Baselga, graft and corruption in medical research: why should we tolerate it?

On September 8, 2018, the NY Times reported that José Baselga, MD, Chief Medical Officer at the prestigious Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York, and a world-renowned cancer researcher, had received at least hundreds of thousands of dollars in payments from drug companies and manufacturers of radiation equipment bought by his hospital. The number of companies from which Dr. Baselga was receiving payments turned out to be in the dozens. The emphasis in this article was not so much that he had received the money, for him personally, but that he had not reported this conflict of interest (COI) to the many journals that had published articles he had written. These articles were often studies of drugs produced by the companies that had paid him money.

 ‘Dr. Baselga did not dispute his relationships with at least a dozen companies. In an interview, he said the disclosure lapses were unintentional. He stressed that much of his industry work was publicly known although he declined to provide payment figures from his involvement with some biotech startups. “I acknowledge that there have been inconsistencies, but that’s what it is,” he said. “It’s not that I do not appreciate the importance.”’

He in fact DID let it affect his science, as the article reports:

‘At a conference this year and before analysts in 2017, he put a positive spin on the results of two Roche-sponsored clinical trials that many others considered disappointments, without disclosing his relationship to the company. Since 2014, he has received more than $3 million from Roche in consulting fees and for his stake in a company it acquired.’

This is important stuff. He took bribes from drug companies and spun the data to make their drugs look good. This is corruption. It is important to separate this from conflict of interest. COI, as I discussed on August 20, 2010 (“The AAFP, Coca Cola, and Ethics: Serving the public interest?”), exists when you have – surprise – conflicting interests! As when you receive money from your employer, and also money from some other company, thus creating a conflict. As medical ethicist Howard Brody, MD, pointed out in his article on the AAFP:

‘imagine that a judge who is sitting on a case involving a contract dispute between two companies is discovered to own $100,000 worth of stock in one of the companies. The judge cannot divert criticism of this conflict of interest by saying, ‘But you haven’t waited until I delivered my verdict—how do you know that I won’t rule against the company in which I own stock?“

He has a conflict of interest. You don’t have to actually do anything to the detriment of one of your funders to be in COI; most journal policies require reporting it so that readers can be aware of the COI, but it does not necessarily mean that if impacts your work. In Baselga’s case, however, it obviously did.

I guess he realized it. On September 13, 2018, the Times reported Baselga’s resignation from Memorial Sloan-Kettering. You can just imagine the Sloan-Kettering board of directors holding their breath to see if this would just blow over, and I am sure mostly that it would not affect donations from rich people. On that same day, the Times also published several letters from readers about the topic, all of them critical of Baselga, but emphasizing different issues. Charles Fried, a law professor from Harvard, notes that Baselga received $1.5 million in income from his employer, Sloan-Kettering, and wondered “Why isn’t $1.5 million enough?” Of course, for some people, nothing is ever enough. But the important point here is that Baselga was scarcely a penniless medical researcher barely scraping by and thus in need of this graft to pay a mortgage on a modest home, or buy a second bass boat. He was just really greedy.

Other letters emphasize other aspects of this practice, noting that Baselga may be a famous and particularly corrupt example, but that he is far from the only one receiving payoffs. Daniel J. Brauner, MD, a geriatrician and ethicist from the University of Chicago, notes that revealing COI is insufficient, observing that ‘The sad fact is that the current system of medical research and care conducted by physician-scientists like Dr. Baselga is fundamentally flawed and does an extreme disservice to patients, who deserve an unbiased accounting about the true worth of potential treatments.’  Frances M. Visco, president of the National Breast Cancer Coalition, bemoans the fact that ‘Breast cancer patients are tired of “breakthrough” therapies that do not extend life for even a day but do bring millions of dollars to industry, medical institutions and the doctors who care for us,’ and demands that researchers and journals ‘Just stop circling the wagons, focusing on financial gain and fame.’

On September 16, 2018, the Times published a full-column editorial on the issue in its widely-read Sunday Review. It notes how common the practice of paying corporate money to doctors and researchers is, observing that ‘A 2015 study in The BMJ found that a “substantial number” of academic leaders hold directorships that pay as much as or more than their clinical salaries.’ In addition, it report that ‘nearly 70 percent of oncologists who speak at national meetings, nearly 70 percent of psychiatrists on the task force that ultimately decides what treatments should be recommended for what mental illnesses, and a significant number of doctors on Food and Drug Administration advisory committees have financial ties to the drug and medical device industries.’ In its analysis of the problem, the editorial leaves out one major issue: much, or most, of the basic research that is done and leads to the production of these hugely-profitable drugs is funded by the federal government through the National Institutes of Health (NIH); that is to say, you and me. The drug companies pick up the work later when they think that the drug may represent a big financial boon for them.

