These sorts of hits just keep on coming.  This story comes from the Baltimore Sun.

The Golden Parachute

First, let us just review the financial details,

Former University of Maryland Medical System CEO Edmond F. Notebaert, who resigned two years ago during a tumultuous time that included infighting and a board shakeup, is again the subject of controversy over his $7.8 million pay package.

The package included $2.4 million in severance, about $639,000 in salary for seven months, deferred bonuses and contributions to a retirement plan that instantly vested when he left.

By the way, Mr Notebeart did not actually go into retirement after he received this largess,

A spokeswoman for Temple University, where Notebaert now heads the health system, said he was not available for comment.

The Justification

The view from some amongst the local leadership was that the price was reasonable,

[Current Board Chairman Stephen A] Burch acknowledged that Notebaert's compensation was large but said it was justified because of Notebaert's experience and accomplishments while working at the medical system. The system added Shore Health System and Chester River Health System to its roster of institutions under Notebaert's tenure.

Total profit reached $301 million during Notebaert's tenure, compared with $49 million during the prior five-years, according to the medical system. Revenue was $2.1 billion when Notebaert left in fiscal 2009, Burch said.

'Mr. Notebaert's salary reflected his many years of successful and significant experience at large, complex health systems and was well within the range of comparable executives,' Burch said.

The Lack of Disclosure

Of course, the golden parachute given to Mr Notebaert did not seem to be something that UMMS wanted to boast about:

Notebaert walked away with the compensation — details of which weren't disclosed in filings with the Internal Revenue Service until this week — after he announced his retirement in July 2008.

The Process

In fact, there were questions raised about the process that lead to the golden parachute,

The system's protocol for deciding compensation came under fire in the months after Notebaert's retirement because the pay was awarded without full board approval. Now, the recently detailed pay package is drawing criticism anew.

"This is an outrageous case of excessive executive compensation in a public institution," Gov. Martin O'Malley said Wednesday in an e-mailed statement. "This sort of 'golden parachute' has no place in the public sector."

Furthermore,

[Maryland's Speaker of the House, Michael E] Busch served as interim chairman of the board after Chairman John P. Erickson resigned amid the controversy. Busch said the compensation committee at the time left the rest of the board in the dark about Notebaert's payout.

The Questions About Prior Performance

In addition, the Baltimore Sun article recounted some major questions raised about Mr Noteabert's leadership:

Tensions had arisen between him and physicians over how the system was run. Shortly after his departure, one-third of the board resigned, including the chairman and vice chairman.

Also,

Under Notebaert, physicians had complained that relations between the medical system and the medical school had deteriorated to a point that jeopardized both institutions. Critics said the system was becoming too focused on profits and less on medicine and research.

In addition,

Maryland's House Speaker, Michael E. Busch, who serves on the medical system board, said there is little legal recourse to try to recoup any of the compensation and that he thought the severance package was excessive given the dysfunction at the medical system when Notebaert left.

'I think a lot of the members of the board disagree with the payment, considering how he left,' Busch said. 'It's not like he left being hailed by the institution. He didn't leave under great circumstances.'

In addition, Maryland Governor Martin O'Malley said,

There were quite a few messes that had to be cleaned up over the last four years and leadership dysfunction at UMMS was one of them

The Summary

So there you have it, a leader noted for his "dysfunction" by the state Governor, and for his bad relationships with health care professionals, who felt he was putting profit ahead of the system's mission, walked off with a $7.8 million golden parachute provided without the approval of the hospital system's full board of directors, and only disclosed two years later. Mr Notebaert seems to be another member of the enlarging group of health care organizational leaders who received enough compensation to make them rich, despite performance that was questionable at best.

For other posts about the often outrageous compensation given health care leaders, often seemingly completely at odds with their performance, look here.  For a longer discussion of the implications of current executive compensation in health care, look here. 

I will just conclude, as I have before, with this....  executive compensation in health care seems best described as Prof Mintzberg described compensation for finance CEOs, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit." As it did in finance, compensation madness is likely to keep the health care bubble inflating until it bursts, with the expected adverse consequences. Meanwhile, I say again, if health care reformers really care about improving access and controlling costs, they will have to have the courage to confront the powerful and self-interested leaders who benefit so well from their previously mission-driven organizations. It is time to reverse the coup d'etat of the hired managers.

Million dollar plus executives of not-for-profit health care insurance companies seem to be becoming a dime a dozen.  Late in April, Buffalo Business First reported the pay of executives of some western New York health insurance companies:

The top local executives at the region’s three major nonprofit health plans received nearly $23 million in salaries and bonuses last year.

More than 70 people received total compensation of $160,000 or more. That’s the level at which insurers are required to report in annual reports to the state Department of Insurance.

When you include executives who work for those three health plans but are located outside Western New York, the total compensation for top-paid execs totaled $46.4 million last year.

Among the local executives in the Western New York region, 23 individuals took home more than $300,000 last year.

Among the CEO-level executives:

• Alphonso O’Neil-White, president and CEO at HealthNow NY Inc./BlueCross BlueShield of WNY earned $1.65 million.

• Dr. Michael Cropp, president and CEO at Independent Health, earned $1.3 million.

• Univera Healthcare President Art Wingerter, who joined the company part-way through the year, earned $248,348, while David Klein, president/CEO of Univera’s Rochester-based parent Excellus Health Plan, received a total of $2 million.

Wingerter says compensation levels are fair and are determined with help from outside consultants based on nationwide industry surveys. They are also adjusted annually based on the organization’s performance: Top officers at Excellus saw salaries decline last year by 20 percent based on the company’s 2008 performance.

'Our compensation levels fall into the midpoint by design,' he says. 'It’s a $5 billion company. If you compared it to any leader of a $5 billion (for-profit) company, I do not believe it would be considered excessive.'

Consider that argument while reading this story from neighboring New Jersey reported by the Ashbury Park Press:

William J. Marino, president and chief executive officer of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, received $8.7 million in compensation in 2009, a 59 percent increase from 2008, according to the company's annual financial statement.

The salary and bonus were part of a windfall for Horizon's nine highest-paid executives, who received on average 61 percent more than in 2008, the statement, filed with the New Jersey Department of Banking and Insurance, showed.

Part of the increase came from compensation that was deferred from previous years, the company said. But the pay sparked anger from consumers and medical professionals who have battled Horizon over rising premiums and declining reimbursements.

Newark-based Horizon is the state's biggest health insurance company, writing policies and administering self-funded programs for more than 3 million people. It has 72 percent of the individual market and 52 percent of the small employer market, according to the state.

The company is a nonprofit....

Meantime, Horizon's top nine executives took home a total of $24.3 million in salaries and bonuses last year, up from $15.1 million in 2008.

Another article in the same paper stated that in 2009, Horizon

reported net income of $75.1 million last year, compared with a loss of $45 million in 2008. It reported revenue of $8.3 billion, up from $7.9 billion the previous year.

The company collected 3.5 percent more in premiums. And it lowered administrative expenses by 3.5 percent, according to the annual report.

Let us reconsider the rationale for the pay of the Excellus (NY) CEO. Its basis was the pay given to CEOs of for-profit corporations. Yet the nature of for-profit and not-for-profit corporations are fundamentally different. The former exist to make money. The latter exist to fulfill their missions.

For example, this statement is on the Excellus web-site:

As New York state's largest nonprofit health plan, the company remains committed to three core principles:

* We exist to assure, in the communities we serve, that as many people as possible have affordable, dignified access to needed, effective health care services, including long-term care.
* We recognize the need, and our responsibility, to reach out to all segments of the communities we serve, particularly the poor and aged and others who are underserved, to enhance quality of life, including health status.
* We are committed to being a nonprofit health insurer.

The devotion that a not-for-profit organization is supposed to have to its mission suggests that working for such an organization, particularly in a leadership capacity should be calling, rather than just a way to make money. Equating leadership of such an organization to leadership of a for-profit corporation of comparable financial size provokes cognitive dissonance. So the notion that the leader of Excellus, an organization supposedly devoted to serving the "poor and aged," is entitled to make as much money as the leader of a for-profit corporation with similar revenues likewise provokes cognitive dissonance.

However, let us assume, just assume, that the $2 million pay of the CEO of Excellus Health Plan was fair for a $5 billion not-for-profit company. Horizon is an $8.3 billion company, roughly 60% larger, but its CEO got $8.7 million, 330% more. Furthermore, the Horizon CEO saw his pay go up 59% while company revenue rose 3.5%. What possible argument could there be to justify these even more extreme levels of compensation?

