When we began this blog, I never dreamed I would do so much writing about finance and the financial services sector of the economy, but,... 

The Governance of Citigroup

The discussions and revelations generated by the global financial collapse/ great recession continue to provide insights into the ongoing health care crisis.  Let me start with a small item from the Dow Jones Newswire this week:

The California Public Employees' Retirement System said it opposes the re-election of two Citigroup Inc. (C) directors, in part because of their roles in the recent financial crisis.

The nation's largest public pension fund, which owns about 61.2 million Citigroup shares, plans to cast 'withhold' votes for board nominees Andrew Liveris, chairman and chief executive of Dow Chemical Co. (DOW), and Judith Rodin, Rockefeller Foundation president, at the annual shareowners meeting Tuesday.

Both served on the company's audit and risk committee before the financial crisis. During the crisis, the banking giant accepted a total federal government infusion of $45 billion, which it has repaid.

'It's time for new blood in the boardroom,' said Anne Simpson, the senior portfolio manager who heads the Calpers corporate governance program....

Let me back up a bit.

The near-failure of global banking giant Citigroup, prevented only by a massive US government bail-out, was one of the central components of the global financial collapse. We noted recently how Mr Robert Rubin, one of the key leaders of Citigroup was accused of "being asleep at the switch," "irresponsibility and misjudgment," and being a "very well paid boob" after his testimony at hearings by the committee investigating the collapse. We also noted his link to health care. As senior member of the Harvard Corporation, Rubin is one of six top stewards of the US' oldest and arguably most presigious university, containing one the country's most prestigious medical schools and teaching hospitals.

Although all those who were members of the Citigroup at the time it collapsed have not been hauled in front of the committee, there has been considerable discussion of their responsibility for the company's failures. For example, in 2008, soon after the government rescue of Citigroup began, the Wall Street Journal published an editorial:

"Citi never sleeps," says the bank's advertising slogan. But its directors apparently do. While CEO Vikram Pandit can argue that many of Citi's problems were created before he arrived in 2007, most board members have no such excuse. Former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin has served on the Citi board for a decade. For much of that time he was chairman of the executive committee, collecting tens of millions to massage the Beltway crowd, though apparently not for asking tough questions about risk management.

Chairman Sir Win Bischoff has held senior positions at Citi since 2000. Six other directors have served for more than 10 years -- including former CIA Director John Deutch, Time Warner Chairman Richard Parsons, foundation executive Franklin Thomas, former AT&T CEO C. Michael Armstrong, Alcoa Chairman Alain Belda, and former Chevron Chairman Kenneth Derr.

When taxpayers are being asked to provide the equivalent of $1,000 each in guarantees on Citi's dubious investments, how can these men possibly say they deserve to remain on the board?

While other banks can claim to be victims of the current panic, Citi is at least a three-time loser. The same directors were at the helm in 2005 when the Fed suspended Citi's ability to make acquisitions because of the bank's failure to adhere to regulatory and ethical standards. Citi also needed resuscitation after the sovereign debt disaster of the 1980s, and it required an orchestrated private rescue in the 1990s.

Last year, as reported by Bloomberg,

Citigroup Inc. investors should vote against re-electing four of 14 board members, including John Deutch and Michael Armstrong, to improve management of the company’s risks, a shareholder advisory group said.

Deutch, former U.S. Central Intelligence Agency director, Armstrong, former AT& T Inc. chief executive officer, and Alain Belda, chairman of Alcoa Inc., should be opposed 'for poor risk oversight,' RiskMetrics Group Inc.’s ISS Governance Services said today. Xerox Corp. CEO Anne Mulcahy shouldn’t be re-elected because she sits on more than three boards, which may limit her effectiveness, the group said.

'The pattern of chronic oversight failure at Citi and the magnitude of the corresponding shareholder losses warrant removal from the board of directors most responsible for risk oversight,' RiskMetrics said in the statement.

Furthermore,

'Despite the fact that the board has many incumbent directors that have been successful in their respective fields and have been on the board for some time, their track record taken as a whole is dismal given that the company is currently surviving on federal assistance,' RiskMetrics said.

Rick Conrad, of the Seeking Alpha blog, thus berated the CEO of Citigroup at its 2009 shareholders meeting,

Mr. Armstrong, who has been a director since 1989 is no longer part of the Audit Committee, as of this year, continues his 'service' to our Company on the Nomination as well as the Compensation Committee. Much as this company has suffered under an illusion of prosperity, it appears to continue to suffer under an illusion of competence.

John [Deutch] has served on the Audit Committee of our Company since 1997 and hence, likely drank the Kool-Aid as to the Illusion of Prosperity.

I note that the audit and risk management committee has many members who, like Mr Deutch and MrArmstrong presided over this seemingly out of control disaster.

Andrew Liveris since 2005 on Audit

Ann Mulcahy since 2007 on Audit

Dr Judith Rodin since 2004 on both Executive and Audit Committees.

Overlaps Among Citigroup's Board and Health Care Organizations' Leadership

So there seems to be good reason to believe that the board of Citigroup at the time the firm collapsed were a collective example of inattentive goverance and poor stewardship. We have previously documented overlaps among poor governance and leadership of finance, and the governance and leadership of health care, suggesting that the poor leadership and governance of the latter may be in part a result of infection from the former. So I looked for overlaps among the Citigroup board and health care organizational leadership.

