Medical Informatics, Pharma, Health IT, and Golden Advice That Sits Sadly Unused

In recent correspondences with colleagues I was reminded of a letter I wrote seven years ago that was published in Bio-IT World, a journal about biomedicine focusing mainly on pharma, bioinformatics and related fields.

As the sole formally-trained Medical Informatics specialist at Merck, I wrote:

Medical Informatics MIA [Missing in Action - ed.]
Bio-IT World
August 13, 2002

Dear Bio-IT World:

I enjoyed reading the article "Informatics Moves to the Head of the Class" (June Bio·IT World). Thank you for spotlighting the National Library of Medicine (NLM) training programs in medical informatics and bioinformatics, of which I am a graduate (Yale, 1994).

Bioinformatics appears to receive more media attention and offer more status, career opportunities, and compensation than the less-prestigious medical informatics.

This disparity, however, may impede the development of next-generation medicines. Bioinformatics discoveries may be more likely to result in new medicines, for example via pharmacogenomics, when they are coupled with large-scale, concurrent, ongoing clinical data collection. At the same time, applied medical informatics, as a distinct specialty, is essential to the success of extensive clinical data collection efforts, especially at the point of care.

Hospital and provider MIS personnel are best equipped for implementing business-oriented IT, not clinical IT. Implementing clinical IT in patient-care settings constitutes one of the core competencies of applied medical informaticists.

Informatics specialists with a bioinformatics focus — even those coming from the new joint programs — usually are not proficient in hospital business and management issues that impede adoption of clinical IT in patient care settings. Such organizational and territorial issues are in no small way responsible for the low utilization of clinical IT in patient care settings.

It will be important for medical informaticists focused in the clinical domain and bioinformaticists specializing in the molecular domain to collaborate with other specialists in order to best integrate clinical and genomic data.

Further information on these issues can be found in the book Organizational Aspects of Health Informatics: Managing Technological Change, by Nancy M. Lorenzi and Robert T. Riley (Springer-Verlag, 1995). Various publications from the medical informatics community, such as the American Medical Informatics Association (www.amia.org) and the International Medical Informatics Association (www.imia.org), are also useful.

Scot Silverstein, MD
Director, Published Information Resources & The Merck Index
Merck Research Laboratories

I was also responsible for the entry of the term "Medical Informatics" into the controlled vocabulary pool used for various purposes at Merck.

As far as I can tell, the Medical Informatics talent gap still exists in all major pharmas despite writings on the topic from colleagues as well as myself. With the present turmoil including declining pipelines, mergers and mass layoffs pending in many large pharmas, and even despite Medical Informatics on a fast path to being declared a full medical subspecialty, it is likely this gap will persist for years longer. This is a shame. The field offers insights that can help R&D substantially, and I speak from direct experience from my time in that domain.

I am reminded via all this of another industry that seems to hurt itself via ignoring the advice of Medical Informatics professionals, the health IT industry. Healthcare IT is actually the core competence of Medical Informatics professionals, but those people are under-represented in the higher ranks of the health IT industry as well. Many job postings seek such people, but for lower level roles (as I've posted here in the past), and/or conflate formal training with informal experience and with those who qualify for the title of Medical Informaticist like I qualify (being an amateur radio licensee, extra class) as a professional RF engineer.

The irony is this: the wisdom of the Medical Informatics field on health IT goes back not years, but decades. It is advice that could have made the vendors much higher margins, allowed them to produce better products, avoid the government regulation that is now nearly inevitable (in some EU countries, clinical IT has already been determined to be a medical device requiring regulation), and in many cases, enabled corporate longevity.

Yet the teachings and accumulated wisdom of the field were, and largely still are, ignored, making books such as the new "H.I.T. or Miss: Lessons Learned from Health Information Technology Implementations" necessary even in 2009.

