Blogs

He laid the smack down on that guy from Georgetown. For a highly educated and genteel adult, that was as close to a kick in the nuts as he could get.

When you look at his reasoned response to criticism, it almost seems like UTSW-MC is just trying to maintain donor relations without showing preferential medical treatment. But let me throw out a hypothetical to you. The chief of the ED (Emergency Department) walks up to you with a patient and says, "Take care of Mr. Soandso. He is an important part of our family here at UT Southwestern." Would you spend a little more time with that patient and maybe check up on them more often? You bet your sweet tushy you would...

You forgot the reporters names from the Dallas Morning News and Rick Cohen from the "Non-profit Quarterly",and the California Public Retirement Fund who all were critical of the questionable expenses. The Californioa Retirement Board doesn't want to reappointment Dr. Gilman to the Eli Lilly Board where he gets an annual paycheck of over $200,000 plus stock options.What's wrong with gifts to people who give $50? Where is the cut off? How about the folks that got those bottles of wine that you can't seem to find the receipts for? Or do you not see a problem purchasing wine from Wildenthal's in laws? What about the re-gifting of donor's funds to other non-profits where you claim they were dues,when they were,in fact,donations? What qualifies a donor to receive an $11,000 gift from Tiffany's? According to an iopen records request from UT System and the State Auditor,NO AUDITS were ever done by them on the president's expenses. The university's own internal auditor said they were OK ,then he reports to the president.He did mention that Wildenthal had to reimburse the university for the use of a university employee as his personal maid."A little wine"? I'd say that more than $125,000 worth of wine in two years was more than a little wine.As for your popcorn,the name of the university was NEVER used on the gift cards , but rather,"Kern and Marnie" ( Wildenthal and his wife").It doesn't seem that it was a thank you for a donation but a "thoughtful gift" from Wildenthal at donor expense.The Dallas Morning News reported Wildenthal as "resigning". You want to blame everyone for these stories, but the university and its president provide the paper trail of their behavior.You have gone to extremes to blame others,and never take responsiblity for the behavior that is preveived as a pervassive misuse of donor funds.Doesn't the "hurt dog yelp first"?

admin
Recently we posted about some dubious practices at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center that seemed to contradict this proud academic medical institution’s mission. First, there was the case of the “A-list” of local notables who were to have special access, including enhanced access to physicians (see posts here and here). Then, there was the report of how medical center executives seemed to be living the high life funded by charitable donors (see post here).

Also, more than a year ago, we posted about how Eli Lilly and Co. was alleged to have marketed its atypical anti-psychotic Zyprexa (olanzapine) to minimize its major side-effects, including frequent weight gain and the development of diabetes, and how the company was accused of marketing the drug “off-label” for medical problems and in situations for which the drug had not been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration. Since this story has since got a lot of coverage in the media and blogs, we have not returned to it for a while.

Now I have appeared to be guilty of a non sequitur. What is the possible connection between these two issues, other than they both seem to involve questionable decisions by leaders of large health care organizations?

Just wait…

Many media outlets have reported how Eli Lilly is under fire for its marketing of Zyprexa. Last month the NY Times reported on a memo that suggested the company’s incoming president “appears to have encouraged Lilly to promote its schizophrenia medicine Zyprexa for a use not approved by federal drug regulators.” That article noted that the company is also “under federal criminal investigation for the way it promoted Zyprexa and played down the drug’s risks to doctors.” Many media outlets reported late last month that the company settled a lawsuit by the state of Alaska that again charged that the company minimized Zyprexa’s side-effects (e.g., see the Wall Street Journal here.)

The Wall Street Journal just reported that one large Eli Lilly shareholder was increasingly discontented by the company’s current management, presumably at least in part due to how it marketed Zyprexa. Now read closely, and you will see that my hands never leave my arms…

California’s public-employee pension fund plans to withhold votes for three Eli Lilly & Co. directors up for re-election next month, citing a lagging stock price and poor corporate governance.

The California Public Employees’ Retirement System, or Calpers, said Thursday it will withhold votes for John Lechleiter, a long-time Lilly executive who is set to become chief executive next week. He has been on the drug maker’s board since 2005.

In addition, Calpers will withhold votes for directors Alfred Gilman, provost at University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas; and Karen Horn, a retired executive with Marsh Inc. Mr. Gilman has been a Lilly director since 1995 and Ms. Horn has been director since 1987.

‘It was on their watch that Eli Lilly experienced severe stock underperformance, poor corporate governance practices, and was unresponsive to shareowners,’ Russell Read, Calpers’ chief investment officer, said in a press release.

