Last week, reports about deceptive marketing and other questionable practices used by the growing for-profit higher education industry in the US appeared in the news. For example, per Bloomberg:

Recruiters at U.S. for-profit colleges lied to entice students and encouraged them to commit fraud to qualify for aid, a report by the Government Accountability Office found.

Recruiters at all 15 colleges studied by the GAO, Congress’s investigational arm, misled potential students about the costs, duration and quality of their programs, according to a report obtained by Bloomberg News....

Other deceptions include:

“'college representatives exaggerated undercover applicants’ potential salary after graduation and failed to provide clear information about the college’s program duration, costs, or graduation rate,' the report said. 'Admissions staff used other deceptive practices, such as pressuring applicants to sign a contract for enrollment before allowing them to speak to a financial advisor about program cost and financing options.'

Also,

In one case cited by the report, a GAO investigator posing as an applicant was told to lie on an aid application about the number of household members to qualify for grants. When the investigators told college employees that they had $250,000 in savings, officials at three colleges told them to hide their savings in order to qualify for financial aid.

In addition,

For-profit colleges overstated the quality of their programs and the organizations overseeing their accreditation, the report said. One recruiter told an investigator posing as an applicant that his school was accredited by the same one that accredits Harvard University.

'It’s the top accrediting agency,' the recruiter said, according to the report. 'Harvard, University of Florida --they all use that accrediting agency.'

Recruiters exaggerated their colleges’ benefits and graduation rates, the report said. A beauty college recruiter said barbers earn as much as $250,000 a year, while the Bureau of Labor Statistics said 90 percent of barbers make less than $43,000 annually, according to the report.

A later report by the Dow Jones news service named some of the corporate players whose educational "institutions" were involved in dubious schemes.

Colleges operated by Apollo Group Inc. (APOL), Corinthian Colleges Inc. (COCO) and Washington Post Co.'s (WPO) Kaplan Higher Education unit were among the schools the U.S. Government Accountability Office found provided 'deceptive and otherwise questionable information' to agents who posed as prospective students in an undercover investigation of for-profit student recruitment tactics.

It is tempting to look for parallels with health care, once a calling like higher education, but now increasingly an "industry," often run, as we have documented endlessly, by people with little experience or knowledge about how health care is actually done on the ground, with little sympathy for the values of health care professionals, and given strong incentives to maximize the money coming in, whatever it takes.

However, the issue goes beyond these parallels. In fact, many of the bigger for-profit education corporations provide considerable health care education, including the three named above. The University of Phoenix, a subsidiary of the Apollo Group Inc, offers a Masters of Science in Nursing degree. Several of the "brands" of Corinthian Colleges Inc offer offer "diploma and/or degree programs in health care." Kaplan University, a subsidiary of Kaplan Higher Education Corporation, has a School of Health Sciences. So it seems likely that many health care professionals, or would-be health care professionals, have been enticed by the sorts of sales practices documented in the report.

There are no known for-profit US medical schools. However, as we have discussed, many US students go to for-profit "off-shore" medical schools, often in the Caribbean, who mainly "educate" US citizens who want to practice here (as opposed to all the schools in countries other than the US whose main goal is to educate doctors for their own countries.) Some of these off-shore schools are owned by big US corporations. One can only wonder whether their recruitment tactics are similar to those of the for-profit "universities" located in the US.

We have discussed deceptive marketing of hospitals, drugs and devices, but now it seems that deceptive marketing is even more widespread in health care than we originally thought, along with the take the money and run ethos that has infected so much of the business world.

If we truly want to reform health care to improve quality and access, and control costs, we need to restore the focus to care, the care of the patient, and away of the false pursuit of economic efficiency that only seems to benefit the quick buck artists.

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel published another story in their series on physicians' entanglements with health care corporations. This one tells the story of a single university faculty member who was seduced by pharmaceutical companies, then eventually became disillusioned.

[Dr James] Stein, now a professor at the University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, was a 29-year-old cardiology fellow in Chicago in 1994 when his faculty mentor asked him to fill in for him at a drug company-funded lecture to a large group of doctors.

It would be his first taste of life as a drug company speaker and consultant.

Stein got first-class airfare to Dallas. A limousine took him to a luxury hotel for the talk.

He walked off the stage, and a doctor from the conference handed him an envelope containing a $500 check.

'I got a pat on the back and he said, 'There's more where that came from, son.' I had no idea what that meant, but I went home and paid off part of my student loans,' Stein said in a presentation at UW this month.

Stein's first drug company talk led to more than a decade of work for drug companies before he gave it up for ethical reasons. Now he is speaking out.

