn’t a success...

The more drugs the agency approves, the more money it gets. Drugmakers exploit competition existing among European agencies to earn more money, and they also know which country will easily approve their drugs, opening the door for a homologation by the EMA (European Medicines Agency). When a drugmaker knows this or that drug is defective, approval is not even attempted in the US, but only in certain European countries. Why risk a defeat that could damage its image?

For example, during the swine flu epidemics, some vaccine makers haven’t asked for approval in the USA, because their vaccines contain new technologies (MDCK cells, adjuvants such as squalen) they wanted to “test” on European people first, before submitting them to the FDA. The German independent journal Arznei-Telegramm revealed the existence of a market analysis counselling this strategy (2009; 40: 85-7).

None of the swine flu vaccines commercialised in Europe were approved in the US. The same laboratories produced different vaccines, and new technologies were used instead of the classical ones, in the name of the… emergency. Since then, hundreds of cases of narcolepsy were reported, especially among children and teen-agers, as a side effect of GSK’s Pandemrix (containing squalen).  (See this post on PharmaCritique.)

Complete lack of information about drugs and their adverse reactions

Pharmacovigilance in France is rather pharmacosomnolence: the AFSSAPS reacts late after others western countries when it comes to puttin a defective drug off the market. On the opposite, it easily accepts homologation demands. If you compare the drugs available in France and the USA, you’ll find lots of drugs rapidly withdrawn or rejected by the FDA, or even unknown in the US: etoricoxib (Arcoxia), nimesulid, rimonabant (Acomplia), lots of progestagens, veraliprid (Agréal)… After the FDA decision, it took 11 years to take Distilbene (DES) off the French market. Vioxx continued for years on the French market after its withdrawal in the US. Mediator was withdrawn 1997 in the US, 2010 in France. And so on.

In a 2008 article, Donald Light highlighted “Europeans are kept in ignorance about dangerous drugs” (Rev Prescrire 2008;28(297):553). He gave several examples of drugs such as aprotinin, olanzapine, etoricoxib, sleeping drugs… where safety alerts have been made public by the FDA and relayed by the US media, and compared this information with the silence in France. Before the Médiator scandal, the French media weren’t interested in drug safety, conflicts of interest, corruption, bias in the medical research…

But it’s even worse. The public has no access to the official prescribing information, reserved to physicians paying for the Vidal (equivalent of the Physicians’ Desk Reference), edited by a private company… I compared the prescribing information of lots for drugs available in the US and in France, produced by the same drug companies, approved in the same indications. The information is so different, as if they weren’t the same drugs…

France has few relevant regulations and laws, so the country is a paradise for the pharmaceutical industry, and for industries, lobbies and business in general. There’s no FOIA, no way for watchdogs – even for official watchdog agencies – to get real information. In a 2007 report, the IGAS (General Inspection of Social Affairs, France’s OIG) only could give estimations, based on extrapolations, about lobbying and marketing expenses of the pharmaceutical industry.

Consumers International published the results of a 2008 conducted inquiry about drugmakers’ legal obligations in the US compared to Europe. 12 drugmakers answered and all agreed the requirements aren’t at all the same, in regard of transparency and disclosures, in regard of complete information about drugs, and so on.

So why would drugmakers give an information no one requires and no one wants?

Pharmacovigilance is subordinated to drug approval, and until recently, patients couldn’t report side effects. A pharmacovigilance official told me that even now, adverse reaction reports without documentation and follow-up aren’t always counted. The regional pharmacovigilance centres don’t forward them to the AFSSAPS.

There’s no transparency about the specific phases of the drug evaluation system, in terms of risk/benefits, and there’s no evaluation at all in terms of cost/effectiveness and economic efficiency. The Haute Autorité de Santé was created for this kind of quality and economic efficiency evaluation, like the German IQWIG and the British NICE. But everything it does is officialise drugmaker marketing claims and “assess” the improvement in the actual benefit. But it’s only a formal assessment, and I don’t remember of a drug dismissed by this agency because of insufficient improvement…

In January 2011, president Sarkozy appointed Pr. Jean-Luc Harousseau as the head of the Haute Autorité de Santé, despite all the recent promises to reform the system and fight against the conflicts of interest of experts and officials. Pr. Harousseau is the perfect example of French opinion leaders with political and industrial interests that become experts and leaders of national institutions: he was politically involved in Sarkozy’s party (UMP); he and his research teams earned more than 200.000 euros in the 3 years before his nomination.  (See this post on PharmaCritique.)

