The Mystery of the Fugitive Founder (and Longterm President of an Offshore Medical School for US Students)

We recently wrote about for-profit medical schools located offshore from the US, but catering to American students, not students from the countries in which they operate.  Now some new media reports raise further questions, if not mysteries about another set of such schools.  

Two Bloomberg articles on a trial underway focused on the alleged use of offshore accounts to avoid US taxes.  These accounts were connected to the former long-term President and founder of two offshore medical schools, and his spouse, a dean at one of the schools.  


The first Bloomberg article opened thus:

Patricia Hough, according to her lawyers, is an altruistic psychiatrist who helped her husband build two Caribbean medical schools. To prosecutors, she is a tax cheat who used offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes on millions of dollars from the schools’ sale.

Jury selection began today in federal court in Fort Myers, Florida, where Hough, 67, is accused of using accounts at UBS AG, the largest Swiss bank, and elsewhere to hide assets and income from the Internal Revenue Service, including almost $34 million she and her husband made when the schools were sold in 2007. 

The Bloomberg article asserted,

 At the heart of the case is whether she misused accounts associated with the Saba University School of Medicine Foundation.

The main question to me is not whether Dr Hough is guilty or innocent, which I cannot tell.  There are more intriguing  mysteries raised by this case.

How Did Non-Profit Medical Schools Become For-Profit?
 
According to Bloomberg,

  Hough’s lawyers say she helped [her husband, David] Fredrick build Saba University School of Medicine, on the island of Saba in the  Netherland Antilles, and the Medical University of the Americas, or MUA, on Nevis in the West Indies.

To do so,

 Through the Saba foundation, which they first funded in 1988, according to a government trial brief filed Oct. 3, the couple opened the Saba University School of Medicine in 1993. Fredrick served as president and a foundation director. Hough was associate dean for clinical medicine. 

Also,

In 1999, Fredrick and Hough began the Medical University of the Americas, a for-profit school on Nevis in the West Indies, according to the government filing.

There seems to be no question that the schools were started by a foundation based in the Netherland Antilles.  A report of a site visit of the Saba University School of Medicine by the Division of Licensing of the Medical Board of California in 2004 summarized this history,

In 1986, the government of the Netherlands Antilles proposed to a group of American educators that a medical school be established on the small island of Saba, N.A.  It was to be relatively small, of high quality and established for the dual ppurpose of benefiting the economy of the island (of only 1500 population) and attracting N.A. citizens to medical careers in the N.A.

A committee of Dutch citizens from Curacao, the seat of the N.A. government, approved the preliminary plans and the school was founded as a non-profit foundation under Dutch law....

The Saba University website still states that the school is accredited in the Netherlands,

Saba University School of Medicine’s Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) program is accredited by the NVAO (in Dutch: Nederlands-Vlaamse Accreditatieorganisatie). The NVAO is the Accreditation Organization of the Netherlands and Flanders. This organization was established by international treaty and ensures the quality of higher education in the Netherlands and Flanders.

So apparently Saba University was started as a non-profit organization meant to focus on medical education for the Netherlands Antilles, and thus accredited there.  But then, somehow,  according to Bloomberg.

Equinox Capital, a private-equity firm based in Greenwich, Connecticut, bought the Saba school and MUA for $36 million in 2007. The transaction included $34 million for land held in the name of Fredrick’s daughter from an earlier marriage, according to prosecutors.

Hough and Fredrick didn’t tell the IRS about most of the proceeds of the sale and transferred money among various undeclared accounts to buy the plane and real estate, make gifts to family members and pay personal expenses, prosecutors said.

There also seems to be no question that Equinox Capital did buy the schools.  The summary of a 2007 press release from the company stated,

 Equinox Capital III, L.P. announced that it has completed the recapitalization of Saba University School of Medicine B.V. ('Saba'). Founded in 1986, Saba is a leading for-profit university that awards four-year graduate degrees in Doctors of Medicine (M.D.). 

A statement from Prairie Capital, which is now an investor in the schools, noted that now

 R3 Education is a Massachusetts-based holding company that controls The Saba University School of Medicine ('Saba'), The Medical University of the Americas ('MUA') and St. Matthew University ("SMU").

After,

 Prairie Capital partnered with Equinox Capital to acquire the three universities.

It is enough to cause some dizziness.  Let me recap.  Mr Fredrick and Dr Hough somehow founded two medical schools apparently under the auspices of a foundation, the Saba University School of Medicine Foundation, which the couple ran.  The goal of the foundation was to attract Netherland Antilles citizens to medical careers in the NA.   However, the Saba University school became an off-shore facility for US medical students.  The two schools were later acquired by Prairie Capital and Equinox Capital, and they are now run as for-profit operations by R3 Education.

So somehow Saba University transitioned from being a non-profit meant to serve the medical education needs of the Netherlands Antilles to a for-profit owned by US private equity firms (and apparently now focused on serving Americans.)

How did that happen?  What was the rationale for the change?  Did any Dutch authorities consider the implications for their country?  Did any American organizations concerned with the quality of education and credentials of US physicians consider the implications?

Where Did the Money Go?

According to Bloomberg, US prosecutors made some striking allegations,

Both the foundation and MUA failed to tell the IRS about accounts held at UBS, Liechtenstein Landesbank and other banks, the U.S. charges.

Singenberger and Luetolf helped the foundation and MUA move money through British Virgin Islands or Hong Kong entities they controlled called Top Fast Finance Ltd., Ample Dynamic Trading Ltd., New Vanguard Holdings Ltd. and Apex Consultants Ltd., according to prosecutors.

'Hough and Fredrick were the beneficial owners of and had signatory authority over all over these accounts and owned and controlled each of them,' prosecutors said in their brief. 

The prosecution also alleged that Mr Fredrick and Dr Hough spent the money they allegedly got from selling the two medical schools rather lavishly.  Per the second Bloomberg article,

[Prosceutor] Kessler said Hough and her husband used the proceeds of the school sales to buy a $1.6 million airplane, a $1.1 million house in Asheville, North Carolina, a $590,000 house in Greenville, North Carolina, and an $800,000 condominium in Sarasota, Florida. She said they also gave money to relatives.

The prosecutors charged that the money the private equity firms paid went to Mr Fredrick and Dr Hough.  But while Mr Fredrick was President of Saba University, and apparently ran the foundation that was supposed to support it, he did not own either.  So why would the money go to him, and his wife?  If the money did not go to them, where did it go?

As the trial continued, as documented in a second Bloomberg article, Dr Hough's lawyer denied that she got the money,

Dan Saunders, an attorney for Hough, said his client never believed the money held at UBS AG (UBSN), the largest Swiss bank, and in other offshore banks belonged to her. Rather, he said, she thought it belonged to the foundation that ran the schools.

'It wasn’t her money, and she never believed it was,' Saunders said in his opening statement. 