Over the years, many of the big names in the drug industry would hire Stein to give speeches or serve as a consultant, eventually leading to fees of $2,000 to $3,000 per talk.

About a month after his first talk in 1994, Stein was asked by another drug company to give a lecture on cholesterol at a small hospital in Chicago, just as blockbuster statin drugs were coming on the market.

'I was really flattered because over and over again I was told that I was a future thought leader,' he said. 'I did my talk. I got a $750 honorarium and I was hooked.'

Stein said he now realizes that the speech at the hospital was just an audition.

'They wanted to know what I would say and how I would deliver,' he said. 'And I think they also wanted to know what I would say about their product.'

He joined speakers bureaus for several drug companies. It was a kind of badge of honor, he said. The more companies a doctor spoke for, the more highly he or she was regarded.

Stein, now 44, came to UW in 1996. Over the years, he would give talks and do other work for many of the top names in the pharmaceutical industry.

For instance, in 2005 Stein did work for six drug makers, according to a disclosure form filed with UW. That year, Pfizer paid him between $10,000 and $20,000 for four days of work as a speaker and advisory board member.

LipoScience, a firm that markets a cholesterol test, paid him $10,000 to $20,000 for four days of similar work.

Another firm, Schering-Plough, paid him about $12,000 for two days as a lecturer.

Although he said he had concerns about the propriety of his work, Stein said he was assured by his superiors there was nothing wrong with it as long as he did it on his own time. Indeed, they said it enhanced the reputation of the university.

And, he said, he considered himself an educator, not a salesman.

He said he tried to manage any conflicts of interest by disclosing who paid him, controlling the content of what he said and doing the work on personal time.

Things started to change rapidly beginning several years ago.

Drug companies began referring to the talks as promotional. They wanted him to use their slides; he refused. Then, medical journals and the lay press began printing articles questioning the ethics of the relationships.

A 2006 article in a Madison newspaper listed Stein as being among the UW doctors who reported the most money from the drug industry. Stein said he was embarrassed.

But, he said, he continued to try to manage his relationships with drug companies. He sent letters to patients disclosing his ties to industry. As of December 2006, he donated all the money from his talks to charity.

Why didn't he just stop doing the work?

He said he believed he could save more lives lecturing than by working in the emergency room. Stein said he saw no harm in being paid. But he admitted that giving the talks also made him feel important.

At the same time, new scientific articles suggested that it is impossible for doctors to be unbiased when they receive gifts or payments from drug companies.

'I have learned that human beings, physicians included, are incapable of recognizing bias in themselves, and even when you try not to be biased it is impossible to avoid it, especially when money is involved,' he said.

He said he came to realize that drug and medical device firms were no longer trustworthy partners in medical education.

He also said it has become obvious that patients have the least power and drug companies have the most power.

'I was wrong,' he said.

Stein said he stands by what he taught.

But, he added, 'I was naïve to think I was not influenced by the money and power of the drug and device companies.'

As of last December, he said, he stopped all drug company speaking and consulting other than bona fide research.

It is nice that a few commercially paid "key opinion leaders" have realized what they were really doing. Maybe, Dr Stein will follow in the footsteps of Dr Daniel Carlat, and try to atone for his previous role in drug marketing disguised as education. (See Dr Carlat's excellent blog here, and his now classic article, "Dr Drug Rep.")

This compelling narrative reinforces some points about relationships among physicians and health care corporations.

Health care corporations do not pay for nothing, and are not charitable organizations. If a company pays a physician to give talks, it is almost certainly because those talks will help market company products or services.

Pharmaceutical and device companies have argued that they only pay the best and the brightest physicians as speakers and consultants. But this story (and others, e.g. here) suggest that they recruit young physicians who seem to be malleable and likely to go along with the company line, and groom them to do marketing in the guise of education.

The company's money thus helps mold "key opinion leaders." Worse, at many medical schools, being a commercially supported speaker or consult was a badge of honor. Thus, faculty chosen by commercial firms as most tractable and sympathetic to the companies' viewpoints, came to be regarded as the best and the brightest.

Why getting money from commercial firms was regarded as indicative of honor and intelligence, rather than gullibility, naivete, or worse, is not clear. I wonder whether it correlated with increasing alignment of the leadership of medical schools with commercial interests, and domination of the very top leadership, that is, the universities' board of directors, by those formerly regarded as Masters of the Universe (but now often seen as stupid, arrogant, greedy, or even corrupt. See posts about how the boards of Dartmouth, Harvard, and Yeshiva were disproportionately populated by leaders of [faux] finance).

At any rate, this is truly a cautionary tale of seduction of academia into hucksterism.

