Conflicts of Interests Among The RUC’s Members

Roy Poses

First published 4/26/11 on Health Care Renewal

Since 2007, we have been writing about the secretive RUC (RBRVS Update Committee), the private AMA committee that somehow has managed to get effective control over how Medicare pays physicians. The RUC has been accused of setting up incentives that strongly favor invasive, high technology procedures while disfavoring primary care and other “cognitive medicine.” Despite the central role of (perverse) incentives in raising health care costs while limiting access and degrading quality, there was surprisingly little discussion about the pivotal role played by the RUC until the formation of the “Replace the RUC” movement (see post here).

Recently, the leaders of Replace the RUC scored a journalistic coup by putting the current list of RUC members publicly on-line.  As we have discussed, previously the membership of this committee was kept very obscure, although the committee argued it was not exactly secret.

Some Google searching suggests one possible reason that the RUC was in no hurry to disclose its own membership.  It appears that many of the RUC members have significant conflicts of interest with respect to their roles as de facto setters of the rates at which physicians are paid by the government.

The RUC Members and Their Financial Relationships

Below is the list of the current RUC membership (from this link), and relevant conflicts of interest obtained by Google searching.  Note that for each member, I first give the name, affiliation relevant to the RUC, location, and first year of membership as provided by the link above.  Then I list relevant financial relationships that appear to present conflicts of interest.

Barbara Levy, MD 
Chair, RVS Update Committee
Federal Way, WA 2000
Consultant/Advisory Boards: Conceptus; AMS; Covidien; Halt Medical; Gynesonics; Idoman Medical (hysteroscopic surgery and sterilization, endometrial ablation, electrosurgery, vaginal hysterectomy) per UptoDate

Bibb Allen, Jr., MD 
American College of Radiology (ACR)
Birmingham, AL 2006

Michael D. Bishop, MD 
American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP)
Bloomington, IN 2003

James Blankenship, MD 
American College of Cardiology (ACC)
Danville, PA 2000
Lecture fees from Sanofi-Aventis per New England Journal of Medicine

Robert Dale Blasier, MD 
American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons (AAOS)
Little Rock, AK 2008

Joel Bradley, MD 
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Brentwood, TN 2008
Medical Director, Americhoice by UnitedHealthcare, per AAP conference brochure 

Ronald Burd, MD 
American Psychiatric Association (APA)
Fargo, ND 2006

William F. Gee, MD 
American Urological Association (AUA)
Lexington, KY 2010
Member, Physician Advisory Board, Aetna per Aetna

John O. Gage, MD 
American College of Surgeons (ACS)
Pensacola, FL 1991

David F. Hitzeman, DO 
American Osteopathic Association (AOA)
Tulsa, OK 1996

Peter A. Hollmann, MD 
CPT Editorial Panel (AMA/CPT)
Providence, RI 2003
Medical Director, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Rhode Island, per RI Medical Society

Charles F. Koopmann, Jr., MD 
American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery (AAO-HNS)
Ann Arbor, MI 1996

Robert Kossmann, MD 
Renal Physicians Association (RPA)
Santa Fe, NM 2009
Member of Advanced Renal Technologies Advisory Board,Network 15 Medical Advisory Board, Baxter Home DialysisAdvisory Board, Fresenius Medical Advisory Board per Renal Physicians Association 

Walter Larimore, MD 
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP)
Colorado Springs, CO 2009

Brenda Lewis, DO 
American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA)
Cleveland, OH 2009

J. Leonard Lichtenfeld, MD 
American College of Physicians (ACP)
Atlanta, GA 1994
Member, Physician Advisory Board, Aetna per Aetna 

Scott Manaker, MD, PhD 
American College of Chest Physicians (ACCP)
Philadelphia, PA 2010
Consultant to Pfizer and Johnson and Johnson. Owns stock inNeose Technologies, Pfizer, Johnson & Johnson, and Rohm and Haas per Chest 

Bill Moran, MD 
Practice Expense Review Committee
Oklahoma City, OK 2000

Guy Orangio, MD 
American Society of Colon & Rectal Surgeons (ASCRS)
Atlanta, GA 2009

Gregory Przybylski, MD 
American Association of Neurological Surgeons (AANS)
Edison, NJ 2001
Stock Ownership: United Healthcare (300 shares);  …  Scientific Advisory Board: United Health Group (B, Spine Advisory Board) per NASS meeting 

Marc Raphaelson, MD 
American Academy of Neurology (AAN)
Leesburg, VA 2009
Personal compensation for activities with Jazz Pharmaceuticalsand Medtronics as a speakers bureau member or consultant perAAN 

Sandra Reed, MD 
American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG)
Thomasville, GA 2009
GlaxoSmithKline Consulting, $1750 in 2009, $1500 in 2010 per ProPublica Dollars for Docs search through here

