Logical Fallacies in Support of Payments for Board Members of Non-Profit Health Insurers

The kerfuffle over the huge golden parachute given the departing CEO of an ostensibly non-profit Massachusetts health insurer/ managed care organization continues to evolve (see posts here and here), providing some new insight into governance problems afflicting health care organizations. 

One of the issues that aroused initially aroused concern was that Massachusetts Blue Cross Blue Shield paid the members of its board of trustees substantial amount, an unusual practice for a non-profit organization.  Board members who feel they owe their pay to the CEO they are supposed to be overseeing might be particularly inclined to over pay that same CEO.

Nonetheless, the Boston Globe just reported that other non-profit Massachusetts health insurers were defending their payments to board members:

The state’s second- and third-largest health insurers said yesterday their board members have decided to keep paying themselves five-figure annual fees despite objections from the state attorney general and an inquiry into directors’ compensation at nonprofit health plans.

The rationales for these decisions were fascinating, amounting to four variations of special pleading, plus an appeal to tradition.

Special pleading: Our board members are experienced and independent

'Good governance is advanced by the recruitment and retention of experienced, independent, reasonably compensated directors,' Harvard Pilgrim said in its statement. 'In 2010, our board worked more than 2,000 hours.'

I doubt any non-profit organization would admit to not wanting experienced, independent board members,  but very few other non-profits pay their board members. Asserting that board members of the Massachusetts insurance companies especially deserve pay because of characteristics they share with other members of other boards who are not paid amounts to a special pleading.

The second statement seems just to be a simple exaggeration, since 2000 hours a year implies that the board members work there full-time (40 hours/week * 50 weeks = 2000 hours).  

Special Pleading: Our board members are skilled and experienced

Wellesley-based Harvard Pilgrim, however, said in its statement that board members 'apply their specialized experience and skills in the areas of medicine, accounting, finance and law, to support our company and its mission. Our board serves as responsible, independent fiscal stewards for our members’ premium dollars.'

Again, board members of all sorts of non-profit organizations could be described in similar terms. So using this as an argument for paying board members when members with the same attributes of other boards are not paid is another special pleading.

Special Pleading: Our boards have great responsibility

Tufts, based in Watertown, said its board believes there is 'an additional overlay of responsibility' for directors of a health insurance company.

'Unlike the directors of other nonprofits, they are subject to distinct regulatory considerations,' the Tufts statement said. 'Therefore, compensation for time, commitment and skill of top talent is a responsible approach for the oversight of an organization that provides health care coverage to hundreds of thousands' of members.

Of course, boards of hospitals have their own "distinct regulatory considerations," as do boards of academic institutions  Boards of hospitals are also responsible for the health of their patients and boards of academic institutions are responsible for the education of their students. So this is a third example of a special pleading.

Special Pleading: Our responsibility, our time, our effort
Appeal to Tradition: Our tradition is to pay directors

The history and tradition of nonprofit health plans is to pay [directors] in this state. These are people from various walks of life who bring a skill set. These are not political hacks. . . . It’s because of the responsibility, the time, the effort, and the work you have to put into it. It’s a lot of homework.

It is true that the four non-profit Massachusetts health insurers all apparently did pay their board members, although in many other states, members of the boards of non-profit health insurers were not paid. But in the absence of any further argument that Massachusetts organizations were right when the others were wrong, this amounts to an appeal to tradition.   The rest of this personal statement was again a special pleading. 

Summary

Board members of non-profit organizations generally are said to have three duties, as per BoardSource:
- The Duty of Care: "a board member owes the duty to exercise reasonable care when he or she makes a decision as a steward of the organization."
- The Duty of Loyalty: "a board member must give undivided allegiance when making decisions affecting the organization. This means that a board member can never use information obtained as a member for personal gain, but must act in the best interests of the organization."
- The Duty of Obedience: "The duty of obedience requires board members to be faithful to the organization's mission. They are not permitted to act in a way that is inconsistent with the central goals of the organization."

The notion that boards stewarding non-profit organizations, including health care organizations, have these core responsibilities seems to have become increasingly ignored and forgotten in an increasingly commercialized health care environment.  Simply fulfilling these duties should not be regarded as exceptional board service, and certainly not so exceptional as to require pay.  The fallacious arguments made on behalf of lucrative payments given to members of the boards of two of the more highly regarded non-profit health insurance corporations in the country indicate how low governance and stewardship of health care organizations has sunk.

Again, we need governance of health care organization by people who understand their fundamental duties, who are willing to be accountable, and who put their organizations' mission ahead of personal gain. 