Here was the Ashbury Park Press' editorial reaction:

If truth be told, when it comes to the American health insurance system, the Hippocratic Oath — 'First, do no harm' — is too often trumped by Gordon Gecko's 'Wall Street' axiom: 'Greed is good.'

There's no better example than the shameful $8.7 million in compensation paid last year to William J. Marino, president and chief executive officer of Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey....

How tone-deaf could Horizon be to bestow this kind of compensation on its executives? The only decent thing for Marino and his cohorts to do is to return the bonuses.

The disconnect between these well-heeled executives and the customers their non-profit company — that's right, nonprofit — are supposedly serving is staggering.

We have discussed numerous examples of compensation of health care organizations' leadership that seems orders of magnitude above that which would be rationally justified.  These latest examples of the wealth being accumulated by leaders of supposedly mission-centered not-for-profit organizations are a product of the current management culture that has been infused into nearly every health care organization in the US. That culture holds that managers are different from you and me. They are entitled to a special share of other people's money. Because of their innate and self-evident brilliance, they are entitled to become rich. This entitlement exists even when the economy, or the financial performance of the specific organization prevents other people from making any economic progress. This entitlement exists even if those other people actually do the work, and ultimately provide the money that sustains the organization.

Although the executives of not-for-profit health care organizations generally make far less than executives of for-profit health care corporations, collectively, hired managers of even not-for-profit health care organizations have become richer and richer at a time when most Americans, including many health professionals, and most primary care physicians, have seen their incomes stagnate or fall. They are less and less restrained by passive, if not crony boards, and more and more unaccountable. In a kind of multi-centric coup d'etat of the hired managers, they have become our new de facto aristocracy.

Or as we wrote in our previous post, executive compensation in health care seems best described as Prof Mintzberg described compensation for finance CEOs, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit." As it did in finance, compensation madness is likely to keep the health care bubble inflating until it bursts, with the expected adverse consequences. Meanwhile, I say again, if health care reformers really care about improving access and controlling costs, they will have to have the courage to confront the powerful and self-interested leaders who benefit so well from their previously mission-driven organizations. It is time to reverse the coup d'etat of the hired managers.

Big US based health care insurance companies have not been covering themselves in glory in the last week.

Aetna's Math Errors

First, there was the case of Aetna's mathematical prowess, e.g., as reported by the Los Angeles Times:

A second insurance company in California has killed plans for double-digit rate hikes for individual policyholders because of errors in its filing that would have inflated premiums, state regulators said Thursday.

Connecticut-based Aetna Inc. had sought an average 19% increase in rates for its 65,000 individual customers, but pulled back after multiple math errors in its paperwork were found by its own staff and by an independent consultant working for the state.

Aetna's decision follows a similar move by Anthem Blue Cross, which canceled a rate increase of as much as 39% for many of its 800,000 California policyholders in April after the state consultant found calculation errors in its filing with the California Insurance Department.

Of course, Aetna tried to minimize the story:

An Aetna spokeswoman said the company found 'a miscalculation not previously detected' when it conducted a third round of internal reviews.

'This was a simple human error,' said spokeswoman Anjanette Coplin, who did not elaborate.

However,

'There were multiple errors … in the way [Aetna] annualized premiums and in the compounding of the rate increase,' said state Insurance Department spokesman Darrel Ng.

Of course, somehow the errors all were in Aetna's favor:

Even with the new disclosure requirements, regulators have limited authority to block rate increases. They can do so only if insurers fail to spend at least 70% of their premiums on medical claims.

In Aetna's recent rate filing, the insurer said its plan met the 70% minimum. But once the errors were identified, medical-claim spending fell below the 70% requirement. The proposed rates were higher than they should have been, officials said.

WellPoint's Computer Errors

A few minutes ago, the Associated Press reported:

WellPoint Inc. has notified 470,000 individual insurance customers that medical records, credit card numbers and other sensitive information may have been exposed in the latest security breach of the health insurer's records.

The Indianapolis company said the problem stemmed from an online program customers can use to track the progress of their application for coverage. It was fixed in March.

Spokeswoman Cynthia Sanders said an outside vendor had upgraded the insurer's application tracker last October and told the insurer all security measures were back in place.

But a California customer discovered that she could call up confidential information of other customers by manipulating Web addresses used in the program. Customers use a Web site and password to track their applications.

Note that this security breach was potentially serious:

WellPoint's security breach doesn't crack the top 10 in terms of number of people who may have had information exposed, said Paul Stephens, the [Privacy Rights Clearinghouse]organization's director of policy and advocacy. Even so, he labeled the breach 'very serious' because it possibly involved both financial and medical information.

This is not the first time WellPoint's computers and software have violated the privacy of its applicants or customers:

Two years ago, WellPoint offered free credit monitoring after it said personal information for about 128,000 customers in several states had been exposed online. In 2006, backup computer tapes containing the personal information of 200,000 of its members were stolen from a Massachusetts vendor's office.

Summary

Of course, everyone makes mistakes.  However, one would expect that at least health insurance companies/ managed care organizations ought to be able to do the math necessary to support their rate proposals correctly, and keep their policy-holders' and applicants' personal information confidential.  These would seem to be fundamental competencies that such organizations ought to display.  Of course, one can find other examples of lack the lack of competency (and worse) displayed by both Aetna and WellPoint. 

Furthermore, anyone can make mistakes, but in the real world, those who preside over such mistake-prone enterprises often do not do too well.  However, in the bizarre world of large health care organizations, the executives who preside over the ongoing bumbling just make more and more money, under the pretense that their continuing brilliant leadership just leads to one triumph after another. 

As we noted here, WellPoint CEO Angela Braly's total compensation increased in 2009 to an outsized $13.1 million, with the executives just underneath her paid proportionately well.  Per its 2010 proxy statement, WellPoint's

Total Rewards compensation program is designed to attract, engage, motivate and retain a talented team of executive officers and to appropriately reward those executive officers for their contributions to our business and our members. We seek to accomplish this goal in a way that is closely aligned with the long-term interests of our shareholders and the expectations of our members and health care providers.

I suspect that WellPoint's members' expectations did not include the three computer security breaches noted above.

Similarly, according to its 2010 proxy statement, Aetna CEO Ronald A Williams' total compensation in 2009 was a mere $18,058,162. Other top executives made proportionate amounts, from more than $1 million to more than $12 million. The rationale underlying executive compensation includes:

We seek to implement a pay-for-performance philosophy by tying a significant portion of our executives’ compensation to their achievement of financial and other goals that are linked to the Company’s business strategy and each executive’s contributions towards the achievement of those goals.

To me, avoiding mathematical errors in calculating policy premiums ought to be part of the company's goals linked to its business strategy.

An old rock song that starts with "don't know much about history," may have a certain charm.  Health insurance companies that cannot accurately calculate premiums or protect the confidentiality of policy-holders' computerized data has none. 

As long as "imperial CEOs" can continue to get extremely rich while presiding over incompetence and stupidity, if not worse (see here), we can expect the foolishness to continue.  Meanwhile, the foolishness drives up costs and drives down quality of health care for the poor suffering patients, let alone the physicians and other health care professionals who must deal with it.

To really reform health care, we need to provide incentives for competent, honest leadership, and make that leadership accountable for its shortcomings.

In 2005, we entitled a post, "How Can a $124.8 Million a Year CEO Make Health Care More Affordable?"  At that time, we contrasted the enormous compensation given to the then CEO of UnitedHealth, Dr William McGuire, with the stated mission of his corporation.  Since then, we have traced the travails of UnitedHealth and its leadership.  Dr McGuire was eventually accused of receiving backdated stock options (which at one time raised his personal fortune to over $1 billion), and was pushed into retirement.  UnitedHealth was accused of a variety of management and ethical lapses.  The rather sorry story as of April, 2010 was summarized here.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.  The Minneapolis Star-Tribune just reported:

Stephen Hemsley, a serious and studious man, is known for his marathon-like work schedule, which regularly includes Saturdays and Sundays, in his role as chief executive of Minnetonka-based UnitedHealth Group.

Now, he also is known as the highest-paid CEO in Minnesota with a 2009 pay package totaling $101.96 million, six times the amount paid to the next CEO in the Star Tribune's annual survey of the state's 100 highest-paid chief executives at publicly traded companies.

But Hemsley's big pay package is also a vestige of the company's former practice of loading executive compensation heavily with stock options, a practice that changed in the wake of a crippling backdating scandal four years ago.

Those options, granted under a different regime of board directors, accounted for $98.6 million of Hemsley's income in 2009.

