… in the Minneapolis Star Tribune notes that the most charitable description of what’s been going on at the clubby University of Minnesota medical school would be “bizarre.”
Thursday, April 25, 2013
The Minnesota House of Representatives
sends the University of Minnesota
a not so subtle message
Before voting, the House amended the bill on Thursday to shift $543,000 from the university’s appropriation to the state grant program. That’s the amount the university is spending this year on two independent studies of its administrative costs and efficiency, said Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa), who proposed the change.
From the Minnesota House House of Representatives Session Daily:
House passes higher education budget that would freeze tuition
In a vote that some lawmakers hailed as a first step toward curbing the rising costs of college, the House on Thursday passed an omnibus bill that would freeze tuition for two years at both of Minnesota’s public higher education systems.
House members voted 86-44 to approve a plan that would spend $2.72 billion on higher education over the next two years, an increase of about $150 million over current spending. Most of the new money would fund a tuition freeze for resident undergraduates at both the University of Minnesota and the Minnesota State Colleges and Universities system. Research and new initiatives would get a much smaller slice.
“It is time to send a strong message to the institutions,” said Rep. Ryan Winkler (DFL-Golden Valley). If the public puts more money into higher education, “The students are the ones that should benefit.”
Thursday’s floor debate on the omnibus higher education finance bill followed more than a dozen committee hearings at which House members picked apart the budgets of MnSCU and the university. Some legislators have criticized both systems for what they see as unnecessarily steep tuition hikes and excessive administrative spending.
Winkler was quick to add that lawmakers, through votes cast over many years, share responsibility for the costs borne by today’s students. “It has been the Minnesota Legislature that has dramatically defunded higher education,” he said.
Before voting, the House amended the bill on Thursday to shift $543,000 from the university’s appropriation to the state grant program. That’s the amount the university is spending this year on two independent studies of its administrative costs and efficiency, said Rep. Steve Drazkowski (R-Mazeppa), who proposed the change.
The bill includes language intended to increase legislative oversight of higher education, requiring more detailed spending reports from both systems. Its House sponsor, Rep. Gene Pelowski Jr. (DFL-Winona), said that the House Higher Education Finance and Policy Committee – which he chairs – will consider more accountability measures in the next year.
Several Republicans praised the bill, with Rep. Glenn Gruenhagen (R-Glencoe) calling it an attempt at “real reform in government spending.”
Rep. Bob Barrett (R-Lindstrom) opposed the bill, arguing that the university should fund lower resident tuition by increasing the rate charged to out-of-state students. “The people of Minnesota are subsidizing nonresident tuition,” he said.
Wednesday, April 17, 2013
No More Dan Markingsons
With the permission of PZ Myers - my esteemed colleague at the University of Minnesota, Morris:
(emphasis mine)
A few weeks ago I gave a talk in Seattle in which I pointed out that science is not sufficient to define moral behavior. A substantial part of that talk was a catalog of atrocities, such as the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. I said that in purely scientific terms, that was a good experiment; if the subjects had been mice, for instance, setting aside an untreated control group to study the progression of the disease would have been considered an essential part of smart experimental design. One could still argue that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few…if one were willing to distance oneself from the humanity of the subjects.
Yes, one can always retreat to the excuse that these were cases of bad science, where the scientists violated the rules of their own profession. But where do the ethical guidelines come from? Not science.
I missed a trick, though. I talked mainly about old cases, when there’s a clear case of the conflict between ethics and science playing out right now, right at my home university: the case of Dan Markingson, the young man who was enrolled in an experimental pharmaceutical study and kept there, even as his mental illness worsened, and who eventually committed suicide.
There’s a new article by a bioethicist on this case.
The research abuse in this case is so stunning that when I first learned about it I could scarcely imagine it happening anywhere, much less at the university where I work. In late 2003, psychiatric researchers at the University of Minnesota recruited a mentally ill young man named Dan Markingson into a profitable, industry-funded research study of antipsychotic drugs. The researchers signed him up over the objections of his mother, Mary Weiss, who did not want him in the study, and despite the fact that he could not give proper informed consent. Dan was acutely psychotic, plagued by delusions about demons, and he had repeatedly been judged incapable of making his own medical decisions. Even worse, he had been placed under an involuntary commitment order that legally compelled him to obey the recommendations of the psychiatrist who recruited him into the study.
For months, Mary tried desperately to get Dan out of the study, warning that he was getting worse and that he was in danger of committing suicide. But her warnings were ignored. On April 23, 2004, she left a voice message with the study coordinator, asking, “Do we have to wait for him to kill himself or someone else before anyone does anything?” Three weeks later, Dan committed suicide in the most violent way imaginable. His body was discovered in the shower of a halfway house, his throat slit so severely that he was nearly decapitated, along with a note that said, “I went through this experience smiling.”
Yet for three years the University of Minnesota has managed to bluster and stonewall its way through all the criticism, insisting that it has already been exonerated. Even when the state Legislature passed “Dan’s Law” in 2009, banning psychiatrists from recruiting mentally ill patients under an involuntary commitment order into drug studies, the university continued to insist it had done nothing wrong.