Philippe Lamoureux, the former head of INPES (National Institute for Prevention and Health Education) went over to the LEEM (French PhRMA), without any “cooling off” period. (See this post on PharmCritique.)

The revolving doors turn very easily in France, as well as in Europe. ALTER-EU (Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethics Regulation) reported about EMA’s former director, Thomas Löngrenn, who took a job as a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry, just like other European commissioners. And Guido Rasi, the next EMA director, said at a colloquium in Bologna that an expert without conflicts of interest is not interesting, because drug companies only work with the best…

Some other points in brief:

- there’s no Sunshine Act or any similar obligation in France;

- the 2002 law requiring a disclosure for health professionals talking publicly about a drug is not applied;

- no whistleblower protection (so that libel law is used all the time against them in SLAPP’s: strategic lawsuits against public participation);

- there are no specific laws (like the US False Claims Act or RICO) allowing trials for defective drugs or other abuses; no possibility for a qui tam lawsuit;

- no law to prosecute corruption and its consequences (like the US Federal Anti Kickback Statute);

- no law enabling class actions;

- no specific qualifications for victims of defective drugs (“injury”, “aggravated deception” are those used by Médiator victims and their families…);

- taxpayers pay for the victims (if ever they can get recognition and damages);

- no physician liability for prescriptions and their consequences, or for conflicts of interest and corruption;

- no FOIA; a minimalist law called CADA (« accès aux documents administratifs ») preserves secrecy of data and of conflicts of interests in the name of industrial property and private life protection);

- no corporate integrity agreement;

- no attorney general asset redistribution programs (well, without trials, there’s no need for such frameworks…);

- no disclosure in scientific publications.

Direct-to-consumer advertising is prohibited by law. A good point. But this prohibition is by-passed all the time. Pharmaceutical firms sponsor “health education campaigns” organised together with public institutions, medical societies and/or patient associations tied to drugmakers. For example, a public campaign whose official goal is to raise awareness about the “dangers” of cholesterol is meant to transform a risk factor in a disease, medicalise more and more people who will look for the statins commercialised by the sponsor Pfizer. Not to speak about the repeated attempts of the European Commission to impose the “pharmaceutical package” wanted by EFPIA (European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industry Associations), i.e. enable drugmakers to have a direct access to patients and provide “information”, and weaken pharmacovigilance through several regulations exposed in this text by Prescrire International.

Worst of both socialised medicine and market logic

The French system allies the worst side of socialised medicine and of the market and competition-based system.

Co-payments were introduced a few years ago, but cost reimbursement is still good. Everyone has a public insurance (“régime général”) that covers about 65% of the costs, for a quite large list of drugs and procedures. For the remaining 35%, each individual has to pay for a private insurance. There is a public “universal” insurance for people earning less than 650 euros a month. Nevertheless, about 23% give up health care, because of the costs, and especially because of excessive charges exceeding the statutory fees. This rate is much higher in dental and optical care, where public coverage is almost inexistent.

So what’s the problem, compared with countries without universal health insurance? The problem is lack of organisation, poor economic efficiency and quality, in regard of the high costs. Primary care isn’t organised as it should be in a socialised system. Most of it consists of self-employed physicians working alone, and the same applies for self-employed specialists outside hospitals. They work without coordination and oversight. More and more for-profit hospitals are founded, to treat lucrative, acute diseases, leaving the chronic ones and all complications to public hospitals that still do a good job, but are chronically deficient, because of inappropriate activity-based payment model and budget distribution, and because of budgetary restrictions as a result of an irrational policy of economic management and accountable cost containment.

This lack of organisation originates in organised medicine’s resistance to any restriction and oversight. It hinders every evaluation in terms of quality and leads to specific forms of conflicts of interest and global poor quality. The recent introduction of some pay-for-performance measures worsens the problem; incentives are paid by the social security for objectives that aren’t subjected to any evaluation. Family physicians get up to 9.000 euros extra a year if they obtain the wanted percentages of regular breast screening, influenza vaccines in elderly, and so on. It’s not prevention, but overmedicalisation and aggressive preventive medicine as described by David Sackett.

Organised medicine dominates and shapes France’s medical economy and health care organisation. It also blocks the development of not-for-profit hospitals, created by mutual insurers, as well as any form of medical centres employing physicians. Every attempt to regulate charges exceeding the statutory fees is blocked.