Lilly said in a written statement it disagreed with Calpers’ assessment of the three directors as unsupportive of and unresponsive to shareholders.

Gotcha…

So a director of Eli Lilly that was accused of responsibility for the company’s poor performance, poor performance which presumably included its mis-marketing of Zyprexa, also turns out to be responsible for the management of the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, currently under fire for maintaining an “A-list” of favored patients, and letting its top executives live the high life on donated funds, practices that go against its mission.

This seems like a good illustration of how conflicts of interest affecting health care leaders may not be good for any of the organizations to which these leaders simultaneously owe allegiance. An academic medical institutional leader who is also a director of a public for-profit company may not be a particularly good guardian of share-holders’ interests. A director of a for-profit health care corporation who also is the leader of an academic medical institution may not be a particularly good guardian of that institution’s values.

Of course, conflicts like these benefit the conflicted individual, who gets power and prestige from both allegiances, plus, of course, a lot of money. (Note that according to Eli Lilly’s 2008 proxy statement, Dr Gilman got $281,448 total compensation in 2007 to serve as director. In addition, Dr Gilman now owns 17,159 shares of Eli Lilly stock, currently valued at $51.76 per share, see Google Finance, for a total value of $888,150.) The conflicted individual in such a situation might well feel himself or herself to be among the power elite. And the conflicted individual in a case like this might be in a good position to help out his or her buddies in both the corporate and academic medical hierarchies.

But in my humble opinion, such conflicted leaders are not good for patients, for academia, for physicians, or for stock-holders, for that matter.

If we are really worried about the conflicts of interest created when physician trainees get pens or coffee mugs with company logos from drug companies, or practicing physicians get pizza lunches for their office staffs from pharmaceutical representatives, (see post here) then we should really worry when leaders of academic medical institutions serve on the board of directors of large health care corporations.

You say Wildenthal did all of this fund raising all by himself? If he is looking for appreciation,tell him to buy himself a puppy! I know where there is one he can borrow.You might want to get one for yourself while you are at it.

Maybe donor appreciation is shown in other ways,like contracts.Maybe Wildenthal can explain why he was found rummaging through the desk of a deceased donor that was still in her bed or the reason he is the sole executor of a large estate and the university gets nothing and why use an off shore account?Why does Wildenthal write the word "donation" as the memo on reimbursement checks? So, many questions.So few depositions.

Dr. Gilman ,I read your email solicting faculty members to sign a letter to CBS critical of Robert Riggs reproting of the use of donor funds to enhance Wildenthal's lifestyle.Your email,nor your letter to CBS denies with any factual information any part of Riggs' stories.A free press should be exposing waste,abuse ,and fraud.You basically are complaining what was stated with documents as evidence was untrue,because you said it is untrue.Where is your proof? Are we to believe you because you are Dr. Gilman? You can not produce one iota of convincing evidence that would have us believe that Riggs and all of the others that have written about the errant spending were being manipulated by anyone nor can you defend the behavior of a man you can honorable with integrity.Can he not defend himself with facts and documents? You and the administration have tyranny as your management style and care nothing about anyone other than yourselves.Just look at the merit policy.Wildenthal,who already makes $1.1`million in salary receives a 10% salary increase while the employees got a whopping 2%.As for the students,you continue to increase tuition and fees just because you can.You are nothing if not arrogant and self serving.Truthful? I don't think so.

I'll keep this as short as possible. I used to work with Dr. Wildenthal not too long ago. I know he is a very hard working individual. Almost every night of the week, he had a special event to attend, whether because of his Board service to several non-profit organizations or his work in meeting with potential donors. I would not be surprised if his work week lasted more than 90 hours, and he was almost always at the office around 7am. While running the University, he also still treated patients, made hospital rounds, and consulted on other cases. How many of us can say that we work even 60 hours a week? At least 1/4 of Dr. Wildenthal's working hours are spent during what should be his free, personal time. He has sacrificed his time and energy to build UT Southwestern into the thriving medical center it is today, and yet it continues to grow with more new buildings.