The attempts company officials made to minimize Hemsley's outsized compensation were almost funny:

UnitedHealth officials assert that Hemsley's 2009 pay package minus the 10-year-old options was $8.9 million, far less than the compensation paid to CEOs in other health insurance organizations.

But Hemsley did exercise the options, so he did receive the additional $98.6 million.

Hemsley also seems on target to get gargantuan compensation this year too:

Nonetheless, Hemsley has already put up good compensation numbers for 2010 with the exercising of additional options granted after 1999 worth $21 million. He also controls 6 million exercisable and unexercisable options, half of which are underwater or below the stock's current value.

The cringe-inducing contrast is with UnitedHealth's high-minded mission statement:

Our mission is to help people live healthier lives.

* We seek to enhance the performance of the health system and improve the overall health and well-being of the people we serve and their communities.
* We work with health care professionals and other key partners to expand access to quality health care so people get the care they need at an affordable price.
* We support the physician/patient relationship and empower people with the information, guidance and tools they need to make personal health choices and decisions.

Hemsley's compensation could have provided "care they need" to quite a few people at an affordable price.

More to the point, it is hard to imagine that a company that feels the need to pay so much to its CEO, and a CEO that can accept such riches, have the slightest understanding or interest in providing people "the care they need at an affordable price."

In this cynical age, I doubt many people credit the UnitedHealth mission statement with being more than advertising fluff. Nonetheless, I suspect most people believe that our society should try to provide as many people as possible with "the care they need at an affordable price," but realize that we are far from doing so. Health care insurance companies/ managed care organizations that see fit to make their hired leaders extremely rich seem to be part of the problem, not the solution.

Here is another case in the annals of over-paid executives of not-for-profit health care organizations, this time from the Burlington (VT) Free-Press,

Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Vermont overpaid its former chief executive officer by $3 million over an eight-year period and has been ordered to pay the money back to its subscribers by 2012 in the form of reduced premiums, a top state regulator said Wednesday.

The action by the state Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration Department follows last year’s disclosure that William Milnes, the nonprofit firm’s former CEO, received a $7.2 million payout when he stepped down in 2008.

Furthermore, note that

[Commissioner of the Banking, Insurance, Securities and Health Care Administration Department Paulette] Thabault said her department had concluded Blue Cross had broken the law by paying Milnes more money than necessary to perform his functions as head of the nonprofit health-benefits provider.

The Department's review found obvious flaws in how Blue Cross Blue Shield set its former CEO's pay:

The department’s review found that Milnes’ salary package while at Blue Cross was excessive, and in some years, he was paid more in bonuses than he received in base pay. In 2005, for example, Milnes was paid $425,000 in salary and $489,800 in bonuses.

'Other health insurance or managed care organizations of a similar size to the Vermont company compensate their chief executive officers at a level of about 45 percent to 50 percent less than the compensation levels set by the company for Mr. Milnes,' the department order said in part.

The department said Blue Cross used a 'peer group' study to justify the pay it gave Milnes, but regulators concluded the study was flawed because it put Milnes’ position on the same level of chief executive officers of much larger Blue Cross sister companies.

'The peer group ... used in 2007 included 14 companies, all but one of which were substantially larger in terms of annual gross premiums,' the department’s order said. 'Nine of the 14 companies had gross premiums in excess of $1 billion.' Blue Cross gross premiums for 2007 were $590 million.

This story is striking because it seems that the overpayment of a not-for-profit health care organization's executive this time seemed to rise to the level of crime. However, current Blue Cross leaders seemed unconcerned.

'The company accepts the findings of the department, and it just wants to move on at this point,' [Blue Cross and Blue Shield spokesman Kevin] Goddard said.

Somehow, whenever a health care organization's conduct is publicly revealed to be shameful, the response is not sorrow or apology, but let's just "move on." Moving on, of course, minimizes the accountability of those initially responsible for the bad behavior.

Furthermore, do not expect corporate leadership to acknowledge anything wrong with how the pay for the top hired corporate executive was determined.

Goddard said the company thought the peer group numbers it was using were sound.

'Our board used a comprehensive analysis to come up with a compensation package for Bill,' he said. 'We relied on what we thought was professional information.'

One begins to feel a little sorry for the poor spokesman who is obligated to mouth these sorts of sentiments. Whether the analysis was rational, or the "professional information" was relevant or correct seems not to have bee anyone's concern.

In addition, although Blue Cross and Blue Shield is now obligated to reimburse its policy-holders for former CEO Milnes' excessive pay, do not expect the money to come out of his pocket:

None of the $3 million the company has to pay back will come from Milnes. Blue Cross asked Milnes, through his attorney, if he would give back some of the money but was rejected, according to documents in the case made public Wednesday.

'He has made it quite clear that Mr. Milnes is not willing to make a voluntary repayment of any portion of the Supplemental Executive Retirement Program distribution,' Christopher Gannon, a Blue Cross vice president, wrote in a letter to Thabault’s department Jan. 21.

One would think that the current company management would be so upset about its new $3 million obligation, that it would aggressively try to recover the money from the person who benefited from it. However, it seems that all the current Blue Cross and Blue Shield management was willing to do was politely requesting that Mr Milnes return it. Suing a former CEO, of course, is just something that is not done. Perhaps it would be too disturbing to  the cozy atmosphere now prevailing among top executives and the boards of trustees who are supposed to be supervising them. This seems to make clear that no one at Blue Cross and Blue Shield ever really was responsible for what Mr Milnes was paid.

As an editorial in the Rutland Herald put it:

On its face, it was an outrage. Blue Cross is a nonprofit corporation that insures about 150,000 Vermonters. That a nonprofit with a mission of providing health care coverage should be a source of extravagant personal profit was an affront to all Vermonters, including those struggling to pay escalating premiums, those struggling to find adequate care, or those with no coverage at all.

The usual excuse from companies is that big money is necessary to attract big talent. It's a marketplace. But this excuse is really a kind of blackmail that allows corporate executives to collude in the inflation of their own worth.

So the notion of the "imperial CEO" who can virtually set his or her own pay, unencumbered by any real accountability to a board of trustees who would dare not ruffle the imperial feathers has now been imported even into relatively small health care organizations in New England states once famed for their common-sense and frugality.

So here we go again.... We have discussed numerous examples of compensation of health care organizations' leadership that seems orders of magnitude above that which would be rationally justified. These latest examples of the wealth being accumulated by leaders of supposedly mission-centered not-for-profit organizations are a product of the current management culture that has been infused into nearly every health care organization in the US. That culture holds that managers are different from you and me. They are entitled to a special share of other people's money. Because of their innate and self-evident brilliance, they are entitled to become rich. This entitlement exists even when the economy, or the financial performance of the specific organization prevents other people from making any economic progress. This entitlement exists even if those other people actually do the work, and ultimately provide the money that sustains the organization.

Although the executives of not-for-profit health care organizations generally make far less than executives of for-profit health care corporations, collectively, hired managers of even not-for-profit health care organizations have become richer and richer at a time when most Americans, including many health professionals, and most primary care physicians, have seen their incomes stagnate or fall. They are less and less restrained by passive, if not crony boards, and more and more unaccountable. In a kind of multi-centric coup d'etat of the hired managers, they have become our new de facto aristocracy.

Or as we wrote in our previous post, executive compensation in health care seems best described as Prof Mintzberg described compensation for finance CEOs, "All this compensation madness is not about markets or talents or incentives, but rather about insiders hijacking established institutions for their personal benefit." As it did in finance, compensation madness is likely to keep the health care bubble inflating until it bursts, with the expected adverse consequences. Meanwhile, I say again, if health care reformers really care about improving access and controlling costs, they will have to have the courage to confront the powerful and self-interested leaders who benefit so well from their previously mission-driven organizations. It is time to reverse the coup d'etat of the hired managers.

A Denver Post article offered a brief glimpse into the health benefits of corporate leaders, on the unusual occasion of a former CEO now in legal fight for the health benefits in the style to which he had become accustomed:

Poor Joe. He's not getting the health-care benefits he was promised.

His former employer merged with another company, and then another, and then another. And, you know how it goes after a slew of mergers. Suddenly the new, conglomerated monster just doesn't care about retirees any more.

Joe isn't going to sit back and take it like an average Joe. He's suing his former employer in U.S. District Court in Manhattan for breach of contract, breach of faith, breach of fiduciary duty and even promissory estoppel.

The Joe in question was really:

Lord & Taylor's CEO.

