May 3, 2010: BIDMC CEO Paul Levy fined

>> Emily: GOOD EVENING, LATE
THIS AFTERNOON THE BOARD OF
DIRECTORS OF BETH ISRAEL
DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER FINED
C.E.O. PAUL LEVEE $50,000 FOR A
PERSONAL RELATIONSHIP WITH A
FORMER EMPLOYEE.
HOWEVER, ONE BOARD MEMBER
RESIGNED IN PROTEST OVER THE
DEVISION TO KEEP HIM ON AT THE
HOSPITAL.
LEVY ADMITTED TO LAPSES IN
JUDGMENT WHICH INVOLVE
RELATIONSHIP WITH A WOMAN UNDER
HIS STEWARDSHIP AT THE HOSPITAL.
WHEN THE BOARD MET LAST WEEK
THEY LET HIM KNOW THEY WERE
DISAPPOINTED IN HIS BEHAVIOR.
LEVY PRIDED HIMSELF IN
TRANSPARENCY AND WRITES A
REGULAR BLOG CALLED "RUNNING A
HOSPITAL" HE WAS LAUDED LAST
YEAR FOR HIS SHARED PAIN
APPROACH TO HOSPITAL CUTBACKS
THAT KEPT WORKERS ON THE
PAYROLL.
JOINING ME IS DAN PATTOTA, AND
DAVID GEBLER WHOSE COME, SKOUT
GROUP, ANALYZES BUSINESS ETHICS.
WELCOME TO BOTH OF YOU.
THIS OF COURSE IS A BIG STORY IN
BOSTON LARGELY BECAUSE OF THE
PROMINENCE OF PAUL LEVY C.E.O.
OF BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS.
THE BOARD DECIDED TO KEEP HIM ON
BUT THERE WERE RUMBLINGS, THE
BOARD MET AGAIN, ONE BOARD
MEMBER RESIGNED IN PROTEST BUT
DID DECIDE TO KEEP HIM ON.
IN YOUR MIND ARE DAN, DOES THIS
BEHAVIOR RISE TO A LEVEL OF A
FIREABLE OFFENSE?

>> I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY
IDEA WHAT THE OFFENSE ACTUALLY
IS.
I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGEST PART
OF THE PROBLEM.
BY FINING HIM $50,000 IT'S NOW
MADE STORY AND CURIOSITY OUT OF
IT, FOR WHAT REASON OF HE FIRED?

>> Emily: IT WAS A WOMAN WHO
WORKED WITH HIM.
HE'S THE C.E.O. THAT
AUTOMATICALLY MAKES HER A
SUBORDINATE.
AND I GUESS THERE WERE QUESTIONS
OVER WHETHER SHE HAD BEEN
PROMOTED OR TRANSFERRED AND
QUESTIONS LIKE THAT AROSE WHERE
HE HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH THAT.

>> YEAH, WE'RE SITTING AND
SPECULATING ABOUT -- IT'S HARD
TO PASS ANY KIND OF JUDGMENT ON
IT.
I THINK SOME PEOPLE HAVE RAISED
THE FACT THAT THIS IS A
NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION, IT HAS
TO RISE TO A DIFFERENT STANDARD.
THE HOSPITAL IS REALLY MORE THAN
A QUASI BUSINESS.
MOST OF ITS REVENUE PROBABLY
COMES FROM FEES FOR SERVICE FROM
MEDICAID AND OTHER PLACES LIKE
THAT.
I THINK IT THEN IS THE QUESTION
FOR DONORS MORE THAN THE GENERAL
PUBLIC.
THE DONORS ARE RAISING UPROAR
OVER IT THEY DESERVE TO GET THE
INFORMATION.

>> Emily: WHAT ABOUT THAT?
WHEN SOMETHING LIKE PAUL LEVY
SETS UP THE MODEL OF
TRANSPARENCY, HE WRITES A BLOG
SO PEOPLE CAN FEEL ACCESSIBLE TO
A HOSPITAL, TO THIS ENORMOUS
BUREAUCRACY, FRANKLY, THAT IS
PARTLY FUNDED BY TAXPAYERS, IT
IS AFTER ALL A NONPROFIT.
TAXPAYERS PAY FOR THE PROPERTY
SO TO SPEAK.
DOES HE SET HIMSELF UP FOR A
GREATER DEGREE OF TRANSPARENCY,
THUSLY A GREATER DEGREE OF
JUDGMENT?

>> I THINK SO.
THIS IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF THE
BUSINESS BETWEEN THE COMPLIANCE
AND ETHICS.
COMPLIANCE IS THAT HE VIOLATED
CODE STANDARD MAY NOT HAVE RAISE
TONE THAT IN TERMS OF LYNNING
HIM TO SPECIFIC ACTION.
THE ETHICS SIDE WE LOOK AT THE
POINT ABOUT TRANSPARENCY.
I THINK THE BOARD OF DIRECTOR
HAS TO LOOK AT WAS THE BUILDING
TRANSPARENCY WITH REGARDS TO THE
LAY OFF, WOULD THAT CREATE A
HIGHER STANDARD OF REPUTATION
FOR THE HOSPITAL FOR PEOPLE
LOOKING -- IF SO, THE THE IMPACT
HERE NOT NECESSARILY TO THE CODE
VIOLATION, IT'S REALLY DID HE
IMPACT THE BRAND AS REPUTATION
OR THE HOSPITAL IN TERMS OF
BUILDING TRANSPARENCY.
ONE OF THE CHALLENGES THE BOARD
WILL HAVE TO LOOK AT IS, BY THE
WAY THEY HANDLED IN IN TERMS OF
A FINE, DOES THAT REALLY SETTLE
THE ISSUE IN TERMS OF THE
PERCEPTION OF A GAP BETWEEN HIS
ACTIONS AND THE TRANSPARENCY.
THE REPUTATION AND TRUST IS SUCH
A FINE ETHEREAL CONCEPT, ONCE
YOU BREAK IT IT'S HARD TO GET
BACK.

