Moral Bias

Lisa Rosenbaum's final installment of her three-part conflict of interest series in the NEJM is out and full text is available online for free.  My associations and observations in response to the first two can be found here and here.  As a student of bias and rhetoric, reading Dr. Rosenbaum's series has been a breath of fresh air both on its own merit, but also relative to the grim anti-industry and anti-physician bias that permeates the popular press and medical settings these days.  The hypocritical nature of many of these comments was always obvious to me, but there was only very qualified support for anyone who did not see all physicians (especially psychiatrists) as tools of the pharmaceutical industry.  But the types of moral and ethical biases that Rosenbaum highlights goes far beyond the issue of free lunch from a pharmaceutical rep.  It shakes the very foundation of a system of evaluation based on weak empirical evidence or pure politics as I have pointed out many times on this blog.  At some level it is such a stunning expansion of many of the old NEJM editorials, it seems surrealistic that these articles have been published.  But on the other hand, the page below this last article invites readers to participate in a poll on the ".....suitability of three potential authors to review articles for the Journal."  Combined with the fact that these articles have a series editor that suggests to me that this may be all part of a social media-like initiative to attract interest to the NEJM.  On that basis, I expect a full gamut of future authors including the more typical opinions equating the appearance of conflict of interest with conflict of interest and suggesting zero tolerance for contact with industry.

This article starts out with commentary on the medical school "anti-pharma animus".  The organization of American medical students apparently grades medical schools on the basis of how free from pharmaceutical company influence their conflict of interest policies and environment are.  She gives a quote from a medical student to illustrate the mind-set involved in at least some members of this movement, namely the need for "pure" information to medical students.  Some early critics of Rosenbaum's article cite this as anecdotal data but that misses the point.  Her point is that this kind of mind-set exists and it is one of a number of mind-sets that makes the ethical climate around conflict of interest an unreasonable one.  She also points out that the rhetoric associated with this statement clearly indicates that this is a moral argument and at that point the psychology of moral arguments may apply.  From the perspective of medical education, is it better to take an insular approach and suggest that all research can be assessed by looking at the funding source or should medical students be taught to read and critique research independent of funding source?  A study quoted one of Rosenbaum's previous article suggests that internists are able to look at research abstracts and classify them according to research rigor, but that the introduction of funding source forces a re-evaluation with a bias against industry funded research.

The article progresses to talk about the psychology of moral argumentation at that point and a set of arguments that I have summarized in the table above.  I think it is also instructive to address one of the early arguments about the Rosenbaum essays and that has to do with evidence and the use of evidence in arguments.  In order to look at that, it requires a quick look at the type or argument, whether it is a scientific or non-scientific argument and whether the corresponding type of evidence exists.  I think there is no doubt that Rosenbaum's arguments are moral arguments rather than scientific ones.  As such they seek to address the ethical climate around conflict of interest.

There are two aspects of the concept of ethical climate that are missing from Rosenbaum's analysis.  The first is the ethical climate as a way to control physicians.  The best example during my career has been managed care and the research that supported it.  Like today's collaborative care research, the early managed care research was focused on the idea that it was more "cost-effective" than fee-for-service or treatment as usual.  In both cases (collaborative care and managed care), the research was generally done by advocates of the proposed methods.  Thirty years later, any objective analysis on the effect of managed care on psychiatric services will show that it has been devastatingly negative.  Bed capacity has been shut down, the criteria for inpatient care is "dangerousness" rather than any specific medical indication, people are clearly discharged from hospitals based on optimizing meager DRG based payments rather than medical indications, detoxification and addiction services have practically been eliminated from most hospitals,  only a small percentage of hospitals have psychiatric services, state hospital systems have also been shut down, and the only place where psychiatric care has increased has been county jails and prisons.  That entire system wide change for the worse was based on a moral argument of cost-effectiveness rather than scientific research.  Once that ethical landscape was established physicians could simply be shouted down with the slogan: "Times have changed - you are no longer in charge."  I doubt that any physician who heard that slogan was ever in charge of anything.  It was political rhetoric, designed to elicit an emotional reaction in the people taking over and the physicians they ultimately came to control.  Nobody thought that cost effectiveness was the same thing as cost shifting to correctional systems.

The second aspect is the explicit control of physicians by managed care companies and a conflict of interest that greatly exceeds that of any other industry.   Rosenbaum's three articles are all focused on the pharmaceutical or medical device industries.  There is no mention of the managed care industry or its spinoffs, despite the fact that it controls the medical care of over 80% of Americans.  As I have consistently pointed out, the theoretical concerns of the affiliations of authors on research papers about drugs or medical devices is nothing compared with a managed care company that tells your physician that you need to be discharged from a hospital or use a particular medicine that the physician is not recommending.  In the case of psychiatric care, that company is free to make even more life altering decisions such as denying a patient with a drug addiction any functional detox services, deciding that a patient with significant suicide risks can be treated on an outpatient basis, or maintaining a person in a disabled state with minimal treatment options for a complete recovery.  The regulatory environment that concentrates that much power in an industry that can generate profits by denying care is a complex story, but it all started with an ethical environment  that blamed physicians for the high cost of health care.  That physicianscold environment has too many elements in common with the pharmascold environment to ignore.  In both cases there is a predominate moral bias that greatly oversimplifies the problem and at least in the case of managed care leads to clear long term adverse consequences.              

The good news is that these articles have been published along with the evidence that moral reasoning can be seriously flawed and associated with biases.  Rosenbaum's focus has clearly been on the relationship between physicians and the pharmaceutical or medical device industry.  She has discussed her personal experience as a Cardiologist and how it has affected her largely in terms of interventions, statin therapy, and as a potential consultant to the industry.  Psychiatry has been an easier target for the same biases and rhetoric that she lists in her article.  I pointed it out in a Washington Post article where the narrative was clearly skewed to fit the idea that psychiatry was corrupted by Big Pharma and attempting to make it easier to diagnose depression in order to sell more antidepressants.  That article included selected information to make it seem like the American Psychiatric Association was the only professional organization to make advertising profits from Big Pharma.  The suggested quid pro quo for advertising revenue should be absurd to anyone familiar with advertising but it was not to this reporter.  But the real issue was that the DSM does not recommend treatment anyway and the majority (80%) prescribers who treat depression don't use a DSM-5 or even care about what it says.  Less formal approaches adopt a similar scolding moralistic tone toward psychiatry that is possible only by ignoring the deficiencies in other medical fields and idealizing them while devaluing psychiatry.

I think that Rosenbaum's articles are must reads, especially for psychiatrists who may be unfamiliar with rhetoric, moral reasoning, and politics.  That may be why physicians in general have been inept in mounting any kind of a counterattack against political strategies that work by changing the ethical climate.  These articles provide some points for discussion.   Watching the counterattacks will also be instructive.      


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

1: Rosenbaum L. Beyond moral outrage--weighing the trade-offs of COI regulation. N Engl J Med. 2015 May 21;372(21):2064-8. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1502498. PubMed PMID: 25992752.

Bias Cuts Both Ways

Lisa Rosenbaum's second article (1) in a series of three appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine this week.  It continues the theme that bias is more complicated than following the money (or pens or pizza slices).  It was interesting to note the response to the original article.  On at least one blog a poster apparently Googled Dr. Rosenbaum in order to point out all of her potential conflicts of interest.  It probably would have been more relevant to look at the standard International Committee of Medical Journal Editors disclosure form on file at the NEJM.  But it does provide a good example of one of the references in this week's piece - financial disclosure (or in this case suspicion) as an ad hominem approach to evaluating science.  In a similar vein, one of the authors of a previous NEJM editorial pointed out that the science has to stand on its own merit independent of disclosures or credentials.