The Order of Physicians is the only “judge” in cases of misconduct, and it rarely forwards the proof to the public watchdogs or to prosecutors. Self-regulation through voluntary codes of conduct is the rule, for the medical corporation as well as for the pharmaceutical industry.

This can’t be called “socialised medicine” and contradicts the republican principles originating in the French revolution, fought to put a stop to corporations and their influence on public decision, on politics and on economy.

Medical consumerism and physician financial interests complete themselves, and “socialised medicine” isn’t appropriate anymore to describe the French system. The dangers for public health care and coverage were pointed out in a paper written by the former medical director of social security, Pr. Claude Béraud.  (See this post on PharmaCritique.)

Of course, such a system isn’t affordable in the long term. And this is exactly what ultra-capitalists and right-wing politicians want, in order to demolish socialised medicine and public health care and promote private health maintenance organisations and insurances.

Passivity, no awareness, no criticism

Another consequence of a deformed conception of socialised medicine is patients’ lack of health education, of healthy skepticism, of criticism and of action. Before the Médiator scandal, patients were too confident in what they thought to be state protection on every level : an approved drug was thought to be sure and useful, an opinion leader’s discourse promoting some new drug was thought to express the highest technical standards, and so on. There was no awareness at all about conflicts of interest.

Physicians’ awareness wasn’t much better. For example, Arnold Relman wrote his paper about “The new medical-industrial complex” in 1980. In France, it took 25 years until Jean-Claude Salomon wrote “The medical-financial complex”…

The only resistance comes from a few organisations, such as the independent medical journal Prescrire and the grassroots NGO Fondation Sciences Citoyennes, and from a few personalities such as senator François Autain, Pr. Claude Béraud and a few others, mentioned by Marc Rodwin in his book “Conflicts of Interest and the Future of Medicine. The United States, France, and Japan”.

The Fondation Sciences Citoyennes and the European Alliance for Lobbying Transparency and Ethic Regulation regularly protest and start actions and proposals about revolving doors, lobbying, conflicts of interests and corruption in all areas, as well as law proposals about expertise deontology and whistleblower protection.

Lots of reports without consequences

The left-wing representatives in the two parliament chambers have put in place hearings about the Mediator scandal, but no enquiry that could enable them to investigate the structural causes of repeated drug and conflicts of interest problems and take concrete measures. Some of the representatives are members of the “Club Hippocrate”, sponsored by Glaxo Smith Kline…

The congressman Bernard Debré and the former medicine professor Philippe Even, known for his longstanding criticism, have written a vehement report about the drug evaluation system. Without consequences. The Inspector General for Social Affairs (IGAS) has published a report on Médiator that clearly points out the responsibilities: every single institution has failed, from the drug agency to the political instances and the medical organisations. The last report of the same IGAS, published in June, contains concrete and pragmatic proposals on how to deeply reform the entire pharmacovigilance and drug evaluation system.

The assessment process initiated by the health minister Xavier Bertrand – Assises du Médicament – has nothing to do with a trial assessing facts (“assises” means a trial with jurors). The working groups were clearly dominated by LEEM (the French PhRMA) representatives and by opinion leaders tied to drugmakers. Most of the independent organisations and critiques were not allowed to participate, “in order to respect a balance” between different interests. Fondation Sciences Citoyennes was excluded and described the situation in this detailed press release, asking independent NGOs to organise counter-Assises. 


The law proposal presented on the 1st August by Xavier Bertrand contains some long due measures, but no real progress.

The pharmaceutical industry’s interests won’t be endangered by any measures and laws arising from the Médiator scandal.

Elena Pasca
Pharmacritique, Fondation Sciences Citoyennes

ADDENDUM - Elena Pasca asked me to insert her thanks that we published her guest post.  But we owe her considerable thanks for her efforts to explain the French situation, and show how the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal are truly global. 

BUY IT NOW!

Guest Blog: Health Care in Dangerous Times

Health Care Renewal presents another guest blog by Steve Lucas, a retired businessman who formerly worked in real estate and construction who has a long standing interest in business ethics, and has long observed the health care scene.

Health Care Renewal has often covered the disconnect between the stated goals of companies and the realities of their day to day operations. This raised the following question: Has medicine moved from being dysfunctional to being dangerous?

There is certainly no lack of material to support this question as in the last two weeks we can find examples of pharma/biotech/device companies all engaged in questionable behavior.