Joseph E. Brooks of Greenwich, Conn., lorded over a fourfold increase in sales at Lord & Taylor, expanding to 46 from 19 locations.

His career and Lord and Taylor's course after that were checkered, perhaps contributing to the current dispute:

But that was a long time ago. And Macy's Inc., the current parent company, is resisting some of his medical claims.

Brooks didn't get a deal like this from Filene's, where he served as president before joining Lord & Taylor. Or Ann Taylor, where he went on to generate shareholder lawsuits and shopper hate mail after demanding lower prices from suppliers and higher prices from customers, destroying both quality and value at the same time.

Brooks also made his son president of Ann Taylor, sparking cries of nepotism. And then his son got snagged trying to slip by U.S. Customs without paying duties on pricey watches and was forced to resign. The senior Brooks subsequently resigned as well. A 1992 Newsday article called him 'as egotistical and extravagant as he was brilliant.'

What Health Care Benefits Do CEOs Get?

What had Brooks been promised as CEO of Lord and Taylor?

In 1983, Lord & Taylor's corporate parent told Brooks it sought to provide 'great comfort to executives knowing that their medical costs are fully reimbursed by the Corporation.' The company told Joe it was a lifetime guarantee.

CEOs should never, ever, have to worry about health care.

Here are some details about his benefits:

And for nearly 27 years, substantially all medical costs have been fully covered, even premiums.

We're not just talking doctors' visits, hospitals, medications and tests. We're talking all travel and ancillary expenses associated with care, too.

We're talking first-class transportation, accommodations and meals while being treated at the Mayo Clinic and the Duke Diet and Fitness Center. We're talking expenses for a companion or personal aide, too.

We're also talking 'cosmetic services (surgery, medications, injections, creams and the like)' dental care, gym memberships, personal trainers, vitamins, massages — all paid by Joe's former employer for the rest of Joe's life.

Oh, and if any of these benefits have tax consequences, we're talking gross-up payments to cover that, too.

Why should we be concerned about the extravagant health plans given to top corporate executives?

The Implications

We noted in 2009 that the Goldman Sachs 2009 proxy statement indicated that top executives of that now controversial company received health plans worth about $40,000 each.

My concern then were not how much the costs of the plans contribute to top corporate leaders' compensation packages. Such packages are generally already so outrageously huge that providing $40,000 rather than $13,000 worth of health insurance is a trivial increase. My concern was not that plan recipients' demands for health care will collectively increase health care costs, because they likely include only a tiny portion of the population.


My main concern, instead, was how much these plans further insulate already cocooned top executives from the vicissitudes of daily life, particularly related to coping with our current dysfunctional health care system. What benefits executive health care plans provided were not clear from the 2009 story about Goldman Sachs. However, this year's case of Joe Brooks does suggest that the plans paid for every expense that could be conceivably health related.

As I worried then, it now does appear that such plans could completely insulate executives from having to deal with the managed care/ health insurance bureaucracy which frustrates patients seeking particular services, but not necessarily the most expensive, or least beneficial services. Furthermore, such plans may completely insulate executives from the various other vicissitudes of managing our currently dysfunctional health care system. (By the way, that is why it seemed amazing that the CEO of Pfizer had to put up with some of the common vicissitudes when he went to a hospital for an elective procedure, an experience he publicly talked about with an almost charming naivete, given that he runs such a powerful health care organization which has been so influential in shaping our US "health care reform," see post here.)

Such executives isolated from the real world of health care might thus not have gut level appreciation of how dysfunctional the health care system has become for even insured patients. Since top executives often are disproportionately influential members of the "superclass," their disconnection from the realities of dysfunctional health care is likely to translate into little real support by the powers that be for meaningful health care reform. There support may be further retarded by the influence of their fellow superclass members whose personal fortunes depend on the status quo in health care.

Real improvement of health care may depend on finding leaders who have better understanding of the plight of real people.

Two Postscripts

Note: the Goldman Sachs 2010 proxy indicates that the executive health plans given to the five most highly paid executives cost up to $56,927.

Also note that despite the effect that executive health plans may have on the thinking of those with the most power to influence health care policy, the plans have been of little interest to health care services and policy researchers. I have not been able to find a single article in these literatures on the subject. This appears to be yet another version of the anechoic effect, that certain inconvenient truths (to borrow from former US Vice President Al Gore) are not subjects of polite discussion of health care, lest the results excessively disturb the powers that be.

In Lake Woebegon, all children are above average. Now it seems that hospital CEOs have moved there.

Ventura County, Where No CEO is Below Average

The Ventura County (California) Star reported on the uniformly high remuneration of the CEOs of local, mostly small, not-for-profit hospitals and hospital systems.

T. Michael Murray reaped $330,545 in 2008 as chief executive officer of St. John’s hospitals in Oxnard and Camarillo. He drew an additional $187,071 in bonuses with $73,113 more in benefits and other compensation.

His total package, according to IRS records, reached $590,729.

And he may have been underpaid, according to a statewide survey of 118 nonprofit hospitals. The report by the Payers & Providers healthcare business publication suggests the base salary for CEOs averaged $514,237.

Kick in bonuses, retirement money, reimbursement for education costs, expense accounts and the average total compensation hit $732,004.

Public records show similarly lofty numbers at Ventura County’s three nonprofit, tax-exempt hospital groups. Gary Wilde of Community Memorial Health System, which runs hospitals in Ventura and Ojai, was the highest paid CEO in 2008. He earned a base salary of $508,682 and his total compensation was $853,528, with much of the additional money placed into a retirement fund that won’t be paid out until Wilde serves six more years as CEO.

Simi Valley Hospital changed its leadership in 2008, with a total compensation of $1.25 million recorded in 990 tax forms for two different CEOs. That’s slightly more than the hospital provided in treatment for poor uninsured patients where there was no attempt to collect payment, though hospital leaders say charity care definitions encompass only a fraction of the total care they provide without pay.

Outside the county, tax records from the Cottage Health System in Santa Barbara showed a base salary of $848,826 for CEO Ronald Werft and other compensation of $546,846. His total topped $1.3 million.

Ken Anderson of the John Muir Health System, which operates hospitals in Walnut Creek and Concord, was the highest compensated CEO in the Payers & Providers study. He made $745,000 in base salary and nearly $7 million in other compensation, much of it deferred over his career for retirement.

Recall that these people are leading relatively small, not-for-profit community hospitals whose missions are to provide health care to the community. Total compensation ranging from three-quarters of a million dollars to multi-millions seems vastly disproportionate to the jobs and their settings.

Explanations and Excuses
As expected, those supporting the CEOs have all sorts of explanations and excuses:

Hospital leaders in Ventura County and throughout California say the numbers are inflated by retirement plan accumulations that must be included on tax records even before executives qualify to receive the money. They defend the half-million-dollar salaries, with bonuses on top, as the only way to compete with for-profit hospitals for executives who can lead a facility that may employ more than 1,000 workers, drive a community’s economy, provide access to the uninsured and deliver care that saves lives.

'Given the context, it’s not out of line,' said Murray, a CEO with 28 years of experience who is now semiretired after resigning from St. John’s at the end of March. 'I think you need to retain and also attract sufficient talent. I’m not saying there aren’t inappropriate salaries out there. I don’t think mine was one of them.'

Also,

But [economist Sung Won] Sohn said that paying below average is risky.

'When you try to get somebody at $400,000 rather than $700,000 you will get plenty of takers but they’re not competent,' he said. 'Hospitals are so important in the community that you want to make sure it’s run properly.'

Nor does he see any problem with paying more than average if a hospital board wants to reward an executive.

Furthermore,

John Romley, an economist at the Schaeffer Center for Health Policy and Economics at USC, said the amount hospitals spend on executive pay is a sliver of their total expenses and can’t legitimately be blamed for driving the rising cost of healthcare.

'I guess I’m not shocked even though I’m jealous,' he said of the compensation.

Some people were not pleased about this use of health care dollars:

Others worry the compensation may push hospitals into spending more on executives than their nonprofit mission of providing care for the poor. Federal regulations already limit compensation for CEOs of corporations bailed out by the government to $500,000. Similar caps placed on nonprofit hospitals could create dramatic differences, said Ron Shinkman, author of the Payers & Providers statewide survey on CEO salaries.

'You’re looking at close to $39 million that could be used on uncompensated patient care,' he said. 'It’s a lot of money.'

Consumer advocates aim much of their concern at nonprofit hospitals that not only reward CEOs with lucrative paydays but also provide little charity care to poor, uninsured patients. The Payers & Providers research identifies 17 hospitals — all outside of Ventura County — where the total compensation to CEOs exceeded the cost of charity care.