A list of the membership of the failed board comes from the 2008 Citigroup proxy statement.  The biographies provided therein, supplemented with some Google searching, produced the following overlaps:

- C Michael Armstrong - is also Chairman, Johns Hopkins Medicine, Health Systems and Hospital

- Alain J P Belda - was a Trustee and member of the Corporation of Brown University (including the Warren Alpert Medical School)  (He stepped down prior to 2009 at an unknown time.)

- Sir Winfried Bischoff, Chairman of the Board - is a director of Eli Lilly and Co.

- Kenneth T Derr - is a director of the University of California San Francisco Foundation.

- John M Deutch - no overlap found

- Roberto Hernandez Ramirez - no overlap found

- Andrew N Liveris - is a Trustee of Tufts University (including the School of Medicine and Tufts- New England Medical Center)

- Anne M Mulcahy - in 2009, was appointed to the Board of Directors of Johnson and Johnson

- Vikran S Pandit, CEO - is a Trustee of Columbia University (including the College of Physicians and Surgeons and Columbia University Medical Center)

- Richard D Parsons - is a Trustee of Howard University (including the College of Medicine and Howard University Hospital)

- Judith Rodin - is President of the Rockefeller Foundation

- Robert E Rubin - is a member of the Harvard Corporation (including Harvard Medical School and multiple Harvard teaching hospitals), and a Trustee of Mount Sinai Medical Center

- Robert L Ryan - was a director of UnitedHealth Group, is a Trustee of Cornell University (including Weill Cornell Medical College, and Weill Cornell Medical Center), and was a Senior Vice President and CFO of Medtronic

- Franklin A Thomas - no overlaps found

Summary

So in summary, of 14 board members, 2 are trustees of major medical centers (Johns Hopkins and Mount Sinai), 6 were or are trustees or equivalent of universities that include medical schools and medical centers (Brown, Tufts, Columbia, Howard, Harvard and Cornell), one is a trustee of such a university's foundation (University of California San Francisco Foundation), 2 are or would be board members of pharmaceutical corporations (Eli Lilly and Johnson and Johnson), one was a board member of a commercial managed care organization/ health insurance company (UnitedHealth), one was a former top executive of a medical device company (Medtronic), and one is the President of a large charitable foundation which historically has supported multiple medical and public health initiatives (Rockefeller Foundation).  Only 3 of 14 did not have a major leadership role of a health care organization.  

Most of these health care organizations have been involved with cases we have discussed on Health Care Renewal (see links above).

Given the seriousness of the failure of Citigroup, one has to wonder why so many of the directors who presided over it still have such influential positions in health care organizations?

As we have pointed out, as the world economy was driven to near ruin by "masters of the universe," some of the same also became leaders of academia and academic medicine in their spare time. Maybe this made sense 10 or 20 years ago, but why does it still make sense? On the other hand, now that we understand how bad the leadership of finance really was, it is a little easier to understand why the leadership of health care has become so bad. Iit seems reasonable to hypothesize that some of the problems of academia, and particularly the problems of medical academia, may have been at least enabled by leadership more used to working in an increasingly amoral marketplace than to upholding the academic mission.  The failures of the leadership and governance of finance thus suggest we need to re-examine the leadership of health care.

Three months ago, we discussed the controversy at the University of Michigan about the university president's position on the board of directors of the big pharmaceutical, medical device and medical supply company Johnson and Johnson as a potential conflict of interest that could have influenced her decision to make the campus smoke-free. (Johnson and Johnson makes drugs to aid in smoking cessation.) I argued that by the Institute of Medicine definition, President Coleman did have a conflict of interest, and while it was not possible to tell whether it influenced the smoke-free decision, the issue with conflicts is that they constantly raise the possibility of undue influence on decisions.

Now this issue has made it to the big time. New York Times reporter Duff Wilson, wrote in the Times' Prescriptions Blog

The University of Michigan medical school became the first in the nation last month to say it would refuse any funding from drug companies for its continuing medical education classes. The decision could cost it as much as $1 million a year, but it was worth it, the medical school dean said, for education to be free from potential bias.

At the same time, Mary Sue Coleman, president of the entire University of Michigan, sits on the board of directors for the pharmaceutical giant Johnson & Johnson. Last year, the company paid her $229,978 — roughly half in stock and half in cash — for attending a limited number of meetings, corporate filings show.

Conflict of interest? Conflict of policies? If the med school and mere professors could be tainted by drug money, what about the university president?

She says no. Responding to questions on Ms. Coleman’s behalf Monday, Kelly E. Cunningham, a spokeswoman for the university, said the president satisfied the policy by disclosing her outside work. Ms. Coleman has never had to recuse herself from any discussion or action at the university because medical purchasing and investment decisions are so remote from her, Ms. Cunningham said.

'The same is true at J&J,' she added. 'There has never been a discussion or decision at the board level that involved something related to the UM. But, of course, if there were, she would recuse herself.'