If that is true, however, why is money that supposedly belongs to a foundation sitting quietly in a Swiss bank?

Dr Hough's lawyer said,

 Saunders said the accounts did serve a business purpose: to protect the assets of their nonprofit foundation from people attempting a hostile takeover.

Hostile takeovers of publicly held corporations do occur, of course.  However, how could a hostile takeover of a foundation occur, and who would possibly want or be able to do so?

So thus far, no one has offered a rationale explanation for how the schools were sold, why they were sold, and where the money resulting from the sale went.

Where in the World is Mr Fredrick?

So far, while the defendant is Dr Hough, the role of her husband, Mr Fredrick, apparently the President of Saba University from its founding at least until 2007, seems key.  Yet little of the coverage focused on Mr Fredrick.  The reason for that suggests the next mystery, per  the first Bloomberg article,

Fredrick vanished after the indictment, leaving Hough to face trial alone. U.S. District Judge John Steele, who is overseeing the trial, has declared Fredrick a fugitive.

So why did Mr Fredrick flea, and of course, where did he go?

Obviously, the fact that Mr Fredrick, who was the President of Saba University for many years, chose not to defend himself against charges that he hid the money he somehow obtained from the sale of that and another medical school, but rather fled, suggests that he may not have had a very good defense against those charges.  What does that say about the leadership of these medical schools?

 Summary

So the coverage of this intriguing trial, when added to some other publicly available information, suggests a wealth of mysteries about the founding, current nature, and leadership of two Caribbean medical schools which currently are run as for-profit firms and owned by US private equity firms, and whose student bodies come almost exclusively from the US.

So the really big mysteries are those about the implications for the medical education these schools provide, the students they attract, the physicians who graduate from their programs, the US patients of such physicians, and the US government which largely provides the loans which paid for these students' education (look here).

Despite the extraordinary nature of this case (again, involving the longterm president of an offshore medical school that sought to educate a substantial number of US physicians, and who is now a fugitive from justice), the only interest in it so far seems to be its implications for US prosecutions of hidden offshore accounts.

This case illustrates why we must reexamine our fascination for "market based" approaches to health care, when almost nothing about any part of health care resembles, or could resemble a free market (see this post).  We need to make health care more transparent, and shine more sunshine on the nooks and crannies, like off-shore but US corporate owned medical schools.  We need to facilitate health care leadership and governance that puts patients' and the public's health first, way ahead of the personal enrichment of the participants.  




ADDENDUM (29 October, 2013) - Dr Hough was convicted of defrauding the IRS and income tax evasion, see the Bloomberg article.  So far I see no response, certainly no apology or disavowal, by the current managers and owners of the medical school. 

Quality vs Costs of US Corporate Owned but Offshore Medical Schools

Background: Off-Shore Medical Schools for US Students Owned by US Corporations

While US health care appears to be more corporate than health care in any other developed country, one part of health care that has remained a bit less corporate is medical education.  In particular, no US medical school is a for-profit venture, to my knowledge.  (This just makes US medical education a bit less corporate than the rest of health care because, as we have discussed endlessly, academic medical institutions in the country have frequent institutional conflicts of interest, and their boards of trustees, administration, and faculty have frequent individual conflicts of interest.) 

Nonetheless, there are many Americans attending for-profit medical schools owned and run by US based corporations.  It is just that these schools are not physically located in the US.  Since the number of US citizens who want to go to medical school has been greatly exceeding the capacity of US medical schools, many who want to become physicians have sought medical training in other countries.  Some go to medical schools outside of the US which are primarily operated to provide doctors to the countries in which they operate. However, the limited availability of places available in such schools for foreign students, and the difficulties of training in unfamiliar medical systems and often in unfamiliar languages limit the attractiveness of this option.

Enter American entrepreneurs into the picture, who realized they could set up schools in willing locations (often in small countries in the Caribbean) meant to educate Americans in English.  While there are plenty of reasons to be concerned about the role US based medical schools play in the dysfunction of US health care, there may even be more reasons to be concerned about for-profit, US owned, but off-shore medical schools that cater to US students.  Yet although such schools now train a large number of students, they tend to fly under the radar.

Reasons for Concern about US Corporate Owned but Off-Shore Medical Schools

In 2010, we posted about an investigative report in the St Petersburg (FL) Times that provided reasons for concern.  These included suggestions of quality problems, such as high attrition rates, high rates of failure to complete residency training and lack of quality controls over clinical education, high costs imposed on students, and the role of extremely well compensated executives with no apparent knowledge of medical education.

Now Bloomberg has published another report on for-profit, US owned Caribbean medical schools that underscores these concerns.  The report focused on schools owned by the US based, publicly traded DeVry Inc.  These include American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine, located in St Maarten, and Ross University School of Medicine, located in Dominica... 

Quality Concerns


- Attrition

 Many DeVry students quit, particularly in the first two semesters, taking their debt with them. While the average attrition rate at U.S. med schools was 3 percent for the class that began in the fall of 2008, according to the AAMC, DeVry says its rate ranges from 20 to 27 percent. 

One reason for this is that for-profit schools may take students who are less academically qualified,

 Many of those students, ..., failed to gain admission to U.S. schools, where the mean score on the Medical College Admission Test, or MCAT, was 31.2 out of a possible 45 last year. At DeVry’s schools, the average score was 25.

- Time to Completion of Training

 Of those who remained, 66 percent of AUC students and 52 percent of students at DeVry’s other Caribbean medical school, Ross University School of Medicine, finished their program -- typically two years of sciences followed by two years of clinical rotations -- on time in the academic year ended on June 30, 2012. 

- Difficulty Obtaining Residencies

The National Resident Matching Program says 94 percent of fourth-year students schooled in the U.S. landed a first-year match in 2013, while 53 percent of U.S. citizens trained internationally did.

DeVry students fare better than the average foreign-trained student. Of the 914 Ross students who applied for residency in 2013, 76 percent, or 699, earned places. Another 41 had preliminary one-year spots, which would require the students to win a second residency in order to be eligible for a medical license in 48 states.

Of the 268 AUC students who applied for residency, 212, or 79 percent, got matches, and seven more had one-year slots. The remainder of the students failed to win a residency.

- Lack of Standards


The Bloomberg article also emphasized the fact that the US owned corporate off-shore schools do not have to meet the same accreditation standards as do US based schools:

  The Accreditation Commission on Colleges of Medicine, an Ireland-based body, accredits four Caribbean medical schools, including AUC, according to its website.

High Costs

While the quality of education provided by US owned corporate off-shore medical schools may be questioned, there is no doubt about their high costs.

 First-year tuition on Dominica costs $56,475, based on the three terms Ross divides the year into. That compares with a median of $50,309 for tuition and fees at private U.S. medical schools in the 2012-to-2013 school year.

These costs are of particular concern because many students of off-shore schools amass impressive amounts of debt. 
 