Those who profess concern about the stewardship of health care need not go far to find examples of fundamental misconceptions about what such stewardship involves.  We need to restore core values of governance to our health care organizations. 

BUY IT NOW!

Wendell Potter on "Insurers’ Cynical Calculations on the Cost of Doing Business"

On his blog, Wendell Potter, former head of public relations for CIGNA, discussed big health insurance/ managed care organizations' attitudes toward paying financial penalties for wrong-doing:

Having served as head of PR for two of the country’s largest health insurers — CIGNA and Humana — I know from personal experience that such fines are not widely considered newsworthy.

Insurers know this, and so, annoying as being charged with breaking the law might be, they largely shrug off the fines and the threat of a day’s worth of bad publicity that occasionally accompany them. They are perfectly willing to risk being caught because they long ago realized that the fines are never severe enough to make them radically change the way they do business. Such a change would involve dealing more honestly with both their customers and the doctors who provide care to the people they insure.

We have frequently discussed the parade of legal settlements involving major health care organizations, including drug, device, biotechnology companies, and hospitals and health care systems as well as insurers and managed care organizations. We have repeatedly noted that fines or payments imposed on these organizations seem to have little deterrent effect. Now we have some documentation that this is true from someone who used to be in the belly of the beast.

So I get to repeat:  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.

BUY IT NOW!

How Large Health Care Organizations Set the "Rules of the Game" to Dominate Health Care

The notion that health care is increasingly "dominated by large, bureaucratic organizations which do not honor ... [its] core values"(1) just made it into a main-stream, large circulation US medical journal.  A brand new commentary in the American Journal of Medicine(2) by Supri and Malone declared:

To explain why we have the most expensive health care system in the world and yet one of the lowest performing, we need to take a perspective that focuses on the US institution of medicine as a whole. We expose the hidden rules by which this institution operates and discuss how its powerful organizations shape, control and perpetuate this ailing system.

The article then described the main types of large, powerful health care organizations:

The US institution of medicine is not a single, comprehensive and cohesive system of health care. Instead, it is comprised of a myriad of large and powerful organizations, including insurance companies, Health Maintenance Organizations (HMOs), corporate for-profit hospital chains, and pharmaceutical companies. This institutional structure is large and vast, and has over the years become ever more labyrinthine.

Note that there are even more kinds of large and powerful health care organizations, including non-profit hospitals and hospital systems, employers acting as payers for health care, government agencies, device and biotechnology companies, health care information technology companies, public relations firms, medical education and communication companies, contract research organizations, professional societies, patient advocacy groups, accrediting bodies, health care charities, etc, etc, etc.  But the point is that the large organizations, not the patients, the physicians, nor the public dominate.

Supri and Malone suggested that each kind of organization sets the "rules of the game," that is, the priorities important to the organization, which are very different from the core values that many of us believe ought to guide health care:

Not only is the institutional structure large, it is dynamic, and actively creates, shapes, and maintains the institution of medicine. It does this through what we call setting the “rules of the game”; that is, by imposing the terms by which the system operates.

For example,

Insurance companies have set the rule 'restrict choice and coverage.' They enact this through their elaborate system of copayments and deductibles, exclusion clauses and loopholes, each designed to deter patients from claiming the health care they need, and to override physicians' medical judgment.

Similarly, it cited the rules for managed care, "manage care," that is, "restrict utilization of health care" regardless of patients' needs; the pharmaceutical industry, "charges as much as we want, because insurance will pay;" and "corporate hospital chains ... test as much as we want, because insurance will pay." Thus it made the point that US health care now is driven by the priorities of large organizations whose interests at best may disregard and at worst may conflict with providing the best possible care for individual patients.

Further, the resulting complexity is to the benefit of the large organizations:

As each organization has created its own 'rules of the game,' the institution of medicine has grown into a complex entity that few really understand. This very complexity actually works to the advantage of the organizations that comprise the system, creating an operating environment that allows them to siphon off billions of dollars. It is one of the main reasons why the cost of health care has spiraled out of control.

This is very important, and suggests that the system will just become more bureaucratic, complex and opaque until it finally collapses.

Finally, it raised the point that the organizations collude to promote their priorities at the expense of patients' and the public's health:

Although each organization sets their 'own rules of the game,' they are also strongly and deeply interlinked, and cooperate and collaborate to protect the system of health care that they have devised, so that it remains intact and continues to serve their own interests.