The story was picked up by the Detroit Free Press, which reiterated the official line that President Coleman's role on the Johnson and Johnson board did not pose a conflict:

A student group at the University of Michigan is calling on President Mary Sue Coleman to resign from her seat on the Johnson & Johnson board of directors, saying it's a conflict of interest.

But Coleman has no plans to resign, and university officials say her role on the board is not in conflict with university operations. Last year, she earned nearly $230,000 for her board duties. Coleman's U-M salary is about $550,000.

'It's essential that U-M have a voice and interact with the business world,' said Rick Fitzgerald, a U-M spokesman. 'She thinks it's her duty to understand what the commercial world is doing.'

So, as I did last time, let us turn to the Institute of Medicine's definition of conflict of interest (in a health care context) found in its report, Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice.

Conflicts of interest are defined as circumstances that create a risk that professional judgments or actions regarding a primary interest will be unduly influenced by a secondary interest. Primary interests include promoting and protecting the integrity of research, the quality of medical education, and the welfare of patients. Secondary interests include not only financial interests....

I asserted then that President Coleman has a conflict of interest. Her primary interests as President of a university are to uphold the university's academic mission, and as President of a university that includes a medical school, a school of public health, and an academic medical center, also to uphold the integrity of patient care and public health practice. Her secondary interest as a member of the board of directors of a public, for-profit corporation is her fiduciary duty to that corporation and its stockholders, which means she must "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders" [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.] Such unyielding loyalty to the shareholders of a pharmaceutical and medical device company clearly creates a risk of influencing judgments or actions that could affect the corporations' sales or operations, economic or health policy, or the general environment in which it operates. Many of the judgments of or actions performed by the leader of a medical school, public health school, and academic medical center could so so, and are thus at risk of being so unduly influenced.

As the IOM report said, though,

a judgment that someone has a conflict of interest does not imply that the person is unethical. Such judgments assume only that some situations are generally recognized to pose an unacceptable risk that decisions may be unduly influenced by considerations that should be irrelevant.

However, note that the sorts of decisions that may be influenced by a conflict of interest go beyond just those that involve the specific secondary interest causing the conflict. So the University spokesperson's statement that the president would recuse herself from any decision at the university that directly involved Johnson and Johnson, but that no such decision has ever been necessary, missed the point.

Meanwhile, the university's insistence that the president's part-time position at Johnson and Johnson is justified by the need to "have a voice and interact with the business world" rings hollow. There are many ways a president could do that which do not involve getting corporate pay (and for "unyielding loyalty"). It rings especially hollow at a university that has identified corporate funding for continuing medical education as an unacceptably bad conflict of interest.

But then again, conflicts of interest are known to create confused thinking, and such confused thinking is likely to be prevalent at an institution that has one set of rules for the little people, and another for the top leaders.

Maybe this story in the New York Times will lead to some discussion about whether it is good for academic medical institutions to tolerate this previously "new species of conflict of interest" (as we termed it in 2006).

A long time ago, in 2006, we first blogged about a "new species of conflict of interest" which we thought might prove to be even more important than those afflicting health care that were then starting to be discussed. This involved health care organizational leaders who were simultaneously members of the boards of directors of for-profit health care corporations. We posited these conflicts would be particularly important because being on the board of directors entails not just a financial incentive. It ostensibly requires board members to "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders" [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.] Thus, for example, the conflict posed by the president of a university, to whom a medical school and academic medical center report, who also is the director of a pharmaceutical company, would be extreme.

Since then, we noted yet another variant on this theme, university presidents who were supposedly the top leaders of failed financial firms, and then who did various dances to try to avoid accountability for these firms' fates. That theme recently made it to the big time, a front page article on the Sunday Business section of the New York Times.

The most extreme version was the case of that of Eugene Trani, the former President of Virginia Commonwealth University ( full disclosure: I spent 7 years on the faculty of its medical school, and am still an adjunct faculty member). Trani turned out to be on the board of a tobacco company, and soon after this was revealed, retired from the presidency (see most recent blog post here).

Now a Washington Post blogger has yet another twist on this case:

Eugene P. Trani left the presidency of Virginia Commonwealth University in 2009 after improving the school and expanding its presence in downtown Richmond. But Trani was also a director of LandAmerica Financial Group, a Richmond-area title insurer that went belly-up in 2008, taking with it millions in investors' money.

Today, Trani is on the board of Richmond-based Universal Corporation, a global tobacco marketer. Universal's subsidiaries have just agreed to pay $8.98 million in a tobacco bribery scandal that stretches from Brazil to Thailand to Africa. The firm has issued a public apology. Trani received $159,032 in total compensation for his board service.

So Trani was not only on the board of directors of a tobacco company, he was on the board of directors of a tobacco company that was forced to settle charges of international bribery and issue apologies for same, and just to ice the cake, was on the board of a failed financial company whose failure affected residents of the locality which his university served.

As the saying goes, "the fish rots from the head down." How can academic leaders expect integrity from their faculty when they willingly take on such grotesque conflicts? Leaders who thus try to serve two, or many masters are likely to run health care organizations that do not serve their primary constituents, patients who expect good care, learners who expect honest, competent teaching, and the public who expects important, unbiased research, well. If we really want to reform health care, we need leaders who put the mission, not their own pocketbooks, prestige, and cronies, first.