Medtronic and Manipulation of Study Data

In the print media, The Wall Street Journal, a pro-business newspaper regularly highlights stories questioning the actions of companies.

In the June 29 story titled "Medtronic Surgeons Held Back, Study Says" by John Carreyrou and Tom McGinty we find doctors being paid by Medtronic held back information regarding negative out comes of a bone growth product.

'Medtronic paid millions to doctors and those same doctors, oddly enough, published the 'science' Medtronic needed to sell a product,' says Paul Thacker, a former aide to Sen. Charles Grassely…'

Chantix's Cardiac Adverse Effects

In the July 5 story, "Pfizer Drug Tied To Heart Risk" by Thomas M. Burton covers the increased cardiovascular problems with Chantix that only now seemingly have become evident.

However, J. Taylor Hays, a Mayo Clinic doctor who has received funding from Pfizer for research on Chantix, responded in a commentary, 'The risk for serious cardiovascular events is low and is greatly outweighed by the benefits of diminishing the truly 'heartbreaking' of smoking.'

The article then continues:

'Some people have had changes in behavior, hostility, agitation, depressing mood, suicidal thoughts or actions while using Chantix to help them quit smoking,' Pfizer says in safety information.

Overuse of Cardiac Stents

In the July 6 article, "Heart Treatment Overused" by Ron Winslow and John Carreyrou we find the over use of stents and the profit potential for doctors and hospitals.

Outside of heart attacks, doctors are often quick to use a common $20,000 procedure to treat patients suffering from coronary artery disease, a new study suggest.

Untested Imported Drug Ingredients

In the July 6 Op-ed, "Beware the Risk of Generic Drugs" by Roger Bate reinforces a point made often on Health Care Renewal when he covers the importation of untested or tainted product used in our pharmaceuticals.

China is now the largest supplier of pharmaceutical chemicals – hundreds of tons annually – to the world. And pharmaceutical companies that buy these chemicals do not test them.

Moving on to widely read blogs,

Ghost Writing and Risperdal

1BoringOldMan in his post on bipolar kids and the doctors involved in the Harvard debacle discussed an article favorable to the drug ostensibly written by Harvard Professor Josephy Biederman:

This covers the reworking of a previously done study to promote the use of drugs in children with this printed at the bottom of the first page:

“"Printed in the USA. Reproduction in whole or part is not permitted. Copyright © 2006 Excerpta Medica, Inc."

1BoringOldMan continues with this post that since we have identified children as bipolar we are free to ignore other factors and simply medicate them to death.

As reported by '60 Minutes' in September of last year, Rebecca Riley died on December 13, 2006, at her home in Hull, Massachusetts, due to an overdose of psychiatric drugs. The drugs — Depakote (divalproex; Abbott), Seroquel (quetiapine; AstraZeneca), and clonazepam — were prescribed by Tufts psychiatrist Kayoko Kifuji for the child’s bipolar disorder, which was diagnosed at the age of 2 years.

This covers the death of a child, a child, using the above ghost written drug information.

Bayer's Use of Social Media to Market Drugs

Pharma does adjust to the times and market, if it is not explicitly forbidden then it is fair game.

Per a post in Pharmalot entitled, "To Tweet or not to Tweet"

'To Tweet or not to Tweet?' That is a question that Bayer Healthcare will be pondering for some time. The drugmaker was upbraided by the UK’s Prescription Medicines Code of Practice Authority for recently Tweeting about two medicines, which was deemed to be a cause for concern since the information went directly to the public.

Much like shooting a gun into a crowd and then claiming they had no way of knowing they would injure someone, a tweet is sent with the full knowledge the first thing everybody will do is hit the forward to all button.

Pharma's Public Relations People Infiltrate Patient Support Groups

Per a post on the HealthReviewNews Blog we have one of the most frightening posts possible since it shows pharma following individuals and a willingness to intrude into their personal lives.

Marilyn Mann is approached on her Facebook page set up to support parents of children with lipid disorders by a drug PR person to promote a drug.

Hi Marilyn,

A few months ago, I had emailed you about some research I was doing about a new treatment for FH. I am now working with a pharmaceutical company, and the company currently has a drug in development to help treat people with severe FH that may not be responding to current therapies.