I suspect that the stonewalling is out of fear of opening the door to legal action against a university that is already struggling with constantly dwindling support from the legislature. But it’s necessary that they confront this issue and deal with it honestly — it’s the only way to restore confidence with UM’s ethical culture, and it’s the only way to make sure there are no future Dan Markingsons.
And it’s that last bit that is the important concern.
Governor Mark Dayton of Minnesota: Investigate psychiatric research misconduct at the University of Minnesota
And it’s that last bit that is the important concern.
My Thanks to PZ for a lucid statement of the problem. This is about the reputation of the University of Minnesota. If we cannot face up to - and fix - the problems involved in this tragedy then why do we deserve the trust and support of the state of Minnesota?
Should a reader be unaware of the petition to Minnesota Governor Mark Dayton for an independent investigation of the Markingson tragedy, please consider signing it at the following link:
What Minnesota Representative Pewlowski Had
To Say About University Educational Finances
From MPR On CAMPUS:
Yesterday was practically Gene Pelowski Day.
First the House higher-education committee chairman appeared on MPR’s Daily Circuit.
Forty minutes later, he held a press conference unveiling the latest version of the House higher-education bill.
Then he held his committee’s hearing.
On why he focused on a tuition freeze instead of adding more to the State Grant program:
“(Lower) tuition helps everyone. Everyone in this state is helped by lower tuition. The best type of grant program is in tuition. If we’re going to raise tuition and then selectively spend more to help a few in the grant program, we’re feeding an animal that is insatiable. And that animal has literally brought higher education to its knees in this state. … The grant program helps a few. (Lower) tuition helps everyone. I think it’s time to help everyone.”
On his proposal to beef up administrative reporting requirements for the University of Minnesota and MnSCU — as opposed to the Senate’s proposal to withhold a percentage of funding until both systems meet performance goals:
“Depending on what our target (budget) number is, maybe the approach should be to use both. … We may have the best of all worlds here.”
On how lawmakers could force the U to change its practices, considering it’s technically autonomous from the state (except for its intake of state funding):
“We’re working to find out what kind of mechanism to use with the University of Minnesota. I would hope that the regents would finally use their ability to finally have oversight of the university. But because of the U’s extra-constitutionality, it’s much more difficult. And even working with the legislative auditor, it’s difficult to craft what would be mandatory language for the university.”
On telling the difference between a purely administrative position and an one that includes an academic role, so that cutting administration doesn’t harm the classroom in the process:
“That’s going to be the ongoing problem — and I’m sure we’ll be able to solve it.”
On the “restoration” of legislative oversight of the U and MnSCU, which he says has been gone for the past 8-10 years:
“It’s time we looked at tuition increases the same way we looked at tax increases, and we had the same level of legislative oversight in tuition increases that we have with the tax increase. Both have technically the same impact, and both have a tendency never to go away.”
On the use of a consulting firm to analyze the U’s administrative structure and look for ways to make it more efficient:
“They’re spending a half million dollars to find out something they should already know.”
On the U’s handling of tuition increases:
“I think the U, by its own admission in our committee, raised tuition because it could. I think it raised it way beyond (what) it needed to for the cuts that were being instituted over the last 8-10 years, and I think now there has to be a reversal.”
Tuesday, April 16, 2013
Everyone has won, and all must have prizes...
The Dodo Bird Verdict by the American College of Psychiatrists
My colleague, Dr. Carl Elliot, has written another excellent piece on the Markingson situation at the University of Minnesota.
Background:
“They Need to be Held Accountable”
The University of Minnesota was not Involved? Some Further Thoughts on the “Corrective Action” Against Jean Kenney in the Markingson Case
To Honor or Investigate
A number of years ago, I had occasion to meet a local psychiatrist named Dr. Faruk Abuzzahab, a former faculty member in the Department of Psychiatry here at the University of Minnesota. The occasion was a class in medical ethics I was teaching, and which Abuzzahab had been ordered to take. As I later wrote in The New Yorker, the Minnesota Board of Medical Practice had judged Abuzzahab a danger to the public and had suspended his license in response to the deaths or injuries of forty-six patients under his supervision, seventeen of whom had been research subjects. Abuzzahab had recruited severely ill patients into profitable, industry-funded drug trials, often in violation of eligibility criteria, and kept them in the studies even after their conditions worsened dramatically. When the board suspended his license, it cited his “reckless, if not willful, disregard of the patients’ welfare.”
You might think being sanctioned for the deaths and injuries of 46 patients would damage a psychiatrist’s career. Unfortunately, you would be wrong. Shortly after the suspension was lifted Abuzzahab was back at it, giving marketing talks for industry and conducting trials. In 2003, only a few years after his suspension, the American Psychiatric Association awarded him a Distinguished Life Fellowship.