Here is just a small sampling of that wisdom:

Dr. Donald A. B. Lindberg (now Director of the U.S. National Library of Medicine at NIH), 1969:
"Computer engineering experts per se have virtually no idea of the real problems of medical or even hospital practice, and furthermore have consistently underestimated the complexity of the problems…in no cases can [building appropriate clinical information systems] be done, simply because they have not been defined with the physician as the continuing major contributor and user of the information."


Dr. Octo Barnett's [Harvard] health IT Ten Commandments, 1970:
1. Thou shall know what you want to do
2. Thou shall construct modular systems - given chaotic nature of hospitals
3. Thou shall build a computer system that can evolve in a graceful fashion
4. Thou shall build a system that allows easy and rapid programming development and modification
5. Thou shall build a system that has consistently rapid response time and is easy for the non-computernik to use
6. Thou shall have duplicate hardware systems
7. Thou shall build and implement your system in a joint effort with real users in a real situation with real problems
8. Thou shall be concerned with realities of the cost and projected benefit of the computer system
9. Innovation in computer technology is not enough; there must be a commitment to the potentials of radical change in other aspects of healthcare delivery, particularly those having to do with organization and manpower utilization
10. Be optimistic about the future, supportive of good work that is being done, passionate in your commitment, but always guided by a fundamental skepticism.

[Dr. Barnett played a key role in the 2009 National Research Council report about current approaches to health IT being inadequate, Press Release at http://www8.nationalacademies.org/onpinews/newsitem.aspx?RecordID=12572, and full report "COMPUTATIONAL TECHNOLOGY FOR EFFECTIVE HEALTH CARE: IMMEDIATE STEPS AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS. - ed.]


Dr. Morris Collen's Five Rules, 1972
Most common causes of health IT failure:

• Suboptimal mix of medical and computer specialists … resulting in communications difficulties and in the computer staff underestimating the vast medical needs
• Gross underestimation of the large amounts of money needed
• Suboptimal systems approach with serious incompatibilities between modules
• Unacceptable terminals
• Inadequate management organization and poor judgment
  

Dr. R. Friedman, Reasons for slow spread of EMR, 1977:

• Poor engineering and unreliability
• Physicians not provided with computer-based applications that exceeded their own capability!
• Inability to prove a positive effect on patient care
• Difficulty transferring one application from one institution to another
  

(All taken from Collen's "A history of Medical Informatics in the United States, 1950-1990".)

I might add that the PC did not even exist in 1977, unless you consider the Altair and Heathkit H8 "personal computers."

Four-decades-old wisdom like this, and much more, sits out there in the ether and in the Medical Informatics field's professionals like a pot of gold, but is apparently considered as valuable as lead by the HIT - and pharma - industries. I find this amazing - and a pity.

-- SS

»»  READMORE...

An Alliance on Mental Illness or for Pharmaceutical Companies?

A recent article by Gardner Harris in the New York Times focused on the financial links among health care corporations and not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy groups.

A majority of the donations made to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, one of the nation’s most influential disease advocacy groups, have come from drug makers in recent years, according to Congressional investigators.

The alliance, known as NAMI, has long been criticized for coordinating some of its lobbying efforts with drug makers and for pushing legislation that also benefits industry.

Last spring, Senator Charles E. Grassley, Republican of Iowa, sent letters to the alliance and about a dozen other influential disease and patient advocacy organizations asking about their ties to drug and device makers. The request was part of his investigation into the drug industry’s influence on the practice of medicine.

The mental health alliance, which is hugely influential in many state capitols, has refused for years to disclose specifics of its fund-raising, saying the details were private.

But according to investigators in Mr. Grassley’s office and documents obtained by The New York Times, drug makers from 2006 to 2008 contributed nearly $23 million to the alliance, about three-quarters of its donations.

Even the group’s executive director, Michael Fitzpatrick, said in an interview that the drug companies’ donations were excessive and that things would change.

However, he tried to downplay the influence of the pharmaceutical industry on the Alliance.