The Times calls for greater safeguards to protect the public, with several suggestions including: 1. Ban paid appointments to outside boards, 2. Create uniform reporting standards, 3. Establish real consequences for violations, and 4. Build a culture of transparency. These are good suggestions, and should be implemented, although how one does #4 is not entirely clear, and the likelihood of #1 happening is low. But the real issue is the degree to which we, the American people, are willing to tolerate graft and corruption. We may – or may not -- dislike it when it occurs in the private sector (certainly President Trump was a major practitioner in his pre-Presidential years). We condemn it when it involves politicians, though it is rampant in federal, state, and local government (although what is illegal graft for state legislators is legal, if sometimes embarrassing, for Congressmen), but we expect it when it comes in the form of “campaign contributions”. And we should not be surprised when it infects medical researchers and physicians, who we hope have our health interests, not their own financial interests, at heart in what they do.

Corruption and graft is corruption and graft. It happens, and shouldn’t, and won’t stop until we demand it. And it won’t stop in health care until we get the profit incentive out of it.

Rationing, Waste, and Useless Interventions

Most people, when they or those they love are sick, want things done for them that might be of benefit. Cost is a secondary factor, especially when it is not directly being borne by them because they have health insurance coverage (but if it is going to be costly, that insurance better be good). In general, the order of preference would be for: 1) things that will definitely help; 2) things that might help; 3) things that almost certainly won’t help-but-you-never-know and don’t cause serious harm; and 4) things that won’t help and may very well cause serious harm.

It might seem superficially as if most people wouldn’t want #4 interventions, but surprisingly people opt for them. This is particularly true when the expected outcome is death; if you’re going to die anyway, what harm could be greater? Besides, maybe a miracle will occur. Of course, there can be greater harm than simply dying – death preceded by increased suffering caused by futile attempts at treatment – but when confronting death, many people look at the positives and ignore the negatives. In addition, the decision may be different when made by the person actually facing death (provided s/he is conscious and competent – or has advance directives -- and isn’t doing what the family, not s/he wants, because s/he is used to caring for them) or by his/her loved ones.

This leads into a discussion about rationing of health care resources, which is, appropriately, achieving a lot of attention. Two “Perspective” pieces in the New England Journal of Medicine May 24, 2012, and a “Viewpoint” from JAMA, May 23/30, 2012, address these issues from slightly different, well, perspectives/viewpoints. Howard Brody, MD PhD, in “From an ethics of rationing to an ethics of waste avoidance[1], as a bioethicist, begins with providing the ethics of rationing: “First, rationing occurs simply because resources are finite and someone must decide who gets what. Second, rationing is therefore inevitable; if we avoid explicit rationing, we will resort to implicit and perhaps unfair rationing methods.” I’d say “certainly unfair”; while Brody is talking in the abstract, we need only look around at what is actually occurring in the world to know that we have rationing that is unfair. He adds “The main ethical objection to rationing is that physicians owe an absolute duty of fidelity to each individual patient, regardless of cost. This objection fails, however, because when resources are exhausted, the patients who are deprived of care are real people and not statistics. Physicians collectively owe loyalty to those patients too.”

Brody addresses the current importance of this discussion given recent studies that show that as much of 30% of health care expenditures are “waste”, as opposed to less than 10% that might be attributed to “deliberate fraud.” Eliminating fraud is important, but it is a “one-time” saving, whereas eliminating waste not only represents a bigger number, but, because doing more and more tests is a major driver of rising health costs, may represent a way to “bend the cost curve.” Of course, as I noted, what is “waste” can depend upon ones perspective, values, and even degree of selfishness. Certainly because, as Brody notes, one person’s health expense (even if it is “waste”) is another person’s income, this is not going to be an easy discussion.