There are numerous "facts" in the above posts that are skewed. Case in point: his salary and bonus structure are determined by the UT System Chancellor and Board of Regents. UT System administration "dictates" what amount or percentage of bonus would be allowable for all other employees. He had no influence over what percentage was allowed for bonuses, just like he has no control over his salary or bonus. Trying to make any correlation is inherently wrong. Then his purchases of wine from his family's winery did not pose a conflict of interest. He paid near fair market value for the wine, which went to donors and university friends directly. (There has to be some discount when you order several cases of wine.) Now he also purchased wines for special dinners, where the wines were served. He may have even purchased wines to be donated for charity auction, where UT Southwestern was a sponsor in-kind. Now annual audits have always been conducted and overseen by the State Auditor's Office. I used to have a stack of files that proved as such. They audited the expenses as well as the nature of the expenses. All expense reports had detailed information on what the expense was for and, at times, who it was for. The SAO may not state that they audited the Office of the President expense accounts, but I know for certain that they did. I reviewed the audit summaries every year within my department, and if anything, his accounts were among the main ones to review. The SAO may not have stated that there are several thousand accounts at the university. Remembering those specific accounts is not easy, when you're looking at much higher dollar amounts in other accounts.

You can refute everything I have written and what more I'd like to write, but nearly everything in the CBS reports had an angle on it to disparage the university for the sake of news ratings. It is the same CBS that was the subject of news integrity with Dan Rather. It is the same liberal slant to a story that is intended to increase ratings for the station.

Dragging the name of Dr. Wildenthal through the mud is reprehensible when he has sought to improve the standards of medical care in Texas, given much of himself for many non-profits (fine arts, education, children), and expanded the capabilities of UT Southwestern to make more discoveries in treating and eradicating diseases. If you have ever been treated by a doctor in Dallas within the last 15-20 years, you can be sure that Dr. Wildenthal had some role in training that doctor. You should be thanking him, not slandering and libeling against him. The man has one of the toughest jobs in Dallas, and libeling him is not how Dallas should honor him on the eve of his retirement. I am proud to have worked with him, and I am even prouder of his integrity, morality and respectability.

Don't enter this fight with your pea-shooters and slingshots, because the man is as solid as an iron fortress. You will have a hard time breaking through those walls.

Nate, You show some remarkable constraint considering you have not provided one shred of evidence to say the wine was used for this,there was no conflict, and you can even stand on the rooftops and swear he is honorable.Many people have worked many hours.Those hours are what you say he worked.I don't remember Wildenthal having someone follow him around as you are trying to indicate.Open records from the State Auditor's Office show NO,NONE,ZILCH audits of Wildenthal's expenses.You USED to have stacks of them.Mind if we don't take your word for it?If you saw all 512 of Wildenthal's accounts then you know that he primarily used only two or three accounts for all of the wine,etc..You say he used all of the wine for parties.How do you know when they can't even prove what they did with it??? A "liberal slant" to the story? So, everyone that has written a story that you don't like is liberal? You sir need to show the documents that prove your case. Riggs proved his, as did the others,including Mr. Eisenberg.How did Wildenthal ,all by himself,improve the medical care in all of Texas?You may believe ,just can't provide any documented evidence,which makes this strictly your opinion and nothing more. I'm happy you like and respect Wildenthal.We don't and you have shown no documentation to ,like Riggs did, to prove anything except your devotion to Wildenthal.Many are motivated by many things,you are motivated by a perception,a personal perception. While the Cghancellor may approve Wildentha;'s salary,he is the one that decides other administrator's funds.Purchase of wine from a relative looks like a conflict and re-gifting donor dollars using Wildenthal'name only,this is not done in the name of the university,amounts to money he should pay income tax on,as he received the credit/benefit personally.I am not certain what deoartment you run/ran,but if you saw Wildenthal's accounts and saw nothing,you might want to get your eyes checked.By the way, we appreciated your sense of humor.Because,your words are a joke or you are very gullible.

Nate, What do you want from supporting Wildenthal your job back I also worked for this man and I think everything thats has been written, reported are very true and for Dr. Gilman a man that thinks he can milk this prestigage title of Pritzer awards enough is enough there are other on campus that have gotten the same award and do not act like you let me just ware everyone I know for a fact this this guy will be the next President that is why he is protecting Dr. Wildenthal and to say a former employee who was fired for fraud then let us know the court casre number so we can see you have filed charges for slander ? and then to blame the same doctor who you gave a deposition to that was false come on who are you kidding stay out of the bar with your secretary do think everyone does not know what is really going on. Lets talk about the internal auitors yes they report to the President and they know that any ausidt can not be open records so please do not say they look at his account close becasue fi the did do there job right the pending lawsuit for theft from the former employee you talk about should have been founds 10 years ago and not 2 years ago becasue he filed a complaint for age discrimination. The administration care for no one but them self and the donors have no clue where all there money is, so please if I was you I would keep quiet about responding for Wildenthal and I can't wait to read the book being written by Robert Riggs who will be braking the story in more detail since he no longer has to report to no one so publishers hurry up and get this book published before this man get away for fraud and misuse of his power.