By Peter Galuszka

Just on the heels of a blog posting praise for-profit HCA hospital company for “partnering” with doctors in Virginia to encourage “peer review” of best practices comes a devastating front page lead story in this morning’s New York Times.

It seems that HCA got into big trouble in Florida when doctors ordered excessive and risky cardiac work at several locations in Florida.

According to the Times,  the doctors at hospitals north of Tampa and in the Miami area had a much higher rate of implanted “stents” to open clogged arteries than normal. The practice was flagged by a nurse whose contract was not renewed, but it touched off a large scale HCA internal probe.

One doctor, according to the Times, was labeled “EBITDA MD” in a hospital’s promotional material because he was “the most profitable doctor at the facility.” EBITDA is an accounting measure for net earnings.

Turning profit was important over the past decade for HCA, the largest hospital company in the U.S. In 2000, the firm agreed to a settlement and would be fined $1.7 billion in a Medicare fraud matter. In 2006, HCA was taken private by a group of investors led by Bain Capital (presidential candidate Mitt Romney was not involved). By 2010, the Times says, investors wanted to cash out of their investment and in a run-up to an initial public offering, HCA borrowed to pay $4.3 billion in dividends. In order for HCA to do that, it had to show continued, robust earnings and cardiology was a great department to find them.

About that time, a nurse at HCA’s Lawnwood Regional Medical Center in Ft. Pierce, reported the unusually high number of cardiac procedures that later could not be defended by “peer review.” The nurse founded his contract not renewed although HCA started probing. Federal prosecutors are now investigating. Patients were not told of the problem.

HCA owns some of the largest health facilities in the Richmond area, including Chippenham and Johnston-Willis hospital centers.

One wonders if there is a connection between the Florida debacle and HCA’s new-found interest in raising the standard of doctors. Also raised are questions about how the “free market” may or may not work with human health.

Although others on this blog grasp at solutions without doing the shoe leather journalism themselves, they only need to open the front page of the New York Times to see that the profit motives for a big, powerful corporation do not always translate into compassionate and efficient health care. It is also a lesson in why it is crucial to get beyond the initial press release.


Share this article



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)



ADVERTISEMENT

(comments below)


Comments

  1. So, HCA, a national hospital chain, got in trouble in Florida. Peter leaps from that to this: “One wonders if there is a connection between the Florida debacle and HCA’s new-found interest in raising the standard of doctors.”

    One wonders indeed. To a liberal like Peter G, speculating about something is almost as good as proving it! Heck, it’s *just* as good. Case closed. I guess that’s called good “shoe leather journalism.”

    Federal officials didn’t spot their problem on their own. Peter didn’t exactly highlight this in his post, but it was an HCA nurse that caught the problem. The HCA nurse referred it to an HCA ethics officer. And the HCA ethics officer launched in internal HCA investigation. Then HCA handed the info over to the feds.

    As Peter does mention, the HCA nurse stated that the unusually high number of cardiac procedures in question could not be defended by “peer review.”

    Perhaps more peer review is exactly what’s needed. You see, while HCA corporate apparatchiks might want to suppress unwelcome evidence that might affect profits, physicians appraising their peers would not be caught in a conflict of interest. Why isn’t Peter praising peer review? Because he never misses a chance to bash private-sector medicine — and me — when he gets a chance!

  2. Peter Galuszka Avatar
    Peter Galuszka

    Little problem. When a registered nurse reports something wrong and finds his contract is not renewed, that is not exactly peer review.

    Also don’t see how this fits in some “liberal” versus “conservative” diatribe. The fact is that when you have a profit motive, the point is to maximize profits and if you have certain parts of the health system that turn great revenues, the bosses tend not to scrutinize them.

    The same is true of Big Pharma. In a number of cases, they may have two drugs getting into the sunset years on their patents. So, the drug firm combines the two old drugs into a new single drug and gets a new patent on that one to maximize profits. Who ends up paying more? The patient, their firm and the taxpayer, that’s who!

  3. So…. we’re better off with private industry providing health care than that nasty old govt?

    And any shady or questionable stuff that private industry does do in the name of profits will be found out by it’s own employees and turned over to the proper internal office to deal with?

    TMT says that govt bureaucracy is no way to deliver health care but I ask – is the private sector that much better? Yes..they are more efficient and they are cost effective if it delivers them higher profits but would they also sell procedures and stuff that people did not need – also in the name of profit?

    I don’t consider private industry evil but I also don’t think govt is – not any more or less on either side. The both have their good points and they both have their downsides.

    Every single industrialized country in the world – does have a govt bureaucracy for health care, whether you are talking about Finland, Australia or Singapore.

    There are also many private industry health care systems in the world with little or not govt influence. Almost all of them are third world/developing world.

    I’ve yet to hear of any country that has equivalent health care (or better) with less or no govt involvement.

  4. I once knew some people involved in the HCA startup. They gave me kind of a sleazy feeling. Nothing I could put my finger on, just a generlized low ethical standard, in my opinion.

    If they were typical of the corporate culture, none of HCAs problems would surprise me.

Leave a Reply