DeVry, which has two for-profit medical schools in the Caribbean, is accepting hundreds of students who were rejected by U.S. medical colleges. These students amass more debt than their U.S. counterparts -- a median of $253,072 in June 2012 at AUC versus $170,000 for 2012 graduates of U.S. medical schools.

And that gap is even greater because the U.S. figure, compiled by the Association of American Medical Colleges, includes student debt incurred for undergraduate or other degrees, while the DeVry number is only federal medical school loans. 

 These high debt loads are enabled by US government loans, even though the schools are not located or accredited in the US.

And though neither AUC nor Ross, in the island nation of Dominica, is accredited by the body that approves medical programs in the U.S., students at both schools are eligible for loans issued by the U.S. Education Department.

In addition,

 Students at the four schools -- the two DeVry schools, along with St. George’s University School of Medicine and, since July, Saba University School of Medicine -- are also eligible for tuition benefits from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs.

Leadership 

The Bloomberg article briefly questioned the motivations of DeVry leadership, quoting David Bergeron, previously of the US Department of Education

If they have to make a choice between students and profit, they choose profit

They may do so because the off-shore medical schools bring in a lot of money

DeVry got 34 percent of its revenue in the year ended on June 30 from medical and health-care education, including a chain of U.S. nursing schools. The unit contributed $673 million of DeVry’s $1.96 billion in revenue, up more than sevenfold from $91 million in fiscal 2005.

'The diversification strategy is working,' Chief Executive Officer Daniel Hamburger said at an investor conference in Chicago in June. 'About a third now of our enrollment is in the growing field of health-care education.'

It seems clear that this revenue stream is greatly dependent on US government money
 

DeVry acquired AUC in 2011 for $235 million, attracted partly by the school’s eligibility for federal loans, says Harold Shapiro, DeVry’s chairman and a former president of Princeton University.
 
'Access to federal student loans is very important for a lot of DeVry programs, including that one,' says Shapiro, 78, an economist by training, who plans to retire from DeVry in November after 12 years on the board and five years as chairman. 'Obviously, it’s part of what makes it work.'

A Quick and Dirty Look at Costs vs Value

As I noted earlier, little seems to be written about the commercial nature of the US owned, but off-shore medical schools that purportedly educate a growing number of US citizens.  I thought I would try to add a little to the Bloomberg article by trying to see if I could find any other obvious way to contrast the quality of the Caribbean based schools with their high costs.

As noted above, the tuition at one DeVry medical school was more than 10 percent higher than the median for US schools.

For comparison, I thought I would make some sort of quick assessment of the faculty of one DeVry school, Ross University School of Medicine.  That turned out to be easier than I thought it would be.

My first stop was the web-page that conveniently lists all of the school's faculty and administration.  I assumed that this would be cumbersome to use.  After all, a typical US medical school has a huge faculty, divided among pre-clinical departments (anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, etc), and clinical departments (usually one for each important specialty and or sub-specialty).  I thought I would start with the Ross department of internal medicine (since my background is in internal medicine).  Imagine my surprise when I discovered that Ross does not have individual departments for clinical disciplines, but simply one Department of Clinical Medicine.

Imagine my further surprise when I reviewed its membership.  The web-page lists all of 31 people in this department.  The list, with a summary of the individuals' positions at the school, and previous training appears below in the appendix.

The qualifications of this small number of clinical faculty were mixed at best.

- Note that of the 31, 8 are not actually faculty, but staff (color coded pink)

- Of the 23 actual faculty, only 5 seem to have received their medical degree and residency training in the US (color coded blue).  In addition, one received US residency training after medical school in South Africa.  (This is relevant because this school caters to US students, emphatically not students from Dominica.)

- Of the remaining 18 faculty, for 10 no background information was supplied (color coded green).

While the number of clinical faculty was small, keep in mind that Ross University School of Medicine is very large:

Ross typically enrolls 900 to 950 students per academic year, who start in either January, May or September.

 That’s about seven times the average of 139 for the 2013 graduating class of U.S. med schools, according to figures from the AAMC. 

Yet a typical American school has orders of magnitude more faculty for almost one order of magnitude less students.  For example, my own medical school, Alpert Medical School of Brown University, has 457 students in four classes, and has 180 campus-based and 652 hospital-based faculty.  Its Department of Internal Medicine, just one of many clinical departments, is much larger than Ross University's single Department of Clinical Medicine.

While the argument could be made that Ross only provides the first two years of medical education at its Dominica campus, and farms out the rest to a variety of hospitals in the US, keep in mind that the second year of a typical medical school curriculum is clinical topics and taught by faculty in clinical departments, often hospital based.  

So what in the world is the rationale for charging a higher tuition rate than a typical US based medical school, when the school only has to support a tiny faculty whose qualifications do not seem sufficient to demand a high price?

Summary

Based on admittedly limited information mainly from media sources, we find that US corporate owned but off-shore based medical schools make large amounts of revenue, charge their large student bodies big amounts for tuition, yet provide proportionately minuscule numbers of not clearly all well-qualified faculty, producing high attrition and residency completion rates.  Yet these schools' revenue streams are derived mainly from US government loans, made even if many students will not eventually obtain medical qualification and work as physicians. 

This seems like a great deal for the corporate executives and perhaps stockholders, but a poor deal for the students and the US tax-payers who support them.

We see another aspect of the US health care system in which money seems to trump mission, facilitated by an unseemly alliance between wealthy corporate executives and bad US government policy.  We need to reexamine our fascination for "market based" approaches to health care, when almost nothing about any part of health care resembles, or could resemble a free market (see this post).  We need to make health care more transparent, and shine more sunshine on the nooks and crannies, like off-shore but US corporate owned medical schools.  We need to facilitate health care leadership and governance that puts patients' and the public's health first, way ahead of the personal enrichment of the participants.  

Appendix

 "Faculty" Listing for Ross University School of Medicine Department of Clinical Medicine

 Jane Bateson - "Data Analyst & Research Associate"

Anne M Beaudoin - "Operations Specialist"

Liris Benjamin - "Associate Professor," "Doctorate in Physiology from the University of West Indies"

Lisa Buckley - "Simulaton Cordinator"

Yasmin Burnett -"Associate Professor" [no further details listed]

Diana Callender - "Professor and Chair" "graduate of the University of the West Indies where she completed her MBBS and

Residency in Clinical Hematology."

Terri Carlson- "Associate Professor," "Creighton University Medical School in Omaha, Nebraska and completed residency

training in Family Practice at University of California, San Francisco in 2001."

John Charyk - "Assistant Professor," "medical school at Georgetown University in Washington DC. In 1981 he completed his

family medicine residency program at the University of Colorado in Denver."