The initial part of the article points out a fact that has always seemed pretty obvious to me.  Association is often used to suggest that there are significant meaningful conflicts of interest.  The oft quoted statistic is that 94% of physicians have "relationships with the industry".  This includes counting drug samples or donuts in the workplace as a significant relationship.  One of my previous employers decided that all hospital employees should participate in "donut rounds" and not just the physicians.  I viewed this as a pseudo-egalitarian managed care tactic, but by definition that means that 100% of the employees at that hospital had a "relationship with the industry".  The article also points out that physicians who request drugs be included in a formulary are also more likely to have industry relationships than not.  I have a history of being on two separate Pharmacy and Therapeutics (P&T) Committees of a major healthcare system and a major hospital where the overriding biases were drug cost and deals with pharmaceutical companies.  There were major changes on a year to year basis due to price differences in the cost of commonly prescribed drugs and they were often based on the flawed assumption that all drugs in the same class are equivalent.  On the other hand if an exclusive deal could be made, that company might also be able to combine that with a preferred deal for a more common drug.  It was a curious situation where decisions that were supposed to be science based were not.   The P&T Committee was biased by the managed care industry operating strictly on a cost basis.

I decided to part ways with the P&T Committee on the day we were presented with forms to fully disclose all of our finances to assure there were no conflicts of interest.  The usual hype about how we were all cherished guardians of the public trust was included.  I thought about it for a second and looked around the room.  There were approximately 15 MDs and 4 PharmDs on the committee.  Some of the brightest and most well read staff in the organization.  I ran the hypothetical through my mind: "What are the odds that if I owned stock in XYZ Pharmaceutical that I could convince my 20 colleagues that it was a good idea to put their most expensive drug on the formulary just based on my word?  What are the odds that I could overcome the predominate bias of the financial well being of the company that employed all of us?  What are the odds that if I accomplished those first two unattainable goals that I would actually see a profit in my XYZ Stock?"  I also thought about the drug approvals that we did based solely on public relations considerations.  Drugs that were practically worthless, but that were demanded by advocates for incurable diseases.  The explicit decision was that we did not want to run afoul of some of the very vocal advocates for those illnesses.  It would be bad public relations and press.  I looked back at the 5 page disclosure form and decided that I was not going to play that game.  I was not going to pretend for one second that I needed to be vetted by an organization that apparently saw itself as destined for sainthood.  I walked away at that time.  I had long been familiar with the other bias listed in the Rosenbaum article and how any disclosure at a CME presentation could result in mockery or discreditation.  It is difficult enough to present the pertinent information to an audience who may want to be entertained without being the butt of jokes as a sponsored presenter.  Any way you look at it my behavior was a reaction to a modern day witch hunt mentality and I was not about to be declared a witch.  Even beyond that, I was not the only "clean" person in the room.  Getting heavy handed about a conflict of interest disclosure as a public relations gimmick after many of us had already figured it out 20 years ago was more than a little insulting.

Rosenbaum also discusses a previous study from the NEJM (2) that as far as I can tell has not received press anywhere else.  In this study, the authors designed identical fake clinical trial report abstracts of studies with varying methodological rigor.  The studies had three possible funding disclosures - the pharmaceutical industry, the NIH or none.  In this experiment the internists involved in the study were less likely to read the entire report, less likely to prescribe the study medication, and less likely to see the experiments as rigorously conducted if they were sponsored by industry rather than the NIH.  They were half as likely to prescribe medications recommended in an industry sponsored trial than an NIH sponsored trial.   The authors were naturally concerned that physicians would be skeptical of even high quality but industry sponsored trials and that might slow the acceptance of that information in clinical practice.

In an interesting study done by the industry that same year,  a team (3) at the biotechnology firm Amgen  examined 53 studies that were considered to be 'landmark' preclinical studies in the field of oncology.  The goal was to see if they were reproducible.  The findings could be confirmed in only 6 or 11% of these papers.  The non-reproducible research led to hundreds of secondary articles and in some cases led to research that exposed patients to agents that resulted directly from the original research.  A team (4) at Bayer HealthCare did a similar review of preclinical studies to identify potential drug targets and concluded that only 25% of the work was reproducible.   That same article referenced the general industry rule that up to 50% of published results from academic settings cannot be reproduced in an industrial lab.  The Amgen and Bayer HealthCare studies suggest that is really an underestimate of what amounts to academic bias.  A common criticism leveled by Big Pharma critics is that they have benefited from all of the taxpayer funded basic science research at the NIH.  These studies suggest that there are plenty of problems with that research independent of funding stream and that they are less rather than more likely to lead to drug discovery.

In addition to unique information to examine the issues of bias (the author lists many more),  she also points out the origin of the word Pharmascolds (5) as those who "vilify the medical products industry and portray academics working with it as traitors and sellouts".  The authors here describe an inadequate public response from both the companies and the physicians who were criticized.  The full text of the reference is available online.

This is another highly informative article by Rosenbaum which demonstrates that analyzing conflict of interest is not as easy as some members of the press and some professional critics make it out to be.  She gives a great example of an 85 year old woman who needs an aortic valve replacement and what the considerations might be based on the characteristics and biases of two different Cardiologists assessing this situation.  It is even more complex in a setting where some would be quick to refer the woman to a hospice service.  In my experience outlining all of the potential biases in that situation is a significant task and one that few physicians would attempt.

Some day a more measured discussion of conflict of interest might provide a better approach.  Until then be skeptical of any critics who suggest that it is inappropriate for a physician to have a relationship with the pharmaceutical or medical devices industry just based on the face of it.  And for any physicians out there who want to take the most conservative path to avoid unwarranted criticism, stay out of the Sunshine Act database.

        


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA        
                   

1:  Rosenbaum L. Understanding bias--the case for careful study. N Engl J Med. 2015 May 14;372(20):1959-63. doi: 10.1056/NEJMms1502497. PubMed PMID: 25970055.

2:  Kesselheim AS, Robertson CT, Myers JA, Rose SL, Gillet V, Ross KM, Glynn RJ, Joffe S, Avorn J. A randomized study of how physicians interpret research funding disclosures. N Engl J Med. 2012 Sep 20;367(12):1119-27. PubMed PMID: 22992075.

3: Begley CG, Ellis LM. Drug development: Raise standards for preclinical cancer research. Nature. 2012 Mar 28;483(7391):531-3. doi: 10.1038/483531a. PubMed PMID:22460880.

4:  Prinz F, Schlange T, Asadullah K. Believe it or not: how much can we rely on published data on potential drug targets? Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2011 Aug 31;10(9):712. doi: 10.1038/nrd3439-c1. PubMed PMID: 21892149.

5:  Shaywitz DA, Stossel TP.  It's time to fight the 'pharmascolds'.   Wall Street Journal.  April 8, 2009.    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB123914780537299005 accessed on May 17, 2015.

Indignation Bias

"Moral indignation in most cases is 2% moral, 48% indignation, and 50% envy." - Vittorio De Sica


The New England Journal of Medicine has started a new series on conflicts of interest that should prove to be enlightening if the rest of the articles are as good as the first one.  In this article, Lisa Rosenbaum, MD  takes on typical cases that appear to be straightforward conflict of interest cases and thoroughly debunks the common thought process.  She provides a clear link between the outrage over the behavior of the pharmaceutical industry and an indignation based approach to regulation and conflict of interest considerations.

In the first example she looks at the issue of the 2013 cholesterol guidelines and the expansion of the target population for statin therapy.  There was the standard New York Times editorial by two physicians who concluded that the guideline "would benefit the pharmaceutical industry more than anyone else."  They referenced an article by one of the authors on the frequency of statin side effects that was later withdrawn due to an overestimate of the frequency of side effects.  They challenged the credibility of  the guideline writers suggesting that they needed to be free from "influence, conscious or unconscious".  Rosenbaum reviews the checks and balances in place for the writing of this guideline in a manner reminiscent of my analysis of a Washington Post commentary on the DSM-5 diagnosis of depression.  In both cases, the safeguards in place are overlooked, the benefit to the pharmaceutical industry  overestimated, and the authors of these critical articles are never challenged.  She asks the important question: "So why the rush to conclude that the guidelines were an industry plot?"  It is also interesting from the perspective of psychiatry where the field would never get that kind of break.  The question for psychiatry is:  "Why the rush to judgment to conclude that the guidelines were a plot between psychiatrists everywhere and industry?"