'It would be outrageous if hospitals are paying more to their (entire) executive teams than in indigent care in their community,' said Anthony Wright of Health Access California. 'For some hospitals to provide more to one individual just seems wrong.'

The Mechanism: Ego Bias

The mechanism making CEO compensation constantly increase appears to be simple:

Typically, hospital boards hire consultants to conduct studies showing market averages for comparable hospitals in their regions. They often try to pay somewhere around the 50th percentile.

That’s a reasonable way to do it, but such studies tend to push up the salaries, said economist Sung Won Sohn, who was involved in setting compensation at two Minneapolis hospitals.

'People at the low end try to increase the CEO closer to the average,' said the professor at CSU Channel Islands. 'If everyone does that, the average CEO salary will go up.'

So there you have it. At no hospital is the CEO deemed by a sympathetic (and sometimes crony filled board) below average. If the CEO's compensation has somehow dropped below average one year, it is immediately raised to at least average the next. Apparently almost never is the CEO's pay deemed to be too high.

That notion is corroborated by the assumption by the CEO documented above that all CEOs have "sufficient talent," and the assertion above that anyone who would accept a lower salary would be "not competent."

So every year all the CEOs who had below average compensation the previous year get compensation increased at least to last year's average. Almost no CEO gets a reduction. So the average moves up relentlessly year after year.

Of course, unless all CEOs are exactly alike, some CEOs must be below average.

So this becomes a great example of the ego bias at work. Ego bias is a common cognitive bias usually discussed in the context of making probabilistic judgments. A simple definition is that people tend to believe that outcomes of what they do, or what a group with whom they identify does will be above average. A long time ago, colleagues and I showed that interns in an intensive care unit judged the survival of their patients on average to be better than their judgments of the mean survival of all patients in the ICU. On the other hand, ICU attending physicians displayed a slightly more sophisticated version of the bias. They judged their patients' survival accurately, but judged the mean survival of their ICU's patients to be higher than it really was. [Poses RM, McClish DK, Bekes C, Scott WE, Morley JN. Ego bias, reverse ego bias, and physicians' prognostic judgments. Crit Care Med. 1991 Dec;19(12):1533-9. Link here.]

So we have the ego bias writ large in judgments made about the performance and compensation of hospital CEOs, at least in Ventura County, California.

The Implications

I agree that paying a CEO more than a hospital's entire expenditures for the care of the poor is unseemly.

However, in my humble opinion, the issue is even bigger than that. It is not so much how much of the hospital's budget goes to executive compensation, but what lessons this teaches CEOs. I propose they are:
- I am a wonderful person. I can do no wrong.
- If I do wrong, I cannot be punished.
- I can get rich and powerful doing this.

Of course, as we have written many times, being the CEO of a small community hospital is supposed to be a calling, whose goal is to uphold the institution's mission. Instead, CEOs are learning to be tin-pot dictators. Some are probably sensible enough to resist learning this message. I am afraid many are not.

Furthermore, there is no reason to think that this phenomenon is confined to Ventura County, California, or to small community hospitals. We have discussed how the management of health care organizations have become unsympathetic to, or even hostile to the mission. We have discussed their organizations' institutional conflicts of interests. We have discussed how they have wound up with imperial CEOs.

The resulting ill-informed, mission-ignorant or mission-hostile, self-interested, conflicted, or even corrupt leadership is a major, but still largely anechoic cause of our health care dysfunction.

As I have said endlessly, true health care reform will require finding well-informed leaders who understand and support the mission, put the mission before their own self-enrichment, and are unconflicted and honest.

A little while ago, the Wall Street Journal reported on the highest paid US corporate CEOs of the past decade. One name stood out for those interested in health care: Dr William W McGuire, the former CEO of giant health care insurance company/ managed care organization UnitedHealth Group. Dr McGuire was number 9 on the list, with a total realized compensation of $469,300,000.

We started discussing the disconnect between Dr McGuire's corpulent pay and his company's failure to uphold its stated ideals back in 2005, when he was reported to have received more than $124 million to lead a company which championed "affordable" health care. Later, it turned out that much of Dr McGuire's compensation came in the form of back-dated stock-options, and the resulting scandal was followed by his resignation. Later, Dr McGuire was forced to give back some the options. The final settlement of the fiasco cost UnitedHealth $895 million, and Dr McGuire $30 million and the cancellation of 3.6 million stock options.

Meanwhile, UnitedHealth was compiling an unenviable record of ethical lapses:

• as reported by the Hartford Courant, "UnitedHealth Group Inc., the largest U.S. health insurer, will refund $50 million to small businesses that New York state officials said were overcharged in 2006."
• UnitedHalth promised its investors it would continue to raise premiums, even if that priced increasing numbers of people out of its policies (see post here);
• UnitedHealth's acquisition of Pacificare in California allegedly lead to a "meltdown" of its claims paying mechanisms (see post here);
• UnitedHealth's acquisition of Sierra Health Services allegedly gave it a monopoly in Utah, while the company allegedly was transferring much of its revenue out of the state of Rhode Island, rather than using it to pay claims (see post here)
• UnitedHealth frequently violated Nebraska insurance laws (see post here);
• UnitedHealth settled charges that its Ingenix subsidiaries manipulation of data lead to underpaying patients who received out-of-network care (see post here).

At the same time, UnitedHealth continues to boast that:

Our mission is to help people live healthier lives.

* We seek to enhance the performance of the health system and improve the overall health and well-being of the people we serve and their communities.
* We work with health care professionals and other key partners to expand access to quality health care so people get the care they need at an affordable price.
* We support the physician/patient relationship and empower people with the information, guidance and tools they need to make personal health choices and decisions.

Dr McGuire certainly expanded his access to money, which doubtless empowered him.

And as we noted here, his successor, Mr Stephen J Helmsley, seems to be going down the same path. In 2009 his total compensation was $8.9 million, and he sold stock options obtained from previous compensation packages for $98.6 million. Mr Helmsley was a top leader (President and Chief Operating Officer [COO]) of UnitedHealth during Dr McGuire's reign as CEO, so should be viewed as having some responsibility for the excesses of the McGuire years.

Despite recent attempts to reform health care, or at least health insurance, it seems that the health insurance industry still leads the way in providing its leaders perverse incentives while failing to hold them accountable for their organizations' unethical behavior and subversion of their stated missions. Is it any wonder that these organizations continue to act unethically, and that the costs of the goods and services they provide rise continuously?


If we truly want health care that is accessible, of high quality, at a fair price, and more importantly, if we want health care that is honest and focused on patients, we need to provide health care leaders with clear, rational incentives in these directions, and make them fully accountable for their actions, and the courses of their organizations under their leadership.

Omnicare's Trail of Legal Settlements

Last year, we discussed a $98 million settlement made by Omnicare, US based corporation that manages pharmacy-benefits, of allegations that it received kickbacks from generic drug manufacturers for buying and recommending their drugs. Omnicare had previously submitted to a corporate integrity agreement in 2006, and paid $102 million to settle allegations it defrauded Medicaid. At the time, we noted that this was yet another of the many cases in which the organization alleged to be involved in wrong-doing paid a fine, but no one who authorized, directed, or implemented the bad behavior was subject to any negative consequences.

So last week, Cincinnati.com ran a story on the retirement of the CEO who presided over Omnicare during the time of the alleged misconduct.

Before reading further, would anyone care to guess whether the company's previous bad behavior would negatively impact his fortunes?

Contrasted with the Size of the CEO's Retirement Package

No exactamente:

As Omnicare Inc.'s new leadership begins to reshape its corporate culture - one that had included generous pay for senior executives - the Fortune 500 firm's exiting CEO stands to collect one of the largest payouts landed by a U.S. corporate executive in recent history.

Former president and CEO Joel Gemunder, who surprised analysts and investors when he retired on July 31, is in line to receive more than $130 million in severance, pension and departing payouts.

At 71, Gemunder had led Omnicare Inc., the nation's largest provider of pharmaceuticals for the elderly, for nearly 30 years.

On his retirement, Gemunder was up for a lump sum pension payment of more than $91 million. That's in addition to a monthly pension payment of $1,719 and roughly $5.38 million from a deferred compensation plan.

Gemunder also will receive $16.2 million in cash severance payable through next July. His 2.7 million in stock options and more than 705,100 shares of restricted common stock also became fully vested on his retirement. Collectively, the shares were worth more than $21.7 million, according to the company's most recent proxy.