Phillip E. Cooles - "Professor," "BSc at King's College, London, then a medical degree at St George's Hospital medical

school, and then a residency in internal medicine in Aberdeen, completing the MRCP"

Lauri Costello - "Assistant Professor," "UC Davis for medical school then further north to Spokane Washington for her

residency at Family Medicine Spokane,"

Hedda Dyer - "Associate Professor," "University of Edinburgh Medical School with a bachelor of Medicine and Surgery (MB

CHB). She is a Member of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, Scotland (MRCS Ed)"

Sean Fitzgerald - "Assistant Professor" [no further details]

Lyudmyla Golub - "Associate Professor," "Doctor of Medicine degree in 1983 from Vinnitsa National Medical University,

Ukraine. She completed an Internship in Surgery at Vinnitsa Teaching Hospital #3, Ukraine"

Lata Gowda - "Harvey Facilitator"

Aimee Hougaboom - "Simulation Coordinator"

David Johnson * - "IME Facilitator"

Sybille Koenig - "Coordinator, Standardized Patients Program"

Jaya Kolli - "Professor," "undergraduate degree at the Guntur Medical College, Andhra University, India. He went on to the

Government General Hospital/Guntur Medical College, Nagarjuna University, in Guntur, India and completed a residency in

Internal Medicine"

Kamalendu Malaker * - "Visiting Faculty" [no further details]

Ganendra Mallik - "Associate Professor" [no further details]

Sanghita Mallik - "Assistant Professor" [no further details]

Robert Nasiiro - "Professor" [no further details]

Worrel Sanford * - "adjunct Assistant Professor" [no further details]

Robert Sasso - "Professor" [no further details]

Harold Schiff - "Associate Professor," "board certified neurologist, trained at Boston City Hospital, Boston University and

has a fellowship in Behavioral Neurology, Higher Cognitive Function and Geriatric Neurology. He graduated from the

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg South Africa"

Nancy Selfridge - "Associate Professor" "medical training and MD degree from Southern Illinois University School of

Medicine"

Rose-Claire St. Hilaire * - "IME Instructor" [no further details]

Lynn Sweeney - "Assistant Professor,"graduated from the University Of Tennessee School Of Medicine in 1987. She completed

residency in emergency medicine at the University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences"

Valarie Thomas - "Assistant Professor," "D.V.M. degree from the Universidad Agraria de La Habana in Havana Cuba"

Nash Uebelhart - "Assistant Professor," [no further details]

Miscilda Vital-Harrigan - "Assistant Professor," [no further details]

At University of Miami, Faculty Without Confidence in their Hired Managers Afraid to Identify Themselves

The University of Miami has provided some vivid examples of the contrast between the power and privileges of the leaders of large health care organizations and the subservient role of faculty and staff. 

Background

Back in 2006, we noted that while the University of Miami was paying its janitorial support staff less than seven dollars an hour, and supplying them with no health insurance, its President, Donna Shalala, was living in a 9000 square foot official mansion, with staff hired to make her bed.  While Ms Shalala did not seem very perturbed about the living conditions of the lowliest University staffers, as a member of the board of directors of UnitedHealth, she approved the munificent compensation given to its then CEO, Dr William McGuire (look here), who was a billionaire until he was forced to give up  some of the backdated stock options she had approved (look here).  More recently, we discussed how Ms Shalala's "visionary" leadership included presiding over the hiring of Dr Charles Nemeroff, who had previously been forced to resign as chairman of psychiatry at Emory University for various unethical activities (look here).  Last year, while awaiting the construction of a new presidential mansion, Ms Shalala presided over layoffs of hundreds of faculty and staff, which may have been necessitated by bad spending decisions made by her or those who reported to her (look here). 

The Faculty Protest

All these shenanigans apparently finally succeeded in upsetting the faculty, as described in a new article in the Miami Herald.  The article's headline was about the resignation of the University of Miami Miller Medical School's second highest ranking executive in response to faculty anger:

Amid roiling faculty anger over drastic budget cuts, the University of Miami announced that the No. 2 executive at the Miller School of Medicine, Jack Lord, is 'stepping down.' 

Dr Lord was apparently taking the fall for the previous mass layoffs, some affecting faculty in 2012:

[Medical School Dean Pascal]  Goldschmidt defended his administration’s performance: 'Last year we had many challenging issues to fix, as do many medical schools in the U.S. Thanks to Jack Lord’s leadership and hard work by everyone at the Miller School, we have met those challenges and turned things around financially.'  The announcement comes after a tumultuous year in which the medical school suffered a severe financial crisis and its leaders responded with a major overhaul that included the layoffs last spring of over 900 full-time and part-time employees — moves that angered many professors.

In a letter to faculty sent on Wednesday, Goldschmidt insisted the problems have been fixed. Goldschmidt credited Lord for helping improve the medical school’s finances, which showed a surplus of about $9 million for the first six months of this fiscal year — compared to a $24 million loss for the first six months of the previous fiscal year.

Lord, a physician who had been an executive at Humana, became chief operating officer last March, as the restructuring plans started.

However, the faculty's anger was not just directed at Dr Lord, who as noted above seemed to have been hired to take responsibility for the layoffs:

The change, announced by Dean Pascal Goldschmidt, comes as a petition circulates among tenured medical school faculty expressing no confidence in both Goldschmidt and Lord.

In particular,

Meanwhile, several sources sent The Herald a copy of a petition being circulated among school faculty members who 'wish to express, in the strongest possible terms, the concern we feel for the future for our school of medicine.' The petition blamed 'the failed leadership of Pascal Goldschmidt and Jack Lord. ... We want to make clear that the faculty has lost confidence in the ability of these men to lead the school.'

Furthermore,

 Many faculty members, who had spent decades at the medical school without seeing mass layoffs, were angry that the cuts were made without consulting them. A report by a faculty senate committee said medical school professors described the layoffs as 'unprofessional,' 'graceless' and 'heartless.' 

Yet there is no hint that Dr Goldschmidt, or President Shalala to whom he reports are yet affected by this protest.  

Tenured Faculty Scared into Anonymity

In fact, while the faculty are upset, they are also afraid.

The report contended that the internal turmoil had prompted some faculty members to consider leaving and that 'fear is widespread.' It also cited instances of employees suffering retribution for criticizing the administration.

There is so much fear that the faculty constructed an elaborate mechanism to register protest while remaining individually anonymous.

A half-dozen people closely connected to the medical school who requested anonymity told The Herald that they’ve heard that between 400 and 600 of the school’s 1,200 faculty have added their names to individual copies of the petition.

The petitions are addressed to the chair of the faculty senate, Richard L. Williamson, a law professor. Williamson said last week he would not comment on how many had signed the petition because it was 'an internal matter' and may never become public. He said the number of those who know how many have signed is 'extremely small and none of them will talk.'

Three sources told the Herald that faculty are sending individually signed copies of the petition to the senate chair with the understanding that Williamson would not reveal their names to UM administrators. 