In the comment section we find this:

I'm a communications consultant to many big pharma firms and I'm not sure the PR person in this case did anything wrong. She was upfront and polite about her role, and asked if any patients would do what many have done, and be interviewed to raise the profile of FH.
The owner of the group politely declined as was her right.
It would have been a different case if there had been any subterfuge involved, but there wasn't.
I think on this occasion you have aimed at the wrong target.
Good luck with future postings.

What do all of these references have in common? Senior executives, and health care academics, removed from the day to day work of helping people being able to claim they are not responsible while making ever larger incomes.

Natrecor Shown Not to Work

The corporate culture of medicine has become so perverse that even selling a drug that has no benefit becomes acceptable.

Per this item in the Heart Health Center Health Day News:

Study Finds Heart Failure Drug Ineffective

Billions wasted on Natrecor in decade it took to find out it doesn't work, expert says.

By Steven Reinberg, HealthDay News

WEDNESDAY, July 6 (HealthDay News) — The heart failure drug Natrecor (nesiritide) is ineffective and linked to increased rates of potentially dangerous low blood pressure, a new study finds.

Summary: The Most Dangerous Game

So, back to my original question: Has medicine become dysfunctional or dangerous? I would contend dangerous. There is nothing magical about the above listed articles or posts. I am not a professional medical person, nor an academic, only someone concerned by the continued decline of medicine and medical care due to a corporate culture that promotes profit above all else.

When I meet doctors socially they all speak of being small businessmen. Time and time again we see hospital administrators of all types speaking about being the CEO’s of multi-billion dollar organizations.

Drug companies speak of blockbuster drugs as being those with sales of over one billion dollars and fines become the cost of doing business.

Today we have a small, but vocal group of people who feel all drugs should be offered to the public and it is up to them to decide if they are appropriate. They also want the government and insurance companies to pay for this return to the pre-FDA days.

How will the FDA itself withstand the onslaught of new technologies given out current Federal budget concerns? Tweets and Facebook represent only the beginning of a whole new wave of ways to communicate.

My personal opinion is this is a very dangerous time for doctors and patients. Doctors are being pushed into corporate practices where financial gain is the main driver, not health care. Information given to doctors can be so tainted by commercial interest as to be of no value.

Patients have no way of knowing where the doctor’s loyalty lies, with them or the practice? DTC ads are full of half truths and fear mongering. Patients need to bring even more information and skepticism to the doctor/patient relationship.

I fear we do live in dangerous times. The word “good” has left much of medicine.

Steven Lucas MBA

BUY IT NOW!

The Curious Case of Pfizer's Asbestos Claims

Here is a very strange and long-running story that raises some questions about how health care organizations are lead, but seems to have bee covered only in the business press.

Pfizer Goes Into the Asbestos Business (in 1968), Faced Hundreds of Thousands of Lawsuits (in the 1980s), Promised to Settle (in 2004)

Here is the background, per a 2004 report by the Associated Press, per Fox News:

Pfizer Inc. (PFE) Friday said it has agreed to pay $430 million to settle all lawsuits against it alleging injury from insulation products made by a subsidiary.

Pfizer and its Quigley Co. subsidiary were named, along with several other defendants, in 171,611 lawsuits claiming personal injury caused by exposure to asbestos, silica or mixed dust.


Pfizer acquired Quigley Co. in 1968. It sold some products containing asbestos until the early 1970s.

Pfizer will establish a trust for the payment of pending claims as well as any future claims. It will contribute $405 million to the trust over 40 years through a note, and about $100 million in insurance. Pfizer will also forgive a $30 million loan to Quigley.

Since 1982, Quigley's main business has been to manage the asbestos lawsuits.

As part of the settlement, Quigley will file for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. Its reorganization plan must be approved by the bankruptcy court and confirmed by a vote of 75 percent of the claimants.

That seems like the end of a long story, but it was not.

Bankruptcy Proceedings Go On Through 2009, No Claims Paid

By 2009, nothing had really been settled. Apparently, the bankruptcy of Pfizer's subsidiary, which was set up as if Quigley was an independent corporation, had not resulted in any resolution to the multiple lawsuits and the large claims. As reported in December, 2009, by Bloomberg:

At issue in the trial is whether Quigley, a former maker of asbestos-containing products, can confirm a plan of reorganization, ending more than five years in bankruptcy. The trial pits the U.S. government and asbestos victims against Pfizer, the world’s biggest drugmaker, with claims that its $450 million contribution under a settlement isn’t enough to satisfy its liabilities.