The Jesse Gelsinger case was examined next.  Mr. Gelsinger was an 18 year old man with ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency.  He volunteered for a research protocol examining gene therapy for the disorder.  The ethical considerations included the fact that the researchers were advised that it was not ethical for them to test the protocol in affected babies who might benefit if it was successful because that would be considered coercion.  There was also an issue relating to the reporting of a complication of the therapy by basic science researchers.  Rosenbaum points out that after Jesse Gelsigner's death due to the research, the popular explanation for what happened was that the lead researcher had an equity position in a gene-therapy company.  There were numerous safeguards in place including a lack of a direct connection between sponsorship of the trial, a university prohibition of the lead researcher in patient enrollment or interaction,  and that same researcher asking a colleague to be the lead investigator in that trial.  The research had also been approved by more than one Institutional Review Board (IRB).  Most IRBs require a review of the scientific merit of the research before considering it on ethical grounds.   Since this was a protocol for the first human experiment in gene therapy, the vetting was unusually rigorous:

"The OTCD gene therapy protocol and the associated consent document underwent extensive review including IRBs at three institutions, the Recombinant DNA Advisory Committee, the Oversight Committee of the General Clinical Research Center of the University of Pennsylvania, and the FDA."  (reference 2)

 Please read the entire paper on line for the complexities of this case.  For the purpose of the NEJM article the relevant section had to do with Wilson recommendations of why the appearance of conflict of interest maybe all that counts.  After disclosing everything that he did  to minimize financial conflicts of interest Wilson concludes:

"I conclude that it is impossible to manage perceptions of conflicts of interest in the context of highly scrutinized clinical trials, particularly where there is a tragic outcome....." (reference 2, p 155).

That is where Rosenbaum's article gets interesting.  She introduces a concept that gets very little play in clinical medicine and one that has not had much play in psychology until the past decade and that is emotional reasoning.  There are physiological and evolutionary reasons why emotions play a large role in day to day reasoning.  In patients with a pathological loss of emotional reasoning there are significant problems in day-to-day decision making.  Diagnostic reasoning in medicine on the other hand is often described as a purely intellectual  process.  Psychiatrists  encounter this in our colleagues.  I can recall for example, confronting a Cardiology resident with the fact that her agitated patient did not have an acute exacerbation of bipolar disorder like she suspected and  did not need transfer to Psychiatry, but in fact had just had a stroke and was aphasic.  "What the hell do you know about strokes?  What do psychiatrists know about neurology?"  she stated forcefully as she rapidly escalated herself.   I calmly back pedaled and said: "Get your attending to confirm the findings and the diagnosis and if he doesn't - call me back.  But right now your patient has aphasia and has right upper extremity weakness and needs to go to the Neurology service."  Within an hour that patient was under the care of the Neurology service.  My point being that level of emotion or in this case emotional biasing really doesn't show up in any of the case records or diagnostic reasoning in the New England Journal of Medicine.  Everything is cool, dry, and pure Bayesian analysis.

Rosenbaum likes the work of a social psychologist Robert Zajonc who was one of the pioneers in this area.  If most decisions begin with a feeling, what persisting feeling may be there in the case of decisions about conflict of interest.  She had previously cited numerous legal infractions and penalties against most of the major pharmaceutical manufacturers.  It should not be surprising that the persistent emotional decision making involving that industry is going to be rather negative and miss the complexities and information that runs counter to that emotion.  I think back to one of the basic admonitions of grandmothers everywhere from my generation: "If there is one thing I can't stand it is a liar!"  I reflected on that over the course of my years in medicine as I realized that the reality is that everybody lies and they lie all the time.  But if you are indoctrinated to that rule and you have a definite emotion associated with it, you should be able to predict the direction of the decision.  You only have to look as far as Cognitive Appraisal Theory (4) for the predictable results when anger is that emotion.  To make it real, in the case of ongoing problem with the pharmaceutical industry you will see their responsibility as high and any adverse outcomes as being totally in their control.  You will be very certain about your decision, irrespective of what the reality is.  One example previously mentioned is the idea that the new cholesterol guidelines would be a windfall for the pharmaceutical industry when the vast majority of the prescriptions are for generic statins.  There will be a contamination effect on everyone associated with those companies and as long as the underlying emotion persists the associates will be predictably condemned with the same level of certainty and any negative events will be perceived as being under the complete control of the individuals involved.  There can be no unanticipated adverse outcomes or complications.        

The most concerning aspect of this kind of emotional bias is that people seem to be completely unaware of the fact that they have been swept up in it.  To them, their decisions all seem reality based.  The biasing effect in emotional reasoning has the same predictable effect in paranoid psychotic states, road rage, and Little League parents.  It is certainly alive and well in practically all aspects of public opinion when it comes to psychiatry.  Many blogs and Internet sites seem nothing more than a lens to focus rageful commentary against the profession, and further indignation if any psychiatrist dares to speak out against many of these practices.

I think indignation bias explains a lot, particularly attitudes toward psychiatry but also overly rigid thinking in the case of complex decisions and unpredictable negative outcomes.  It has allowed an irrational connection between Big Pharma and psychiatry and for many people to profit from focusing anger against the profession.  And per Dr. Rosenfeld it is not conducive to rational regulations of the industry, but it seems that at least the marketing end of those businesses seem content to see their "pushback" as being the cost of doing business.  Even marketers could benefit from educating themselves about the negative future effects of emotional decision-making against their industry.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA


References:


1:  Rosenbaum L. Reconnecting the Dots - Reinterpreting Industry-Physician Relations. N Engl J Med. 2015 May 7;372(19):1860-1864. PubMed PMID: 25946288.

2:  Wilson JM. Lessons learned from the gene therapy trial for ornithine transcarbamylase deficiency. Mol Genet Metab. 2009 Apr;96(4):151-7. doi: 10.1016/j.ymgme.2008.12.016. Epub 2009 Feb 10. PubMed PMID: 19211285.

3:  Lerner JS, Li Y, Valdesolo P, Kassam KS. Emotion and decision making. Annu RevPsychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:799-823. doi: 10.1146/annurev-psych-010213-115043. Epub 2014 Sep 22. PubMed PMID: 25251484.

4:  Lerner JS, Keltner D. 2000. Beyond valence: toward a model of emotion-specific influences on judgment and choice. Cogn. Emot. 14(4):479.



Supplementary 1:  According to UpToDate, the gene therapy trial mentioned in the above reference was cancelled after the death of Jesse Gelsinger.  He was the 19th patient in the trial and metabolic correction of the other 18 patients did not occur.  (Topic 2923)

Supplementary 2:  Image used at the top of this post is a Shutterstock standard license download.

Supplementary 3:  Quote from Vittorio De Sica is from Stereophile June 2015, p 125.

How Does The IOM Ignore The Single Most Important Conflict of Interest?

Another free 28 minutes of work for corporate America on their prior authorization procedure.  I won't type out the dialogue and arbitrary holds along the way.  This time I was referred by the pharmacy to one of the major Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) and after negotiating their queue and listening to about 15 minutes of pure nonsense (privacy notifications for veterans, Medicare programs, etc) I reached a human being.  At that point he advised me that the PBM was not responsible for this particular prescription and I had to contact their insurance company.  He gave me the number and connected me, but of course it involved a queue that had similar recorded messages and then had a difficult time understanding my voice saying: "I am a provider."  I eventually spoke with a human being who had to look up the circumstances that would allow her to approve the prior authorization.  She had no apparent medical training and the criteria that she was reading out of a book could have been applied as easily on the front end by a pharmacist to save me from 28 minutes of free work for a PBM.  And keep in mind this was one prescription that the patient had already been taking.

There is really no excuse at all for this ongoing charade.  At the same time professional groups like the AMA are not able to take any action that would alleviate this burden.  Managed care companies have institutionalized these rules in most states for decades at this point.  It was shocking when I first discovered that.  Look at the state statues and realize that rules stacked against you and your patients are the law.  The law mandates that you need to do all of this work for free for a managed care company.

Today,  I came up with a new idea.  Attorney Generals in the State of Minnesota have a record of activism against health care companies and unfair practices.  I decided to send a letter of my most recent experience with a PBM to the Attorney General's Office along with a copy of a letter I wrote as an opinion piece the Minnesota Medicine a few months ago.  That letter details how these practices disproportionately affect psychiatrists and patients with mental illnesses.  The proposed solution to the problem is a very simple one.  Instead of expecting physicians or their surrogates to endure a 28 minute telephone gauntlet in order to speak to a non professional who is unsteadily reading approval instructions out of manual - give that manual directly to the retail pharmacist.  The 28 minute call would evaporate into a 2 minute call or less.  Better yet, take the physician out of the loop entirely.  There is no way that a physician should collude with a business decision to make money for a managed care company.   If the company refuses the physician order, it should clearly be documented and the next choice should be made (if possible) and designated as not the optimal choice by the physician.