>> WHAT IS THE FINE FOR.
DAN, LAST WEEK THEY WERE GOING
TO ASK HIM TO PAY SEVERANCE
PACKAGE OF THIS WOMAN THAT WAS
TRANSFERRED TO A SATELLITE
CAMPUS OF THE HOSPITAL AND
EVENTUALLY I GUESS SOUNDS LIKE
FORCED OUT OVER THIS ISSUE.
BUT WHY WOULD THE C.E.O. HAVE TO
PAY EITHER A FINE OR A SEVERANCE
PACKAGE?
THEY'RE PUNISHING HIM BUT THE
BEHAVIOR ISN'T ILLEGAL.

>> I THINK THE FINE MAKES IT
EVEN MORE OF A STORY BECAUSE NOW
EVERYBODY IS WONDERING, OKAY,
WHAT EXACTLY -- WHAT'S SO BAD,
WHAT WAS HE FINED OVER?
I DO OBJECT TO THE NOTION THAT
THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME KIND OF
DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR NONPROFIT
ORGANIZATION THAN OTHER KINDS OF
ORGANIZATIONS.
WE SAY, THERE'S PUBLIC MONEY
INVOLVED.
NORTHROP GRUM POND MADE TENS OF
BILLIONS OF DOLLARS LAST YEAR,
95% OF THEIR REVENUE COMES FROM
GOVERNMENT CONTRACTS IF THIS
HAPPENED AT NORTHROP WE WOULDN'T
BE RAISING A STIR ABOUT THE
PUBLIC'S NEED TO KNOW.
MY ISSUE IS, EVERY TIME
SOMETHING COMES UP ABOUT
CHARITY, THERE'S THIS DOUBLE
ETHICAL STANDARD.
I DON'T THINK SHOULD EXIST,
SHOULD BE STANDARD FOR INTEGRITY
EVERYWHERE.

>> Emily: I THINK THE BETTER
COMPARISON MIGHT BE TO THE
POLITICAL WORLD.
PAUL LEVY'S JOB IS AKIN TO THAT.
HE'S NOT AN ELECTED OFFICIAL
ALONG THE LINES OF JOHN EDWARDS
OR ELIOTT SPITZER, BUT IT'S A
POLITICAL POSITION IN A WAY.

>> IT IS.
PAUL LEVYVY BY HIS BLOGS AND
PRONOUNCED AND PROLIFIC MESSAGE
TO EVERY EMPLOYEE AND DOCTOR AT
BETH ISRAEL THAT THIS IS
EXPECTED BEHAVIOR.
HE'S GOING TO HAVE TROUBLE
CONTINUING TO MODEL THAT
BEHAVIOR, IN EVERY ORGANIZATION
EMPLOYEES LOOK AT THE WRITTEN
CODE LOOK AT THE WRITTEN VALUE
STATEMENTS, BUT THEY ALSO LOOK
AT WHAT'S REALLY HAPPENING WITH
THE C.E.O. AND LEADERSHIP.
IF THERE IS A GAP BETWEEN
PEOPLE'S ACTIONS AND WORDS THAT
SEEMS TO JUST CREATE A FLOOD
WEIGHT OPEN IN TERMS OF PEOPLE
QUESTIONING AND TRANSPARENCY IS
NOT REAL HERE.
WHETHER THAT'S TRUE OR NOT I
THINK THE ISSUE FOR THE BOARD
AND FOR PAUL LEVY IS
TRANSPARENCY IS IMPORTANT, GOING
TO DO TO MAKE THAT YOU ARE
PEOPLE FEEL THAT IT'S IMPORTANT.

>> Emily: WE SHOULD POINT
OUT, THIS IS MAN WHO HAS DONE
TREMENDOUS GOOD, THE HOSPITAL,
FOR THE COMMUNITY, HE'S A
LEADER, HE COACHES HIS KIDS'
SOCCER TEAMS, JUST A SOLID
CITIZEN.
THIS IS A TOUGH SITUATION, IT'S
HOT WATER.
ONE OF HIS BOARD MEMBERS HAS
RESIGNED OVER THIS.
CLEARLY THINKING THE HOSPITAL
HAS TAKEN THE WRONG STEP ONLY
WAY TO CLEAN THIS UP MESS IS TO
LET HIM GO.
WHAT WOULD BE YOUR ADVICE TO
PAUL LEVY, SHOULD HE SPEAK?
ANY TIME HE RUNS IN TO A
REPORTER I KNOW HE RAN AWAY FROM
A REPORTER THIS WEEKEND, SOME
"HERALD" REPORTER FOLLOWING HIM
OUT TO OHIO.
THE PEOPLE, THE NEWS PEOPLE ARE
NOT GOING TO LET THIS ISSUE GO
UNTIL IT IS FURTHER ADDRESSED.

>> HE SAID IT'S A PRIVATE
MATTER, THAT IT'S A PRIVATE
MATTER.
TRANSPARENCY RELATES TO PUBLIC
MATTERS AND FINANCIAL MATTERS
AND ISSUES OF GOVERNANCE AND
OPERATIONS WITH RESPECT TO THE
HOSPITAL.
TO THE EXTENT IT ISN'T A PRIVATE
MATTER, SOMEHOW PASSED THAT LINE
NEEDS TO COME OUT SAY EXACTLY
WHAT --

>> Emily: YOU'RE WELCOME HERE
ANY TIME.
THANKS SO MUCH FOR COMING.
WHEN WE CONTINUE, WATER, WATER,
EVERYWHERE, NOR ANY DROP TO
DRINK.