We first started to discuss the intense conflicts of interest generated when leaders of academic medicine are also members of boards of directors of for-profit health care corporations in 2006.

The issue really made the big time in 2010 when the New York Times published a front page article in its Sunday Business section about whether university presidents who also were corporate directors were part of an "academic-industrial complex."

University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman as a Director of Johnson and Johnson

One such director we discussed this year is Mary Sue Coleman, President of the University of Michigan, and hence leader of a prestigious medical school and academic medical center, who is also Director of the large health care conglomerate, Johnson and Johnson. This relationship became locally controversial when President Coleman supported a smoking ban on campus, and critics pointed out that Johnson and Johnson is a prominent maker of smoking cessation products.

Now President Coleman's role on the Johnson and Johnson board made it into the national media, as the topic of an editorial in the Detroit News:

Should public officials moonlight as corporate operatives? This is a question being raised at the University of Michigan in the wake of the administration's decision to ban smoking on campus.

While some students have criticized the ban, many take issue with the priorities of the administrators who backed it: Specifically, U-M President Mary Sue Coleman, whose decision-making may have been influenced by her membership on the board of Johnson & Johnson, a private company. The right thing for Coleman to do would be to resign from her corporate position, or, at the very least, refuse to accept payment.

(Not to toot my own horn, but I thank the editorial writer for quoting me as a "high-profile" ethicist.)
The issue in this editorial, and in the earlier discussion of President Coleman's responsibilities for Johnson and Johnson, was whether the latter could influence specific decisions made in the former role.

However, events since our original posts on this case should create a new set of concerns.

Johnson and Johnson's Recall of Over-the-Counter Childrens' Medications

Johnson and Johnson has been dealing with a series of crises generated by revelations of problems in how it manufactures many of its marquee drugs and devices.

We posted here about problems in the manufacture of well known over-the-counter childrens' medications, such as childrens' Tylenol (acetaminophen) and Motrin (ibuprofen), by Johnson and Johnson's McNeil Consumer Healthcare subsidiary. Medications were found to be contaminated, and the plant making them was shut down.

Stringent Cost Cutting, Merger Mania, and Executives Who Don't Understand their Company's Business

Since then, investigative reporting by Fortune suggested that quality control problems were the result of that tactic popular among corporate executives to boost profits and hence their own over-stuffed pay checks, stringent cost cutting:

McNeil's quality-control department thrived for a few years. Then, not long after Larsen retired in 2002, it began to slowly weaken. The culprit was a familiar one -- cost cutting -- but in a subtler form. There were no wholesale layoffs in quality control. Instead experienced staffers were repeatedly laid off and replaced with newbies who mostly lacked technical pharmaceutical experience. By 2008 the analytical laboratory, formerly staffed almost entirely by full-time scientists, was half-full of contract workers, according to a former manager there.

Once stricter than a schoolmarm, the department grew lax. The team that tested the production lines was dubbed the 'EZ Pass system,' according to a former quality-control employee.

Quality problems also appeared to be products of another familiar tactic that "brilliant" CEOs use to quickly boost the bottom line, mergers and acquisitions:

At the end of 2006, J&J, on the hunt for growth amid slowing sales and profits, completed the $16.6 billion acquisition of Pfizer's (PFE, Fortune 500) consumer health care division....

The merger dramatically altered McNeil's position. It had previously been part of the pharma unit, but after the deal it was folded, along with the Pfizer group, into J&J's consumer sector, headed by Colleen Goggins. According to former executives, the difference between divisions was both cultural and financial. 'The people who ran pharma understood the requirements associated with [regulatory] compliance and the investments required to keep that up,' says a former executive. Consumer relied more on marketing, or 'smoke and mirrors,' as an ex-McNeil director scoffs. Perhaps the most striking difference was in profit margins. Companies in the consumer group typically had margins around 10%; McNeil generated more than twice that.

So,

Their new consumer bosses were now in charge of reducing McNeil's spending so that the company could meet the merger targets. Goggins looked to squeeze every cost, former employees say, and her team leaned heavily on McNeil, with its juicy margins, to absorb the cutbacks. 'I was given savings goals that were mind-boggling, unheard-of,' says one former executive.

And the merger brought out another common feature of contemporary management, executives with plenty of power, but almost no knowledge about or experience in the sort of work done by their subordinates:

Because the consumer executives lacked pharmaceutical experience, former McNeil employees say, they demanded ill-advised operational reductions. One VP remembers arguing with one of Goggins's

A Growing List of Recalls and Mistakes

While we learned about how Johnson and Johnson executives pursued all the currently fashionable management techniques to make more money, but likely to the detriment of the quality and safety of their products, we also learned that the problems at the company were not limited to a single factory, the specific products listed above, or a single unit of the company.

The company also recalled some contact lenses made by Johnson and Johnson Vision Care, as reported by the Associated Press,

Health giant Johnson & Johnson has issued its ninth recall of a consumer health product in a year, this time covering millions of 1 Day Acuvue contact lenses sold in Japan and two dozen other countries in Asia and Europe.

The affected contact lenses were mostly sold in Japan and none were sold in the U.S. or Canada, the company said.