That episode came to mind again this morning when I read a press release from the university about Dr. Charles Schulz, the current Chair of the Department of Psychiatry. Apparently Schulz will be receiving the 2014 Stanley Dean Award for Research in Schizophrenia from the American College of Psychiatrists. Of course, readers of Mad in America will probably know Schulz better as a thought leader for AstraZeneca implicated in the events leading up to the $520 million fraud settlement, and his role in the CAFÉ study – the clinical trial at the University of Minnesota into which Dan Markingson was recruited under threat of involuntary commitment, resulting in his suicide. (For the rare reader of Mad in America unfamiliar with the Markingson case, see this article.)
The timing of this announcement is intriguing. For the past month, a petition to investigate psychiatric research misconduct at the university has been quietly gathering momentum. The number of signatures has just passed 2100. It is not often that you will find an issue on which the editors of The Lancet and Guinea Pig Zero agree, but the need to investigate the University of Minnesota is one of them. MindFreedom International has endorsed the petition; so have 200 academic experts in health law, clinical research and medical ethics, including former editors of The New England Journal of Medicine. Many alumni of the university have left distraught comments on the petition. One example: “I went to the U of MN and am appalled by what I’ve read about this case.”
The timing of this announcement is intriguing. For the past month, a petition to investigate psychiatric research misconduct at the university has been quietly gathering momentum. The number of signatures has just passed 2100. It is not often that you will find an issue on which the editors of The Lancet and Guinea Pig Zero agree, but the need to investigate the University of Minnesota is one of them. MindFreedom International has endorsed the petition; so have 200 academic experts in health law, clinical research and medical ethics, including former editors of The New England Journal of Medicine. Many alumni of the university have left distraught comments on the petition. One example: “I went to the U of MN and am appalled by what I’ve read about this case.”
At this point, it still not clear who will prevail: those who want to honor the Department of Psychiatry, or those who want to have it investigated. Of course, I am in the latter group, along with the family and friends of Dan Markingson. But the other side is wealthier and better armed. If you have been following this case but have not signed the petition yet, please consider signing on. Even better: sign it, tweet it, email it to your friends, and post it on your Facebook page. You can find the petition at this address:
Monday, April 15, 2013
Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest?
Why the Administration of the University of Minnesota loves Carl Elliot...
As does the departing General Counsel
From the Minnesota Daily
(emphasis mine)
How we have betrayed research subjects
By
Carl Elliott — professor, University Center for BioethicsApril 15, 2013
It has been five years since the Pioneer Press reported the disturbing sequence of events leading to the suicide of Dan Markingson in a psychiatric research study at the University of Minnesota. During that period, it is hard to say which development has been more remarkable: the indifference of the University community or the torrent of international condemnation.
“I have been following this story, open-mouthed, as it has unfolded,” writes Iain Brassington, a medical ethicist at the University of Manchester. According to Richard Smith, the former editor of the British Medical Journal, “There is clear evidence that things went badly wrong.” Susan Reverby, the Wellesley historian who uncovered the Guatemala syphilis studies, has called for an external investigation, as well as the former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, the editor of The Lancet and the former editor of the Health and Disability Commissioner of New Zealand.
An editorial in the Medical Journal of Australia has compared the scandal to the Tuskegee syphilis study.
Helen Longino, a faculty member in the University Department of Philosophy for years before moving to Stanford University, has written, “Do you really want the great University of Minnesota to become an academic pariah?”
The answer, apparently, is yes. On campus, there have been no protests, no outraged letters and no calls for accountability. And now that General Counsel Mark Rotenberg is heading for the exit door, we are not even hearing the customary denials of responsibility.
The case itself has become notorious.
In late 2003, Dr. Stephen Olson and his study coordinator, Jean Kenney, recruited a mentally ill young man named Dan Markingson into a highly profitable, industry-funded clinical trial of antipsychotic drugs despite the objections of his mother, Mary Weiss. Not only had Markingson been repeatedly judged mentally incapable of making his own medical decisions, he had been placed under a civil commitment order that legally compelled him to obey Olson’s recommendations.
As Markingson’s condition spiraled downward, his mother tried desperately to get him out of the study, at one point warning the study coordinator. Her pleas were ignored. In May 2004, Markingson violently killed himself. His body was found in the shower of his halfway house with a note that said, “I left this experience smiling.”
This research study had red flags all over it: conflicts of interest for the investigators, financial incentives to keep subjects in the study as long as possible, a dubious scientific rationale and an industry sponsor that was eventually forced to pay $520 million in fraud penalties. Perhaps most astonishing of all, when a lawsuit by Mary Weiss against the University was dismissed on grounds of sovereign immunity, the University filed an action against her, demanding that she pay the University $57,000 in legal costs.
The University never investigated Markingson’s suicide, according to the deposition of Richard Bianco, the former head of research protection, and during the five years since the death became public, the official stance of the University has been: Stonewall, evade, deny. Last fall, the Minnesota Board of Social Work found that Jean Kenney, the study coordinator, had failed to warn Markingson about new dangers of the study drugs, performed duties that have exceeded her training and falsified the initials of doctors on study records. It is likely that Kenney’s misconduct affected other research subjects, yet the University is still pretending that there is nothing to investigate.