That brings me to the all important issue of conflict of interest.  You can read blogs all over the internet that discuss the issue of pharmaceutical company influence ad nauseum.  The Pharmascolds remain preoccupied with this issue and are apparently unable to see that businesses run according to business ethics (whatever that might be),  clinical trials of practically all drugs are imperfect and no matter how many repeat studies the Cochrane Collaboration wants that basic fact will not change,  and that the FDA is a flawed politically biased agency rather than the guarantor of drug safety.  These are some of the common fallacies that I see played out each day across a number of settings.  At any rate,  just based on the frequency of enraged posts any casual reader would think that this is a daily crisis.  The only significant variant is that physicians and psychiatrists in particular are blamed for the ethical shortcomings of both American businesses and government.

But when you get right down to it - what is conflict of interest?  It is probably useful to use existing definitions rather than my direct observations for the purpose of this post.  There is no more respected body than the Institute of Medicine.  They routinely publish books on health care policy that are widely quoted and their definitions carry some weight.  I don't like their entire conflict of interest policy because they equate the appearance of conflict of interest with conflict of interest.  Congress would probably also have an issue with that definition.  Their basic introductory definition from the reference at the bottom of this page is included in the table below:

  
To keep it simple let's consider the primary interest in this case to be the welfare of patients.  The secondary interests in this case are defined as:  ".... financial gain but also the desire for professional advancement, recognition for personal achievement and favors to friends and family or to students and colleagues.." (p. 47).  They qualify this by saying that financial gain is not necessarily bad and that policies reasonably focus on financial gains but:  "When a secondary interest has inappropriate weight in a decision and distorts the pursuit of a primary interest, it is exerting undue influence."  They go on to define the conflict as any set of circumstances that arises that does not necessarily compromise the primary interest of patient welfare but that merely creates a risk for doing so.

How does this apply to prior authorization?  Prior authorization certainly sets up a secondary interest.  In this case the interest is the financial well being of the managed care company or PBM and in the case of publicly held companies - their shareholders.  From the perspective of the physician the secondary interest is maintaining employment which is the worst case scenario of "professional advancement."  Most employers and insurance companies stipulate that in order to stay employed you have to actively participate in all managed care prior authorizations and utilization review.  I am sure that astute politicians will claim that these surrogates are necessary to control runaway health care costs.  That does not explain how one could come up with a new sets of businesses worth tens of billions of dollars that make their money strictly from rationing pharmaceuticals.  These are companies that arise out of thin air based on the questionable theories of politicians and business people.  It does not explain why they are currently in the business of rationing very inexpensive generic drugs.  It certainly does not explain how there is a direct correlation between managed care rationing and an over 300% increase in health care administrators in the industry.  And most importantly it does not explain the complete failure of the managed care industry to contain health care costs.  In short, anyone espousing the need for expensive administrator heavy systems to control runaway prescribing does not have a leg to stand on.  The secondary interest in this case is clear.  Prior authorization is there to make money for companies and make a lot of it and physicians are forced to participate.    

The second issue here is an interesting and important one.  Physicians don't have to be convinced by flashy ads, salespeople, free samples, or financial inducements.  They are simply coerced.  When their patients are standing in a Walgreens or CVS, they don't have the luxury of saying no or even putting it off until the next day.  A patient who they have seen and assessed needs a medication and something has to be done.  They have to jump through a managed care hoop in order to get the medication that they have already prescribed - paid for.  The only question is: "How high is that hoop?"    

When people talk to me about all of the pharmaceutical company influence and evil marketing practices I don't even blink an eye.  I would like to know how the systematic coercion of the professional judgment of physicians by for profit companies on a national scale is not a far bigger problem than trinkets and pizza from the pharmaceutical industry?  There is no bigger risk of compromising the primary interest of patient welfare.  Patient welfare is always secondary to financial interest of the company involved.  The only case where it is not is if the company agrees with the prescriber, but even then they have created strong disincentives (the gauntlet-like telephone queue) to the accomplishment of the primary goal of prescribing what the physician considers the best possible medication.

I would like to know how the Institute of Medicine can ignore this?           


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

References:

IOM (Institute of Medicine). Conflict of Interest in Medical Research, Education, and Practice. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2009.

Supplementary 1:  I consider the quotes from the IOM reference to be fair use under the US Copyright Law.

The Ethical Climate

I thought that I would comment on the recent Legislative Auditor's Report (LAR) entitled "A Clinical Drug Study at the University of Minnesota Department of Psychiatry: The Dan Markingson Case Special Review".   This review focused primarily on ethical and conflict-of-interest requirements in laws, policies, and guidelines rather than the clinical care given.

I felt compelled to comment on this report for several reasons.  First and foremost I am a Minnesota psychiatrist and I practice psychiatry.  That gives me first hand knowledge and experience in several nuances of the report that will be obvious in my commentary.  Second, I have an interest in quality psychiatric care and research.  Third, I have no conflicts of interest to report in this matter.  I have an appointment in the University of Minnesota Department of Psychiatry largely through my teaching of medical students and residents at a peripheral campus.  My primary affiliation in terms of residency training was the Hennepin-Regions program not affiliated with the University.  The last resident I was involved in supervising was from that program and over one year ago.  Teaching has always been considered to be a requirement of my work without any additional compensation.  Like practically all physicians my actual source of income was productivity-based defined as the number of patients I see.  I have not received a check from the University of Minnesota since I was a resident there in 1984.  I have no conflicts of interest with regard to any industry and encourage anyone to try to find me on the Big Pharma database.

My 23 years of working in an acute care setting in this state uniquely qualifies me to address issues involving civil commitment, stays of commitment, and competency to consent.  There are literally a handful of people with those qualifications in the state and I know most of them. I have also been a Peer Review Organization Reviewer in both Minnesota and Wisconsin and have experience on Human Subjects Committees, Institutional Review Boards, and Pharmacy and Therapeutic Committees for both hospitals and major healthcare organizations.  As far as I know,  I may be the only psychiatrist in the state with that combination of experience.  I list these qualifications for two reasons: they are immediately relevant to this review and they also speak to the comment from the Board of Medical Practice about how they retain their consultants.  I have offered to be their consultant on two occasions and they did not even acknowledge that I had applied.

I also need to preface my remarks to say that I have no knowledge of this case other than what is reported in the documents that I am commenting on.  There is a lack of original documents such as the FDA report that was mentioned in the LAR report.  A search on the FDA web site revealed only a PowerPoint document that ended with a description of different types of competency.  I know none of the people involved and have no working relationships with them.  I have no relatives or business associates with those relationships.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the reason for this report and investigations and that is the death of Dan Markingson.  Of all physicians, psychiatrists have the lowest threshold for the prevention of patient death.  Nobody is supposed to ever die while they are under our care.  We are the only physicians who are supposed to make an assessment of patient risk every time we see that person.  I am reviewing reports and conclusions that are far removed from the original event.  I am acutely aware of the shock to the family that occurs with these events and the effort that it takes to try to prevent them.  I want to be very clear that I am not trying to second guess or offend anybody in this report.  After reviewing hundreds or thousands of hospital records, I am fully aware of the fact that records are an inadequate substitute for the events as they actually occurred and that reviewing events in a retroscope generally changes everything.  I am also acutely aware of the fact that in the case of severe mental illness, you may only get one chance to do things correctly and the right way may be very unclear.


1.  The facts of the case are the facts of the case:

The concerns about "transparency" don't make any sense to me.  I don't think that the material facts of this case have changed since the outset.  Any time a suicide occurs in the state of Minnesota that triggers a coroner's investigation.  That coroner or investigators from the coroner's office get in contact with the doctors involved in treating the patient.  In this case there was also a malpractice case that was settled out of court, but prior to settlement this would have produced an exhaustive amount of information and detail and in a malpractice proceeding, details and opinions are gathered that are most unfavorable to the treating physicians.  The only persistent arguments in this case involves what was disclosed and when and the manner in which it was disclosed.  Many of the disclosures themselves were far from the original events and did not involve the principle parties.  It is clear from the Legislative Auditor's Report (LAR), that for the bulk of their report they read existing reports and made determinations about the adequacy of those reports and whether or not they agreed with the authors of those reports.  In some cases they submitted questions to the treating psychiatrist and interviewed the head of the Institutional Review Board.  The bulk of the report is focused on the University's Board of Regents and responses from the two past Presidents of the University in this matter.  They are basically accused of being : "...defensive, insular, and unwilling to accept criticism about the Markingson case either from within or outside the University."