Although  Supri and Malone did not differentiate the leadership of large organizations from the organizations themselves, we have pointed out that the top leaders of various kinds of organizations seem to think alike, becoming a sort of de facto executives' guild, with a "superclass" of oligarchs at its pinnacle.  The guild may be enabled by these leaders' often huge compensation and other benefits and corporate arrangements that keep them shielded from the vicissitudes of daily life that patients, health care professionals, and lower level organizational employees must face.  Furthermore, the leadership of these organizations is often interlinked, for example, by leaders of one organization serving on boards of directors or trustees of others.

It is so nice for us at Health Care Renewal to have some company. It is a very important blow to the anechoic effect for these sorts of views to appear in a mainstream medical journal.

When I interviewed a motley group of physicians and health care professionals in the early part of the 21st century, many expressed concerns about how medicine had been taken over by large organizations which did not honor its values. The article published in 2003(1) in Europe which tried to summarize their concerns probably could not have been published at that time in the US, but its publication remote from its main topic only made it more anechoic. It may be that an article published in a respected American journal will generate some more echoes. Here is hoping that Health Care Renewal can help create some such echoes. 

Obviously, those who lead large organizations in health care will not be happy about that, so it is possible this article's appearance in a main-stream journal may incite some pushback, perhaps generated by the public relations machines of the large health care organizations (see this post about how Wendell Potter's excellent Deadly Spin documented how large organizations use propaganda and disinformation to undermine viewpoints that threaten their domination.)

In conclusion, I strongly support Supri and Malone's final sentiments:

The sum of the 'rules of the game' devised by these organizations has resulted in a fragmented, haphazard and broken system of health care. Reform is long overdue, and demands root and branch transformation of the 'rules of the game' governing the US institution of medicine. This requires us to understand these rules, who is setting them, and how these rules are being used to exploit the system of medicine. Only then can we begin to heal our ailing health care system.

Well said!

But now almost 8 years since the publication of "A Cautionary Tale," we still have a long way to go.

References


1.  Poses RM. A cautionary tale: the dysfunction of American health care.  Eur J Inte Med 2003; 14: 123-130.  Link here.
2.  Supri S, Malone K. On the critical list: the US institution of medicine. Am J Med 2011; 124: 192-193.  Link here. 

BUY IT NOW!

"Government-Run Health Insurance" Run by Corporations? - Two Medicaid Examples

In the US, there seems to have been a constant argument between right- and left-wingers over "government-run" health insurance.  The right tends to disparage all aspects of "government-run" health care, and in the case of insurance, uses the alleged faults of the two big US government health insurance programs as examples.  (Medicare is a federal government health insurance program for the elderly and disabled. Medicaid is federal-state program for the poor.) 

For example, per the Associated Press via BusinessWeek, from a currently prominent Republican hopeful for President, former Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty,

The former Minnesota governor was the latest politician to participate in the Health Policy Grand Rounds program that Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center has organized for its staff during the past two presidential campaign cycles. Using Medicare and Medicaid as examples, he criticized the notion that government-run health care will produce efficiency and said the answer lies in empowering consumers.

Republican Congressman Darrell Issa (California) wrote in 2010:

an expansion of the federal bureaucracy at that rate will greatly increase the incidence of waste, fraud and abuse in health care. Already Medicare, which accounts for 14% of all federal spending, is rife with waste, fraud and abuse. Even Attorney General Eric Holder has said, 'By all accounts, every year we lose tens of billions of dollars in Medicare and Medicaid funds to fraud.'

A recent analysis by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that federal subsidy programs cost taxpayers about $100 billion every year in improper payments, with Medicare and Medicaid accounting for more than half of that.

The left may advocate for government-run, "single-payer" insurance programs, perhaps using the alleged benefits of Medicare and Medicaid as examples.

Scholarly articles about health care policy may refer to Medicaid as a government "single-payer" system.  (For example, see: Robinson JC. The commercial health insurance industry in an era of eroding employer coverage. Health Aff 2006; 25:1475-1486. Link here.)

In any case, I suspect most of us think of Medicaid as an example of "government-run" health care insurance, regardless of whether we believe that is a good or a bad thing.

Yet the reality may be more complex. Two recent stories, one a follow-up on an old Health Care Renewal post, provide some dots to connect.

Connecticut HUSKY Medicaid Program

In 2007, we posted about how the state of Connecticut was going to end participation in the HUSKY state Medicaid program for poor children by four insurance companies/ managed care organizations.  They apparently refused to provide information about payments to physicians and denial of payments for prescription drugs to the state.  The two largest organizations involved were Anthem Health Plans (a subsidiary of WellPoint), and Health Net.  At the time, we noted that this case provided an example of the lack of transparency exhibited by major health organizations.

