Live data from Hacker News

"Eat What You Kill"

propublica.org

11–20 of 26 posts

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#11
post #4

There's so much here that it's hard to comment. Ultimately it seems like a story of a doctor's cult of personality, greed and buying loyalty, reckless malpractice, and a failure of multiple institutions to detect it or care about stopping it.

The armchair psychologist in me says Dr. Weiner is a sociopath who sees himself as a superhero doctor: controlling patients the entire way through the system, dismissing other physicians as incompetent or antagonistic, and diagnosing symptoms with diseases he happens to specialize in after quick tests or examinations. He even lied about how a family called his personal cell phone and begged him to cut his vacation short.

He wants money, but less out of greed and more because superhero doctors naturally earn a lot of money. There are plenty of easier ways to cheat money out of the system than maintaining that a man has stage 4 lung cancer for 11 years.

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#12
Imagine being the reporter for this and reading all this, talking to everyone, and then talking to the man himself, and then have to write "no criminal charges pressed"

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#13
It's easy to make this a story about top surgeon with a God complex, but the bigger story is the regulatory environment that allows this to happen.

A doctor was billing Medicare for seeing up to 70 patients a day - more 15-minute visits than any other doctor in the entire United States. No regulator noticed this or acted?

Multiple insurance companies paid for 11 years of Stage 4 lung cancer treatment without ever requiring proof the cancer existed. Not one claims adjuster or medical reviewer caught this.

Hospital administrators let him make himself both oncologist AND primary care physician for his patients, creating a closed system with no oversight. They let him take over end-of-life care despite concerns about suspicious deaths.

When hospital CEOs tried to question his practices, he organized campaigns to force them out. Hospital administrators chose protecting revenue over protecting patients.

The medical board failed. The DEA investigated but only pursued civil penalties. Law enforcement seems uninterested in investigating multiple suspicious deaths.

What's most disturbing - after all this came to light, his medical license was renewed in 2023. He can still practice medicine and prescribe drugs today.

The whole thing exposes how profit incentives in healthcare can override patient safety at every level and the regulatory framework that we pay to protect us is part of the problem.

How do we fix a regulatory system that fails at every level to protect patients?

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#14

It's easy to make this a story about top surgeon with a God complex, but the bigger story is the regulatory environment that allows this to happen. A doctor was billing Medicare for seeing up to 70 patients a day - more 15-minute visits than any other doctor in the entire United States. No regulator noticed this or acted? Multiple insurance companies paid for 11 years of Stage 4 lung cancer treatment without ever req…

> How do we fix a regulatory system that fails at every level to protect patients?

By removing the profit incentive and making the medical system just a job.

No more shareholders or execs or CEOs or partners.

Doctors can work in government sponsored facilities for a salary. No itemized CPT codes with varying costs.

No incentive to cheat.

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#15

It's easy to make this a story about top surgeon with a God complex, but the bigger story is the regulatory environment that allows this to happen. A doctor was billing Medicare for seeing up to 70 patients a day - more 15-minute visits than any other doctor in the entire United States. No regulator noticed this or acted? Multiple insurance companies paid for 11 years of Stage 4 lung cancer treatment without ever req…

(Context note: I started writing this as a top-level comment, but I think it ultimately fits better as a concurring reply here.)

For all of the galling failures described in this story, I see it first and foremost as an indictment of the (non-)system. If a plane has a rough landing that results in so much as a sprained ankle, we expect everyone involved with that flight to be up to their eyeballs in an NTSB investigation that will produce a thorough and authoritative account of the failure. Alaska Airlines Flight 1282 (aka the 737 Max door plug blowout) officially resulted in 3 minor injuries, and that was a massive scandal that prompted a tidal wave of scrutiny against Boeing and perhaps a dozen high-profile pieces about how its engineering culture was undermined by McDonnell Douglas's management culture. At least as many people have evidently been fatally poisoned at St. Peter's.