To recapitulate so far: the company had to make two settlements of charges of kickbacks and fraud, totalling about $200 million, and accept a corporate integrity agreement. The CEO on whose watch this occurred left the company with a $130 million retirement package.

Can we spell "impunity?"

Protest from the Main-Stream Media

But this case was different from many of the legal settlements that we have chronicled in the past. In those previous cases, we noted how corporate bad behavior cost the organization as a whole, and hence collectively cost the stock-owners, the employees, and the customers/ clients/ patients involved, but not the leaders who authorized and directed the bad behavior, nor the particular people who implemented it. Hardly anyone else, however, took notice.

However, after Mr Gemunder's obese retirement package was made public, there was actually outrage in the opinion section of the Wall Street Journal:

Health-care costs, the national debt and taxes are all going up, and Joel Gemunder is one reason why.

Until Mr. Gemunder's abrupt retirement was announced on Monday, he was CEO of Covington, Ky.-based Omnicare, the nation's largest dispenser of pharmaceuticals to nursing homes.

Omnicare gets most of its revenue from Medicare, Medicaid and other companies sucking on these same government feeding tubes. Omnicare also lives up to its name, serving 1.4 million beds in 47 states.

Mr. Gemunder, 71, had been in charge since 1981, but now he's split with one of the largest lump-sum pension payouts in history, The Wall Street Journal reported. He's getting a $91 million pension payout, plus severance, vesting of restricted stock and other goodies that bring his final payday to at least $130 million. And that's on top of the $14 million he bagged last year.

As CEO, Mr. Gemunder touted 'cost reduction initiatives,' including salary cuts for employees, but these initiatives didn't apply to himself.

And what did the shareholders get for their money? Omnicare shares took a tumble last week after the company reported a shocking drop in the number of prescriptions it fills.

Omnicare stock peaked in March 2006 at more than $61, but now trades under $23. That's a drop of more than 60% -- versus a roughly 11% decline in the S&P 500 during the same period.

And what did the taxpayers and customers get? Omnicare has long been plagued by huge litigation costs amid allegations of kickback and billing schemes.

It's nice to have company. And it's very nice that the issue of the impunity enjoyed by leaders of top health care organizations has made it into the main-stream media. Now it is time to do something about it.

Summary

Let me say it again: The Omnicare settlement coupled with its CEO's outlandish retirement package fit right into the parade of legal settlements we have discussed. As we have said again and again, the usual sorts of legal settlements we have described do not seem to be an effective way to deter future unethical behavior by health care organizations. Even large fines can be regarded just as a cost of doing business. Furthermore, the fine's impact may be diffused over the whole company, and ultimately comes out of the pockets of stockholders, employees, and customers alike. It provides no negative incentives for those who authorized, directed, or implemented the behavior in question. My refrain has been: 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.

Postscript: A Conflicted Board Member?

The Cincinati.com story described the bizarre process used to set the size of the Omnicare CEO's retirement package.

Just ahead of Gemunder on the big pension list is Thomas M. Ryan, president and CEO of CVS Caremark Corp. with $94.4 million at the end of 2009.

CVS posts annual sales in excess of $98 billion compared to Omnicare's $6.17 billion. Annual profit at CVS is $3.6 billion compared to $ 211 million at Omnicare.

Despite the sizable differences, CVS is among 40 companies whose CEOs pay is considered when Omnicare's executive compensation committee determines pay for its top executives, according to the firm's April proxy. The company's compensation committee, which declined comment for this story, is made up of three long-time directors Andrea R. Lindell, board chair John T. Crotty and Steven J. Heyer.

Other companies considered include New York-based Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. with $17.8 billion in sales; Dublin, Ohio-based Cardinal Health, Inc. with $99 billion in sales and New Jersey-based Medco Health Solutions, Inc. with $72 billion in sales.

'These companies are enormously bigger than you would expect for a comparative group' for Omnicare, Crystal said. 'It's the equivalent of the local ball team that's not in the major leagues using their comparative group as the New York Yankees.'

Note that one member of the compensation committee that used this absurd standard to set the CEO's compensation was one Andrea R Lindell. The above story did not identify her further, but as we noted last year, she "is also Dean of the College of Nursing at the University of Cincinnati. One would think that someone who thus boasts 'the success of our students, faculty, staff and alumni who work together to promote excellence in education, research, service and practice' needs to keep a closer eye on the ethical aspects of her company's management. But as the New York Times just noted on the front-page of last Sunday's business section, as another blow to the anechoic effect, "Academics may be trained to ask tough questions in their own fields, but when confronted with tricky business issues far above their level of expertise they 'often become as meek as church mice'...." and hence are just the sort of directors that self-interested CEOs intent on lining their own pockets love.

So this case becomes another reason to take seriously the increasingly frequent conflicts of interest generated when top leaders of non-profit health care organizations sit on boards of for-profit health care corporations. These conflicts may not only distract the leaders from the mission of the non-profit organizations, but also distract them from their fiduciary duties to the stock-holders of the for-profit corporations.

In late 2009, we posted about problems at a Genzyme plant that manufactured some fabulously expensive drugs, e.g. Cerezyme whose cost to patients approximated $160,000 a year. We thought then that for a drug costing that much, the company ought to have figured out a conservative process to provide pure and unadulterated product. In a later post we also why a company that could afford to make its CEO very rich could not afford to adequately maintain its manufacturing facilities. In May, 2010, we posted about a legal settlement of charges related to its manufacturing problems requiring Genzyme to pay a $175 million fine and function under US government supervision.

Recent news articles suggest that the fix of the company's inabilities to manufacture pure, unadulterated drug remained remote. Reuters reported that it had to discard "additional inventories of drugs ... for failure to the meet the company's quality control standards." Bloomberg reported that it "may take three to four years to complete changes requested by U.S regulators after plant contamination."

Meanwhile, however, the company continues to talk to Sanofi-Aventis about being bought out, and the Boston Globe reported just how much Genzyme CEO Henri A Termeer would stand to make if the buyout takes place:

Under the 'hange of control' agreement currently worth $23 million, Termeer would receive several payments. He would receive a lump sum of $11 million, a figure representing three times his base salary plus a bonus. He would also get $356,000 in benefits, including health, life, accident, and disability insurance, outplacement and relocation services, and legal fees. And he could cash out 175,137 shares through accelerated equity awards. Those shares are now worth $11.9 million, but almost certainly would be worth more if the company is acquired at a premium.

Furthermore,

Apart from the golden parachute, Termeer could reap huge stock gains if the company is sold. The 4.1 million Genzyme shares he owns represented about 1.5 percent of its stock as of April 9, the most recent regulatory filing. At the current share price, Termeer’s stake is worth more than $275 million.

So riddle me this: over the last 5 years, Genzyme stock-holders have seen their investment lose 5.7% of its value (according to Google Finance), while patients have paid outlandish prices for contaminated medicine, or have had to reduce their medication dosages after the defective manufacturing plant was shut down. So why should the CEO who presided over all this, whose has already become rich as a hired employee of Genzyme, get even richer?

Once again we demonstrate how massively perverse incentives stupendously reward the top brass of health care organizations for mediocre, or worse leadership and bad results for both patients/ clients/ customers and stock-holders alike. As long as being a health care CEO is effectively a license to loot the company, is it any wonder that health care organizations continue to be badly lead, and health care costs soar while quality and access suffer?

Once more with feeling: real health care reform would require us to make health care executives truly accountable for their actions, and penalize them for those that are ill-informed, contemptuous of health care values, self-interested, or corrupt.

St. Vincent's Hospital in the Greenwich Village section of New York City was a landmark institution which filed for bankruptcy in April, 2010, and then closed its doors.

Background

A New York Times article written earlier this year described an institution "threatened with extinction" because it stuck to its mission of "compassionate care" in a health care environment that values "fancy equipment and celebrity doctors." Thus, "officials blamed a high rate of poor and uninsured patients as well as cuts in Medicare and Medicaid and the hospital's inability to negotiate favorable contracts with health insurance companies...."

Painting Another Picture

However, a story this week in the grittier New York Post painted a different picture:

St. Vincent's Hospital was looted by execs and consultants in the two years before it closed, then grossly exaggerated its debt, according to blockbuster papers set to be filed tomorrow in Manhattan Supreme Court.

The filing, a petition that seeks to force the state Health Department to turn over documents on the closing, says the defunct medical center blew through millions in 'highly questionable' expenses, including $278,000 for a golf outing, while paying its top 10 executives a combined $10 million a year.