Last month, Weiss and her friend Mike Howard started a petition on change.org to Gov. Mark Dayton asking for an external investigation. The petition has attracted more than 2,000 signatures, 175 of them from scholars in medical ethics, clinical research and health law.
The administration has portrayed Markingson’s suicide as an isolated episode from the past. In fact, we don’t know whether other subjects have died, been injured or been mistreated — and unless there is an investigation, we will never know. The Department of Psychiatry has had major research scandals in the past, and the public only learned of them after years of cover-ups and deception by University officials.
If anyone has a duty to make this shameful episode right, it is the faculty and students of the University. Please join Weiss and Howard in their petition to Dayton.
The petition may be found here.
Sunday, April 14, 2013
Show us the money!
On looking at the Editorial pages of the Strib today there were no more articles about the University of Minnesota and its financial situation for what seems to be the first time in a long while. So far, Governor Carlson has weighed in, Regent Cohen has responded, and both Representative Winkler and The Periodic Table have responded to Regent Cohen.
Will this brouhaha make a difference?
It had better or the U will continue to be viewed by many of the citizens of the state in a bad light. The first move is to make keeping tuition reasonable and to really mean it.
From this Sunday's Letters to the Editor of the Star-Tribune:
U EXCESS
A former governor’s criticisms draw support
Former Gov. Arne Carlson’s critique of the University of Minnesota’s “bloat” is correct (“A skewed U,” April 7). I obtained a degree from the U in 1973, when paying for education by working was easy. These days, the salaries those in this bloated administrative fiefdom pay themselves seem criminal — a direct theft from Minnesota students who fall into horrible debt to pay tuition. In addition to obscene salaries, lavish pensions are awarded to administrators — “richer than the average” university employee. It’s high time to vote out the politicians who allowed this travesty to happen.
RICHARD BOROTZ, Chanhassen
• • •
The U ranks 68th on U.S. News & World Report’s list of best national universities. It ranks seventh in its relevant peer group — the original Big Ten — and the president’s salary is third-highest in this group. Given the Byzantine nature of administrative compensation, and the fact that no one seriously considers a correlation between pay and the quality of work for this class of employees, the data suggest a starting place for discussion. Let’s ask some students or debt-laden graduates for their thoughts.
JOHN AMMERMAN, St. Louis Park
• • •
I’m a graduate of the U who cannot thank Carlson enough for being so objective and honest. He is, without a doubt, on the mark.
BILL PLANTE, Edina
* * *
Saturday, April 13, 2013
Scoggins: Break with Sanford is bad timing for Gophers athletics
The REALLY important fallout from the Sanford Health negotiations breakdown...
As Chip Scroggins writes in the Sports section of the Star-Tribune:
Norwood Teague’s two-week search for a new basketball coach consumed his time and forced him to put his “day job” on hiatus. Now that that’s concluded, the Gophers athletic director can return his focus to a big-ticket agenda that ultimately could define his administration.
Teague’s crusade to improve inadequate facilities has become his top priority again.
Teague has grand visions for facility upgrades that will require some serious capital, possibly between $80 million and $125 million. In order to fulfill their wish list, the Gophers likely need a lead donor, and the most obvious candidate is billionaire alum T. Denny Sanford. But that’s where things become murky.
The proposed takeover of Fairview Health Services and the University of Minnesota Medical Center ended abruptly this week when Sanford Health withdrew from the talks after intense scrutiny by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. Sanford Health’s CEO, Kelby Krabbenhoft, said in a letter that Sanford Health felt “unwelcome[d] by some interested parties and key stakeholders of our proposed merger partner.”University President Eric Kaler put a moratorium on all discussions of charitable gifts from Denny Sanford during merger talks, hoping to eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Now that the merger talks have dissolved, it will be interesting to see when the athletic department resumes its courtship of Sanford.
This is a sensitive subject on campus because of the acrimonious manner in which the merger discussions ended and the clout that Denny Sanford carries, particularly as it relates to Gophers athletics. The athletic department referred all Sanford questions to central administration. A university spokesman said Friday that the situation is a “rapidly changing environment and the moratorium remains in place.”
It’s unclear how much, if any, damage control Teague must do to resolve any frustration or anger on Sanford’s part. Much like his predecessor Joel Maturi, Teague has spent considerable time cultivating a close relationship with Sanford since taking over as athletic director last summer.
The hospital merger talks put Teague in a difficult spot because his department needs Sanford’s financial support as it finalizes a facilities master plan, which could be released in a few months.
The much-discussed basketball practice facility is only one component on a lengthy to-do list. The Gophers also need a football-only practice facility, a renovated indoor facility for other sports, a new track and a revamped Bierman building that includes a larger academic center and nutrition area.
The crummy weather this week brought another reminder of their space crunch. On Wednesday, four teams squeezed inside the football practice facility at the same time. Luckily, the football team didn’t have a spring practice scheduled that day.