Late last year, the Connecticut Mirror documented more criticism of the HUSKY program based on a report that showed that participating companies were making big profits from it (but perhaps not from other state Medicaid programs): 

The three managed care companies in the state's HUSKY insurance program for low-income children and families recorded profits of $18.8 million last year, according to figures released by the state Department of Social Services.

In one part of HUSKY, the insurers made margins of at least 20 percent and spent less than 72 percent of their revenues on medical care.

The figures released this month drew criticism from members of the Medicaid Care Management Oversight Council, who are in the midst of considering moving HUSKY out of managed care.

In more detail, the relevant numbers were:

AmeriChoice, part of UnitedHealthcare, spent 62 percent of its revenue on medical care and posted a 22.9 percent profit margin in the HUSKY B program.

By contrast, the federal health reform law sets minimum medical care ratios for insurers of 80 percent or 85 percent, depending on the type of plan. The provision does not apply to Medicaid plans, but was cited as a benchmark in the council's discussion.

None of the insurers met those benchmarks in HUSKY B, which covers children whose family income does not qualify for Medicaid. Last year, it covered between 13,000 and 16,000 children, many whose families earned below 300 percent of the federal poverty level.

Aetna spent 70.5 percent on medical care and made a 20 percent margin, while Community Health Network of Connecticut, a non-profit with far more enrollees than the other insurers, spent 71.8 percent of its revenues on medical care and made a 20.6 percent margin.

Margins were lower, and medical care ratios higher, in HUSKY A, a Medicaid program that enrolled as many as 358,088 children and adults in 2009.

Community Health Network reported a 95.1 percent medical care ratio and a -0.3 percent margin. AmeriChoice spent 86.3 percent of its revenue on medical care and achieved a 3.5 percent margin, while Aetna had an 83.9 percent medical care ratio and 6.5 percent margin.

Overall, the medical care ratio was 90.7 percent for both HUSKY programs and all three insurers. The overall margin was 2.3 percent.

The insurers involved defended themselves by noting to participate in HUSKY they also had to participate in another program, Charter Oak Health Plan, "on which they lose money."

Last month, it looked to be the end of managed care in these Medicaid programs, again as reported by the Connecticut Mirror:

The Malloy administration announced plans Tuesday to move the HUSKY and Charter Oak health programs out of managed care and increase care coordination in the state's other Medicaid programs, an effort officials said would save money while giving the state more control over health programs that serve more than 500,000 people.

This article also noted:

In the current system, the state pays three managed care companies set fees for each HUSKY and Charter Oak member every month, and the companies use the money to pay medical claims. Critics say it gives the managed care companies an incentive to deny care since they get to keep the money not spent on medical costs.

So let us deal directly with the cognitive dissonance generated by these articles. In the ongoing US health reform debate, Medicaid is usually discussed as a "government-run" health care (insurance) program. Yet these news articles from Connecticut suggest at least in that state, part of Medicaid was out-sourced to mostly large, national, for-profit health insurance companies/ managed care organizations. Furthermore, as noted just above, these corporations seemed to be mainly calling the shots in how their part of Medicaid was run. So is this "government-run" health care (insurance)?

But wait, there is more....

Minnesota Medicaid Controversy

Last month, the Politics in Minnesota web-site ran a report on an unlikely reformer:

Dave Feinwachs is no stranger to the Capitol.

For three decades he was the general counsel to the Minnesota Hospital Association. In that capacity, he negotiated with state agencies and testified regularly before legislative committees on health care issues.

But early last year, Feinwachs said, he was ordered by his superiors at the hospital association not to provide any further testimony at the Capitol. The reason for the muzzle: his vocal insistence that health maintenance organizations (HMOs) should contribute money to help salvage the state’s General Assistance Medical Care program for indigent adults.

Feinwachs says he abided by the prohibition on testimony before legislative committees, but apparently it was not enough to keep him in the good graces of his employer. In November he was fired as the group’s principal attorney. Feinwachs will not discuss the reason for his termination, citing potential litigation. But it almost certainly had something to do with his ongoing zealous campaign to force greater transparency and accountability on the state’s HMOs - primarily Blue Cross & Blue Shield, HealthPartners, Medica and UCare - which receive roughly $3 billion annually to run health plans for many of the state’s poorest residents.

So here we go again. This article suggested that Minnesota had out-sourced a very large part of its Medicaid program.