Brody cites the case of treatment of advanced metastatic breast cancer with high-dose chemotherapy followed by autologous bone marrow transplantation, which was “…initially thought to offer perhaps a 10% chance of a significant extension of life for patients who would otherwise be fated to die very soon. Insurers’ refusal to pay the high costs of this last-chance treatment did much to torpedo public trust in managed care during the 1990s. Data now suggest that the actual chance of meaningful benefit from this treatment is zero and that the only effect of the treatment was to make patients’ remaining months of life miserable.” However, it could have gone the other way; maybe longer experience would have shown it to be more effective. The “torpedoing of public trust” was surely enhanced by protests from advocacy groups as well as from physicians and hospitals that benefited financially from these procedures. Another result, noted by Volpp et al., in JAMA “Assessing value in health care programs”^[2], is that “Many insurers, including Medicare, are continuing to cover bevacizumab for metastatic breast cancer, despite the unanimous recommendation by a US Food and Drug Administration panel that it not be covered because it is not helping patients to live longer, does not control their tumors, and exposes them to serious adverse effects, and despite an average annual cost of $99,000.”

Volpp and his colleagues  argue that, in health care, return-on-investment (ROI) cannot always be measured directly as positive in dollar terms, and is less so as the pool (everyone, a big company, a small company, an individual) is reduced:

“What would happen if the rule were applied to every health care decision that is made? Besides childhood vaccination and flu shots for the elderly, few health care services save money. The positive return-on-investment criterion is not applied to most health care services because almost nothing satisfies it. Medicare is prohibited by law from considering cost in coverage decisions, and other insurers tend to follow suit, even if the benefits are small and the costs very large. Would anyone ever ask, ‘What is the return on investment in treatment of this patient’s cancer?’ This is not a meaningless question, but almost certainly one that most people would think inappropriate to ask.”

They add “It certainly does not make sense to use one criterion—Are there clinical benefits?—for coverage decisions for treatments and a different criterion—Are health care savings greater than program costs?—for preventive services or for delivery system innovations designed to improve health;” however, we certainly do.

The third article, “Beyond the ‘R Word’? Medicine’s New Frugality”[3] by M. Gregg Bloche MD JD, takes a more policy, political, and law-oriented approach toward understanding what might happen in limiting health care expenditures. He discusses the medical “luxury tax” (on “Cadillac plans”) and notes that while this is not having a big impact now, with the threshold at $23,000 a year, it will in the future because costs of medical care (and insurance) rise faster (at least 2% and often more) than the consumer price index (CPI), while the threshold for the tax is 1% above CPI. He suggests that “Employers

will pay the tax, but workers will bear its burden as firms shrink salaries to cover the cost.”

This is really important, and it is another strong argument for a single-payer health insurance program that will cover everyone. Costs do – and will continue to need to be – controlled, and this will result in continued rationing. But that rationing is only ethical when it is explicit and based on medical need, not the character of one’s insurance or socioeconomic status.

---

[1 Brody H,”From an ethics of rationing to an ethics of waste avoidance”, NEJM 24May2012;366(21):1949-51

[2] Volpp  KG, G Loewenstein, DA Asch, “Assessing value in health care programs”, JAMA 2012May23/30; 307(20):2153-4.

[3] Bloche MG, “Beyond the ‘R word’: medicine’s new frugality”, NEJM 24May2012;366(21):1951-3.

The AAFP, Coca-Cola, and Ethics: Serving the public interest?

.
Last fall, the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) (full disclosure: the organization of family physicians, to which I belong) entered into a partnership agreement with the Coca-Cola Company for support of its patient information website, FamilyDoctor.org. The amount of the funding is uncertain, but it is reputed to be in the “mid-six-figures”. The arrangement came in for a great deal of criticism, both within and outside of the family medicine community, and several members of the organization resigned in protest. I addressed this as a small part of a larger blog, Harvard Medical School limits outside income: a good start, on January 21, 2010.

The debate has not gone away, and has been highlighted by two articles in the recent (July-August 2010) issue of Annals of Family Medicine, the research journal sponsored by all the family medicine organizations in the US and Canada. The first is by Howard Brody, the family physician and medical ethicist from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, “Professional Medical Organizations and Commercial Conflicts of Interest: Ethical Issues”, and the second is response by Lori Heim, President of the AAFP, “Identifying and Addressing Potential Conflict of Interest: A Professional Medical Organization’s Code of Ethics.” Brody’s essay is a clearly written review of the ethics of conflict of interest, addressing both whether the relationship between AAFP and Coke is a conflict of interest (COI) and whether it is ethically worrisome, and an analysis of the reasons and defenses put up by AAFP and Coke. In the first, he notes that a conflict of interest can, and often does, exist even when no “bad” outcome can be identified; it is simply a conflict between the primary set of responsibilities (in this case, of physicians and their organizations’ social responsibility for looking out for the best interests of their patients’ health; in other settings it might be awarding of government contracts or foundation grants) and a second, usually financially motivated set of interest.