A basketball practice facility would cost around $20 million, which presumably could be raised without the need of a lead donor. But the Gophers’ support facilities lag behind their Big Ten rivals and need to be addressed en masse.
Teague’s fundraising message to fans remains unchanged: Facility improvements are a need, not a want.
“People seem to be understanding that we need to get there,” he said. “It’s a common element with all of our competitors.”
Teague has overhauled his fundraising department with the goal of expanding the donor base. It’s also no secret that winning spurs financial giving in college athletics. The Gophers need to become more successful in their two marquee sports.The athletic department is planning a statewide caravan in an attempt to reconnect with its fan base and jump-start fundraising. Teague clearly loves this part of his job and said he’s “ready to roll” again after finding a new basketball coach.
“We have tremendous needs right now,” he said.
Wants or needs?
Teague has grand visions for facility upgrades that will require some serious capital, possibly between $80 million and $125 million. In order to fulfill their wish list, the Gophers likely need a lead donor, and the most obvious candidate is billionaire alum T. Denny Sanford. But that’s where things become murky.
The proposed takeover of Fairview Health Services and the University of Minnesota Medical Center ended abruptly this week when Sanford Health withdrew from the talks after intense scrutiny by Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson. Sanford Health’s CEO, Kelby Krabbenhoft, said in a letter that Sanford Health felt “unwelcome[d] by some interested parties and key stakeholders of our proposed merger partner.”University President Eric Kaler put a moratorium on all discussions of charitable gifts from Denny Sanford during merger talks, hoping to eliminate the appearance of a conflict of interest.
Belatedly.
This is a sensitive subject on campus because of the acrimonious manner in which the merger discussions ended and the clout that Denny Sanford carries, particularly as it relates to Gophers athletics. The athletic department referred all Sanford questions to central administration. A university spokesman said Friday that the situation is a “rapidly changing environment and the moratorium remains in place.”
It’s unclear how much, if any, damage control Teague must do to resolve any frustration or anger on Sanford’s part. Much like his predecessor Joel Maturi, Teague has spent considerable time cultivating a close relationship with Sanford since taking over as athletic director last summer.
The hospital merger talks put Teague in a difficult spot because his department needs Sanford’s financial support as it finalizes a facilities master plan, which could be released in a few months.
"needs" ?
The crummy weather this week brought another reminder of their space crunch. On Wednesday, four teams squeezed inside the football practice facility at the same time. Luckily, the football team didn’t have a spring practice scheduled that day.
A basketball practice facility would cost around $20 million, which presumably could be raised without the need of a lead donor. But the Gophers’ support facilities lag behind their Big Ten rivals and need to be addressed en masse.
"need" ?
If the price tag approaches $100 million, the athletic department almost assuredly would need a significant donation to make that a reality.
“It’s important but it’s not a must,” Teague said, agreeing to speak only in general terms. “It’s a traditional model in college athletics to have a lead donor on most of your projects. That being the case, we could have a lead donor on a variety of different buildings.”
The facilities push comes against the backdrop of tough scrutiny from the Legislature over the school’s administrative costs. This is a delicate time for university officials to discuss expensive projects in the face of pointed criticism about overspending.
It certainly is. Especially when tuition control is supposed to be the most important priority at the U under the Kaler administration.
Teague’s fundraising message to fans remains unchanged: Facility improvements are a need, not a want.
Sure, Mr. Teague, whatever you say...
“People seem to be understanding that we need to get there,” he said. “It’s a common element with all of our competitors.”
People, Mr. Teague? Who? Students, faculty, staff, state legislators, tax payers, citizens of Minnesota?
Teague has overhauled his fundraising department with the goal of expanding the donor base. It’s also no secret that winning spurs financial giving in college athletics. The Gophers need to become more successful in their two marquee sports.The athletic department is planning a statewide caravan in an attempt to reconnect with its fan base and jump-start fundraising. Teague clearly loves this part of his job and said he’s “ready to roll” again after finding a new basketball coach.
Pay particular attention to alumni with huge debt loads, and their parents, Mr. Teague.
Now he can only hope that Denny Sanford eventually feels the same way.
This is a pretty sad article.
Makes you wonder where the U's real priorities are.
Friday, April 12, 2013
University of Minnesota Regents Are Missing the Point
"While I voted to re-elect Cohen (and her colleague Dean Johnson) to the board this year, the way in which she defends the university shows that the administration does not understand the nature of the criticism from Carlson and others. The criticism is this: The University of Minnesota spends too much on administration, and does so because it can raise tuition to pay for it."
State Representative Ryan Winkler writes in the Star-Tribune:
The University of Minnesota Board of Regents, through its chair Linda Cohen, properly defends the university president and his administration from criticism by former Gov. Arne Carlson in a recent exchange of commentaries (“A skewed U,” by Carlson, April 7, and “It’s U’s critics whose views are skewed,” by Cohen, April 10). The regents are responsible for governing the university and protecting it from interference by former governors and current legislators like me.