But we apparently can't investigate medical failures with even a modest fraction of that level of robustness because... uh... reasons. The knee-jerk deflection is that medicine is messy and doctors are due a certain amount of deference for judgment calls in the context of the situation; are the same points not also true of aviation and pilots? Suppose that Dr. Wiener is entitled to walk away a free man because of a non-blame-oriented culture of dispassionate root cause analysis. In that case, we're due (and he's due, for that matter) a very detailed and public accounting of exactly where the failures occurred, whether they're his or others'. But maybe we're just not ready to look this shit in the eye.

(I'm also making a note to myself to double my usual donation to ProPublica this year; they've been kicking ass at the sort of muckraking that we haven't seen nearly enough of in the past 15-20 years)

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#16

(1) Among other things, this is an awful example of why documentation matters. So many people were taking this man on his word, and I'm sure if there'd been proper paper trails he would've been caught in even more lies, and hopefully much sooner. (2) Given how high his diagnosis rates were, I wonder if any population-level studies have been inadvertently thrown off by the "high" cancer rates in Montana, or otherwise…

oh so that's how these miracle cures work...

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#17
Perverse incentives need to be stopped. Providers should be firewalled from finances, not in on the action. If one were to dig deeper into more doctors I have no doubt the same kinds of behavior would be discovered along with that form of compensation.

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#18
post #9

One of the scariest part of it all, is the mass support from the people of the town. How popular charismatic personalities can completely blind people from common sense and their ability to demand truth, and in turn, how that can hurt those wronged, and keep the truth hidden away.

This seems like an especially easy trap to fall into specifically for medical patients (and their families). Everything about it, from the specialized knowledge of symptoms and ailments that aren't easy to reason about as a non-expert, the subtle details around different dosages of similar-sounding medications (e.g all of the accounting around "morphine units" detailed in the article), the Kafkaesque insurance bureaucracy often making it extremely difficult to switch providers and essentially impossible for mere mortals to understand the actual cost of procedures they're getting make it a perfect scenario for exploitation. In a situation where you or a family has (or is told they have) a deadly illness, those of us without medical training don't have the expertise to be able to verify what we're told, let alone take any steps to try to prevent severe pain or death without help from a doctor. What alternatives do people have to advocate for themselves or their family other than having to just trust what they're told? The article mentions that the hospital wouldn't share the results of a review or even confirm that a review existed of the death of a 16-year-old due to "confidentiality laws" when asked by _her own parents_.

Like plenty of other circumstances where someone is able to build a cult of personality, it's not someone having such extraordinary charisma that they can convince people to reject reality; they might be above average in their persuasiveness, but their real skill is identifying situations where people are vulnerable and don't have any alternatives. In this case, being the only oncologist anywhere in the region gave both his patients _and_ the hospital where he worked no obvious alternative than continuing to buy into whatever he told them, until someone from the outside without circumstances making him susceptible was able to push hard enough to force action (at no insignificant personal cost; the outside doctor who came in and built up enough momentum to force the unscrupulous doctor out is still dealing with a personal lawsuit alleging defamation despite the case against the hospital for defamation and wrongful termination being thrown out).

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#19

Perverse incentives need to be stopped. Providers should be firewalled from finances, not in on the action. If one were to dig deeper into more doctors I have no doubt the same kinds of behavior would be discovered along with that form of compensation.

> Providers should be firewalled from finances, not in on the action.

That’s a crucial point. The "eat what you kill" compensation model, where doctors are paid based on volume of procedures and visits (RVUs) creates the environment for this to continue to happen again and again.

Re: "Eat What You Kill"

#20

It's easy to make this a story about top surgeon with a God complex, but the bigger story is the regulatory environment that allows this to happen. A doctor was billing Medicare for seeing up to 70 patients a day - more 15-minute visits than any other doctor in the entire United States. No regulator noticed this or acted? Multiple insurance companies paid for 11 years of Stage 4 lung cancer treatment without ever req…

The story does an excellent job of spreading blame, as evidenced by the figures you cite from the article.

But a journalist’s job is to weave those facts into an actual story, which they’ve excelled at.

This deserves Pulitzer consideration.

Post reply on HN