2.  The Board of Medical Practice:

There should be no doubt at all that the Board of Medical Practice (BMP) is the supreme authority for physician investigation and discipline in the state.  There should be no doubt that it also has the lowest threshold for proceeding with action against any physician in the state.  The notion that in this case they were unduly influenced by a consultant with conflicts of interest is problematic.  The Executive Director of the BMP at the time of this investigation was an attorney and the remaining staff are state employees who have been investigating physicians for decades.

The process of how those investigations typically go is also instructive.  Any person in the state can make a complaint against a physician for any reason.  That triggers a letter from the BMP to that physician demanding that they personally respond and send all of the relevant records in 2 weeks or risk disciplinary action.  Once the physician response and records are obtained the BMP looks at all of the available data and determines whether any action is taken on the complaint.  They do not assess the merit of the complaint or screen complaints. They provide no safeguards for the privacy of the physician being investigated.  As a result there are thousands of complaints that are thoroughly investigated but never acted on.  Complaints are technically dismissed without action but all of the data is collected and kept on file in case there are future complaints.  The physician is notified about whether or not they are in violation of the Medical Practice Act or not.  The BMP is also insulated from political influence.   Board Members are appointed by the Governor but after that are not accountable to any politicians.

Dismissing a BMP investigation because a consultant has a conflict of interest seems to miss the mark to me.  Any physician in the state knows that of all of the possible investigations the BMP is the most rigorous and certainly carries more real weight and consequences for their career than any other professional investigation in the state.  The threshold here should be does the BMP have a conflict of interest?


3.  The Legislative Auditor's Report represents a point of view:

The document strikes me as being less than neutral.  The lack of neutrality starts with the description of a medication as a "powerful drug".  Where does a statement like that come from in a document put together by nonphysicians?  I have prescribed as much risperidone as anyone and don't consider it to be a "powerful drug".  In fact, most descriptions of a psychiatric medication that start like that are written by people who either don't know much about medication or are going to start talking about psychiatric medications or psychiatrists from a particular point of view and generally one that is not favorable.  The news media picked up on a letter from former Governor Arne Carlson and this report and in both cases characterized them as "blasting" various elements of the University.  Gov. Carlson's letter is mentioned in this report.

In the discussions of the issue of competency to consent to research, the opinion of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Mental Retardation figures prominently as well as the efforts of the Minnesota Legislature to ban committed patients from pharmaceutical research.  They also apparently tried to ban patients under a stay of commitment (similar to this specific case) but did not because:

"......National Alliance on Mental Illness Minnesota objected. According to a press account, the organization contended that “mentally ill patients benefit from experimental drugs or treatments when traditional therapy fails them.”

I think that a lot of people reading the report, might miss that important fact in the fine print.  In other words, the premier advocacy organization for patients and families with severe mental illnesses, did not want patients on stays of commitment to be banned from research.

It seems fairly clear to me that the LAR, doubts anything that Dr. Olsen has to say about the lack of financial incentives for him to enroll patients into the study.  They suggest that there may be more to it, but it should be easy to investigate.  I would think that the salaries of University employees are public record.  There does not seem to be a similar level of skepticism applied to anything that supports their main contentions.    

4.  This is an adversarial proceeding:

That should be evident but the various critics and commentators write like they are unaware of it.  When you take that perspective you grant yourself the tone of an ultimate moral authority.  There is no reason for considering any facts that contradict your facts.  There is no reason for considering any other point of view.  An attorney who was representing the University at the time was quoted and then criticized for omissions.  I thought that was standard and accepted behavior of attorneys.  Moreover in any adversarial process in the US,  I would expect one party to make the other party look as bad as possible and the party on the defensive to try to make themselves look as good as possible.  I would further speculate that at some point before the malpractice lawsuit that lawyers were telling just about everyone involved what to say or more probably not to say anything.  To criticize those comments as being "misleading" or the fact that people on the defensive in a legal case are "unwilling to discuss it" seems more than a little disingenuous to me.  All semblance of honest exchange generally evaporates with civil legal involvement and the decision to decide things on the "facts" of the case - potentially in a courtroom proceeding.  Saying that somehow those attitudes will drastically change after a lawsuit has been settled would also be disingenuous.  I know that are new approaches suggested in how these emotionally charged situations can be handled including acknowledging that mistakes had been made.  I wonder if any of the authors of those articles have ever been in a situation where there has been an unexpected death of their patient, where the expectation is that patient should not die even though they are in a much higher mortality group than their peers, and where at various points in their career they will be in contact with peers who can claim that they have never lost a patient?  Can you make any adequate decision at all in that state of mind?  I would suggest that you cannot and you will not be able to as long as the emotional turmoil continues.


5.  The issue of competency in the State of Minnesota:

One of the main points of contention in the articles in this case is whether Mr. Markingson was competent to consent to participate in a research project and whether that consent and his continuing cooperation was coerced rather than voluntary consent.  Numerous authors in the documents do not seem to recognize who is considered competent to consent in the State of Minnesota.  From the Minnesota Statute 253B.23 Subd 2:


"Subd. 2.Legal results of commitment status. (a) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter and in sections 246.15 and 246.16, no person by reason of commitment or treatment pursuant to this chapter shall be deprived of any legal right, including but not limited to the right to dispose of property, sue and be sued, execute instruments, make purchases, enter into contractual relationships, vote, and hold a driver's license. Commitment or treatment of any patient pursuant to this chapter is not a judicial determination of legal incompetency except to the extent provided in section 253B.03, subdivision 6."

In the interest of space considerations, I would invite any reader to click on the link to 253B.03.Subd 6. to read about the exceptions for medical care.  It should be clear from reading that statute that committed patients are competent consenters and that there is a hierarchy of substituted consent. There also seems to be confusion about the issue of civil commitment and court ordered antipsychotic medication with competency.  This is a common problem in acute care psychiatric settings when a committed patient needs an acute medical treatment.  These patients are considered to be competent to make these decisions.  In the case where their opinion agrees with the medical or surgical consultant there are no problems.  In the case where there is an acute life threatening problem like bleeding and they disagree the issue of competency comes into play.  In the State of Minnesota the hierarchy of substituted consent is problematic in practice.  Absent interested family members it requires an additional and separate hearing from the civil commitment hearings.  It also generally requires that the patient or family retain private legal representation for that purpose.  That creates a hurdle significant enough in most cases to prevent the timely provision of acute medical and surgical care.

I have heard the argument that the University was concerned about being "right" rather than doing the right thing.  That seems rhetorical to me.  As a physician you have no choice but to follow the laws in the state.  The issue was also commented on the LAR report by judges on pages 5, 8 , and 28 (specific judges in the case were not named).  The judges in all cases described Mr. Markingson as competent or stating that there was no evidence that he was not competent.  I really cannot think of more compelling evidence in favor of competency to make decisions than a decision by a judge hearing the actual case.

On the issue of the consent form.  I have not seen the consent form.  I have only seen a form that was a checklist of sorts to determine competency.  The LAR report includes highlights of reports from two different psychologists that may have implications for competency.  Psychiatrists are trained to assess patients for general and specific competence.  General competency has to do with the ability to function and handle one's affairs on a day to day basis.  Gutheil and Appelbaum suggest that this includes a mix of current awareness, an ability to assess the current facts of a situation, an ability to adequately process risk/benefit information, and day-to-day functioning (3).  Specific competence is more focused and the person needs to be able to elaborate their thought process and demonstrate that they are reasoning in a logical manner.  The same authors have an action guide (p. 255) about what needs to be down to complete either type of competency evaluation.  The bottom line is that it takes time and I doubt that any antipsychotic trial would use that standard.  If they did there would be two problems.  The first would be reliability problems between psychiatrists doing those evaluations.  The second would be that there would be a significant number of people screened who would not pass the evaluation.  I was not able to find any literature looking at this issue (that is rigorous competency evaluations in patients with psychosis who were research candidates).   A more objective evaluation of general competency could be done, and the approach to specific competency for consent to research needs a lot more work.  These competency issues are really no different for patient enrolled in research projects outside of the field of psychiatry.  A good general validated approach to the issue of specific competency to consent to pharmaceutical research would benefit that entire field.