Representative Winkler take on this situation is interesting. A piece by Michael McNabb has appeared on both The Periodic Table and Community Voices on the Star-Tribune. Interested readers might wish to consider the similarities the in the piece by Winkler and the one by McNabb.
While I voted to re-elect Cohen (and her colleague Dean Johnson) to the board this year, the way in which she defends the university shows that the administration does not understand the nature of the criticism from Carlson and others. The criticism is this: The University of Minnesota spends too much on administration, and does so because it can raise tuition to pay for it.
Too harsh? See this interesting discussion between Representative Winkler and U of M Chief Financial Officer Pfutzenreuter:
Cohen’s response emphasizes that the university has left faculty positions open, has frozen salaries and has closed colleges. She justifies high salaries for administrators by citing the need to compete for top faculty. With these defenses, the university seems to conflate academic greatness — as measured by its faculty’s scholarship — with the salaries it pays its administrators. This attitude serves administrators but not the university’s mission.
Indeed, according to information the university provided the Legislature this year, only one employment category increased its share of total salary spending in the last 10 years — the “leadership” category. While naturally salaries for all employees increased from 2002 to 2011, leadership compensation increased the most.
Cohen’s response also shows that those in the university administration fail to comprehend that they have insulated themselves in positions of comfort while students and families are left scrambling to pay the tab. Instead of citing the cost to attend the university for families making $75,000 per year, the administration should focus on students’ reality: debt. The average debt for an undergraduate student graduating in 2011 was $27,000, higher than that at Minnesota’s other four-year public universities.
Student debt is high because the university has decided to raise tuition and offset price increases with more student aid. This financial model has several problems. First, student aid is insufficient for middle-class families, leaving them stuck between high tuition and limited financial aid resources. Second, sticker shock over the cost of attending the university discourages many students from poor families, or students who are the first in their family to attend college, from applying. Third, student debt becomes a steady revenue source for the university, which puts university funding and students’ financial needs at cross purposes.
The result of the high-tuition, high-aid model is that both university administrative salaries and students’ tuition have continued their relentless upward march regardless of the economic storms raging outside the university’s gate. In fact, the only employees at the university who have seen job losses and salary reductions during the Great Recession are clerical staff and maintenance personnel. University Avenue and Wall Street seem to run in parallel.
Finally, Cohen’s response shows that the university is comparable in cost, administrative expense and research footprint to its Big Ten peers. This is true, but beside the point. All of higher education is following the same financial model that students can no longer sustain.
What we need from university leaders is an acknowledgment that the current higher education model is beyond its useful life and needs to change. We need to hear how university leaders are going to build on the best of what we have, while changing course on costs and student debt. We need to hear that the ivory tower wants to open more doors for students, not just redecorate the office suite at the top.
Ryan Winkler, DFL-Golden Valley, is a member of the Minnesota House.
High Aid / High Tuition Model Broken? It certainly is and this topic has been mentioned many times on The Periodic Table in the past.
Some examples:
The Tuition Shell Game
Myth of the High Tuition - High Aid Model At the University of Minnesota
Course Correction In Higher Education
On the Record: Our Numbers Good, Your Numbers Bad? Disagree? You're full of beans...High Level Discussion at University of Minnesota Finance and Planning Committee
(This is a single post. Long and a little wonkish, but a good illustration of how dissenters are treated at the U of M.)
Wednesday, April 10, 2013
Skewed U
In a guest column in the April 10 Star Tribune the chair of the Board of Regents responds to the criticism of excessive costs of administration at the U of M by Governor Carlson in his April 7 Star Tribune guest column.
Here is "the rest of the story" to the response of the Regents.
(1) "The university has realized millions of dollars of savings . . . . "
In January 2013 the U of M chief financial officer told state legislators that the administration has cut $228 million since 2006. See the January 31 Star Tribune report. From fiscal year 2007 through fiscal year 2012 the total operating expenses for the University were just under $17 billion. See the U of M financial reports. So the cuts amount to 1.3% of the total operating expenses. Does the administration view this as making tough choices? Or making a serious effort to control costs and tuition?
(2) "As part of our legislative request this year we have pledged to freeze Minnesota resident undergraduate tuition for two years . . . ."
The administration proposes to freeze tuition on the condition that the legislature increases state appropriations by $91.6 million for the next two years. See the September 14, 2012 Pioneer Press report.
The freeze would be limited to undergraduate tuition only (and to Minnesota residents only). The tuition for students (both resident and non-resident) in graduate and professional programs is what really compounds the crushing debt on young persons. See Whose Fault--Crushing Student Debt.
(3) "The Twin Cities campus has a lower net price (tuition, fees, room and board minus financial aid) than any other four year college in the state--public or private."
Net price does not provide any relief to the students because the administration classifies student loans as "financial aid." The Minnesota Daily describes this argument of the administration as cynical and deceptive. See Driven To Deception.
(4) "The board and the Kaler administration undertook an aggressive internal review to study . . . its administrative costs."