Johnson & Johnson said Monday it had received a limited number of complaints from customers in Japan that they experienced an unusual stinging or pain when inserting the Acuvue TruEye Brand contact lenses.

Then it recalled prosthetic hips made by its DePuy orthopedic unit, as reported by Medscape,

An orthopaedic unit of Johnson & Johnson (J&J) is voluntarily withdrawing 2 implant systems for hip replacement after learning that roughly 1 of 8 patients in England and Wales who received the implants needed a second hip replacement operation.

The 2 devices under recall are the ASR XL Acetabular System, a metal cup fitted into the pelvis and the corresponding metal ball that replaces the femoral head, and the ASR Hip Resurfacing System, which is similar except that a metal cap is fastened to the femoral head. Both devices are manufactured by DePuy Orthopaedics of J&J.

Then the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) warned Johson and Johnson's DePuy unit about its marketing of some different joint replacement products, as reported by the Wall Street Journal,

A Johnson & Johnson (JNJ) unit is marketing joint-replacement products without the required approval from federal regulators, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration said in a warning letter recently made public.

In the letter, the FDA said J&J unit DePuy Orthopaedics Inc. is illegally marketing its TruMatch Personalized Solutions system because it hasn't received appropriate clearance to sell the product. Additionally, the FDA found that DePuy is promoting another system--its Corail Hip System--for uses that haven't yet been approved.

'A review of our records reveals that you have not obtained marketing approval or clearance before you began offering the TruMatch Personalized Solutions System for sale, which is a violation of the law,' the FDA said in the letter.

The FDA added that the Corail Hip System has been misbranded and asked DePuy to immediately stop marketing the Corail system for unapproved uses.

And a few days ago, the now embattled head of the Johnson and Johnson consumer products unit, which was central to some of the earlier recalls, but not to some of the later problems, announced her resignation, as reported by Natasha Singer and Reed Abelson writing for the New York Times,

A longtime senior executive at Johnson & Johnson in charge of the consumer products division is leaving the company early next year, signaling a shake-up after a troubling series of recalls, including of children’s Tylenol, tarnished the company’s reputation in the last year.

The company said Thursday that the executive, Colleen A. Goggins, who testified this spring before a Congressional committee investigating the recalls, would retire in March. Ms. Goggins, 56, has worked at Johnson & Johnson since 1981 and was a member of the company’s senior leadership.

Who Will Be Accountable for a Company in Disarray?

Johnson and Johnson was one of the most trusted names in health care for a long time, perhaps partially because of its forthright response to the apparently external contamination of its Tylenol products in the 1980s. Now it appears to be a company in disarray, battered by numerous recalls of apparently contaminated, adulterated, or defective products, both drugs and devices, allegations that its conventional management wisdom lead to these quality and safety problems, and now with at least one key senior manager leaving.

All that went wrong is not exactly clear yet. Clearly, however, top managers, and the board of directors to whom they report ought to be accountable.

Here is where we return to the case of University of Michigan President Mary Sue Coleman. She is, after all, well-paid to be a director of Johnson and Johnson. Therefore, she ought to be accountable for the type of people hired as top managers, and the general direction of their management. She ought to be accountable for letting Johnson and Johnson CEO William Weldon and consumer products head Colleen Goggins continue in office, and receive outsized compensation, ($19,847,026 and $5,345,737 total compensation respectively last year, see here). She also ought to be accountable for the general thrust of their management, including excess cost-cutting, seeking mergers without clear plans for assimilating them, and putting people who did not understand pharmaceuticals in charge of pharmaceutical production.

The original controversy about President Coleman's role on the Johnson and Johnson board focused on whether her decision to promote a smoke free campus resulted from her conflict of interest. Then, one defense mounted by President Coleman's spokesperson was:

'It's essential that U-M have a voice and interact with the business world,' said Rick Fitzgerald, a U-M spokesman. 'She thinks it's her duty to understand what the commercial world is doing.'

Now President Coleman has had a chance to have a voice and interact with Johnson and Johnson, and understand what it is doing by assuming a position that gives her ultimate responsibility for the company's top leadership and the direction they took. Now it appears the leadership may have been faulty, and their direction ill-advised.

Will President Coleman take responsibility for that? Maybe some enterprising student journalists at the university should ask her.

Meanwhile, this case now illustrates another important facet of the problems created when leaders of academic medicine serve on boards of directors of health care corporations. The mission of the University of Michigan's medical school and academic medical center includes taking the best possible care of individual patients. Taking the best possible care of individual patients cannot be done when the drugs physicians recommend or prescribe in good faith turn out to be adulterated, or when the devices they employ in good faith turn out to be faulty.

President Coleman's primary interests and entrusted responsibilities include upholding the best possible care for individual patients. Presiding over a company whose sloppy and ill-informed leadership, and misplaced priorities lead to the production of adulterated medicines and defective devices seems to conflict with this primary interest and entrusted responsibility.

Maybe all those academic leaders who accepted apparently cushy jobs on corporate boards will reconsider their decisions when they start being held responsible for their companies' poor leadership and poor decisions leading to poor health care outcomes of the use of their companies' products. They may really start to reconsider when journalists learn that academic leaders are more accessible than the current and ex-CEOs who also populate corporate boards.