Furthermore, it also appears that the state government knows little about what happens to the money it hands over:

In the next two years, Minnesota is slated to funnel about $6 billion to the state’s HMOs to provide health care for 550,000 of the state’s poorest residents. To put that figure in perspective, it is nearly 20 percent of the state’s expected 2012-13 general fund revenues - and nearly identical to the state’s projected $6.2 billion deficit. In coming up with a solution to Minnesota’s financial crisis, Feinwachs and others believe, legislators must at least have a clear accounting of this massive pot of health care dollars.

HMOs, meanwhile, are not exactly yearning for scrutiny, especially as they launch a pitch to administer even more of the state’s health care spending.

In addition, there is reason to believe that Minnesota may be paying a significant amount for administration:

Feinwachs believes that the administrative overhead collected by HMOs could be in the neighborhood of 16 percent. He concedes, however, that this is no more than a 'guesstimate' pieced together from the limited information that is publicly available.

Then, there is reason to suspect that the private (and nominally not-for-profit) HMOs that Minnesota pays to run Medicaid have resisted accounting for how the money they got was spent:

Past attempts to bolster accountability and transparency for HMOs have largely run into a brick wall. For instance, when legislators considered requiring the health plans to chip in on a plan to restore the General Assistance Medical Care program last year, they were told by officials from the Department of Human Services that such a move would be illegal. Efforts to provide more financial disclosure have been rebuffed by the argument that such information is proprietary and not subject to the state’s data practices rules. The complexity of Minnesota’s patchwork of publicly funded health care plans, which very few individuals clearly understand, has also helped forestall changes.

'We can’t let the complexity of data and information beat us down, and I think that’s what happened in the years past,' Hosch said. 'The systems almost seem like they’re deliberately complex in order to confuse us.'

Apparently in these parlous financial times, Mr Feinwachs got some attention. Last week, the state Governor announced his willingness to dig into the results of the state's out-sourcing of Medicaid, per the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

It's high time that Minnesota started treating its nonprofit health plans for what they are -- some of state government's largest vendors.

Reforms announced this week by Gov. Mark Dayton's office are a promising first step toward scrutinizing health plan contracts for savings and finding new ways to rein in Minnesota's soaring medical costs.

Managing care for more than 500,000 low-income, disabled and elderly Minnesotans enrolled in state public health programs is a $3.1 billion-a-year business for health plans in Minnesota, with the state and federal government jointly footing the bill.

Over the past decade, the state's portion of this outsourced care has increased from 5 percent to 11 percent of the state budget, according to Dayton's office.

The state also has more than 249,000 people -- typically the sickest of the sick -- in a fee-for-service public program. That spending is also ripe for a cost-savings review.

On Wednesday, Dayton announced plans to do what good business leaders do in difficult financial circumstances. His administration is going to start driving harder bargains with health plans.

Key parts of the plan include making the contracting system more competitive, making financial information more transparent, and doing deeper auditing of plans' books to analyze administrative and medical expenses.

So again in Minnesota, it appeared that the state had out-sourced a large proportion of its Medicaid program, covering apparently two-thirds of the state's Medicaid patients. It appears that knowledge of the out-sourcing of most of Medicaid was relatively anechoic, and that even the state's former Governor Pawlenty was unaware of it (see his comments in introduction to this post). Despite the amounts of money and the numbers of people involved, up to now the state government had apparently very little information about how billions of dollars were being spent by private, albeit nominally non-profit health insurance companies/ managed care organizations.

Summary

Two cases from two states suggest that some proportion of Medicaid, perhaps a very large proportion, has been out-sourced to private corporations, both nominally non-profit and for-profit.

In fact, a Washington Post article last year suggested that 70% of Medicaid patients are in managed care plans, most of which are likely out-sourced, not run by state Medicaid agencies.

Our two cases above further suggest that government officials may know little about how the money given to these corporations was spent, and how the corporations managed the supposedly "government-run" health insurance.

So much for the notion that the US Medicaid program is "government-run" health insurance.  Whether one believes that government bureaucrats are good or bad at running health care, it seems that most Medicaid patients' care is managed by corporate, not government bureaucrats.

The likelihood that a substantial proportion of Medicaid patients actually get their health care coverage from corporations, be that non-profit or for-profit, raises some important questions.
- What proportion of the government funds provided these corporations goes to health care versus administration, overhead, etc?
-  What then is the proportion of all Medicaid money spent on health care versus administration, overhead, etc at the federal, state, and corporate levels?
-  What proportion of the revenue of major health insurers/ managed care organizations actually comes from tax-payers via Medicaid?
-  To what extent do health insurers/ managed care organizations influence clinical care through their role implementing Medicaid?
-  How transparent are their finances and their implementation of Medicaid?
-  How well are they supervised and regulated by national and state government?