That said, as an investigator I cannot recall any consent form that did not clearly say that the research subject could quit at any time and that their decision to quit would not in any way affect current or future medical care that they would receive in the health care system.  That is all part of a standard research consent.  


6.  Pharmaceutical research and "evidence-based" medicine in general:  

The mechanics of the project are familiar to me from my participation on research projects as an investigator.  Practically all studies have research coordinators that do not have any medical credentials.  They are necessary because of the sheer amount of paperwork involved in drug trials. The research coordinators are the representatives of the study to families and on the other end of the spectrum they are responsible for the protocol paperwork that is submitted to the FDA.  There appears to be no uniform qualification for these research coordinators and it does not appear to be career path work.

Research now appears to reflect clinical practice and that is not a good thing,  In some of the research that I participated in in the 1980s, the initial phase of antipsychotic trials were done for a specified period of time in an inpatient unit.  The thinking was that disrupting a patient's maintenance medication could lead to acute exacerbations of psychosis.  It certainly did that in the research that I was involved with.  Even in the case of known medications, dose equivalency is always an issue when changing from one medication to another.

In this case the study involved a trial of medications (quetiapine, risperidone, and olanzapine) that had already been approved by the FDA.  The question of whether that study was even necessary could have been answered by any acute care inpatient psychiatrist.  By the time of the original study I had already treated hundreds of patients with all of the study medications in acute care inpatient settings.  Looking at one of the publications, the authors describe a sample size of 400 patients (4).  Like most acute care psychiatrists I have treated multiples of that number and there were no surprising results from this study.  At some level the idea that all of these double blind studies using human subjects needs to be challenged.  It comes from the highest levels of so-called "evidence-based" medicine.  Reading thorough the Cochrane Collaboration about any antipsychotic drug (or practically any medications for any indication) - you will see the same conclusions - inadequate methodology and further study is necessary.  That is not true and at this point I would see those conclusions as approaching the level of a fallacy.  Do I really need a large multi-center study to tell me that people who do not respond to a medication or don't tolerate it may not want to take it?  That information is not only useless to me, but I have already made the necessary changes a lot faster than any research protocol can change during day to day clinical care.  Today's so-called "evidence based" world doesn't give clinicians on the front lines nearly enough credit.  If I had to wait for the blessing of the Cochrane Collaboration I would be incapable of doing my work.

Given the effort required to design and run these trials and the difficulty in recruiting patients is the research question in this study that important?  I would suggest that it is not as evidenced by the fact that physicians like me in clinical practice already know the answers and we are a lot faster on our feet than "evidence-based medicine".  This is currently problem at the national level and it is not just a local problem in Minnesota.  It also has significant political implications.

I pointed out this issue in an e-mail to one of the top epidemiologists in the world a few months ago - so far no response.


7.  The care of people with severe mental illnesses in general:

The outline that I provided on the elements of good psychiatric care as advice to residents still applies here.  There are some additional considerations that can only be honed by years of experience in these settings.  Foremost among then is recognizing the life threatening nature of severe mental illness.  A lot of people with no direct responsibility and concern for the patient's well being do not have this concern or deal with it in the abstract.  We live in a culture where there is not only a bias against this idea but even the idea that mental illnesses exist.  It should not be surprising that people find it difficult to accept the idea that severe mental illnesses exist,  but also that they represent a high level of risk to the individual.  Even people who should know better have a hard time keeping that latter concept in clear focus.  When I do an assessment, I am looking for anything possible that will allow me to look at future risk and what I can do to minimize it.  But even then, we currently lack a technology that can produce the degree of certainty that most of us would like.  The most important aspect of this kind of care is open communication with the patient and as many friends and family as possible.  It is not a 9 to 4 job.  The lines of communication with the clinician or physicians covering for them need to be open at all times.  Any acute changes need to be carefully assessed.  In this age where people with severe problems are dismissed from emergency departments, there has to be a plan for respite care or emergency hospitalization that will work.   In the ideal settings those places need to be hospitable and supportive.  

The ethical climate:

Blackburn describes some characteristics of ethical climates:

"Human beings are ethical animals.  I do not mean that we naturally behave particularly well nor that we are endlessly telling each other what to do.  But we grade and evaluate, and compare and admire, and claim and justify.  We do not just "prefer" this or that, in isolation.  We prefer that our preferences are shared; we turn them into demands on each other.  Events endlessly adjust our sense of responsibility, our guilt and shame and our sense of worth of our own and that of others.  We hope for lives whose story leaves us looking admirable; we like our weaknesses to be hidden and deniable....." (p. 5)

Ethical climates are interesting.  An ethical climate can lead to the establishment of a totalitarian regime or a rich humanitarian culture.  They basically generate their own reality.  The most read post on this blog was about the issue of conflict of interest and it basically has to do with an attempt to construct or continue a certain ethical climate.  Various ethical environments are applied more selectively to psychiatry than any other medical speciality.   In this investigation I can easily argue selective attention to some of the elements in my above commentary and ignoring other elements creates a particular ethical environment despite the fact that the authors seem to agree with the main points of some of the investigations and reports that they attempt to discredit.

In that process a lot is lost in the translation - not the least of which is that we have a report that seeks to establish the Office of the Ombudsman for Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities as a monitor for drug studies in the Department of Psychiatry when there is no evidence that they are equipped to do the job.  This is apparently being done because of the way the administrations reacted to and disclosed various investigations into the original incident.  Further, the same report has disenfranchised the state's primary agency in charge of investigating and disciplining physicians based on a conflict of interest that was fully disclosed to the BMP before the consultant was hired.

It all comes down to the question: "Is this a fair analysis of the problem or is this a case of an ethical environment being engineered to produce a certain result?"

This is more than a moot question given the concrete recommendations of the report.


George Dawson, MD, DFAPA




1:  Legislative Auditor's Report entitled "A Clinical Drug Study at the University of Minnesota Department of Psychiatry: The Dan Markingson Case Special Review".  March 29, 2015.

2:  Simon Blackburn.  Being Good - A Short Introduction to Ethics.  Oxford University Press, New York, 2001.

3:  Thomas G. Gutheil, Paul S. Appelbaum.  Clinical Handbook of Psychiatry and The Law, 3rd ed.  Lippincott Williams and Wilkins, Philadelphia, 2000.

4:  Perkins DO, Gu H, Weiden PJ, McEvoy JP, Hamer RM, Lieberman JA. Comparison of Atypicals in First Episode study group. Predictors of treatment discontinuation and medication nonadherence in patients recovering from a first episode of schizophrenia, schizophreniform disorder, or schizoaffective disorder: a randomized, double-blind, flexible-dose, multicenter study. J Clin Psychiatry. 2008 Jan;69(1):106-13. PubMed PMID: 18312044.

Stakeholders? I Don't Think So.

Stakeholder Relationships

I don't know when I first heard the term.  My guess is that it was about 15-20 years ago.  I am sure that it came up during a meeting about "productivity expectations" and contract negotiations.  In case you missed it productivity is a grand concept courtesy of the US Government and managed care industry.  It was designed to get doctors to work a lot more for lot less.  Increased regulatory leverage against physicians was an added bonus.  If you happen to be a psychiatrist the reimbursement as indicated in some of my early posts can be trivial.  That is all before a managed care company or the government steps in and makes a totally subjective determination based on documentation that enough bullet points may not have been covered to justify a particular billing code.  In that case the penalties range from incarceration in federal prison (yes I was in a seminar where that was the message) to a managed care company deciding that you need to pay them back by adjusting your codes to lower levels and demanding reimbursement.  Say what you want about physicians, the natural question is how a group of fairly bright people end up in such a hapless position?  I have had lawyers confide in me that they would never accept the kind of harassment and financial manipulations that have been forced on physicians.  I suppose arguments have been made by politicians that it should be an accepted condition by physicians, especially those who sign on for government programs for the most needy.  Practicing medicine is after all a privilege right?

