Dr. Scheinman On KU Medical Center

"There is no protection of the whistleblower, only of the institution that retaliates against the whistleblower." Dr. Jon Scheinman

KUMC 1/4/2011

1. Introduction

1, Who we are

2. What we represent

3. Why we are here

4. Over-riding issue: lack of shared governance

5. Flawed decisions/processes

6. Negative consequences

II. Lack of Shared Governance as indicator of an autocratic, top-down management style

1. Little to no transparency before or after on rationale for decisions.

2. Centralization of most activities—decisions regarding education and research are made without input of stakeholders.

3. High-level hires are routinely made without search committees.

4. Groups are pitted against one another in attempt to achieve goals.

Decisions

1. The recruitment process for the Cancer Center is chaotic rather than thematic, and is being carried out without the benefit of search committees.

2. Despite the recommendation of "Time to Get it Right" report, and a formal external review of the Interdisciplinary Graduate Program in Biomedical Science, there has been no significant expansion of IGPBS.

3. Decisions regarding accepting more medical students by the administration is to start a new campus in Wichita and Salina with no faculty input, no apparent consideration for logistics and finances.

4. Decision to start a School of Public Health without faculty knowledge and in a time of financial crisis.

5. Presentation of a punitive basic science faculty salary plan with unrealistic goals that is out of line with our peer institutions—no prior input from faculty or chairs.

6. Decisions not to honor commitments made in contract offers, or not to honor commitments in a timely fashion.

7. Inadequate support and funding of research infrastructure. (The example will be the LAR). Endowed professor positions not used to expand research excellence.

8. Discussions on space assignments—take research space away from chairs, assign same space to more than one group, no faculty input, etc.

9. Decision to increase the number of centers over 20 but only 85 NIH grants appears quantity more important than quality.

IV. Consequences

1. The lack of coordinated transparent multi-year planning wastes limited institutional resources.

· Missed opportunities

· Loss of substantial prior investments in recruiting

· Risks to strong educational programs

2. Faculty retention and recruitment

3. Damage to historically strong academic programs

· Erosion of resources previously used for reinvestment

· Neglect of graduate programs and core facilities

4. Faculty frustration about institutional expectations and priorities

· Negative impact of salary plan on ongoing research budgets

· Lack of involvement in setting institutional priorities

· Growing tensions between research, educational, and service missions.

5. Paralysis

Doctor, be afraid, be very afraid

Your entire career and livelihood is at the mercy of unscrupulous corporations, whose aim is to gain profits by subverting your honest practice of medicine.

We present that warning, in memory of IGNAZ PHILIPP SEMMELWEIS, the Hungarian Physician who discovered the contagious nature of puerperal fever in 1841, and then lost his career and sanity because that knowledge threatened the medical establishment. He had "clean hands".

The same is likely to happen to you, if you tell the truth and are not protected.

The problem derives from a few basics:

1) The supervision of Medical Practice is trusted, by governmental bodies, including Medicare, to Medical Staff organizations, who are expected to "police their own".

2) There is no requirement for due process in that supervision.

3) That supervision can be, and has been, easily tainted by the financial interests of other physicians and institutions.

4) The consequence of a negative determination by prejudicial supervision are it's ratification by State and National Medical Boards - resulting in loss of licensure and permanent barring from practice.

5) There is no protection of the whistleblower, only of the institution that retaliates against the whistleblower.

How gullible can Kansas City be?

It is interesting that KU Medical Center hopes to extort $42 million out of the community in order to “buy” the prestigious National Cancer Institute designation (KCStar, 8 Feb 2011, “Local Business”). After doing everything it can to downgrade academic programs and disenfranchise a once creative faculty, it now hopes to fool the NCI. Other institutions earned the designation, in response to their basic quality and expertise. KUMC has learned to buy its clinical expertise (Midwest Cardiology, Neurosurgery programs, Clinical Research from drug companies), while denying its students the expertise of qualified faculty (programs on academic probation). As long as faculty are considered “employees at will” and not partners in shared governance, can they produce the inventive progress that deserves national recognition?

Perhaps the business community has been hoodwinked into believing that KUMC will bring the bioscience gold-mine, similar to Research Triangle Park (NC). That developed naturally from several genuine academic institutions. Simply bringing a new chancellor from UNC isn’t likely to teach them how to do it: All that happened there recently was selling a school of public health to a drug company, after Research Triangle was already a success. Johnson County has already fallen for this sales talk. Will all of Kansas do the same?

Jon Scheinman, M.D., former Professor of Pediatrics at KUMC.

Dr. Scheinman is the current President of the Kansas Conference of the American Association of University Professors , which of course is not responsible for his opinions.