Princess Health and Secrecy and Censorship. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Secrecy and Censorship. Princessiccia

intimidation secrecy

Gusty 07:05 Add Comment

On June 6 I wrote a post entitled "Secrecy," and concluded "we should cultivate transparency and openness in health care. It is hard to conceive of legitimate reasons to keep hospitals' prices, contracts between medical schools and research sponsors, and contracts between doctors and managed care organizations secret. On the other hand, it is easy to think of how such secrecy could hide unethical business practices, and potentially even abuse of patients and corruption.It is time to end this secrecy. "
Since then, in the last 16 days, the following stories about secrecy have appeared on Health Care Renewal:

• Louis Sherwood, A top Merck executive, now retired was accused of trying to intimidate physicians and researchers who had publicly questioned the safety of Merck's Cox-2 inhibitor Vioxx, now withdrawn from the market, or whether data about Vioxx was being withheld. (See post here.)
• A Pfizer executive who had spoken out publicly in favor of drug re-importation charged that the company shut down his cell phone and email. (See post here.)
• After Guidant found out that one of its models of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) had a defect that may cause them to fail, it kept the flaws a secret until the company found out that the NY Times was writing an article about the problem. (See post here.) It similarly concealed flaws in two other models of ICDs. Finally, it shippped old ICDs with the inventory out of inventory without notifying their recipients that the company had started making improved version without the flaw. (See posts here and here.)
• CIGNA threatened a physician author with legal action because he published a satirical piece in a humor magazine. The threat was based on a provision in CIGNA's contract with the physician's hospital that forbade "disparaging" language. (See post here.)
• Kaiser-Permanente sued a former employee for revealing in a blog that the managed care organization had posted real patient data on a web-site being used to develop an electronic medical record. (See post here.)
• Eli Lilly filed one of its sales representatives after he published a book detailing his exploits prior to working for Lilly as a "slacker" sales representative for Pfizer. (See post here.)

These posts demonstrate that the urge to censor seems to be widespread in health care. The would-be censors noted above included pharmaceutical companies, a device company, a for-profit managed care organization, and a not-for-profit managed care organization. They sought to censor expression critical of their products and practices ranging from outcomes data, through academic and popular opinion, to satire. Their means of censorship ranged from simply keeping information to themselves, to threats, threats of law-suits, and law-suits filed.
These 16 days demonstrated the continuing threats against transparency and openness in health care. They also demonstrate that many threats come from leaders of large health care organizations who don't like information that puts them in a bad light made public. Yet how will we improve health care without access to information about what is going wrong, and opinions about what do to improve things?

Princess Health and Secrecy and Censorship.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Secrecy and Censorship.Princessiccia

intimidation secrecy

Gusty 07:05 Add Comment

On June 6 I wrote a post entitled "Secrecy," and concluded "we should cultivate transparency and openness in health care. It is hard to conceive of legitimate reasons to keep hospitals' prices, contracts between medical schools and research sponsors, and contracts between doctors and managed care organizations secret. On the other hand, it is easy to think of how such secrecy could hide unethical business practices, and potentially even abuse of patients and corruption.It is time to end this secrecy. "
Since then, in the last 16 days, the following stories about secrecy have appeared on Health Care Renewal:

• Louis Sherwood, A top Merck executive, now retired was accused of trying to intimidate physicians and researchers who had publicly questioned the safety of Merck's Cox-2 inhibitor Vioxx, now withdrawn from the market, or whether data about Vioxx was being withheld. (See post here.)
• A Pfizer executive who had spoken out publicly in favor of drug re-importation charged that the company shut down his cell phone and email. (See post here.)
• After Guidant found out that one of its models of implantable cardiac defibrillators (ICDs) had a defect that may cause them to fail, it kept the flaws a secret until the company found out that the NY Times was writing an article about the problem. (See post here.) It similarly concealed flaws in two other models of ICDs. Finally, it shippped old ICDs with the inventory out of inventory without notifying their recipients that the company had started making improved version without the flaw. (See posts here and here.)
• CIGNA threatened a physician author with legal action because he published a satirical piece in a humor magazine. The threat was based on a provision in CIGNA's contract with the physician's hospital that forbade "disparaging" language. (See post here.)
• Kaiser-Permanente sued a former employee for revealing in a blog that the managed care organization had posted real patient data on a web-site being used to develop an electronic medical record. (See post here.)
• Eli Lilly filed one of its sales representatives after he published a book detailing his exploits prior to working for Lilly as a "slacker" sales representative for Pfizer. (See post here.)