Meanwhile, academic medicine ought to really rethink whether continuing to defend the "new species of conflicts of interest" will soon become counter-productive.

The parade of legal settlements marches on. The latest story is about Forest Laboratories and its marketing of Celexa (citalopram ) and Levothyroid (l-thyroxin). Here is the most complete version, courtesy of Natasha Singer reporting for the New York Times. First, the lead sentence:

A unit of Forest Laboratories, the maker of the antidepressant Celexa, agreed on Wednesday to pay more than $313 million to settle criminal and civil complaints, including a claim that it had illegally promoted the drug for use in children.

Here are the charges:

Among the criminal charges was one that the subsidiary, Forest Pharmaceuticals, marketed Celexa, which was approved only for adult depression, to treat children and adolescents. The government also claimed that, in conjunction with the company’s off-label promotion, Forest publicized the positive results of a study on Celexa in adolescents while failing to tell doctors about a similar study that had negative results.

'Forest Pharmaceuticals deliberately chose to pursue corporate profits over its obligations to the F.D.A. and the American public,' Carmen Ortiz, the United States attorney for the District of Massachusetts, said in a statement Wednesday.

In addition, federal prosecutors accused Forest of paying doctors to induce them to prescribe Celexa and another antidepressant, Lexapro. The remuneration included 'cash payments disguised as grants or consulting fees, expensive meals and lavish entertainment, and other valuable goods and services,' the government said in its civil complaint.

Among the items that Forest sales representatives gave to doctors from 1998 to 2005, the complaint said, were tickets to St. Louis Cardinal games, which were to be 'leveraged and sold as a reward for prescriptions'; a $1,000 gift certificate to Alain Ducasse, a gourmet French restaurant, for a high-prescribing child psychiatrist; a deep-sea fishing trip off Cape Cod for a doctor and his three sons; $400 in Broadway theater tickets for a doctor and his wife; and Red Sox tickets worth $2,276 to be used for doctors in the Boston area.

So we not just off-label marketing, but suppression of clinical research (of course, a study whose results were not favorable to the product being marketed), and payments to doctors as an "inducement to prescribe."

But wait, there is more:

As part of the criminal settlement, Forest Pharmaceuticals, which is based in St. Louis, agreed to plead guilty to one felony count of obstructing justice, acknowledging that employees had lied to F.D.A. officials during a plant inspection in 2003.

The company also agreed to plead guilty to two misdemeanors, one of which covers the company’s misbranding of Celexa by marketing the antidepressant for use in children from 1998 to 2002.

The other misdemeanor covers the illegal distribution from 2001 to 2003 of an unapproved drug, Levothroid, to treat a thyroid hormone deficiency. Such thyroid pills, made by various drug makers, had been sold in the United States since the 1950s without F.D.A. approval. But in 2001, the agency told drug makers that they needed to reduce their distribution of such medications until the companies obtained agency approval to market the pills.

The criminal charges accused Forest of making a deliberate decision to continue distributing the drug in quantities exceeding the F.D.A.’s directive. After the agency sent a warning letter to Forest, the company directed employees to work until 1 a.m. to continue shipping as much Levothroid as possible, according to the criminal complaint.

So there was also obstruction of justice in the form of lying to the FDA, and selling drugs that the FDA had ordered not to be sold.

So what are the penalties?

The criminal settlement calls for the company to pay a $150 million fine and to forfeit an additional $14 million in assets. Forest will also pay more than $88 million to the federal government and more than $60 million to the states to resolve a civil complaint that its actions caused false claims to be submitted to federal health care programs. In addition, two whistle-blowers will split $14 million from the federal share of the settlement.

Forest has also entered into a five-year corporate integrity agreement, requiring an independent expert to review the company’s compliance with drug marketing regulations.

So here we go again. A large drug company was up to no good, suppressing research, paying doctors for their prescriptions, lying to the FDA, and disobeying its orders.

The penalty seemed large, over $300 million. However, Celexa was a big revenue generator at the time the events above occurred, topping $1 billion in revenue first in 2002 (per Forbes here). Furthermore, as noted by Ed Silverman on Pharmalot, it seems no individual will suffer any negative consequences for authorizing, directing, or implementing the conduct described above. Finally, as best I can tell, despite the fact that a Forest subsidiary will plead guilty to a felony, the company is not going to be barred from doing business with the government.

So, despite pleading guilty to a felony and three misdemeanors, neither Forest as a company nor any individual working for the company will really suffer very much. On the other hand, the leaders of Forest have been doing very well. The company's CEO, Howard Solomon, was number 18 on Wall Street Journal list of the 25 highest paid CEOs over the last decade. His total realized compensation was over $385 million over the last 10 years. According to the company's 2010 proxy statement, his total compensation in 2009 was $8,267,236. The four other highest paid executives made from just over $2.5 million to $5.3 million.

So here we go again. Another large health care organization has been found to have done wrong, but the only penalty is a fine that whose impact will be diffused across the whole company, and ultimately be paid by its employees, its customers, including patients, and its stockholders. Meanwhile, the people who authorized, directed, or implemented the wrong doing apparently will pay nothing and receive no negative incentives. Furthermore, the top leaders of the company, whose huge compensation in the past was increased by the results of the wrong doing, will continue to prosper.