The Regents fail to mention that the internal study showed that the total cost of administration for fiscal year 2012 exceeded $852 million (or 28% of the total expenditures of the University). See On The Cost of Administration Part III, So their proposed $28 million reduction in administrative costs over the next two years does not make much of a dent in administrative overhead.
(5) "The column suggests that the university can operate outside the marketplace for faculty and staff salaries. . . ."
Governor Carlson limited his criticism to the compensation of administrators. He noted that universities "compare their rising costs with those of other spiraling systems and proclaim this to be the market."
The Regents should know that the law restricts the pursuit of personal wealth by the leaders of tax exempt organizations. See the Postscript to $tate of the University--A Parent's Perspective.
Society grants tax exemptions to non-profit institutions of higher education in order to promote the common good and not to enrich administrators. If the motivation of the administrators is to accumulate personal wealth, then they should seek those riches in for-profit organizations. See The Cost of "Top Talent" and The Cost of "Top Talent" Part III.
(6) "This argument ignores a reality that was unmentioned: a $140 million reduction in annual state support to the university since 2008."
Over the past decade the U of M administration has increased spending by $1 billion--despite a reduction in state appropriations. In fiscal year 2002 the total operating expenses for the University were $2,005,138,000. In fiscal year 2012 the total operating expenses were $2,948,366,000.
The fuel for this billion dollar explosion was skyrocketing tuition. In fiscal year 2002 the administration collected a net amount (after scholarships and grants) of $293,127,000 in tuition and fees. In fiscal year 2012 the net amount of tuition and fees collected was $696,278,000.
The senior administrators and the Regents have shown no mercy to the students (and their parents). This skyrocketing tuition far exceeded the reduction in state appropriations. In fiscal year 2002 the University received $643,088,000 in state appropriations. In fiscal year 2012 the amount was $572,075,000.
See pp. 17-18 of the 2002 U of M annual financial report and pp. 14-15 of the 2012 U of M annual financial report.
If the Regents are unwilling or unable to make substantial reductions in the cost of administration, then the legislature will do so for them.
Michael W. McNabb
University of Minnesota B.A. 1971; J.D.1974
University of Minnesota Alumni Association life member
Letter from President Kaler on Fairview situation:
Wed, Apr 10, 2013 at 5:28 PM
Dear Colleagues,
Last week, I publicly advanced a vision for a University of Minnesota Academic Health System. This was done with great thought and the strong support of our Board of Regents and leadership in the Academic Health Center. I am gratified by the positive response from our physicians, the broader campus community, and others.
Unfortunately, I was informed this afternoon by interim Fairview CEO Chuck Mooty that Fairview's board will not entertain the University of Minnesota's proposal at this time. This news is disappointing, given my strong belief that the status quo is not sustainable.
You likely read the coverage of Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson's public hearing on Sunday about the potential merger of Sanford Health and Fairview. University officials presented our comments about that merger and I provided this written statement. Subsequent to the Attorney General's hearing, legislators introduced various bills aimed at preventing a Sanford/Fairview merger.
Today Sanford announced that it is withdrawing from merger talks with Fairview. It is unclear today whether the Attorney General will convene another hearing on April 21, as she had planned to do.
To advance our proposal, we explored a legislative option that could provide additional support and infrastructure. However, it became clear that it is too late in the legislative session to introduce legislation of this scope and importance.
Clearly, we are operating in a rapidly evolving landscape. Despite today's news from Fairview, we are very close to achieving our goals to establish an integrated operations structure around the University of Minnesota Medical Center, Amplatz Children's Hospital, the yet-to-be-built Ambulatory Care Clinic, University of Minnesota Physicians, and the Medical School. Fairview leaders have assured me that they support completing this agreement and we anticipate being able to finalize it and bring it to our Board of Regents for review at the May meeting.
Fairview's leadership and I are also committed to developing a shared vision for enhancing clinical care, research, and education. To that end, we will begin a joint planning process and our executive teams will come together as a first step in late April.
Thank you for your continued support and interest.
Sincerely,
Eric W. Kaler
President
University of Minnesota Medical School Dean Friedman
(and in his spare time VP for Health Sciences)
A Bad Day at Black Rock?
Sanford disengages from merger talks over concern about its integrity and good name. [sic]
Chuck Mooty, interim Fairview CEO, tells U of M to forget any talks about taking over Fairview because now is not the time. Also, please remove the knife from his back.
Denny is going to be annoyed.
What to do, what to do?
What to do, what to do?
I guess that is why they make the big bucks in the U of M administration.
Updated: 04/10/2013 04:35:57 PM CDT
Sanford Health, a large health system based in South Dakota, has withdrawn from merger talks with Fairview Health Services, one of the state's largest networks of hospitals and clinics.
Fairview, meanwhile, says it will stop considering a competing proposal from the University of Minnesota to acquire the Minneapolis-based health system.
Instead, Fairview and the U will focus on improving a 15-year-old affiliation agreement between the parties that involves the teaching hospitals used by the university medical school.