Hat tip to Margaret Soltan at University Diaries.

ADDENDUM (30 April, 2009) - See also the comments by Dr Daniel Carlat on the Carlat Psychiatry Blog.

At the 2010 Gezonde Scepsis (Healthy Skepticism) "Selling Sickness" conference, I was made aware of another wheel invented a long time ago, the 1988 WHO Ethical Criteria for Medicinal Drug Promotion, a document about which few now seem to be aware. Were this code to have been widely followed, it might have prevented some of the problems afflicting the pharmaceutical industry today.

Some relevant quotes follow:

Drug Promotion

6. In this context, 'promotion' refers to all informational and persuasive activities by manufacturers and distributors, the effect of which is to induce the prescription, supply, purchase and/or use of medicinal drugs.

7. Active promotion within a country should take place only with respect to drugs legally available in the country. Promotion should be in keeping with national health policies and in compliance with national regulations, as well as with voluntary standards where they exist. All promotion-making claims concerning medicinal drugs should be reliable, accurate, truthful, informative, balanced, up-to-date, capable of substantiation and in good taste. They should not contain misleading or unverifiable statements or omissions likely to induce medically unjustifiable drug use or to give rise to undue risks. The word 'safe' should only be used if properly qualified. Comparison of products should be factual, fair and capable of substantiation. Promotional material should not be designed so as to disguise its real nature.

8. Scientific data in the public domain should be made available to prescribers and any other person entitled to receive it, on request, as appropriate to their requirements. Promotion in the form of financial or material benefits should not be offered to or sought by health care practitioners to influence them in the prescription of drugs.

9. Scientific and educational activities should not be deliberately used for promotional purposes.

Note that these provisions would seem to prohibit promotional efforts begun before a drug is legally approved (e.g., ghost-writing as in this case), the use of "key opinion leaders" without full disclosure of their role as marketers of drugs, suppression of clinical research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies whose results did not support these companies' marketing interests, e.g. studies which failed to show efficacy of their products, nearly all kinds of payments to physicians, and nearly all pharmaceutical sponsored continuing medical education.

Medical Representatives

17. Medical representatives should have an appropriate educational background. They should be adequately trained. They should possess sufficient medical and technical knowledge and integrity to present information on products and carry out other promotional activities in an accurate and responsible manner. Employers are responsible for the basic and continuing training of their representatives. Such training should include instruction regarding appropriate ethical conduct taking into consideration the WHO criteria. In this context, exposure of medical representatives and trainees to feed-back from the medical and allied professions and from independent members of the public, particularly regarding risks, can be salutary.

18. Medical representatives should make available to prescribers and dispensers complete and unbiased information for each product discussed, such as an approved scientific data sheet or other source of information with similar content.

19. Employers should be responsible for the statements and activities of their medical representatives. Medical representatives should not offer inducements to prescribers and dispensers. Prescribers and dispensers should not solicit such inducements. In order to avoid over-promotion, the main part of the remuneration of medical representatives should not be directly related to the volume of sales they generate.

Note that these provisions appear to prohibit the current cheer leader/ ex-athlete model of the drug representative, and to prohibit many of the current activities of such representative, including providing gifts, meals, travel to meetings, honoraria, etc (e.g., see posts here and here).

If only these standards had gotten some traction, think of the trouble that could have been averted. On the other hand, it is obvious that such traction would have threatened some peoples' lucrative incomes and power, who may have worked hard to make sure it did not happen.

A combined investigative reporting effort by Pro Publica, partnering with the Boston Globe, Consumers Reports, the Chicago Tribune, National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting System on seven major pharmaceutical companies' payments to doctors who make speeches on the companies' behalf has gotten a lot of press. It inspired several separate reviews by news organizations in Colorado, Illinois, Minnesota, Ohio,Washington, etc on local doctors who were paid to talk. Many of my fellow health care skeptic bloggers, including the Carlat Psychiatry Blog, Hooked: Ethics,Medicine and Pharma blog, the Health Beat blog, have been all over this story.

Yet I think it is reasonable to underline three important points.

Not the Brightest

Pharmaceutical and other health care corporations are fond of saying that the doctors they hire to give talks are the "best and the brightest," thought leaders respected by other physicians. In fact, the lead article by Pro Publica suggested that some of these supposed "best and the brightest" have dubious credentials, indeed.

Some were not board-certified, and lacked credentials suggesting great expertise:

Among the top-paid speakers, some had impressive resumes, clearly demonstrating their expertise as researchers or specialists. But others did not –contrary to the standards the companies say they follow.