As we have said again and again, 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.

By the way, the current case offers an avenue for those who do not like what Forest did to ask those who are supposed to be ultimately responsible for its behavior how this was allowed to happen. The board of directors of the company is supposed to be ultimately accountable for the company's actions. As we have noted before, these directors are supposed to "demonstrate unyielding loyalty to the company's shareholders." [Per Monks RAG, Minow N. Corporate Governance, 3rd edition. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing, 2004. P.200.]

The current directors of Forest Laboratories, according to the company's 2010 proxy statement, include Dr Nesli Basgoz, "Associate Chief for Clinical Affairs, Division of Infectious Diseases, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH)," and "Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School." Also, it includes Dr Lester B Salans, "Clinical Professor" at Mount Sinai Medical School, not to mention Dr Peter J Zimetbaum, "Director of Clinical Cardiology" at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston (BIDMC), and "Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard Medical School." Maybe some enterprising student journalist will get to ask the good doctors how they let things at Forest get so ethically out of hand.

We have been writing about conflicts of interest in health care now for a long time. We started with a focus on academic physicians' and leaders' financial ties to pharmaceutical/ biotechnology/ device companies, then went on to the intense conflicts generated by academic medical and other health care non-profit leader who also sit on boards of directors of for profit health care corporations, and to conflicts affecting various kinds of respected not-for-profit health care organizations, like medical societies and patient advocacy groups.

Meanwhile, we uncovered the curious dominance of the boards of some health care organizations by leaders in the finance world, including some of the leaders of the failed companies that brought us the "great recession." This did seem like a leadership problem for health care, in terms of the dominance of health care leadership by the elite of another industry that did not exactly seem to share the values we physicians swear to uphold. However, it did not seem to be a conflict of interest problem, until now.

The Chronicle of Higher Education just published an article by the director of a soon to be released documentary on conflicts of interest and academics, but this time academic economics.

Charles Ferguson, the author, used as an example the Larry Summers, the former President of Harvard University (and hence leader of the Harvard Medical School, School of Public Health, and Harvard's teaching hospitals). We had commented here about Summers' poor fit for the role of an academic medical leader, and here and here about the dominance of Harvard leadership by leaders of (sometimes failed) financial institutions. Ferguson summarized (bad pun, sorry) the problem thus:

Summers is unquestionably brilliant, as all who have dealt with him, including myself, quickly realize. And yet rarely has one individual embodied so much of what is wrong with economics, with academe, and indeed with the American economy.

The problem is essentially one of huge conflicts of interest:

the revolving door is now a three-way intersection. Summers's career is the result of an extraordinary and underappreciated scandal in American society: the convergence of academic economics, Wall Street, and political power.

Summers bear huge responsibility for the current economic mess:

Consider: As a rising economist at Harvard and at the World Bank, Summers argued for privatization and deregulation in many domains, including finance. Later, as deputy secretary of the treasury and then treasury secretary in the Clinton administration, he implemented those policies. Summers oversaw passage of the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act, which repealed Glass-Steagall, permitted the previously illegal merger that created Citigroup, and allowed further consolidation in the financial sector. He also successfully fought attempts by Brooksley Born, chair of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission in the Clinton administration, to regulate the financial derivatives that would cause so much damage in the housing bubble and the 2008 economic crisis. He then oversaw passage of the Commodity Futures Modernization Act, which banned all regulation of derivatives, including exempting them from state antigambling laws.

Also,

Over the past decade, Summers continued to advocate financial deregulation, both as president of Harvard and as a University Professor after being forced out of the presidency.

Not only did Summers set up the structure that allowed reckless bets with other people' money on opaque financial derivatives by finance leaders who stood to make huge gains if they won their bets, but could foist all losses on others, but he actively attempted those who tried to warn us all of the impending economic collapse.

Summers remained close to Rubin and to Alan Greenspan, a former chairman of the Federal Reserve. When other economists began warning of abuses and systemic risk in the financial system deriving from the environment that Summers, Greenspan, and Rubin had created, Summers mocked and dismissed those warnings. In 2005, at the annual Jackson Hole, Wyo., conference of the world's leading central bankers, the chief economist of the International Monetary Fund, Raghuram Rajan, presented a brilliant paper that constituted the first prominent warning of the coming crisis. Rajan pointed out that the structure of financial-sector compensation, in combination with complex financial products, gave bankers huge cash incentives to take risks with other people's money, while imposing no penalties for any subsequent losses. Rajan warned that this bonus culture rewarded bankers for actions that could destroy their own institutions, or even the entire system, and that this could generate a 'full-blown financial crisis' and a 'catastrophic meltdown.'

When Rajan finished speaking, Summers rose up from the audience and attacked him, calling him a 'Luddite,' dismissing his concerns, and warning that increased regulation would reduce the productivity of the financial sector. (Ben Bernanke, Tim Geithner, and Alan Greenspan were also in the audience.)

Amazingly, rather than ending up an economic pariah after that, Summers regained power over the economy in the last few years.