Meanwhile, it appears that there is far more overlap between government and corporate health insurance and managed care than most of us realized.  That suggests the usual debate between the foes and proponents of "government-run" health care (insurance) was vastly too simplistic.  Maybe some of those involved in the debate should have known that.   

Meanwhile, the concerns I discussed in 2002 that "health care has become dominated by large, bureaucratic organizations" appear increasingly well-founded.  This domination seems to be increasingly facilitated by collaboration - or should that be collusion? - among government and private bureaucracies.  The danger, as we have repeatedly discussed, is that the leaders of these bureaucracies may feel increasing loyalty to the managers' and executives' guild, and decreasing pressure not to fulfill their own and their cronies' self-interest.  We need at least to have some frank discussions about the increasing corporatism of health care and all of society, and what to do about it. 

BUY IT NOW!

Passport to ... Fraud? - AmeriHealth Mercy Settles

Back in November, 2010, we discussed the relatively opulent pay and perks given to and conflicts of interest affecting leaders of Passport Health Plan, a non-profit, state (Kentucky) supported Medicaid managed care organization/ health insurer.  This seemed to be another case of health care organizational insiders putting their personal gain ahead of their mission, which was particularly unseemly because their mission was serving the poor. 

Now Passport Health is in the news again, and not in a favorable way, as per the Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal:

Passport Health Plan’s main contractor has agreed to pay more than $2 million in damages to the Kentucky Medicaid program to settle a fraud investigation, Attorney General Jack Conway announced Wednesday.

The settlement with AmeriHealth Mercy Plan is the result of a nine-month investigation by the Attorney General's Medicaid Fraud Unit into alleged falsification of records by the company that entitled it to more than $677,000 in bonus money for good performance.

Conway said the investigation centered on an allegation from a whistleblower that AmeriHealth falsely reported data to the state Medicaid Services Department on the number of Medicaid recipients who received cervical cancer screenings in 2009. The false numbers allowed AmeriHealth to receive the bonus money under the terms of its contract.

We have discussed a variety of cases of leaders of health care organizations getting compensation or benefits that seemed disproportionate in their organizations' context. The usual justification seems to be that it takes such rewards to attract the excellent leaders needed by health care organization.

Here is another example of leaders who not only seemed to get excessive compensation and benefits, but whose performance seemed far from excellent.

Moreover, it suggests that compensation and benefits may actually have an inverse correlation to performance. Organizations whose stewards seem unrealistic about the talents of their hired managers, and dependent on material rewards to retain such managers may lack good stewardship. Leaders who find themselves rewarded beyond any reasonable evaluation of their work may learn the lesson that they cannot ask for too much. Meanwhile, the excess of their rewards may inspire increasing greed rather than increasing devotion to the mission, while the pay and perks increasingly place them in a bubble that insulates from the concerns of the common people who their organizations are supposed to serve.

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.

PS - Also note that this is also another example of the sort of legal settlements of misbehavior by health care organizations that seems to have little deterrent effect, mainly because no individual who authorized, directed or implemented the bad behavior suffers any negative consequences.  See our discussion in these previous posts.  True health care reform would also hold leaders accountable for their organizations' misdeeds.

BUY IT NOW!

Health Insurers Sanctioned, Fined

It has not been a good few weeks for big US health insurance companies.  First was a report (e.g., per the Wall Street Journal) that three companies had been suspended from selling Medicare Advantage plans:

The U.S. government's Medicare program has ordered three health insurers--Universal American Corp. (UAM), Health Net Inc. (HNT) and Arcadian Health--to stop marketing to and enrolling new members in their Medicare Advantage health and prescription-drug plans, saying the companies violated regulations.

In particular,

Universal American was told to stop marketing to and enrolling people in its Medicare Advantage plans effective Dec. 5. The action doesn't affect current members or the enrolling of beneficiaries in the company's stand-alone Medicare prescription-drug plans.

Health Net had to suspend the marketing of and enrollment in its Medicare Advantage plans and stand-alone Medicare prescription-drug plans as of Friday, as the government said the company's conduct poses a 'serious threat' to enrollees. The sanction doesn't affect the status of current enrollees, however.

In a letter Friday to Theodore Carpenter, head of Universal American's Medicare Advantage business, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services alleged the company has a 'longstanding pattern of prohibited marketing practices targeted to highly vulnerable populations in violation' of federal law and guidelines as well as contractual terms with CMS.