Summary

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166198_p2/um-medical-school-names-new-coo.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166198/um-medical-school-names-new-coo.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166198/um-medical-school-names-new-coo.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166198/um-medical-school-names-new-coo.html#storylink=cpy

 So, up to half of the University of Miami's medical faculty may be so upset with the current administration, apparently in part due to faculty and staff layoffs after questionable decisions by administrators some of whom may have lived large at university expense, that they essentially voted no confidence.  Yet the faculty are afraid to put their own names on their protest.

So this is not just a story about allegedly incompetent university executives, and about the contrast between the rewards such executives get and the results of their dubious management.  It is also a story about how the executives' power now threatens a bed-rock value of academia, the ability of faculty (and by extension, staff and students), to speak freely, even if that speech offends the university's management.  In this case, while apparently hundreds of faculty condemned the administration for autocratic, incompetent, self-serving actions, they all feared what that same administration could do to them if their identities were known.

In the last few years there has been a lot of prattle about the "flat organization," and there have probably been at least a few small high technology start ups that really were run on a collegial basis.  However, as we have shown again and again, throughout the corporate world, extending to health care corporations, and then to non-profit health care organizations, top management insiders have assumed more power and paid themselves better and better at the expense of all others (look here).  Even now in universities, which used to be examples of collegiality, and were run in somewhat democratically  by their faculties, faculty are obviously afraid to challenge the hired managers. 

Clearly, universities in which faculty cannot disagree with management are not going to be able to exercise the free enquiry that is core to their academic role.  In a health care context, why should anyone trust medical schools or academic medical centers run as tin-pot dictatorships by some hired executives?  Clearly, real health care reform would restore free speech and free enquiry to academic medicine.

Hat tip to Prof Margaret Soltan on University Diaries.

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166198/um-medical-school-names-new-coo.html#storylink=cpy

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/01/03/3166198/um-medical-school-names-new-coo.html#storylink=cpy

The Parts of Professionalism We Are Not Supposed to Discuss

A recent article in a a relatively obscure medical ethics journal dared to approach some important aspects of medical ethics that medical ethicists fear to discuss, but did not address the reasons for this fear or what to do about it. (Glenn JE. The eroding principle of justice in teaching medical ethics.  HEC Forum 2012; 24: 293-305.  Link here.)

The Basic Ethics Case - A Prescription for the Patient's Spouse?

Glenn began with a case typically discussed in medical school ethics courses:

a scenario where a standardized patient asks the student at the end of the examination if his prescription can be written in his spouse’s name as the spouse has health insurance which includes prescription drug coverage while the patient does not.

This

poses the question as to whether it is ethical for physicians to deceive third party payers to secure coverage for their patients.

The Politically Correct Way to Teach the Case

Glenn stated that there is a politically correct way for faculty to teach this case:

 Though we are never expressly instructed to tow [sic] a party line, there is a 'correct' answer to this ethical quandary as far as the institution we work for is concerned. Students who express a willingness to practice deception of third party payers for the good of their patients are to be commended for having their heart in the right place. However, we discuss many reasons why this action would not be a good solution to the problem. One of the issues is that to do so would be committing fraud.

Now, of course, writing a prescription for a patient who does not actually need the drug in question, understanding that the patient will give the drug to someone else who does not have insurance coverage to pay for it, is dishonest.  However, the larger point that Glenn made is that it is not politically correct to allow discussion about why the patient made such a request in the first place, and that this ought to be troubling.

Note that Glenn did not explain how he inferred what the "correct" answer was, nor its actual source within the institution.

Over the first few years of having this conversation with young medical students, I have always come away feeling empty and flat. Framed as a session on the ethics of 'truth telling,' the conversation and the readings we provide to prepare for it works to obfuscate the much larger ethical issue impossible to tackle in an hour’s time. In essence, 'truth telling' is only a secondary ethical issue at play. The more important ethical issue is a question of social justice: what commitment do doctors have to poor patients and making sure that they get the health care services that they need?

Social Justice as Part of Professionalism, and its Avoidance

The article by Glenn then emphasized that some of the original conceptions of physicians' professionalism included social justice.  A definition promulgated by Herbert Swick in 2000 expressly included these relevant competencies.  Physicians ought to:
-  subordinate their own interests to the interests of others
-  respond to social needs and work toward the benefit of the communities in which they live and serve
-  adhere to the core humanistic values of honesty and integrity, compassion, altruism, empathy, respect for others, and trustworthiness.


Glenn noted that these three competencies, however, have been turned into a more narrow imperative, that

doctors should treat patients with an equally high quality irrespective of their race, ethnicity, gender, religion or cultural background according to what is best for them. In most codes of professionalism, however, class is not expressly implicated.

Note that Glenn did not question why the issues of race, ethnicity, gender, religion, or cultural background became important in this context.  He did further question why the issue of class did not.  While

 The professionalism code adopted by the American Board of Internal Medicine in 1999 was bolder and specifically states that doctors are to advocate for 'the best possible care [for their patients] regardless of the ability to pay'

Glenn asked

 But where in the medical school curriculum do we teach medical students to be strong patient advocates and take on third party payers and hospital administrators? We now discuss the importance of prescribing generic drugs and we warn against the influence of big pharma, but when do we teach students to rebel against the high cost of medical education that drives students toward boutique medicine and fields of specialty care that offer the most money and most comfortable lifestyles?

Furthermore, he noted,

 When it comes to justice in medical ethics instruction, the parameters of the discussion are usually constricted to focus on the conservation of health care resources and rationing care rather than providing more care to more patients.

So, now seemingly getting to the key question,

We have created an entire system where all the middlemen that stand between a patient and her health care are expecting to get rich. No oath or professionalism curriculum is structured to teach medical students how to ethically and morally navigate through that. How did the terms of the debate get so co-opted by the health care economists?

The Key Question also Avoided

However, after this build up, Glenn then had trouble grappling with that question.  He noted that the prices of various parts of US health care are rarely questioned, and wrote about some of the particular issues in pricing new technologies, including the costs of development of new drugs, the tax treatment of drug development, and whether the licenses drug companies obtain from universities to develop drugs are fairly priced.  He also touched on the rising cost of medical school tuition and students' consequent assumption of large levels of debt.  This was interesting, and provided some useful references, but never really directly addressed the key questions above: why was the discussion framed in terms only of current health economics, and more importantly,  why did he and other ethicists feel they could not openly discuss any larger issues?

Only at the very end of the article did this appear

the structure of our current medical system has created a network of health care providers, researchers, purveyors and administrators who have strong financial incentives to work against the best interests of patients. This situation makes it difficult to talk with students about the ethical principle of justice in any meaningful way that is not hypocritical, leaving it seldom emphasized relative to the other three core principles of medical ethics.

Glenn did not further explain these "financial incentives," detail further who had them, explain how they "work against the best interests of patients," and most importantly, explain how these incentives make "it difficult to talk with students about the ethical principal of justice in any meaningful way that is not hypocritical."  He concluded only

 How can we cultivate within our students an understanding of the threats to medical professionalism posed by the conflicts of interest inherent in the various financial and organizational arrangements in the practice of medicine?  We start by not shying away from the conversation.