A lot of it comes down to boundaries.  I tried to illustrate these boundaries in the diagrams at the top of this post.  In the diagram at the top, the boundaries are fairly porous.  Looking back at how the important medical organizations sold some of these concepts to their members and continue to sell them today, it usually involves somebody hitting the panic button and someone suggesting that the solution is the next great idea from a business consultant or politician.  History illustrates that we have followed a long road of nonsolutions for the past 30 years.  The reason for that has been obvious to me.  Professional organizations frequently allow the government and the industry and their ideas direct access to the highest levels of governance in our organizations and the solutions from these special interest groups follow.  The special interests are often in the form of a person or persons who happen to be true believers and may coincidentally have some employment arrangement or guru role with business or government.   The entire scheme of rationing medical and psychiatric services to improve the bottom line of insurance companies is the best case in point.  After all, what comes out of the intersection of the three spheres in the top diagram?  The "cost effective" rhetoric for one.  Every President of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) or the American Medical Association (AMA) at some point utters these words and these words are included in documents of most APA District Branches.   We are living in a time when we have the worst infrastructure and systems of treatment for psychiatric and substance use problems in the last 30 years.  People are no longer adequately treated in psychiatric hospitals.  State hospital systems are in shambles.  County jails and state prisons have become places to house people with severe mental illnesses.  Outpatient clinics are placing more people than ever on generic antidepressants based on a rating scale score.  Medications are both over and under prescribed based on the lack of expertise and the lack of infrastructure necessary for detoxification, social interventions and psychological treatments.  The term cost effective should no longer be used by any psychiatrist or professional organization.  We should have started spending more money on treating severe mental illnesses about 20 years ago.

What happens if we remove the term cost-effective from the top diagram of muddled boundaries where the administrators in all organizations essentially say the same thing?  In the lower diagram we can actually hear the people in each sphere saying different things.  It is possible for physicians to say for example that across the board cost cutting is the tool of incompetent administrators.  It is possible for psychiatrists to say that over time various incentives seem to have been in place that favored all specialties over time except psychiatry.  It is possible for physicians to say that there is a huge gap between the care that governments are funding and what professional standards really are.   It is possible for psychiatrists to say that the way state hospitals are managed by government bureaucrats is hideous and that somebody with knowledge of staff dynamics and patient safety needs to be administering these places - not somebody with no training.  All of these things are possible if there is an actual boundary between the professional organization and the government and their friends in the business community.

I know that there are plenty of skeptics out there in the physician community.  I am not even interested in what the business people or politicians/regulators have to say because of conflict of interest considerations.   I also left out the professional boards including the American Board of Medical Specialities (ABMS) and the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology for the same reasons - no boundaries and plenty of conflicts of interest.  The skeptics out there who I would like to address are the physicians just like me.  We go to work every day and know it is a hard job made a lot harder by all of the other so-called stakeholders.

If a clearer example is needed,  allow me to direct you to what appears to be a cooperative effort between the professional organizations and Medicare involving their pay-for-performance initiative (see paragraphs 6 and 7).   That initiative is based on Physician Quality reporting System (PQRS) that requires physicians to report on a number of measure beginning in 2015 in order to avoid penalties. The reporting is for the obvious convenience of fulfilling the political promise of being able to "compare" physicians on a series of unvalidated measures. This page on the APA web site is off-putting enough for anyone who has actually read it. The APA has deactivated a link that would bring the reader to a 50+ page document written by psychiatrists on quality markers for major depression. The links to that document are currently gone and a comprehensive list of the 2015 PQRS individual measures are not yet available. The APA and AMA have clearly been cooperative with these efforts. The message to individual clinicians is the same - we will waste as much of your time on unreimbursed paperwork to satisfy our collective political arrogance as we want.  These measures are an insult to any working person.  Instead of paying physicians to generate this data, the government's approach is to penalize physicians if the data is not collected and that penalty increases from 1.5% this year to 2% next year on the worst reimbursement source for physicians. It should not be surprising that psychiatrists are rapidly shifting to different methods of reimbursement.

When I got home tonight, I was greeted by a letter from the AMA notifying me that my membership had expired.  It proceeded to tell me what I was missing if I did not renew:

"Full access to online toolkits for working with Physician Transparency Reports (Sunshine Act) and managing HIPPA requirements for your practice.

Our detailed guides to help you navigate employment contract negotiations with hospitals and groups ($149 each, free to members)"

There are probably no better reasons to not renew the membership.  In all three cases, the boundary-less relationships with the federal government and the managed care industry have created these unnecessary burdens.   Like most organizations without boundaries the AMA has found a way to cash in on the new regulatory landscape that they failed to protect their members from in the first place.  Their expired membership notification is an insult to any dedicated member of the profession.

It is time to rewrite the relationship between medical professional organizations and the other so-called stakeholders.  Nobody should have a stake in a profession except those who have paid their dues in time, energy, personal sacrifice and finances and the people who seek their services.  It is time to realize that there are no benefits to a "place at the table" especially when political fees paid by physicians are basically mocked in Washington compared with the businesses who continue to exploit us.



George Dawson, MD, DFAPA

Life Is Not A Randomized Double Blind Controlled Clinical Trial

Or  what is wrong with placebo controlled clinical trials and transparency?

I was in an imaginary meeting with a bunch of Internists and Psychiatrists.  We were debating the available and meager literature on the use of trazodone for sleep.  We got into one of my favorite topics - the double blind placebo controlled trial and that catch all "Evidence based medicine."  The dialogue went something like this:

Internist:  "The evidence from double blind placebo controlled trials is weak for trazodone....."

Me:  "Do I need a double blind placebo controlled trial to tell me to prescribe trazodone for sleep?"

Internist: "Are you saying you don't need evidence.  Oh wait, I was at a conference where the head of the society stood up and and gave evidence that clinical trials have their limitations.  Like they are subsequently proven to not be true...."

Me:  "That is not what I am talking about.  I am talking about all of the hype out there that only 40% of people recover from antidepressants or that they are no better than placebo........"

Internist: "But you do have the algorithmic approaches that show...."

Me:  "Yada, yada, yada - for every algorithm, there is somebody with a meta-analysis to show it is wrong.  No I am talking about the ridiculous notion that psychiatrists could stay in business or want to stay in business if only 40% of the people they treat got better.  If that was true I would have become a recluse 20 years ago and just walked away."

General laughter

Internist: "I would kill for a 40% response rate for some of the problems that I treat."

And so on........

This informal conversation among colleagues is illustrative of the recent arguments that focus on physicians and generally psychiatrists more than other physicians that treatments are ineffective.  They are based on an oversimplified view of placebo controlled clinical trials and conflict of interest.  Many times there are no clear points of demarcation between what is a scientific issue (the technical aspects of the clinical trial) and the ethical issue (conflict of interest issues that may compromise the scientific results).   You can read all about current technical problems with clinical trials, like the common observation that there is a lack of generalizability to clinical populations compared with the highly selected and trial sample that in the case of psychiatry generally has much milder forms of the illness being studied.  Here are a few of the concerns that I don't see being discussed anywhere, especially when it comes to clinical trials of psychiatric interventions:

1.  The crude state of clinical trials:  Clinical trials in psychiatry are tremendously unsophisticated. The trial result generally depends on rating scale or clinician global rating scale results that grossly oversimplify the condition and measure parameters that are irrelevant in clinical settings.  The best example I can think of is depression rating scales that list DSM criteria for depression and then apply a Likert dimension to those symptoms.  In clinical practice it is common to see hundreds of patients with the same score on this scale who have a full spectrum of disability from absolutely none to totally disabled.  Which population might be more likely to exhibit an antidepressant effect?  It is also common to see medically ill patients with insomnia who may score as mildly to moderately depressed who are physically ill and not depressed at all.   The same problems exist with clinical trials of schizophrenia, anxiety and Alzheimer's disease.   When this weak technology is combined with a selection process that eliminates clinical populations with the most severe illness, it should not be surprising that any treatment being studied has a weak effect.