It also shelled out $17 million for 'management consultants,' $3.8 million on 'professional fund-raising' and a staggering $104 million on unspecified costs it listed simply as 'other' on its federal tax returns, the petition says.

But even with all that money going out, St. Vincent's wasn't nearly as cash strapped as it claimed, say the court papers, prepared by a law firm working for doctors and nurses formerly employed there and the hospital's West Village neighbors.

Its crushing debt of about $1 billion, which the hospital blamed for having to close its doors in April, was bloated by hundreds of millions of dollars in loans dumped on St. Vincent's from other medical entities run by the Archdiocese of New York, starting in 2001, after the other institutions merged with the hospital, the papers say.

'The debt of the hospital was specifically exaggerated by numerous factors, including the transfer of debt from other Catholic medical centers and mismanagement by the board of directors,' the documents say. 'These transfers . . . remain undisclosed to the public.'

Historical Parallels
These accusations parallel themes that appeared towards the end of the February, 2010, NY Times piece. First, regarding the transfer of debt:

To remain competitive, in 2000 St. Vincent’s merged with several other Catholic hospitals to form St. Vincent Catholic Medical Centers.

Along with the flagship hospital in the Village, it ran seven other hospitals: Bayley Seton and St. Vincent’s on Staten Island; Mary Immaculate, St. John’s and St. Joseph’s in Queens; St. Mary’s in Brooklyn; and St. Vincent’s Westchester, in Harrison, N.Y. It was also affiliated with St. Vincent’s Midtown, formerly St. Clare’s, in Midtown Manhattan.

The merger was conceived as a way to streamline management and give the hospitals pricing leverage, but it was troubled from the beginning. After closings and sales, the network was left with just one New York City hospital, the flagship; a psychiatric and substance abuse treatment hospital in Westchester; and several nursing homes and other outpatient facilities. Some of St. Vincent’s debt was inherited from the closed hospitals.

Second, regarding mismanagement:

In 2004, St. Vincent’s turned over management to Speltz & Weis, the first in a series of turnaround consultants. It paid the firms millions of dollars a year to run the hospital and hired their officials as hospital executives. The system filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in early July 2005, when it appeared, according to court papers filed by hospital creditors, that it would be unable to make its payroll.

In a lawsuit filed in 2007, some of the hospital’s creditors painted a picture of a hospital system trapped between unscrupulous consultants and a passive or gullible board. The lawsuit accused David E. Speltz and Timothy C. Weis, the hospital system’s former chief executive and chief financial officer, of delaying the bankruptcy organization while they and their consulting firm collected millions of dollars in fees.

The lawsuit accused them of hiring high-priced contractors and padding their fees, instead of using hospital employees to do work. And it says they leveraged their positions with the hospital to negotiate the sale of their consulting company to Huron Consulting Group, in Chicago, also a defendant in the case.

The outcome of that earlier lawsuit was unclear. It does suggest that St. Vincent's may have been chronically bled by greedy managers and consultants.

Contrasting Financial Health and Executive Compensation

Of course, as one of our unofficial legal consultants noted, anyone can file a lawsuit. However, perusal of the latest 990 form filed with the Internal Revenue Service by St Vincent Catholic Medical Centers for calendar year 2008 did reveal a disquieting contrast.

That form stated that the the hospital lost over $65 million in 2008, and over $34 million in 2007. However, in 2008, here were the compensation of its highest paid managers

- Brian Fitzsimmons, Executive Director, $2,135,401
- Bernadette Kingman-Bez, Senvior Vice President, CCO (?), $1,520,841
- Paul Rosenfeld, Executive Director, CC, $1,196,458
- Henry Amoroso, CEO, $1,081,592

In addition, seven current and former executives at the Senior Vice President of Vice President level earned over $500,000 that year, and another 13 earned over $250,000.

Summary

So clearly, while the hospital was hemorrhaging money, and a little more than a year away from bankruptcy, this not-for-profit hospital whose mission emphasized serving the poor served a large corps of executives very large amounts of money. So we see again the pattern of top managers rewarding themselves disproportionately (here, grossly so) given the mission and financial status of their organizations. The picture is of pay entirely independent of performance, and leaders who are ultimately only in it for the money.

How many more examples like this do we need until there is resolve that real health care reform will make top health care leaders accountable for their performance, and provide them incentives that are fair and rational, rather than perverse?

Post-Script

Of course, if we regard the fall of institutions whose mission was to do good as inevitable in our Darwinian world, an explanation that earlier coverage of this story suggested, all we can do is to throw our hands up. However, the inevitability argument is often made by those who are benefiting from the current way of doing things. A more skeptical view of this case, and related health policy issues, may suggest a different approach.

Advocates of laissez faire commercialized health care often trumpet the advantages of competitive markets as a rationale for deregulation. While there are theoretic, and possibly empiric reasons to think that competitive markets are the optimal way to distribute goods and services, we recently discussed aspects of health care that make it extremely hard for health care markets to be ideally competitive.

Meanwhile, two news articles gave some case-based evidence about how current health care markets are hardly competitive.

Sutter Health

A Bloomberg article focused on Sutter Health in northern and central California. Sutter Health commands a substantial part of a very large market:

Sutter Health Co., the nonprofit that owns Sutter Davis, has market power that commands prices 40 to 70 percent higher than its rivals per typical procedure -- and pacts with insurers that keep those prices secret.

Sutter can charge these prices because it has acquired more than a third of the market in the San Francisco-to-Sacramento region through more than 20 hospital takeovers in the last 30 years, according to executives of Aetna Inc., Health Net Inc. and Blue Shield of California, who asked not to be named because their agreements with Sutter ban disclosure of prices.

Also,

Operating as a nonprofit, it has $8.8 billion in revenues, 24 hospitals, 17 outpatient surgery clinics and a 3,500-doctor network, making it the largest health-care provider in an 11- county region -- from San Francisco Bay to the Sierra Nevada mountains -- where 10 million people live.

Sutter has 35 percent of the revenue and 36 percent of beds that compete for patients in the region, according to a state hospital database, including 100 percent of beds the state tracks in Placer and Amador counties east of Sacramento.

Sutter care seems to cost a lot more than care from other doctors and hospitals:

After Mark Logsdon tore a ligament in his knee skiing at Lake Tahoe in March, he returned home to suburban Sacramento and had an MRI scan at Sutter Davis Hospital.

Sutter’s price for the knee scan was $1,271, payable by Logsdon and his insurer. Exactly the same MRI at one of the local imaging centers owned by Radiological Associates of Sacramento would have cost $696 -- 45 percent less.

A few other examples of Sutter's prices compared to others;

'Instead of leveraging its system to be more cost- effective, we’ve seen Sutter leveraging its system for monopoly pricing,' said Peter V. Lee, who in June became director of health-care delivery system reform for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Lee was interviewed while he worked at the Pacific Business Group on Health, a coalition that includes Chevron Corp., Walt Disney Co., General Electric Co., and Wells Fargo & Co.

In San Francisco, Aetna pays Sutter’s California Pacific Medical Center in a range with a midpoint of $4,700 for an abdominal CT scan, compared to $3,200 at St. Francis Memorial Hospital, owned by Catholic Health Care West. For colonoscopies, Aetna’s midpoint price is $3,200 at Sutter’s flagship CPMC and $2,800 at St. Francis Memorial.

In Palo Alto, Aetna pays Sutter $349 per visit for new patients to see Manju Deshpande, a family doctor in Sutter’s Palo Alto Medical Foundation clinic. Three miles away, Paul Ford’s Stanford Medical Group receives $222. If the patient needs an immunization, Aetna pays Palo Alto Medical $85, and Stanford Medical, $16. Deshpande removes wax from the ear for $175. Ford scoops it out for $104.

Down the road in Silicon Valley, when obstetrician Sarah Azad, a solo practitioner, delivers a baby for a patient covered by Aetna, the insurer pays her $2,052. When Nicole Wilcox of Sutter’s Palo Alto Medical Foundation does the same job, Aetna pays Sutter $5,890.

The doctors practice blocks apart in Mountain View, California. Performance isn’t an issue -- Azad has Aetna’s top rating for quality of care and trained Wilcox during residency.

The Sutter CEO, of course, denies there is a problem:

Sutter operates in a competitive market, Chief Executive Officer Patrick Fry, 53, said in an interview. 'I don’t see Sutter Health as having market power, given the choices that employers can make,' Fry said. 'The market has a lot of room to make a lot of decisions.'

The people who most praise competitive markets often seem to be those who have done the most to reduce the competitiveness of these markets. The CEO also trotted out another old saw, that his organization has grown not to charge more, but to be more efficient.