Brody distinguishes between two strategies for addressing COI, a Management Strategy in which COIs are divulged so that others (presumably in this case, patients and the public) can take them into account, and the Divestment Strategy, in which organizations rid themselves of COI relationships. He dispenses with the conflation of COI with intellectual conflicts (that an investigator might want to show that his/her “pet hypothesis” is correct and put it in the best light) because readers will always be aware of the latter, but will not know of commercial relationships unless they are divulged. He notes that the Divestment Strategy is favored in most recent ethical literature (and in increasing numbers of medical schools, as per my January 21 blog), although not by the AAFP.

He then addresses the counterarguments and justifications that the AAFP has put forward in this case. These include:

· “Premature Accusation”, in which the AAFP says “you can’t know that we have a conflict until you see the content. He notes the conflict exists regardless, and offers this “crude” analogy: “imagine that a judge who is sitting on a case involving a contract dispute between two companies is discovered to own $100,000 worth of stock in one of the companies. The judge cannot divert criticism of this conflict of interest by saying, ‘But you haven’t waited until I delivered my verdict—how do you know that I won’t rule against the company in which I own stock?’ In the AAFP case, if the final educational material includes a strong statement against sugary soft drinks, we will never know whether, absent the Coca-Cola funding, the statement would have been even stronger. That such questions will inevitably be raised shows the conflict of interest is both present and serious, quite apart from the eventual contents of the educational materials."

· “Other Party not Evil”, in this case Coca-Cola. The issue, of course, is not whether they are evil, but whether their interests may lie in opposition to the interests of the health of doctors’ patients; “The physician has a duty to prescribe medications or make dietary recommendations based on scientific evidence. The companies have an interest in selling more beverages, or more drugs, regardless of the evidence.”

· “Wrong not to Engage” with organizations such as Coca-Cola. “Schafer[1] noted the propensity for engagement with industry, in such discussions, magically to convert itself into accepting large sums of money from industry.…No one is suggesting that the AAFP not engage Coca-Cola if the engagement avoids conflicts of interest and the result of the engagement would be improved public health.” [my bold]

Brody also addresses the similarities and difference between this and the 1997 relationship in which the American Medical Association (AMA) actually endorsed products made by Sunbeam. He notes that the relationship is called a “Consumer Alliance”, when it is more properly a corporate alliance. (I had missed this Newspeak usage in my January 21 blog, where I mistakenly called it a “corporate partnership”!)

Heim’s response states that Brody misses the point, and goes on to make the same arguments that AAFP has made before, that Brody has addressed and debunked, offering nothing new to the discussion. It refers to the AAFP Code of Ethics, and creates the disturbing sense that “we want the money, we don’t think we are doing anything unethical with the money, and so stop criticizing us.” In other words, it purposely and deliberately misses the point.

Does the AAFP’s relationship with Coke go beyond a conflict of interest (which it clearly is) to actually providing unhealthful material? Some authors believe so; public health attorney Michelle Simon, in her blog Appetite for Profit, addresses the issue on July 22, 2010. She notes that FamilyDoctor.org contains the disclaimer “This content was developed with general underwriting support from The Coca-Cola Company,” and comments “That makes it sound as if the Coca-Cola is just paying someone else to do the writing. But it appears the company is directing the substance of the content as well, since the verbiage is pretty similar to that found on Coca-Cola's own website on these very topics. (See for example, the company's page on sweetener ‘facts and myths’.)”

Simon quotes Dr. Heim’s article, “To gauge an individual or organization’s ethics, one must view its behavior over time, define the goal of that behavior and compare the outcome with the mission and values. Within this context, one can determine whether the assumption or appearance of conflict of interest or ethical lapse was, in fact, correct.” And comments: “What? She lost me somewhere between outcome and values. Taking money from Coca-Cola is not a science experiment that you watch over time, gather data, and then publish the analyzed results. But if one were to approach the issue that way, there's no shortage of evidence of Coca-Cola's 'ethical lapses.' Whether your concern is marketing to children, labor abuses, or contaminating water supplies in developing nations, Coca-Cola would be the one company you'd not choose as a partner. Journalist Michael Blanding has written an entire book called The Coke Machine: The Dirty Truth Behind the World's Favorite Soft Drink, due out in September, which chronicles these misdeeds and more.”