Summary

So Professor Glenn argued that social justice has been considered part of health care ethics, and that ethicists should teach about it by questioning the current economic arrangements within the health care system.  He then suggested that ethicists have been somehow pressured not do raise such questions, and that this pressure has something to do with perverse incentives and conflicts of interest prevalent within health care.  However, he never actually addressed who pressured the ethicists, how the pressure was applied, and how that pressure was related to conflicts of interest.

Thus, it seems that authors in scholarly health care journals may now hint that there are certain things one must not discuss, that are taboo to discuss in health care, but cannot actually say what exactly is taboo, and why it became that way.  Thus, the article by Glenn seems related to what we sometimes coyly call the "anechoic effect,"  that the issues we discuss on Health Care Renewal often do not seem to be considered topics of polite conversation.  But in a strange recursive way, the article never could quite manage to discuss what it is it said others cannot discuss, which in a way just further validates the importance of the anechoic effect.

The Glenn article is reminiscent of another article we posted about.  That article, by Souba and colleagues,  found that there are many "elephants," that is,  unmentionable subjects, in academic medicine,  However, that article also never clearly defined what these unmentionable subjects actually are, other than subjects that displease those in power.  Thus this too reinforced just how taboo these topics are.  Even those willing to admit that taboo topics exist are still unable to name them.

At least the Glenn article did suggest, however vaguely, a relationship between conflicts of interest and the anechoic effect.  We have documented that individual and institutional conflicts of interest are rampant in health care, including, and probably particularly academic medicine.  For example, pharmaceutical companies (and also all sorts of other health care corporations) may pay medical school faculty members and administrators (as consultants, "key opinion leaders," speakers, advisers, even board members).  The leaders of academic medicine seem particularly prone to such conflicts. For example, a majority of US medical school department chairs have significant financial relationships with health care corporations (see post here).  We have shown how top medical school leaders may simultaneously serve on the boards of directors of health care corporations (see post here). Such health care corporations may now also support various aspects of medical academia (through research grants, "unrestricted" and other educational grants, other gifts to hospitals and universities, etc).  Financial conflicts of interest may help to directly enrich many faculty and academic leaders, and indirectly enrich them by enriching their organizations. People who are personally profiting from relationships with health care corporations are unlikely to question such relationships.  The leaders of organizations which depend on funding from such corporations are unlikely to question whether conflicts of interest might lead to corruption.  People whose colleagues, friends, family members, or supervisors are personally benefiting from conflicts of interest may hesitate to challenge such relationships.   Since these relationships permeate the economics of health care, is it any wonder that the entire topic has become taboo?  

So the first step in challenging this taboo is to acknowledge it exists, and to not "shy away" from discussing it, as Glenn suggested.  People are beginning to acknowledge there is an elephant in the room.  Now we have to describe the elephant, discuss the elephant, and eventually figure out how to get the elephant out of the room.     

Hat tip - to the Medical Professionalism Blog.

Health Care Academics' Unrest and Bad Health Care Leadership?

Last month we discussed a recent, large scale study of physician burnout, and wondered whether it would finally inspire some discourse about why physicians are really so upset.  In particular, we hypothesized,  based on some real, if limited data, that physician angst, dissatisfaction, burnout, etc may mainly be a response to the problems with leadership and governance of health care organization we post about on Health Care Renewal.

After that post, one of our scouts found a very interesting and relevant article from earlier this year which got little attention at the time, but deserves more.  [Pololi LH, Krupat E, Civian JT, Ash AS, Brennan RT. Why are a quarter of faculty considering leaving academic medicine? A study of their perceptions of institutional culture and intentions to leave at 26 representative U.S. medical schools. Acad Med. 2012; 87: 859-69. Link here.]

Study Design

This was a cross-sectional survey of faculty at 26 medical schools in the US, selected to be similar to the general population of medical schools in the country.  At each school, 150 faculty were randomly chosen stratified by sex and age, and then the sample was enriched to include additional minority faculty and women surgeons, for a total of 4578.

The faculty were sent a multi item survey to assess their perception of the organizational culture of their institutions, and asked about their intentions to continue in or leave their current positions and academic medicine.  Responses to each survey item were allowed to be from 1 = strongly disagree, to 5 = strongly agree.  The items on the survey were combined into various scales.  A number of items on the survey seemed to be related to issues we frequently discuss on Health Care Renewal.  These items ended up in three different scales, entitled Relatedness/Inclusion, Values Alignment, and Ethical/Moral Distress.  The survey items are listed below, grouped by issue, with the scales into which they were combined noted.

Issue: Mission-Hostile Leadership

Administration only interested in me for revenue   (Reverse coded) (Values Alignment)
Institution committed to serving the public (VA)
Institution's actions well-aligned with stated values and mission (VA)
Institution puts own needs ahead of educational/clinical missions (RC) (VA)
My values well-aligned with school's (VA)
Institution awards excellence in clinical care (VA)
Institution does not value teaching (RC) (VA)
Have to compromise values to work here (Ethical/Moral Distress)

Issue: Deceptive, Unethical Leadership

Felt pressure to behave unethically (Ethical/Moral Distress)
Need to be deceitful in order to succeed (EMD)
Others have taken credit for my work (EMD)

Issue: Generation of the Anechoic Effect by  Suppression of Free Speech, Academic Freedom, Dissent, Whistle-Blowing,

Feel ignored/ invisible (RC) (Relatedness/Inclusion)
Hide what I think and feel (RC) (R/I)
Reluctant to express opinion/ fear negative consequences (RC) (R/I)

So in summary, the survey contained quite a few questions about mission-hostile management, comprising nearly all of the Values Alignment scale, some questions about deceptive or unethical leadership, all in the Ethical/Moral Distress scale, and some about generation of the anechoic effect by suppression of free speech, academic freedom, dissent, and whistle-blowing, all in the Relatedness/Inclusion scale.

Results

The response rate was 52% (N=2381.)

Unfortunately, the article did not include the distributions of the responses to individual survey items, and only included the mean and standard error of the scale scores.  The values for the scales of most interest were:
Relatedness/Inclusion  3.56 SE= 0.022
Values Alignment  3.25 SE=0.028
Ethical/Moral Distress 2.36 SE=0.022

Note that the article did not address the degree individual items, especially those listed above, contributed to variation in the scale scores.


A small majority of faculty indicated their intentions to stay at their institutions (57%).  Of the remainder, 14% were considering leaving their school due to dissatisfaction, and another 21% were considering leaving academic medicine due to dissatisfaction.  The remainder were considering leaving due to personal/ family reasons or to retire.