At the trial, the lawyer for the asbestos victims claimed that Pfizer was using the bankruptcy of its subsidiary to avoid liability:

Edward Weisfelner, a lawyer for an ad hoc group of so- called asbestos victims that represents 30,000 individuals, told Bernstein today that the plan can’t be confirmed because the purpose of the bankruptcy law being used to channel asbestos claims is to 'scrub' a viable company of liabilities.

Under bankruptcy law, courts shouldn’t approve Chapter 11 reorganizations where the primary purpose is to shield a third party, such as Pfizer, Weisfelner said.

'Courts are instructed to avoid the possibility that parties use bankruptcy to protect a third party that’s not submitting itself to the jurisdiction of the court, and that’s exactly what’s going on in this case,' Weisfelner said.

The US government also objected to what Pfizer was doing:

Opposition to the plan also comes from the U.S. Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department that monitors bankruptcies, which has said was improperly orchestrated to shield the drugmaker from liability.

t the time, Pfizer (through its Quigley subsidiary) also was attempting to keep the whole thing quiet, but not successfully:

The U.S. Trustee has fought to keep the trial open to the public, and said in court documents that some of Quigley’s requests to keep information confidential failed to meet legal standards for protecting 'commercial' information.

Of course, at that time, the opinions of the plaintiffs' lawyer and the US Trustee were just that, opinions.

By 2010, Judge Found that Pfizer "Manipulated" the Bankruptcy

But by September, 2010, according to Bloomberg then:

Pfizer Inc.’s Quigley unit, a former asbestos maker, was denied permission to exit bankruptcy by a judge who found the world’s largest drug company manipulated the bankruptcy process to benefit itself.

U.S. Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein in New York today rejected Quigley’s fourth reorganization plan and said parties should discuss dismissal of the case. He said the plan was filed in 'bad faith' by Pfizer and cited testimony that asbestos claims directed at Quigley could total $4.45 billion over the next 42 years.

No Progress by the End of 2010

Apparently despite the judge's opinion, the case still remained tied up in court. By December, 2010, no progress had been made. According to Bloomberg then:

Pfizer Inc., the world’s largest drug company, should have the bankruptcy of its Quigley unit which has protected it from asbestos-related health problems since 2004 dismissed, lawyers for the U.S. Trustee said.

While the bankruptcy has been pending, creditors with alleged asbestos-related health problems have been unable to sue New York-based Pfizer, and many have died, wrote lawyers for the U.S. Trustee, an arm of the Justice Department that oversees bankruptcy. A hearing to decide the U.S. Trustee’s request is set for Jan. 13, according to court papers filed Dec. 23.

'The harm in delaying the inevitable dismissal of this case is to the individuals who have filed asbestos claims against the Debtor and Pfizer,' lawyers for acting U.S. Trustee Tracy Hope Davis wrote in court papers. 'For some of those individuals, time may be of the essence.'

So Pfizer had stalled for so long that some of the plaintiffs had died off.

Summary

So let us summarize. For reasons that are unclear, Pfizer Inc, primarily a pharmaceutical company, bought out a company that made asbestos products in 1968. The health hazards of asbestos were soon recognized, and many people filed lawsuits against Pfizer's subsidiary, alleging they had been harmed. Pfizer promised to settle the matter in 2004, about 30 years since the exposures occurred. Yet by setting up a bankruptcy of its subsidiary as if it were an independent company, Pfizer stalled any resolution of the case for at least another six years, using what a Judge termed "manipulation." Now it is 2011, and the cases are still unresolved.

So for a company that claims it is

committed to applying science and our global resources to improve health and well-being at every stage of life.

and boasts

Pfizer Inc: Working Together for a Healthier World

This does not look good.

So question number one is should not the leaders of a company whose main business is ostensibly making people healthier be more sensitive to claims about the health effects of its products? Specifically, why did Pfizer's leaders not try to more speedily come up with a cleaner and more timely solution to this problem that would appear more sensitive to the health problems of the claimants?

It would be interesting if Pfizer's top leaders were to try to answer that question.

My policy observation is now familiar.  As we have said before, far too often the leaders of not-for-profit health care institutions seem more interested in padding their own bottom lines than upholding the institutions' missions. They often seem entirely unaware of their duty to put those missions ahead of their own self-interest. Like the financial services sector in the era of "greed is good," health care too often seems run by "insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit." True health care reform would encourage leadership of health care who understand health care and care about its mission, rather than those who see a quick way to make a small fortune.

BUY IT NOW!