Universal American is a 'chronic poor performer' with respect to the regulations, according to CMS, which said the company's agents engaged in aggressive sales tactics and abusive behavior, and misled or confused beneficiaries or misrepresented the plan.

The agency's letter to Health Net government-programs executive Scott Kelly said the company's conduct 'poses a serious threat to the health and safety of its enrollees,' as a result of the company's 'intractable failure to provide its enrollees with prescription drug benefits in conformance" with laws, guidelines and contract terms.' CMS cited a 'history of non-compliance.'

Then, the state of California fined and ordered restitution from multiple companies, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle:

State regulators Monday fined seven of California's largest health insurers nearly $5 million for systematically failing to pay doctors and hospitals fairly and on time.

The California Department of Managed Health Care issued the fines following an 18-month audit in which investigators looked at a small but statistically significant sample of claims. The investigation found the plans were paying on average about 80 percent of the claims correctly, far below the legal threshold of 95 percent.

'Our clear and consistent message is that California's hospitals and physicians must be paid fairly and on time,' said Cindy Ehnes, director of the Department of Managed Health Care, which is charged with regulating the states' health maintenance organizations, or HMOs.

In addition to the fines, the companies must pay the doctors and hospitals restitution that is expected to run into the "tens of millions of dollars," Ehnes said. The plans will also be required to come up with a plan to correct the problem and submit to future audits.

Failing to pay providers properly makes it tougher for them to survive in the struggling economy, Ehnes said. 'If providers are not paid, patient care and access suffer,' she said.

Regulators fined Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of California $900,000 each. United/PacifiCare was fined $800,000 and Kaiser Foundation Health Plan and Health Net were both hit with fines of $750,000.


The fines for Cigna and Aetna were $450,000 and $300,000, respectively, for a total of $4.85 million.

Please note that some of these companies have become "frequent flyers" on the Health Care Renewal blog.  Anthem Blue Cross in California is a subsidiary of WellPoint. WellPoint, in particular, just appears again and again on Health Care renewal.  A list of all posts about that company is here, and see this post for a list of past ethical and management missteps.  Health Net appeared in both stories above, and appeared on Health Care Renewal here.  Posts on Aetna are here.

Having been writing for this blog now for several years, I am struck by how often the conduct of particular health care organizations has been discredited, without any discernible effect on the organization's leadership or course.  It is particularly striking how the attention paid and pay given to the leaders of some health care organizations contrasts with the public record of their organization's bad behavior.

In particular, contrast the long catalog of misbehavior by WellPoint, noted above, with the enormous earnings of the company's CEO (more than $13 million in 2009), and her status as a prominent speaker on health care policy (see post here). 

In the laissez faire, anything goes, wild, wild west economy of today, spearheaded by the financial service companies that lead us to the global economic collapse, it seems that ethical leadership counts for nothing.  This is bad when it applies to the leadership of financial services, whose bad leadership can cost us all a lot of money.  It is worse when it applies to health care, whose bad leadership can cost us our health and our lives.

As I have said ad infinitum, to really reform health care, we will need to get accountable, ethical, transparent leadership of health care organizations.

BUY IT NOW!

"Living High Life on Money to Treat the Poor"

Here is another story that has developed over the last week about questionable goings on at a not-for-profit health care organization.  The organization in question this time was the not-for-profit, but state government supported Medicaid managed care organization/ health insurer for the Louisville, Kentucky region.  The details came from a Louisville (Kentucky) Courier-Journal article about a state auditor's report on the Passport Health Plan:

The organization providing Medicaid services in Jefferson and surrounding counties has spent lavishly on such things as travel, meals, salaries, bonuses and lobbying in recent years, the state auditor’s office said in a report released Tuesday.

The scathing report, which Gov. Steve Beshear described as 'disheartening,' said two Passport Health Plan officials — Executive Vice President Shannon Turner and Associate Vice President Nici Gaines — were paid well, ate well and traveled extensively.

'Lodgings were often luxury spas and resorts,' the report said. 'The executives used limousine services and dined at expensive restaurants. While these types of expenditures may be routine for many private, for-profit companies, they should not be typical in nonprofit, health care organizations.'

The report also said Passport made extraordinary efforts to burnish its public image and gain political support by spending $1 million since 2007 on lobbying and public relations, as well as $423,000 in donations and sponsorships.