Forty five who earned in excess of $100,000 did not have board certification in any specialty, suggesting they had not completed advanced training and passed a comprehensive exam. Some of those doctors and others also lacked published research, academic appointments or leadership roles in professional societies.

In summary,

Pharma companies often say their physician salesmen are chosen for their expertise. Glaxo, for example, said it selects 'highly qualified experts in their field, well-respected by their peers and, in the case of speakers, good presenters.'

ProPublica found that some top speakers are experts mainly because the companies have deemed them such. Several acknowledge that they are regularly called upon because they are willing to speak when, where and how the companies need them to.

Not the Best

Worse, some of the pharmaceutical paid speakers had records of ethical problems.

A review of physician licensing records in the 15 most-populous states and three others found sanctions against more than 250 speakers, including some of the highest paid. Their misconduct included inappropriately prescribing drugs, providing poor care or having sex with patients. Some of the doctors had even lost their licenses.


More than 40 have received FDA warnings for research misconduct, lost hospital privileges or been convicted of crimes. And at least 20 more have had two or more malpractice judgments or settlements. This accounting is by no means complete; many state regulators don’t post these actions on their web sites.

The Pro Publica story lead with three disturbing anecdotes:

The Ohio medical board concluded [1] that pain physician William D. Leak had performed 'unnecessary' nerve tests on 20 patients and subjected some to 'an excessive number of invasive procedures,' including injections of agents that destroy nerve tissue.

Yet the finding, posted on the board’s public website, didn’t prevent Eli Lilly and Co. from using him as a promotional speaker and adviser. The company has paid him $85,450 since 2009.

In 2001, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration ordered [2] Pennsylvania doctor James I. McMillen to stop 'false or misleading' promotions of the painkiller Celebrex, saying he minimized risks and touted it for unapproved uses.

Still, three other leading drug makers paid the rheumatologist $224,163 over 18 months to deliver talks to other physicians about their drugs.

And in Georgia, a state appeals court in 2004 upheld [3] a hospital’s decision to kick Dr. Donald Ray Taylor off its staff. The anesthesiologist had admitted giving young female patients rectal and vaginal exams without documenting why. He’d also been accused of exposing women’s breasts during medical procedures. When confronted by a hospital official, Taylor said, 'Maybe I am a pervert, I honestly don’t know,' according to the appellate court ruling.

Last year, Taylor was Cephalon's third-highest-paid speaker out of more than 900. He received $142,050 in 2009 and another $52,400 through June.

It also included:

The Medical Board of California filed a public accusation against psychiatrist Karin Hastik in 2008 and placed her [8] on five years’ probation in May for gross negligence in her care of a patient. A monitor must observe her practice.

Kentucky’s medical board placed Dr. Van Breeding on probation [9] from 2005 to 2008. In a stipulation filed with the board, Breeding admits unethical and unprofessional conduct. Reviewing 23 patient records, a consultant found Breeding often that gave addictive pain killers without clear justification. He also voluntarily relinquished his Florida license.

New York’s medical board put Dr. Tulio Ortega on two years’ probation [10] in 2008 after he pleaded no contest to falsifying records to show he had treated four patients when he had not. Louisiana’s medical board, acting on the New York discipline, also put him on probation [11] this year.

Yet during 2009 and 2010, Hastik made $168,658 from Lilly, Glaxo and AstraZeneca. Ortega was paid $110,928 from Lilly and AstraZeneca. Breeding took in $37,497 from four of the firms.

The Biggest Prescribers = "Thought Leaders"

An accompanying NPR story suggested that most physicians are recruited as speakers because they are big prescribers of the drugs the companies want to market, with the expectation that they will be even bigger prescribers once they start giving paid talks. Furthermore, the companies' representatives use a carefully programmed psychological strategy to allow the physicians they recruit to think they are being paid as "thought leaders" to give educational talks.

Drug companies train representatives to approach a narrow set of doctors in a very specific way, using language that deliberately fosters this idea that the doctors who speak are educators, and not just educators, but the smartest of the smart.

For example, every drug representative interviewed for this story used the exact same phrase when approaching a doctor with a pitch to become a speaker: Each doctor approached to speak was told that he was being recruited to serve as a "thought leader."

This phrase, Webb says, seems to have incredible psychological power.

'When you do say 'thought leader' I think it's a huge ego boost for the physicians,' Webb says. 'It's like a feather in their cap. They get a lot from it.'

This is because most doctors have a very specific idea in mind when you ask them what constitutes a thought leader. Most doctors, including Clawson, cite two important qualifications. 'First, the other doctors in the community respect that person's opinion,' Clawson says. 'And the other way to become a 'thought leader' is to become an academic researcher and try to push the bounds of science further, and then by definition you're a thought leader.'