Certainly, the AAFP is not the only organization that has potentially undermined its public trust. For another big one, the American Dietetic Association (ADA) has a partnership (I don’t know if they’ve dared to call it a “consumer alliance”) with – Hershey! (see ADA’s press release at its own website; also see the Fooducate blog).

Maybe the ADA’s partnership is more outrageous, but as a family doctor and educator, I take the AAFP’s relationship with Coke more personally because it undermines me. At the time of this deal, several of the other family medicine organizations, including the Association of Departments of Family Medicine (ADFM, academic department chairs, to which I also belong) expressed serious concerns about this relationship to the AAFP leadership. These concerns related particularly to the fact that, to the public, family medicine is family medicine, and when the largest family medicine organization, AAFP, does something the entire discipline is affected; for example, medical students, or faculty in other departments, who may be distressed by the relationship express that concern to the faculty of family medicine. AAFP, the big dog on the block, listened. It didn’t change its policy, though. Money talks, of course, but if AAFP’s 55,000 active members (not including students, residents, and retirees) each sent in $10, it would be about the same amount as they received from Coke. Are we that cheap? As far as the content on FamilyDoctor.org is concerned, check it out for yourself. You can start by clicking on the benign (but somehow familiar) logo at the top of its web page.

Brody concludes his essay with: “Family physicians are widely trusted by their patients and communities. Merely by having chosen our specialty, family physicians have demonstrated a commendable commitment to putting the health needs of their patients ahead of personal financial gain. They deserve to be represented nationally by an organization that fully reflects those high ethical commitments and standards.” I couldn’t agree more.

[1] Schafer A. Biomedical conflicts of interest: a defence of the sequestration thesis—learning from the cases of Nancy Olivieri and David Healy. J Med Ethics. 2004; 30(1):8–24

.

Insurance company greed: To know them is to not trust them

.
Anthem Blue Cross, a subsidiary of WellPoint of Indianapolis, has taken a lot of criticism for its proposed rate increases on its 800,000 individual policies in California (“Anthem Blue Cross dramatically raising rates for Californians with individual health policies”, Duke Helfand in the Los Angeles Times February 4, 2010, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-insure-anthem5-2010feb05,0,3002094.story), to the extent that a follow-up article by Helfand on February 12 (“Anthem's parent company defends health insurance rate hike”, http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-anthem12-2010feb12,0,3807841.story) calls them “beleaguered”. They deserve to be. Their action is not only outrageous, it points out the absolute absurdity of thinking that a solution to the nation’s health care access problems can involve for-profit insurance companies.

Anthem announced increases of up to 39% on individual policies, but the WellPoint announcement adds insult to injury when it says “…that less than a quarter of affected Anthem customers in California will see rate increases of 35% to 39%. The average will be about 25%, while some customers will see rates fall…” Whew! Only 25% on average! Only a quarter of those affected will see increases in the 35-39% range. I guess those folks – and the rest of us because, as I will keep saying, we are all in this together! – can now rest easy.

In addition to investigations by the California Insurance Commissioner and possibly the Attorney General of the state, this one outrageous act has been the target of increasing criticism from the administration and from Congress. Rep. Henry Waxman, Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, announced hearings into the rate increase (http://www.speaker.gov/blog/?p=2149), and HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius is quoted by Helfand as saying “It remains difficult to understand how a company that made $2.7 billion in the last quarter of 2009 alone can justify massive increases that will leave consumers with nothing but bad options.” Sebelius, who is absolutely correct, has a history with Anthem. In 2002, as Kansas’ Insurance Commissioner, she blocked sale of Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Kansas to Anthem because it was ”not in the interest of Kansans”, an extremely popular position with both the medical and hospital societies and with the public, and played a significant role in her election as Governor later that year.