Many of the donations had no connection with health care, the report said — including $600 to sponsor a reception for the Senate Republican majority in 2009, $10,000 to sponsor an 'inflatable character' for the Kentucky Derby Festival's Pegasus Parade, and contributions to the Boy Scouts, Kentucky Opera, Volunteers of America and others.

Here are some more specifics about amounts spent:

Travel: Passport spent $106,722 on more than 36 trips including trips to conferences at resorts in New Orleans, Key West, Las Vegas, Seattle, Philadelphia, Tucson, Washington and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho.
Meals: Spent $72,994 on 753 meals for groups large and small. These were mostly at Louisville restaurants but included tabs at some famous restaurants outside Kentucky, such as Emeril's and Commander's Palace in New Orleans.
Limo services: Five uses of limos totaling $3,996.
Lobbying and public relations: Spent $1 million.
Donations and sponsorships: Spent $423,000, some with no connection to health care, including $10,000 to be an “Inflatable Character Sponsor” for the Kentucky Derby Festival.
Gifts: Spent $9,311 for 95 gifts, which included flowers and Christmas gifts.
Salaries: Paid salary and bonuses of $303,750 to Executive Vice President Shannon Turner and $156, 000 to Associate Vice President Nici Gaines in most recent year.

Here are more specifics about conflicts of interest:

Conflicts of interest: Both Turner and Gaines received additional compensation in contracts with subcontractor they were overseeing, AmeriHealth Mercy. Also, Larry Cook, Passport's chairman and CEO, had divided loyalties because he serves as an executive vice president of U of L. He also was reimbursed $1,717 by AmeriHealth for expenses for a trip to Ireland in 2007.
Grants: Many grants were made by Passport to groups with ties to staff and/or board members

The organization also was charged with distributing additional funds to area health providers based on their initial investment in the not-for-profit managed care organization, but not on the amount of care they were providing to Medicaid patients:

[State Senator Tim] Shaughnessy was particularly concerned about distributions of $10 million in excess funds in late 2008 and again in and 2009 to the large Jefferson County health-care providers that formed Passport.

These distributions were reported to the Kentucky Department of Insurance as grants to cover indigent care costs incurred by Passport's provider partners — University Medical Center, University Physician Associates, Norton Healthcare, Jewish Hospital and St. Mary's Healthcare, and the Louisville/Jefferson County Primary Care Association.

But the auditor’s report said the money was distributed based on the percentage of the providers' initial investments to create Passport — not the amount of indigent care they provided. And the report said this money was placed in the general funds of these providers 'rather than specifically set aside for uncompensated indigent care.'

Finally, it appears that Passport tried to block disclosure of important information, including the compensation of its executives, even though it is a not-for-profit organization entirely funded by the government:

Early this year The Courier-Journal filed a request under the state open records law seeking Passport records on compensation of its executives and minutes of its board meetings. But Passport refused to release them, claiming that the law did not apply.

The attorney general's office disagreed, saying that Passport is 100 percent publicly funded and must release the records. But Passport again refused and took the matter to Jefferson Circuit Court, where it is pending.

So again we have the same tiresome features of leaders who apparently regard their organization as their own personal sandbox: lavish compensation, given the context, luxuries supplied the leadership out of organizational funds, conflicts of interest that apparently increased further the leaders' personal gains, and attempts to keep the whole thing secret. As a Lexington (Kentucky) Herald-Leader editorial ("Living High Life on Money to Treat the Poor") noted, given the mission of the organization, this sort of sleaze is particularly unfortunate:

In one way, though, Passport's profligacy deserves special condemnation. Every dollar Passport executives spent on their own pleasurable pursuits, on lobbying to insure tax money kept flowing their way, on buying goodwill in the Louisville area or on any other unnecessary expense was a dollar taken away from providing Medicaid services to the most vulnerable, needy members of society.

This case resembles one we discussed previously, that of the non-profit community health agency in Florida whose leaders again seemed to regard their job as an opportunity for personal enrichment.  It seems that even leaders of non-profit organizations whose mission is to help the needy may seem to put their own needs before those of their disadvantaged constituents.  Of course, given they may have seen leaders of not-for-profit universities and hospital systems making millions, and leaders of for-profit pharmaceutical, device, and especially managed care organizations/ health insurers making tens of millions, and conclude that their six-figure salaries and occasional luxuries were barely adequate compensation.

As we have noted before, the "executives take all" mentality of an era economically dominated by financiers as aristocrats seems to have infected health care.  Somehow we have to restore the idea that executives and managers  like doctors and nurses, should regard their work as calling meant to put the needs of patients and public health first, rather than a quick way to get rich. 

BUY IT NOW!