Then, after the 2008 financial crisis and its consequent recession, Summers was placed in charge of coordinating U.S. economic policy, deftly marginalizing others who challenged him. Under the stewardship of Summers, Geithner, and Bernanke, the Obama administration adopted policies as favorable toward the financial sector as those of the Clinton and Bush administrations—quite a feat. Never once has Summers publicly apologized or admitted any responsibility for causing the crisis. And now Harvard is welcoming him back.

Summers was tightly aligned with the finance world, and benefited from the dominance of financial leaders on Harvard's board (see post here):

After Summers left the Clinton administration, his candidacy for president of Harvard was championed by his mentor Robert Rubin, a former CEO of Goldman Sachs, who was his boss and predecessor as treasury secretary. Rubin, after leaving the Treasury Department—where he championed the law that made Citigroup's creation legal—became both vice chairman of Citigroup and a powerful member of Harvard's governing board.

Yet in between his government and academic leadership roles, Summers got rich from finance firms' money.

Summers became wealthy through consulting and speaking engagements with financial firms. Between 2001 and his entry into the Obama administration, he made more than $20-million from the financial-services industry. (His 2009 federal financial-disclosure form listed his net worth as $17-million to $39-million.)

Ferguson went on to list several other conflicted academic economists:

The route to the 2008 financial crisis, and the economic problems that still plague us, runs straight through the economics discipline. And it's due not just to ideology; it's also about straightforward, old-fashioned money.

Prominent academic economists (and sometimes also professors of law and public policy) are paid by companies and interest groups to testify before Congress, to write papers, to give speeches, to participate in conferences, to serve on boards of directors, to write briefs in regulatory proceedings, to defend companies in antitrust cases, and, of course, to lobby. [Ed: they are thus the "key opinion leaders" of economics and economic policy.] This is now, literally, a billion-dollar industry. The Law and Economics Consulting Group, started 22 years ago by professors at the University of California at Berkeley (David Teece in the business school, Thomas Jorde in the law school, and the economists Richard Gilbert and Gordon Rausser), is now a $300-million publicly held company. Others specializing in the sale (or rental) of academic expertise include Competition Policy (now Compass Lexecon), started by Richard Gilbert and Daniel Rubinfeld, both of whom served as chief economist of the Justice Department's Antitrust Division in the Clinton administration; the Analysis Group; and Charles River Associates.

In my film you will see many famous economists looking very uncomfortable when confronted with their financial-sector activities; others appear only on archival video, because they declined to be interviewed. You'll hear from:

Martin Feldstein, a Harvard professor, a major architect of deregulation in the Reagan administration, president for 30 years of the National Bureau of Economic Research, and for 20 years on the boards of directors of both AIG, which paid him more than $6-million, and AIG Financial Products, whose derivatives deals destroyed the company. Feldstein has written several hundred papers, on many subjects; none of them address the dangers of unregulated financial derivatives or financial-industry compensation.

Glenn Hubbard, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers in the first George W. Bush administration, dean of Columbia Business School, adviser to many financial firms, on the board of Metropolitan Life ($250,000 per year), and formerly on the board of Capmark, a major commercial mortgage lender, from which he resigned shortly before its bankruptcy, in 2009. In 2004, Hubbard wrote a paper with William C. Dudley, then chief economist of Goldman Sachs, praising securitization and derivatives as improving the stability of both financial markets and the wider economy.

Frederic Mishkin, a professor at the Columbia Business School, and a member of the Federal Reserve Board from 2006 to 2008. He was paid $124,000 by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce to write a paper praising its regulatory and banking systems, two years before the Icelandic banks' Ponzi scheme collapsed, causing $100-billion in losses. His 2006 federal financial-disclosure form listed his net worth as $6-million to $17-million.

Laura Tyson, a professor at Berkeley, director of the National Economic Council in the Clinton administration, and also on the Board of Directors of Morgan Stanley, which pays her $350,000 per year.

Richard Portes, a professor at London Business School and founding director of the British Centre for Economic Policy Research, paid by the Icelandic Chamber of Commerce to write a report praising Iceland's financial system in 2007, only one year before it collapsed.

And John Campbell, chairman of Harvard's economics department, who finds it very difficult to explain why conflicts of interest in economics should not concern us.

I once naively thought that the primary conflict of interest problems affecting academia involved health care, the dependence of medical schools and academic medical centers on commercial research funding, the emphasis these schools placed on faculty ties to commercial firms, leading to faculty "key opinion leaders" functioning as marketers of drugs and devices operating under the cloak of academia, and the major conflicts of academic leaders who also sit on health care corporate boards.

Now I wonder if all this came to pass because academic leaders already were comfortable with conflicts of interest after having profited from conflicts generated by relationships with the finance industry.

This now suggests that the dominance of university boards of trustees by finance leaders is a conflict of interest issue, too.

It also suggests that we in medicine should be paying more attention to how conflicts of interest shape not only the marketing of drugs and devices, but the health care policy that has lead to our currently dysfunctional system. If economists paid by finance companies could have been a major cause of the global financial meltdown, could health care policy experts paid by health care corporations be a major cause of our collapsing health care system?

Hat tip to the Naked Capitalism blog. See additional comments on the University Diaries blog and on Felix Salmon's blog.