'I understand that NAMI gets painted as being in the pockets of pharmaceutical companies, and somehow that all we care about is pharmaceuticals,' Mr. Fitzpatrick said. 'It’s simply not true.'

Note the careful wording of this denial, though. He did not deny that most of what NAMI cares about is pharmaceuticals.

Moreover, the article suggested how cozy pharmaceutical companies and the Alliance's leadership have become.

The close ties between the alliance and drug makers were on stark display last week, when the organization held its annual gala at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on Constitution Avenue in Washington. Tickets were $300 each. Before a dinner of roasted red bell pepper soup, beef tenderloin and tilapia, Dr. Stephen H. Feinstein, president of the alliance’s board, thanked Bristol-Myers Squibb, the pharmaceutical company.

'For the past five years, Bristol-Myers has sponsored this dinner at the highest level,' Dr. Feinstein said.

He then introduced Dr. Fred Grossman, chief of neuroscience research at Bristol-Myers, who told the audience that 'now, more than ever, our enduring relationship with NAMI must remain strong.'

Documents obtained by The New York Times show that drug makers have over the years given the mental health alliance — along with millions of dollars in donations — direct advice about how to advocate forcefully for issues that affect industry profits.

In a letter today to the NY Times, NAMI Executive Director Fitzpatrick tried again to correct "misimpressions."

First, the National Alliance on Mental Illness, or NAMI, has always disclosed corporate and foundation sources of revenue. Until this year, specific amounts remained private for competitive fund-raising reasons.

Second, your estimate that pharmaceutical companies account for three-quarters of “donations” has been misinterpreted as a share of NAMI’s total annual budget — which is actually about 50 percent.

Perusal of the 2008 NAMI Annual Report does include this impressive list of "Corporate Partners":

Abbott
Alexza Pharmaceuticals
Amazon
AstraZeneca
Blue Cross Blue Shield
Bristol-Myers Squibb
College of Psychiatric and Neurologic
Pharmacists
Corcept Therapeutics
Cyberonics
Delivery Agent, Inc.
Forest Laboratories
GEO Care
GoodSearch.com
The Health Central Network
Janssen Pharmaceutica
Eli Lilly and Company
Magellan Health Services
McNeil Pediatrics
Neuronetics
Novartis
Otsuka America Pharmaceuticals
Pfizer
PhRMA
RF Binder
Sanofi-Aventis
Shire
Solvay
Validus Pharmaceuticals
WellPoint
Wyeth
YTB Travel Network

The NAMI web-site now includes lists of specific corporate donations that individually exceeded $5000 since the beginning of 2009. So far this year, the biggest pharmaceutical corporate donors appear to be AstraZeneca ($350,000), Bristol-Myers-Squibb ($506,205), and Eli Lilly ($675,500). 

Looking at the latest Form 990 filed on behalf of NAMI with the US Internal Revenue Service (available from GuideStar here)  provides more interesting detail. (Keep in mind that the 2008 form covers July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008.)   This form listed the organization's total revenue as $13,788,288, and expenses as $12,796,205.  These expenses included $1,785,060 (13.9%) for management and $1,520,637 (11.9% ) for fund-raising.  The form listed eight NAMI executives who made more than $100,00 a year, including Mr Fitzpatrick ($210,685 total compensation).

So, in summary, it appears that corporate donations, mainly from a few large pharmaceutical companies, supply a substantial portion, (maybe half, if I read the letter by Mr Fitzpatrick correctly) of the annual budget of NAMI. About one-quarter of that budget is spent on administration and fund-raising, including six-figure salaries for at least eight executives.  So who do you expect would more easily get access to the $200K+/year NAMI Executive Director, an executive of a pharmaceutical firm that supplies more than $500,000 a year, or a NAMI member who pays $35 dues?