But some drug representatives, like Maher, have a more cynical view of why drug companies choose the doctors they choose. It's not about how well respected the doctor is, according to Maher; it's about how many prescriptions he writes.

'I think nowadays a thought leader is defined as a physician with a large patient population who can write a lot of pharmaceutical drugs. Period,' she says.

These "thought leaders" may find it comfortable to think that they are paid as experts to give educational talks, but really, they are paid to persuade themselves to prescribe more. If audiences prescribe more, it's just a bonus.

This doesn't mean that every doctor recruited is not a high-quality doctor. Many are. But every representative NPR spoke to had a stable of stories about profoundly unimpressive doctors that they'd recruited as thought leaders essentially for the same reason that a robber robs a bank: because that's where the money is.

The fact is that the top 20 doctors in a representative's territory prescribe the vast majority of the medication. According to Webb, the top 20 percent prescribe as much as the lower 80.

So if you want to sell more of your product, and every representative is required to sell more, those are the physicians to target.

Which brings us to the hard reality about doctor speaking: Although doctors believe that they are recruited to speak in order to persuade a room of their peers to consider a drug, one of the primary targets of speaking, if not the primary target, is the speaker himself.

That's where reps look for a real increase in prescriptions — after a speech.

Here's how the money works out, at least for Webb. It's hard to know whether he's typical because there haven't been any published studies of this subject. But according to Webb, he would give a high-prescribing doctor about $1,500 to speak. And following that speech, Webb would see the speaking doctor write an additional $100,000 to $200,000 in prescriptions of his company's drug.

Webb points out that the people recruited to speak are almost always high prescribers with incredibly high patient populations. 'That much money, easily,' he says. 'So yeah, it was a good return on investment.'

The article also suggested that most of the paid "thought leaders" do not realize on a conscious level how they have been bought.

Dr. James Dickie, an endocrinologist in Westminster, Md., was very clear that his prescription-writing was unaffected by speaking. 'Absolutely not. The physicians who are in the audience may notice it if they have been educated to that drug and the benefits of that drug — they may see an increase in writing. But specifically in my own? I don't believe so.'

When NPR told Dickie about the findings learned from drug reps like Maher and Webb, he seemed genuinely surprised and disturbed and began to wonder out loud if he was, in fact, affected.

'It would really bother me,' Dickie says. 'Because I perceive myself as always prescribing in the best interest of my patient, and even unconsciously if I was unduly influenced, that would really bother me. I usually pride myself on keeping up my guard to prevent undue influence.'

But Maher says it's almost impossible for a doctor to keep up his guard. She points out that before doctors speak to their peers about a drug, they review slides provided by the company and talk to the company medical officers. And this process, she says, focuses the doctor on the most positive aspects of a drug.

'What is happening is that you are being manipulated to talk about the drug out loud,' Maher says. 'Kind of like talking themselves into knowing that what they were saying, were actually believing. And if they believed what they were saying, then they would write more drug.'

Summary

Marketers, especially but not only pharmaceutical marketers, have become very adept at using psychology to manipulate their targets, so that marketing campaigns have begun to resemble disinformation campaigns. Pharmaceutical marketers in particular have used their ability to convince physicians that they are "thought leaders," (or "key opinion leaders") to get physicians who are already favorably inclined toward their products to prescribe even more. It is a bonus for the companies if these physicians can also persuade other physicians to prescribe more. The fact that these supposed "thought leaders" have become real leaders of medicine, to a great extent on the basis of marketers' decisions (also abetted in the academic setting by medical schools' and academic medical centers' love of "external funding," including the sort supplied by marketers to "thought leaders", see this post) is the perhaps unintended but unhappy consequence. Thus the leaders of medicine and health care are more and more those doctors who are most compliant with and least questioning of pharmaceutical (and other health care) companies' marketing.

No wonder the leadership of medicine has been so passive as health care has become more dysfunctional.

What is to be done?

- Physicians and others who are paid to give talks by commercial firms must read the series of articles noted above.
- We need to be very skeptical of all "thought leaders" and "key opinion leaders," especially if it is not clear whether they were first dubbed as such by marketers rather than by their own achievements.
- We need as rapidly as possible to mandate full disclosure of all payments by health care corporations others with vested interests in promoting products or services to physicians, academics, and others with decision making ability or influence in medicine and health care.
- Hopefully full disclosure of the scope of the thus revealed conflicts of interest will persuade health care professionals and society that we need to eliminate such conflicts, allowing professionals to eventually return to their once respected status as those pledged to put their patients' (rather than their financial backers') interests first.