Daniel Mark Siegel, MD 
American Academy of Dermatology (AAD)
Brooklyn, NY 2003
Vivacare Dermatology Advisory Board, 2006 – present.Photomedex Scientific Advisory Board, 2006-present, Ad Hoc consultant to ClickDiagnostics, per Encite CV
DermFirst-Shareholder, Logical Image – Consultant, Vivacare – Consultant per MOHS Surgery 

Lloyd S. Smith, DPM 
Health Care Professionals Advisory Committee
Bethesda, MD 2007

Peter Smith, MD 
Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS)
Durham, NC 2006
Eli Lilly, Consulting, $1500 in 2009, $1990 in 2010 per Pro Publica Dollars for Docs search through here
Advisor or consultant to Bayer per Medscape 

Susan Spires, MD 
College of American Pathologists (CAP)
Lexington, KY 2007

Arthur Traugott, MD 
American Medical Association (AMA)
Champaign, IL 2006

James Waldorf, MD 
American Society of Plastic Surgeons (ASPS)
Jacksonville, FL 2008

George Williams, MD 
American Academy of Ophthalmology (AAO)
Royal Oak, MI 2009

Advisory Team, RetroSense Therapeutics 

Shareholder and consultant for ThromboGenics Ltd. and holds intellectual property on the use of plasmin per Review of Opthamology
Alcon Laboratories, consultant, lecturer; Allergan, consultant, lecturer; Macusight, consultant, equity owner; Neurotech, consultant; Nu-Vue Technologies, equity owner, patent/ royalties; OMIC- Ophthalmic Mutual Insurance Company, employee; Optimedica, consultant, equity owner;Thrombogenics, consultant, equity owner per AAO meeting 
Pfizer, “Professional Advising,” $5534 in 2009 per Pro Publica Dollars for Docs search through here


There you have it.  A substantial proportion, almost half, 14 of 29 members of the RUC have financial relationships with pharmaceutical companies, biotechnology companies, device companies, companies that directly provide health care, and health care insurance companies.

As we have noted in our previous discussions of the RUC, that committee has been accused of being the de facto controller of how the US government pays physicians.  In that role, it has been accused of favoring procedural care rather than cognitive or primary care by increasing the relative financial incentives for the former over the latter.  This may be one of the most important reasons for the expensive, high-technology, procedural-heavy style of care in the US, which has likely been a major driver for increasing costs, declining access and stagnant quality.

It seemed obvious that a committee dominated by a majority of physicians who perform procedures would tend to favor bigger financial incentives for procedures.  But now it appears the committee also includes a substantial number of people who work part-time or have ownership interests in companies that also stand to benefit from increasing use of procedures.  Procedures drive increased consumption of drugs, supplies and devices, and lead to larger revenue for hospitals and clinics.  Thus these financial relationships could reasonably be suspected of even further distorting the committee’s decision-making in favor of procedures.

I was surprised how many RUC members have financial ties to health care insurance companies.  Such companies are not usually thought of as beneficiaries of high-technology, procedural care.  However, if one conceives of their revenue as a percentage of health care costs, perhaps they are.  Furthermore, one can only wonder if the links between the RUC and health care insurance companies have anything to do with how such companies have apparently unquestioningly adapted the RBRVS system controlled by the RUC?

The prevalence of conflicts of interest among RUC members highlight the need for a more accountable, transparent and honest system to manage how the government pays physicians, and a need for more transparency and accountability in the relationship among the government, health care insurance, and physicians.

As we have previously noted,  there are still many unanswered questions about the RUC:

– How did the government come to fix the payments physicians receive? Government price-fixing has not been popular in the US, yet this has caused no outcry.

– Why is the process by which they are fixed allowed to be so opaque and unaccountable? Why are there no public hearings on the updates, and why is there no input from practicing physicians or organizations other than those related to the RUC?

– How did the RUC become de facto in charge of this process?

– Why does the AMA [keep the membership of the RUC so opaque, and] give no input into the RUC process to its general membership?

– Why is the RUC membership so dominated by procedural specialists? Why were primary care physicians, who made up at least a sizable minority of physicians when the update process was started, not represented according to their numbers?

– Why has there been so little discussion of the RUC and its responsibility for an extremely expensive health care system dominated by high-technology, expensive, risky and invasive procedures?

Stay tuned, maybe these will be answered in our life-times….

Roy Poses MD ia President of the Foundation for Integrity and Responsibility in Medicine. He writes at Health Care Renewal.

17 thoughts on “Conflicts of Interests Among The RUC’s Members

  1. Cant have it both ways–MCO’s have always wanted to less, not more procedures for obvious reasons, ie, lowers their total spend–and fattens their bottom line.

    Roy seems to be fitting a square peg in a round hole with his justification on that COI take–dont add up.

    Additionally, my sense is RUC members would be more at risk of being ostracized by fellow RUC-sters and proceduralists for any financial affiliations with the CUBA’s* of the world.

    Having said that, the RUC is still the RUC.

    *Cigna, United, Blues, Aetna, etc

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s