The authors did complex multinomial logit modeling to assess the relationships among the various scales, demographic factors, and intention to leave.  Most relevant to us, Relatedness/Inclusion was significantly related to intention to leave the institution due to dissatisfaction (Coefficient -0.69, p lt 0.001, OR =0.50), as was Values Alignment (-0.39, p=0.04, OR=0.68), but not Ethical/ Moral Distress.  Furthermore, Relatedness/Inclusion was related to intention to leave academic medicine due to dissatisfaction (-0.48, p lt 0.001, 0.62), as was Ethical/Moral Distress (0.60, p lt 0.001, OR =1.82). The article did not address whether individual survey items, including those of most interest listed above, were related to intention to leave.  The article also did not address whether responses to the survey or intention to leave varied across faculty characteristics, medical school characteristics, or individual medical schools. 

Summary and Comments

This very large survey of faculty from multiple US medical schools showed that more than one-third were considering leaving their institutions or academic medicine due to dissatisfaction, indicating a striking prevalence of faculty distress.  Their responses to questions about perceived organizational cultural and leadership problems, including those possibly related to leadership's perceived hostility to the mission, leadership's perceived dishonesty or unethical behavior, and leadership's suppression of dissent, free speech, academic freedom, and whistle-blowing were related to their intentions to leave due to dissatisfaction.

These results suggest the hypothesis that much of faculty angst may be due to the sorts of problems with leadership and hence organizational culture that we discuss on Health Care Renewal.  Since this was a cross-sectional survey, it certainly does not offer scientific proof of this hypothesis.  Note that there is other evidence from numerous cases discussed in Health Care Renewal, qualitative studies and our much smaller study published only in abstract form that also supports this hypothesis (look here). 

One part of the author's discussion of their findings was particularly relevant:

Our findings are congruent with metaanalyses of 25 years of organizational justice research outside medicine. These studies suggest that employee perceptions of organizational justice and an ethical climate are related to increased job satisfaction, trust in leadership, enhanced performance, commitment to one’s employer, and reduced turnover.

 The scale of ethical/moral distress (see Table 1) reflects reactions to the prevailing norms and possible erosion of professionalism and increased organizational self-interest. There is a growing belief that organizations influence and are responsible for the ethical or unethical behaviors of their employees.To our knowledge, faculty perceptions of 'moral atmosphere' and 'just community' embedded in our survey have not been previously investigated in academic medicine, even though the ethical concepts of professionalism and justice can be used to guide the pursuit of excellence in the missions of medical schools. Several scholars have called for academic medicine to attend to its social justice and moral mission. Faculty perceptions
of organizational justice are pivotal to the critical issue of professionalism in medicine. The ethical/moral distress scale in the survey reported here included items such as 'the culture of my institution discourages altruism' and 'I find working here to be dehumanizing.' (See Table 1 for other items in this scale.) In that ethical/moral distress was more strongly related to intent to leave academic medicine entirely than intent to leave one’s own institution, these negative feelings among faculty must be particularly disheartening to them and may color major career decisions.

I believe that the study by Pololi et al adds to the evidence that physician distress is a symptom of a dysfunctional system in which major health care organizations have been taken over by leaders more devoted to self-interest and short-term revenue than the values prized by health care professionals and academics.  This applies obviously to academic medical institutions, but also to other organizations that might have been expected to defend such professional and academic values, such as professional associations, accrediting organizations, and health care foundations.  As we said before, if physicians really want to address what is making them burned out and dissatisfied, they will have to regain control of their own societies, organizations, and academic institutions, and ensure that these organizations put core values, not revenue generation and providing  cushy compensation to their executives, first.  

Using a "Professionalism" Initiative as a Speech Code to Punish Students' Criticisms of Administrative Authority?

The original impetus to set up Health Care Renewal was increasing evidence of external threats to physicians' professional values.  So it seemed to me that renewed interest in addressing professionalism in academic medicine might lead to more attention to these threats, and perhaps even real challenges to them. 

Instead, most academic professionalism initiatives seem to have steered away from this contentious area.  Worse, at times the academic medical concept of professionalism has been turned on its head. 

A Dispute Among Students at University of California - Davis

A recent post in the Torch blog from our friends at FIRE (the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education) provided a graphic example.  The case involved an apparently trivial dispute among two medical students:

[University of California - Davis medical student Curtis] Allumbaugh's ordeal began after he emailed the 'med2014' mailing list (or 'listserv') on July 19, 2010, regarding a party he was organizing. The listserv was widely used for a variety of non-academic purposes. Allumbaugh's email provided the address of the party, detailed the available space, and listed the variety of alcohol that would be available at the party. The email noted that others had signed up to bring snacks and mentioned that some things were still lacking for the party, such as music, fruit juice, and beer. Prior to Allumbaugh's message, others had sent similar emails using the same listserv about their own parties, such as a 'kegger' one student called 'CAMP MED.'

On July 20, 2010, a second-year student emailed Allumbaugh, notifying him that she had 'been placed on the class of 2014's listserve' and had monitored the class email. She criticized Allumbaugh's email for placing 'a heavy emphasis on alcohol.' In response, Allumbaugh emailed her directly on July 21, calling her a 'busy body' and telling her, 'You should really just mind your own business and let our class be.'

Note that the second-year student's email (available here) carried a suggestion that she had some sort of authority to monitor the extra-curricular actions of first year students as manifested on the list server, and perhaps even punish them for perceived misconduct:

I can tell you that as MS2s, we work and play hard, but we do it responsibly and always in the forefront of our minds we remember what image we are portraying in public and through the messages we send. I'd hate to see any one of you 2014ers get into any trouble right before you start an amazing period of your life.

Note that the exchange between the two students did not occur in an academic or clinical setting, and it was never clear why the second year student was "placed on" the list server, or why she should have any authority over the Allumbaugh. .

The School Administration Invokes "Professionalism"

The medical school saw fit to cast Allumbaugh's actions as violations of the school's standards of professionalism:

As a result of this email exchange, Associate Dean of Student Affairs and Graduate Medical Education James Nuovo sent Allumbaugh a letter on September 14, 2010, citing him for 'failing to demonstrate the highest standards of civility and decency to all' and 'failing to demonstrate courtesy, sensitivity and respect.' On November 3, 2010, Allumbaugh received a letter from the SOM Committee on Student Progress, punishing him with academic probation for the rest of his time in medical school and requiring him to undergo a psychological assessment to determine whether he was 'fit' to continue in medical school.

Finally, on November 19, 2010, SOM changed its rules to force all medical students to abide by the Principles of Community or else face academic probation.

The result was a series of interventions by FIRE:

In response, FIRE wrote UC Davis Chancellor Linda P.B. Katehi on August 3, 2011, noting that enforcing professional standards in truly professional settings differs greatly from enforcing workplace standards in other settings such as private conversations. FIRE also noted that it is blatantly unconstitutional to police student speech under the UC Davis Principles of Community because such a 'civility' policy violates the First Amendment right to freedom of speech when it is given disciplinary force.