While Sutter may have higher 'unit' prices than its competitors, Fry said, it is not the most costly for patients over the long run because its integration of hospitals and doctor groups allows it to provide more efficient care, cutting down on the number of procedures.

'Our mission isn’t to maximize profits,' Fry added. 'Our mission, to the extent we can, is to optimize services.' Insurers and patients have many alternatives to Sutter, according to Fry.

That is a tune would-be monopolists have been singing at least since the days of the "robber barons" and their monopolies such as Standard Oil.

Of course, he is likely to defend a system that makes so much money and pays him and his buddies in top management so much, (and, contrary to his statement above, seems to have maximized profits):

Sutter, with 48,000 employees, was among the most profitable hospital groups in the U.S. in 2009, with income of $697 million, up more than three-fold from 2008 due to large investment gains, on revenue that grew 6 percent to $8.8 billion.

Its 5.2 percent operating margin -- or operating income as a percentage of revenue -- was 73 percent higher than the median for all nonprofit hospital systems in 2009, according to Standard & Poor’s.

As of Dec. 31, Sutter had a $2.63 billion investment portfolio. Sutter paid Fry $2.8 million in 2008, according to its latest Internal Revenue Service filing. His top 14 lieutenants made between $830,000 and $1.8 million each.

The article on Sutter emphasized how the strategic use of secrecy has helped Sutter maintain its remunerative ways:

Sutter doesn’t allow its prices to be disclosed on insurers’ websites because it believes the information is often misleading and doesn’t reflect the variables of each patient’s case, [Sutter spokesman William] Gleeson said.

Of course, keeping prices secret just makes the market even less like an ideally competitive one:

As Sutter’s confidentiality terms show, the actual prices that hospitals receive are often kept secret by insurers. Patients in need of hospital care, especially in emergencies, often can’t travel very far, restricting competition. And if they have health insurance, they have little incentive to price shop.

Finally, the article reminds us that the latest fad from health policy and health management circles (which seem increasingly to overlap), "accountable care organizations," may just be a pretext for even more market consolidation:

The federal Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act is looking for $500 billion in savings over the next decade to help pay for extending coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans. Yet it doesn’t address the problem of market concentration -- and may make it worse, said Robert Berenson, a physician and policy analyst at the Urban Institute in Washington D.C.

The 'unchecked' clout of hospital and physician groups in California is a 'cautionary tale for national health reform,' Berenson said in a February article in the journal Health Affairs. He warned that incentives in the new legislation to improve treatment by promoting doctor-hospital alliances -- called 'accountable care organizations' -- could backfire by strengthening providers’ bargaining leverage.

Carilion Clinic
A Washington Post article discussed the example of Carilion Clinic in Virginia, whose increasing market power we had blogged about in 2008:

Railroads put this city on the map, but the king of the domain is now health care -- or rather, the Carilion Clinic.

Carilion owns the two hospitals in town and six others in the region, employs 550 doctors and has set off a bitter local debate: Is its dominance a new model for health care or a blatant attempt to corner the market?

The Carilion story emphasized again how the "accountable care organization" meme is being used to justify market consolidation, allowing health care oligopolies to appear politically correct:

Carilion says it represents an ideal envisioned by the nation's new health-care law: a network that increases efficiency by bringing more doctors and hospitals onto one team, integrating care from the doctor's office to the operating room. The name for such networks, which the new law strongly promotes with pilot programs, is accountable care organizations, or ACOs -- providers joining together to be 'accountable' for the total care of patients, with incentives from insurers to keep people healthy and costs down.

Note that this political correctness is also used to justify further consolidation of power by limiting outside referrals:

Independent doctors say Carilion is urging its employees to refer patients only to providers within the Carilion network, cloaking its expansion in the lingo of health-care reform.

Of course, the Carilion CEO also denies anything but the most altruistic intent, but he too is making a lot of money from the current system:

[Edward] Murphy, Carilion's chief executive who earned $2.3 million in 2008, acknowledges that providers holding excessive leverage over insurers is cause for concern but argues that ACOs can be a corrective.

Summary

We noted earlier this week that multiple kinds of uncertainty (e.g., about diagnosis, prognosis, and the effects of treatment), and information asymmetry make it theoretically difficult for the health care market to be truly competitive. Meanwhile, there is increasing evidence that the market is actually uncompetitive. Although there are many hospitals and health insurers across the US, in many areas there are very few insurers and very few hospitals or hospital systems from which to choose. We have previously blogged about how market dominant hospital systems seem to be able to charge more than any others.

In the 1960s, it became recognized that physicians' professionalism, hospitals' devotion to their missions, and sometimes even (gasp) government regulation might partially compensate for distortions in the health care market. However, as supposed free market advocates became more powerful, they pushed for the commercialization of medicine and hospitals, reducing professionalism and mission support, and the hollowing out government regulation. (However, why did the people who attacked medical societies' codes of ethics as monopolistic have no interest in attacking market domination by insurers or hospital systems? Inquiring minds want to know.)

As we said last time, true health care reform would help physicians and other health care professionals uphold their traditional values, including, as the AMA once stated, "the practice of medicine should not be commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade." True health care reform would put health care "delivery" back in the hands of mission-focused, not-for-profit organizations, which put patients' health, safety and welfare first.

Meanwhile, these latest stories about market dominating hospital systems suggest some additional lessons.

Secrecy is the would-be monopolist's best friend. However, it is hard to think of very many kinds of information that hospitals really ought to be able to keep as proprietary secrets. As usual, sunshine is the best disinfectant.

There seems to be a strange and increasing alliance between politically- correct academic theorists and proponents of raw economic power. The theorists' notion of "accountable care organizations" seems to have become a great foil for would-be monopolists, yet the theorists have done nothing to show how their creation would really bring "power to the people." Meanwhile, maybe "ACO" should stand for "aggressive care oligopoly." Meanwhile, be extremely skeptical of the latest health care fad, especially when it is supported both by academics and CEOs.

After a well-publicized story that managers of small town in California were paid in the high six-figures, reporters in California have gotten interested in the pay of public officials.

Thus the San Diego Union-Tribune reported on the compensation received by CEOs of local public health agencies, called public health care districts, two of which run hospitals. One in particular received generous compensation:

The top official at Palomar Pomerado Health, a public agency serving health-care needs in Poway and Escondido, receives in excess of $1 million in compensation per year.


Michael Covert, who has run the North County hospital district since 2003, receives a base salary of $736,000 a year. Retirement, bonuses and other benefits push Covert’s total pay past $1.1 million.

One other public health CEO, also responsible for a hospital, made somewhat less:

Tri-City chief executive Larry Anderson collects a base salary of $480,000 and benefits that drive his total compensation past $625,000 a year. He also received a $50,000 relocation benefit when he arrived last year.

Two CEOs of health districts that did not run hospitals, having leased them out, made less still:

Grossmont chief executive Barry Jantz makes about $183,000 a year in base pay and benefits that increase his total compensation to just under $250,000 a year.

Fallbrook administrator Vi Dupre, ... is paid a base salary of $61,000 a year and benefits that raise her compensation to just over $69,000,....

Why is Mr Covert paid so much?

Bruce Krider, the health-care district chairman, said Covert does an excellent job managing a complex enterprise that includes two major hospitals. Covert juggles the interests of staff, physicians, patients, volunteers, board members and other stakeholders, he said.

'A million dollars sounds pretty good to anybody, but my view is, pay a lot and expect a lot,' said Krider, a management consultant who also is a former hospital executive. 'You can’t have some mediocre public servant. You need somebody that has got vision, that can see the issues that are most important and put it all together.'

So now even the managers of public health agencies have become million dollar babies. And of course, according to the boards of trustees who are supposed to supervise them, they all do excellent work and therefore are underpaid even then. As we have noted before, it seems that every board supervising every health care executive thinks their executives are above average, if not stellar. Note, though, that the chair of the board overseeing Mr Covert is himself a retired hospital administrator. So, as we have noted before, it seems that the boards of such organizations often have a preponderance of members who are not inclined to be critical of their hired executives, much less limit their pay.

So the rules for top leaders of health care organizations seem to be different from those for you and me. All these managers seem to be entitled to be above average. (The only ones who are eventually deemed below average seem to be those up to no good in ways that do not financially benefit their organizations, e.g., see this.)

In my humble opinion, it is unseemly for the leader of a government run public health organization to make so much.

True health care reform would decrease perverse incentives throughout the systems, spread the power in organizations more broadly, and make leaders accountable.