These posts demonstrate that the urge to censor seems to be widespread in health care. The would-be censors noted above included pharmaceutical companies, a device company, a for-profit managed care organization, and a not-for-profit managed care organization. They sought to censor expression critical of their products and practices ranging from outcomes data, through academic and popular opinion, to satire. Their means of censorship ranged from simply keeping information to themselves, to threats, threats of law-suits, and law-suits filed.
These 16 days demonstrated the continuing threats against transparency and openness in health care. They also demonstrate that many threats come from leaders of large health care organizations who don't like information that puts them in a bad light made public. Yet how will we improve health care without access to information about what is going wrong, and opinions about what do to improve things?

Princess Health and Secrecy. Princessiccia

Princess Health and Secrecy. Princessiccia

confidentiality clause health insurance secrecy

Gusty 06:43 Add Comment

I'm trying to catch up after a busy weekend, and there is a lot to catch up on...
Last week in the Hartford Courant, an op-ed article entitled "Medically Unnecessary" offered an ear, nose and throat surgeon's heart-felt complaints about the brave new world of practice dominated by managed care.
In particular, he recounted how his practice tried to negotiate with a prominent insurance company. As a prerequesite to negotiating, the company sent the doctors a "confidentiality contract," which included penalties up to $100,000 per person for any "breach of confidentiality, [decided] solely at the insurer's discretion." The doctors refused to sign.
Here is another example of the secrecy rampant in US health care. Earlier, we had posted about how hospitals keep their often stratospheric "list prices" secret, even from patients who may later be liable to pay these prices if they have no health insurer who can negotiate discounts. We also had posted about how medical schools and academic medical centers are often willing to negotiate research contracts with sponsors whose provisions are kept confidential, perhaps to hide provisions that give the corporate sponsor, not the ostensibly academic investigators control of most aspects of the research.
There are some instances in which secrecy in health care is justifiable. Keeping patients' personal data confidential is a a core value for most physicians. It also seems reasonable for companies that manufacture products used in health care to be able to maintain trade secrets about their manufacturing processes.
However, for the most part, we should cultivate transparency and openness in health care. It is hard to conceive of legitimate reasons to keep hospitals' prices, contracts between medical schools and research sponsors, and contracts between doctors and managed care organizations secret. On the other hand, it is easy to think of how such secrecy could hide unethical business practices, and potentially even abuse of patients and corruption.
It is time to end this secrecy.

Princess Health and Secrecy.Princessiccia

Princess Health and Secrecy.Princessiccia

confidentiality clause health insurance secrecy

Gusty 06:43 Add Comment

I'm trying to catch up after a busy weekend, and there is a lot to catch up on...
Last week in the Hartford Courant, an op-ed article entitled "Medically Unnecessary" offered an ear, nose and throat surgeon's heart-felt complaints about the brave new world of practice dominated by managed care.
In particular, he recounted how his practice tried to negotiate with a prominent insurance company. As a prerequesite to negotiating, the company sent the doctors a "confidentiality contract," which included penalties up to $100,000 per person for any "breach of confidentiality, [decided] solely at the insurer's discretion." The doctors refused to sign.
Here is another example of the secrecy rampant in US health care. Earlier, we had posted about how hospitals keep their often stratospheric "list prices" secret, even from patients who may later be liable to pay these prices if they have no health insurer who can negotiate discounts. We also had posted about how medical schools and academic medical centers are often willing to negotiate research contracts with sponsors whose provisions are kept confidential, perhaps to hide provisions that give the corporate sponsor, not the ostensibly academic investigators control of most aspects of the research.
There are some instances in which secrecy in health care is justifiable. Keeping patients' personal data confidential is a a core value for most physicians. It also seems reasonable for companies that manufacture products used in health care to be able to maintain trade secrets about their manufacturing processes.
However, for the most part, we should cultivate transparency and openness in health care. It is hard to conceive of legitimate reasons to keep hospitals' prices, contracts between medical schools and research sponsors, and contracts between doctors and managed care organizations secret. On the other hand, it is easy to think of how such secrecy could hide unethical business practices, and potentially even abuse of patients and corruption.
It is time to end this secrecy.