When that letter had no effect, it took threats of litigation for the medical school to suspend Allumbaugh's punishment more than one year after it began:

SOM Associate Dean of Curriculum and Competency Development Mark Servis replied to FIRE on August 10, 2011, defending the policy. FIRE responded on November 23, 2011, reminding Katehi that 'violating well-established law regarding the First Amendment rights of students at public universities leaves you at risk of losing qualified immunity, thereby opening you and other administrators to personal liability' for the deprivation of students' First Amendment rights. Servis again defended the policy in a reply on December 5, 2011.

Finally, on February 16, 2012, the Committee on Student Progress notified Allumbaugh that his probation had been dropped, but persisted in requiring him to adhere to the Principles of Community.

Note that Associate Dean Servis' letter stated that the email sent to Allumbaugh by the second year student was "a genuine suggestion of concern and an offer of albeit unsolicited friendly advice."  Thus, Servis seemed unaware that it could have been interpreted as an assertion of authority and a threat of punishment ("I'd hate to see any one of you 2014ers get into any trouble.")

Dean Servis also defended the use of probation to punish a student for failing to "work effectively with classmates." Yet the dispute that had nothing to do with (academic or clinical) work, and only involved a single student from another class.  Why that student was not equally to blame was not clear, unless it was because she had been granted special authority by the administration to monitor the actions of less senior students.  The implication appears to be that the punishment was in defense of a student who had been granted special authority by the administration, and hence was ultimately in defense of the administration's power. 

Summary

In this case, the medical school's professionalism policy seemed to be used by the administration primarily to control students' speech outside of the academic and clinical setting. Furthermore, the student's main offense seemed to be failure to kowtow sufficiently to another student who by implication had been given some sort of authority by the administration.  What the two students' dispute had to with professionalism is not  apparent.

On one hand, this seems like a case in which a speech code was mainly used to defend administrators from criticism and challenge.

On the other hand, this speech code was cloaked in the mantle of professionalism.  So this case seems to be an example of a professionalism initiative used as an excuse for the leadership to maintain its power.

It is beyond ironic that while this was going on, the University of California - Davis, and its Chancellor Linda Katehi were becoming briefly infamous for another effort, a more violent one, by the administration to prevent criticism and challenge. Chancellor Katehi had authorized university police to "clear" student demonstrators from an "occupation" of the campus which was protesting, among other things, rising tuition and economic inequality, and in doing so, the police used pepper spray on unarmed students (see this post.)

There are a lot bigger threats to physicians' and other health care professionals' professionalism than medical students' sarcasm or even rudeness in disputes about alcohol served at off-hours parties. Since many of these threats also generate personal benefits to academic leadership, it may not be much of a surprise that they have received little attention.  (See the list of threats appended below.  Note that we have discussed two of these threats in the specific context of the University of California - Davis.  Here we noted that Chancellor Katehi seemed to be re-imagining her medical school as a biotechnology company.  Here we noted that Chancellor Katehi was also on the board of a company with a medical education and communication company subsidiary.)

However, while they remain unaddressed, I submit that using "professionalism" to cloak increased social control of students to prevent them from looking too closely at what academic administrators are doing will eventually backfire. 

===
ADDENDUM: List of Threats to Professionalism


Instead, to really uphold professionalism, we need to defend it from its real threats, as listed in my 2010 post:

• Abandonment of traditional prohibitions of the commercial practice of medicine - In the US, a Supreme Court decision was interpreted to mean that medical societies could no longer regulate the ethics of their members.  Until 1980, the US American Medical Association had  ruled that the practice of medicine should not be "commercialized, nor treated as a commodity in trade."  After then, it ceased trying to maintain this prohibition.  The result was increasing, now rampant commercialization.  See posts  here and here.
• Making money takes precedence over education -  A recent survey showing that more than half the faculty at multiple US medical schools felt they were valued more for how much money they brought in than their teaching or patient care abilities (here), confirming previous anecdotal reports (see here). 
• The medical school re-imagined as a biotechnology company -  In 2000, a Vice President of the American Association of Medical Colleges(1) wrote that research universities must respond to "societal demands that they become engines of economic development…."  Many universities now defend lax conflict of interest policies with similar arguments.  For more details, go here.
• Faculty become employees of industry - For numerous examples of this and other kinds of conflicts of interest, go here.  A survey by Campbell et al suggested that approximately two-thirds of medical academics get significant payments from industry.(2)
• Academics become "key opinion leaders" paid to market drugs and devices - Marketers regard "key opinion leaders" as salespeople who appear more credible because of their professional guise.  See anecdotal evidence here.  
• Control of clinical research given to commercial sponsors - A study by Mello et al showed how universities' grant administrators are willing to sign contracts giving commercial sponsors control over key aspects of human research studies.(3)  See post here. 
• Conflicts of interest allow manipulation and suppression of clinical research - Commercially sponsored research design, implementation, and dissemination are often manipulated to favor the sponsor's interests.  When such manipulation fails to produce favorable results, the results may simply be suppressed.
• Academics take credit for articles written by commercially paid ghost-writers - Such ghost-writing is often part of organized stealth marketing campaigns. 
• Whistle blowers are discouraged, or worse, and academic freedom is damaged.  Discussion of some examples of what may happen to whistle blowers is here.  The survey mentioned earlier (here) showed that about one-third of faculty fear they may be punished for speaking  out. 
• Leadership of academic medical centers by businesspeople - Ill-informed management may result from leaders who have no background or training in actual health care. 
• Leaders of teaching hospitals and universities become millionaires -  A recent example is here, and more may be found here.  Leaders of academic medical centers and the parent universities of medical schools often make more than $1 million a year in the US.  When such amounts are in play, executives may focus more on short-term measures that lead to even more pay than on upholding the mission. 
• Medical school leaders become stewards (as members of boards of directors) of for-profit health care corporations - A recent example is here, and a summary of how we discovered this phenomenon in 2006 is here.   The conflict of interest is severe because directors of for-profit corporations are supposed to have unyielding loyalty to the interests of the corporation and its stockholders, although they are frequently accused of acting mainly as cronies of the top hired executives (see here and here).
• Leaders of failed finance firms become stewards of academic medicine - We have found numerous examples, recently here, here, and here, of top executives and/or board members of the finance firms who helped bring on the global financial collapse also being trustees of medical schools, academic medical centers, or their parent universities.  Such "stewards" may bring to the academic environment the "greed is good" culture now pervasive in finance. 

References


1. Korn D. Conflicts of interest in biomedical research. JAMA 2000; 284: 2234-2237. Link here.
2. Campbell EG, Gruen RL, Mountford J et al. A national survey of physician–industry relationships. N Engl J Med 2007; 356:1742-1750. Llink here.
3. Mello MM, Clarridge BR, Studdert DM. Academic medical centers' standards for clinical-trial agreements with industry. N Engl J Med 2005; 352: 21.  Link here.