It would be a mistake, however, to see the WellPoint/Anthem action as an isolated case of stupendous greed by one insurance company. It is an example of the widespread stupendous greed of all of the health insurance companies. The New York Times’ Katharine Q. Seeley (“Administration Rejects Health Insurer’s Defense of Huge Rate Increases”, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/12/health/policy/12insure.html) also quotes Sebelius, but also notes that the top 5 health insurance companies, WellPoint, Cigna, UnitedHealth Group Inc., Aetna Inc. and Humana Inc., “…had an average profit last year of 5.2 percent — for a combined total of $12.2 billion. This was an increase of $4.4 billion, or 56 percent, compared with 2008…” The data comes from Security and Exchange Commission filings, and is contained in a report by “Health Care for American Now” (http://www.healthcareforamericanow.org/). The report, at http://hcfan.3cdn.net/a9ce29d3038ef8a1e1_dhm6b9q0l.pdf, also notes that the “medical loss ratio” for these companies is incredibly low. As a reminder for regular people, the ones who pay the bills, the “medical loss ratio” is the percent of the premiums insurance companies collect that they actually have to spend on providing health care, that is, that they do not get to keep!

The medical loss ratios for these companies for 2009, notes Don McCanne in his wonderful “Quote of the Day” for February 12, were:

· WellPoint - 82.6%
· UnitedHealth - 82.3%
· Humana - 82.8%
· Cigna - 81.2%
· Aetna - 85.2%

Or, “…of the estimated $809 billion spent on private health insurance in 2009, the five biggest for-profit companies... captured $232 billion.”

In case you had any illusions that these insurance companies might have made a mistake, or be embarrassed, or in any way could be thought to be serving the public, the statements of WellPoint’s spokesman, Bart Sassi, should change your minds.
"We welcome the scrutiny and are confident that our rates reflect anticipated medical costs and are established consistent with actuarial principles and state law.". That means he thinks it is legal, not that folks can afford it. He adds that Anthem's insurance policies "remain very competitively priced when compared with the dozens of other plans competing in the California individual market." Competitive with the other huge rapacious insurance companies, that is. Oligopolies don’t compete.

Helfand (Feb 11) also reports that “Anthem is not the only health insurer imposing double-digit rate increases. Competitors such as Blue Shield of California and Aetna also have raised premiums significantly in recent years, insurance brokers said. But they said the impending Anthem increases are the largest they have seen.” But at least we know that they have a human side, and are empathic. "We care deeply about our California customers and community,"Sassi said, "Clearly, we understand that these increases create a challenge for many of our members." Not that they are going to do anything about it except raise rates. Words are cheap.

The real message here is that health care reform must happen, and that to include for-profit insurance companies as the centerpiece, or as any meaningful component, is absurd and will guarantee failure in both of its goals: meeting the health access needs of the American people and controlling costs so that medical care does not bankrupt us and prevent the society from implementing the other necessary programs essential to health. If not a government-run single payer plan (the best choice), any health reform plan that does involve insurance companies must require them to be non-profit, or at least closely regulated by the government regarding the services that they must provide and the prices that they can charge. One of these methods is used by every other developed country, all of which have better outcomes for lower cost than we do.

The physician and ethicist Howard Brody has written an important article, “Medicine’s ethical responsibility for health care reform – the top 5 list”, New England Journal of Medicine, Jan 10 2010;362(4):283-5 http://content.nejm.org.proxy.kumc.edu:2048/cgi/content/full/362/4/283, in which he calls on physicians to take a strong and concrete role in cost control by limiting the tests and procedures that they order to those which are evidence based. He suggests that each specialty, through its specialty societies, identify the “Top 5” procedures that are commonly done their field that are both costly and not evidence-based, and exert pressure on their members to refrain from doing them. Indeed, to keep. Brody’s ethical justification for calling on doctors to do this is that “Physicians have, in effect, sworn an oath to place the interests of the patient ahead of their own interests — including their financial interests.” He adds that, while insurance companies, along with pharmaceutical companies, have promised the President to cut their costs as a “contribution” to health reform, “None of the for-profit health care industries that have promised cost savings have taken such an oath.”

You can say that again. This latest round of premium increases to bolster their obscene profits also shows how false their promises were. From the Obama administration and its Congressional allies who have been trying to steer an impossible “middle course”, to the Republican who have united in obstructionism and whose only offering is more give-aways to the insurance industry, to the “teabagger” populists who fear big government but should fear the private insurers rapacity more, it should be clear: To know this is to not trust them.
.