Here we have another example of a respected patient advocacy organization which gets a substantial portion of its revenue from (presumably the marketing departments of) a few large pharmaceutical companies.  (See another example here.)  Its well-paid executive director can at best bring himself to deny that the only purpose of the organization is to support pharmaceutical marketing and lobbying.  It seems reasonable that for supplying half the budget, the pharmaceutical companies expect considerable help not only with marketing but also with advocacy of policies that favor their corporate goals. 

As I have said before, I do not have a problem with pharmaceutical and other health care corporations marketing their products, and expressing their views on policy. I do have a problem with corporate marketing or policy advocacy is disguised as grass-roots, not-for-profit education and advocacy.  If ostensibly not-for-profit disease (or patient) advocacy organizations like NAMI want to continue to accept corporate money, they should make it clear that they speak for their corporate donors as well as, and probably with priority over their members and patients with the diseases of interest.  Well-intentioned people who pay their dues, and/or make small contributions to NAMI to help the mentally ill might want to consider whether they are likely to have any influence compared to the individual pharmaceutical executives who oversee $500,000+ a year corporate donations.

ADDENDUM (2 November, 2009) - See also comments on the Furious Seasons blog.

»»  READMORE...

NY Mayor: Pharmaceutical Executives "Don't Make a Lot of Money"

We just posted about the onrush of people into health care management, including many with little knowledge of or experience in health care. According to the Associated Press, one prominent politician defended at least pharmaceutical company managers who "don't make a lot of money." [Warning, irony and sarcasm ahead.]

Billionaire Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended multibillion-dollar pharmaceutical companies and their chief executives on Friday, declaring that they 'don't make a lot of money' and shouldn't be scapegoats in the health care debate.

The mayor — and wealthiest person in New York City with a fortune estimated at $16.5 billion — made the comments on his radio show Friday during a discussion about health care.

"You know, last time I checked, pharmaceutical companies don't make a lot of money, their executives don't make a lot of money — not that they couldn't be better," Bloomberg said.

The mayor, a Republican-turned-independent who already has spent more than $36 million on his re-election campaign this year, often battles criticism that he is out of touch with regular people. He built his fortune after founding the financial information company that bears his name.

Earlier this year he declared "we love the rich people" while arguing against raising taxes on the wealthy, and said recently that President Barack Obama, who earns $400,000 a year and has made millions from book sales, "doesn't get paid that much" and is "on a budget" like millions of Americans.

In its article on the Mayor's health care wisdom, the NY Daily News noted,

The highest-paid drug executive last year, Johnson & Johnson CEO Bill Weldon, took home a reported $29.4 million after his company raked in $63.7 billion.

The Associated Press article also commented,

Pharmaceutical CEOs are known to make millions, with generous salaries, stock options and other perks.

Abbott Laboratories Inc. Chairman and Chief Executive Miles White's compensation was $25.3 million in 2008. The North Chicago, Ill.-based company saw profit rising 35 percent to $4.88 billion.

Merck & Co.'s chief executive, Richard T. Clark, received a $17.3 million compensation package for 2008. The company's profit more than doubled to $7.8 billion.

Later,

It was clear that Bloomberg or one of his aides realized his gaffe while he was still on the air Friday.

The mayor, who has sought to cast himself as a financial and business expert, came back from a break and said he had looked up the pay of some pharmaceutical executives.

'Some of them are making a decent amount, more than a decent amount of money,' he said.

Either way, Bloomberg said, it doesn't solve anything to beat up on pharmaceutical companies while trying to come up with health care solutions.

We have previously posted about the notion that the US and the rest of the world is increasingly run by members of the "superclass," whose disconnection from the realities of daily life, including the US dysfunctional health care is likely to translate into little real support by the powers that be for meaningful health care reform. Mayor Bloomberg's wealth and political power would qualify him for superclass membership. His notion that multi-million dollar a year pharmaceutical imperial CEOs ought to be pitied for their paltry incomes suggests not only that the very rich are unlike you and me, but that meaningful health care reform is unlikely as long as we allow ourselves to be lead by people so insulated from the vicissitudes of daily life.

»»  READMORE...