2.  A weak clinical trials data base:  One of the clarion calls of so-called evidence based medicine is the Cochrane Collaboration.  I have looked up hundreds of their reviews and the majority of those reviews of both medical and psychiatric studies is: "insufficient results and methodologically unsound".  I suppose it is good to have somebody make that statement, but if you have proclaimed that you are an evidence based physician - you have nothing to go on.  In fact, at some point you stop going to Cochrane because the results are fairly predictable.   Even in the case where you have a result does it apply to the patient you are seeing?  I don't see many Cochrane studies depressed patients that have right bundle branch block, ventricular premature contractions, or complex atrial fibrillation - all common patients seen in clinical practice.  How many more research papers do I have to read that conclude that "more research is needed" while continued inadequate trials are being published and analyzed by Cochrane?  From the current trends and political correctness of evidence based medicine this will go on forever.  The practical aspects are the very large costs of trials.  That is the real reason that pharmaceutical companies (Big Pharma) sponsor these trials.  The political system in the US has decided to farm out clinical trials to private for-profit companies in the exact manner that the US government has farmed out management of the entire health care system.  In these systems Big Pharma absorbs a disproportionate amount of criticism relative to managed care companies.  Managed care has equated "medically necessary" care with care that can be provided in the form of a pill.

3.  The politicalization of clinical trials:  No clinical trials of psychiatric medications can be done these days without an eye to the politically relevant dimensions.  A new antidepressant needs to get as many FDA approved indications as possible in order to beat the political restrictions of utilization review by managed care companies.   That would include indications not only for depression, anxiety, panic, and social anxiety but also chronic pain and possibly attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).  The best way to beat utilization review is to have the only FDA approved indication in the class.  That is also applied to atypical antipsychotics and that fact seems to escape the critics who focus on the number of prescriptions and what that implies.  Physicians are pawns in a game when there are no suitable tolerated medications for bipolar disorder depression and there are atypical antipsychotics for that indication.  These current political factors in clinical trials preclude a focus on cognition, functional capacity, and endophenotypes - all potentially much more valuable than a focus on diagnostic criteria or rating scales based on those criteria.

4.  A characterization that the average physician is ignorant - at best:  Any political movement is associated with ugly rhetoric.   There has clearly been an effort to stampede any physicians with reservations about evidence based medicine into a Neanderthal category.  The irony is that the criticism often comes from sources like managed care companies, medical certification authorities and the press (bloggers) - all entities with their own high levels of conflict of interest.  Common rhetoric used against psychiatrists has been: "You just don't want to be measured".  If the criticism originates from a government, managed care company or administrative authority there is often the attached explicit threat: "Those  days are over!".  The obvious implicit observation is that medicine and psychiatry is now being run by people who don't know anything at all about medicine and there is plenty of evidence on this blog to back that up.

Many critics seem to get a lot of mileage out of the position that they seem to be particularly anointed to criticize the field.   That seems especially true if they happen to be a physician as in: "My colleagues certainly seem to be a bunch of chumps and therfore can be rejected on a wholesale basis or of course listen to me for enlightenment".  I have never witnessed that level of incompetence in any group of physicians where I have practiced across multiple settings.

5.  The use of statistics for rhetorical purposes:  At this stage after reading research for that past 35 years, I am convinced that you can come up with a meta-analysis that will show whatever you want it to show.  Several years ago in the New England Journal of Medicine there was a study that looked at how well meta-analyses predict the results of available large scale clinical trials.  That study showed 2/3 times.  It is common to see a result and then see a meta-analysis that "disproves" the clinical trials result.  Nobody seems very interested in looking in detail at how sound that meta-analysis was.

Today we have a large number of questionably valuable clinical indicators or quality care markers that are often based on the political rhetoric of the government and managed care organizations.   They may be invalid on the face of it, but there is a second equally important aspect.   These same organizations have no valid approach to looking at the statistics of longitudinal data.  They will look at clinic results or even results from the same physician and convert them all to a numerator and a denominator.  Whether that fraction means anything or not is anybody's guess, but there is an administrator somewhere who will be happy to tell you all about it.

6.  False assumptions about the expertise of physicians:  Much of the rhetoric above is focused on physicians.   Psychiatrists as the most politically disenfranchised group are a frequent target.  In the past years we have endured the ideas that medical treatments being prescribed are ineffective and overprescribed.  That brings us full circle to the opening imaginary conversation.  Physicians are trained to focus on several goals including acute treatment, treatment of chronic problems, and providing care for the dying.  The psychiatrists and physicians that I have had the pleasure of working with have been highly effective is achieving those goals.  When I look at the modest results of poorly designed clinical trials all I can do is shake my head.  I would have quit a long time ago if my diagnostic or treatment capabilities were accurately described in clinical trials and most physicians would have.  Informed clinical treatment is a series of often rapid changes in course, rejecting poorly tolerated treatments and looking for things that work better along the way.  I can change the course of treatment depicted in a clinical trial in one day.  In the trial that result is carried to the end as a failure.  How is it that a clinical trial or this evidence would predict my treatment results by mean?  If a treatment is ineffective or not tolerated in my practice, I don't stop treatment and call that person an unsuccessful intent-to-treat subject.  I work with them to establish effective treatment - often in the same time frame as a clinical trial.  Is it quite literally absurd to suggest that clinical trials accurately describe what will happen in clinical practice and yet that is the state of discourse.

7.  The false promise of transparency:  Anyone who followed politics knows that disclosing potential conflicts of interest  is meaningless in the case of politicians.  The general idea is that politicians would refrain from either accepting money from sources where they are involved politically or just not be involved in that area of legislation.  In reality that does not happen.  Sometimes the politicians involved will speak out against any suggestion that there is a connection between the money they receive and their legislative record even when their activities are consistent with a financial conflict of interest.  The sunlight of transparency that many of the critics talk about simply legitimizes ongoing involvement in areas of potential conflict of interest.   Disclosure is a stamp of approval for involvement.  All of that can be researched on Congressional watchdog sites.   The new CMS web site that posts payments to doctors is hyped as a way to appease all of the critics who seem clueless about transparency.  For an eye opener take a look at their decision point on conflict of interest.  CMS seems much more charitable than the typical blogger, politician or journalist with this disclaimer:

"Sharing information about financial relationships alone is not enough to decide whether they’re beneficial or improper.  Just because there are financial ties doesn’t mean that anyone is doing anything wrong.  Transparency will shed light on the nature and extent of these financial relationships and will hopefully discourage the development of inappropriate relationships.  Given the complexity of disclosure and the importance of discouraging inappropriate relationships without harming beneficial ones, CMS has worked closely with stakeholders to better understand the current scope of the interactions between physicians, teaching hospitals, and industry manufacturers."

8.  A lack of appreciation of the regulatory environment:  In the rush to condemn Big Pharma and anyone associated with them, critics often have an idealized version of regulation in their minds.  If only they had access to all of the clinical trials data to analyze for themselves.  They would personally be able to hold Big Pharma's feet to the fire and only allow drugs to be approved that they deemed to be safe and effective.   They are smarter and more ethical than anyone doing the actual trials and certainly smarter than the regulators.  This is at the minimum a failure to recognize that pharmaceutical regulation is after all a political process.  Like all politically directed regulation there are broad goals of safety and efficacy but they are relative and the regulatory mandate takes that into account.  On this blog I have pointed out several cases of medications that not only I,  but the Scientific Committee employed by the FDA recommended against based on safety considerations, but that were approved by the FDA.   Many drugs that I approved as a member of a Pharmacy and Therapeutics Committee (P&T) were expensive but had minimal efficacy.  We approved it based on political considerations (small but vocal advocacy group and untreatable illness) rather than pure efficacy or safety considerations.  The regulatory environment is currently designed to get promising agents into the hands of clinicians for clinical use.  The limited exposure of patients in clinical trials means that rare but serious side effects will not be recognized until post marketing surveillance occurs.  Every person taking an FDA approved medication should realize that.  The regulatory process is not designed to provide perfect medications because there are none.

There is a lot more to say about this subject like a detailed analysis of how the politicalized version about how physicians work and think has nothing to do with the way physicians actually work and think.  But for today I am stopping here.

Life is not a randomized double blind controlled clinical trial and that is generally a good thing.

George Dawson, MD, DFAPA