The disclosures came Wednesday, April 10, in a statement issued by Charles Mooty, the interim chief executive officer at Fairview."We understand why they would choose to step back at this time, but the news comes as a disappointment," Mooty said of the decision by Sanford Health.
As for the U, he added: "We feel it is not the time to discuss any proposal that involves the university acquiring Fairview."
Christopher Snowbeck
Follow him at twitter.com/chrissnowbeck.
Sunlight is the Best Disinfectant
Thank You to Minnesota Attorney General
Lori Swanson
"I think it’s time for Sanford to withdraw from this process, and only re-engage if Fairview and the University of Minnesota have sufficiently resolved issues within their relationship and secured a positive understanding by Attorney General Swanson of their intentions and plans.”
Sanford CEO Kelby Krabbenhoft
From In-Forum, the forum of Fargo-Moorhead
Sanford Health, faced with sharp political opposition from the Minnesota capitol, is suspending merger talks with Twin Cities-based Fairview Health Services.
Today’s announcement follows strong criticism about a possible merger from the Minnesota attorney general and lawmakers concerned about what they characterized as a “takeover” of the University of Minnesota Medical Center.
“Sanford Health has a philosophical policy of ‘only going where we are invited,’ and it seems as though the incredibly positive beginnings to discussions of the merger of Fairview Health and Sanford Health has turned into a situation that finds us being unwelcome by some interested parties and key stakeholders of our proposed merger partner,” Kelby Krabbenhoft, Sanford’s chief executive officer said in a statement.
Fairview assumed control of the university medical center in 1997, and its acting chief executive has said no merger with Sanford would happen without the university’s approval.
Since the Sanford-Fairview talks exploring a possible merger recently became public, the University of Minnesota has revealed it made a competing offer to merge with Fairview.
Minnesota Attorney General Lori Swanson, who held an informal hearing Sunday about the possible merger – the day before a Fairview board meeting – has raised questions about charitable assets going to an out-of-state organization.
Gov. Mark Dayton publicly expressed support for Swanson’s actions and endorsed a Fairview-University of Minnesota merger.
In another setback, Minnesota lawmakers have proposed legislation to block health system mergers involving out-of-state suitors.
In his statement, Krabbenhoft noted resistance to the possible merger with Fairview, which he said has been damaging to Sanford:
“I am now concerned that the good reputation of Sanford may be injured by a process that only intended the highest of ideals and integrity for what we believed to be a compelling solution to the challenges facing health care delivery today and in the future. As such, I think it’s time for Sanford to withdraw from this process, and only re-engage if Fairview and the University of Minnesota have sufficiently resolved issues within their relationship and secured a positive understanding by Attorney General Swanson of their intentions and plans.”
The political firestorm over a possible Sanford-Fairview merger erupted at the same time the Mayo Clinic, which has locations in Arizona and Florida, has been asking Minnesota to lend financial support for a planned multibillion-dollar expansion of its headquarters campus in Rochester.
In a review of merger “synergies,” Sanford and Fairview estimate the two health systems would realize cost savings of $40 million to $60 million a year through bulk purchasing of supplies and sharing of electronic medical records.
Sanford is incorporated as a nonprofit in North Dakota and has its principal corporate headquarters in Sioux Falls, S.D. It has significant operations in western Minnesota, where it employs 6,000.
Formerly Sioux Valley, Sanford merged with the former Fargo-based MeritCare in 2009, and later with health systems based in Bemidji, Minn., and Bismarck.
Krabbenholt's Letter - from the Star-Tribune:
While it was always assumed that this merger of equals would create something uniquely special and important, it was never suggested that either party was “acquiring or controlling” the other. Those terms were never contemplated because they would be rejected on their face as unacceptable to each of these historic, charitable, and successful organizations. Nonetheless, this misperception has been created to serve an agenda that undermines the good faith and emerging trust that is essential in any contemplated merger of this sort.
Sanford Health has a philosophical policy of “only going where we are invited”, and it seems as though the incredibly positive beginnings to discussions of the merger of Fairview Health and Sanford Health, has turned into a situation that finds us being unwelcome by some interested parties and key stakeholders of our proposed merger partner. It is inconceivable and unacceptable to me that we would ever propose a merger without the affirmation of these parties.
I am now concerned that the good reputation of Sanford may be injured by a process that only intended the highest of ideals and integrity for what we believed to be a compelling solution to the challenges facing health care delivery today and in the future. As such, I think it’s time for Sanford to withdraw from this process, and only re-engage if Fairview and the University of Minnesota have sufficiently resolved issues within their relationship and secured a positive understanding by Attorney General Swanson of their intentions and plans. Until those conditions seem resolved it appears prudent for Sanford to disengage from this effort and will do so immediately.
I am providing the following information to our colleagues at Fairview, the Minnesota Attorney General, and the media for public awareness.
Sincerely,
Kelby K. Krabbenhoft
CEO, Sanford Health
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
