Start of ex-Theranos president and COO Sunny Balwani’s federal trial will be pushed to mid-March due to COVID-19 spike in California
Just when most clinical laboratory managers and pathologists thought the guilty verdict in the Elizabeth Holmes fraud case would bring an end to the saga, we learn her chapter in the Theranos story will instead extend another eight months to September when the former Silicon Valley CEO will be sentenced. However, a brand-new chapter will begin in March when the fraud trial of ex-Theranos president and COO Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani begins.
Holmes’ fraud trial concluded on January 3 with the jury convicting her on one count of conspiracy to defraud investors and three counts of wire fraud after seven days of deliberation and nearly four months of trial proceedings.
Holmes remains free on a $500,000 bond while awaiting sentencing.
Elizabeth Holmes is seen above arriving at the US District courthouse in San Jose, Calif. On January 3, the former Theranos CEO was convicted on three counts of wire fraud and one count of conspiracy to defraud investors. US District Judge Edward Davila set Holmes’ sentencing date for September 26. Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who have closely followed the trial will have to wait eight months for the conclusion of this chapter in the Theranos saga. (Photo copyright: The Guardian.)
“I would be utterly shocked if she wasn’t sentenced to some term of imprisonment,” Amanda Kramer, JD, a former federal prosecutor who is now a partner with New York-based Covington & Burling LLP, told NPR.
“What is the sentence that will deter others who have a failing business from making the choice to commit fraud, rather than owning up to the failings and losing their dream?” she added.
Holmes, 37, faces a possible prison sentence of 20 years in prison as well as a $250,000 fine and possible restitution. But some legal experts expect a much shorter prison sentence for the disgraced CEO, who has no prior criminal history and is a first-time mother of a son born last July.
While sentencing typically takes place within a few months of a verdict being reached in a federal criminal trial, US District Judge Edward Davila set 1:30 p.m. September 26, 2022, as the date for Holmes’ sentencing hearing, according to his order dated January 12.
The Mercury News reported the lengthy delay in sentencing may be due to the start of Balwani’s upcoming trial on identical fraud charges. The delay in Holmes’ sentencing will allow for Balwani’s trial to begin in mid-March after being pushed back one month due to a spike in COVID-19 cases in California, The Mercury News reported.
Judge Davila will preside over Balwani’s trial as well.
Jury Acquits Holmes on Patient-related Charges
Holmes was acquitted of conspiracy to defraud patients of the now-defunct blood-testing laboratory and the jury failed to reach a unanimous decision on three other wire fraud charges.
University of Michigan Law Professor Barbara McQuade, a former US Attorney and an NBC News Legal Analyst, told CNBC she expects prosecutors to rethink their strategy in the Balwani trial based on the jury’s acquittal of Holmes on conspiracy and fraud charges involving Theranos patients.
“Knowing that this jury acquitted on all of the patient counts, I think that strategically, they should look to find a more direct way to explain why that is part of the fraud, that they necessarily knew that ultimately patients would be defrauded. And that although they didn’t know these individual patients by name, they knew that they existed in concept,” McQuade said.
One of the jurors in the Holmes’ trial, Wayne Kaatz, told ABC News he and other jurors were dismayed by their inability to come to a unanimous consensus on the three of the charges. A mistrial was declared on those three counts.
“We were very saddened,” Kaatz said. “We thought we had failed.”
Did Holmes Charm the Jury?
When Holmes dropped out of Stanford at age 19 to form Theranos, her goal, she claimed during testimony, was to transform healthcare by creating a blood-testing device capable of performing hundreds of clinical laboratory tests using a finger-stick of blood. She became a Silicon Valley sensation because of her charisma and charm, which she used to sell her dream to big money investors such as Oracle co-founder Larry Ellison and former US Secretary of State George Shultz.
Kaatz acknowledged Holmes’ personality also impacted the jury.
“It’s tough to convict somebody, especially somebody so likable, with such a positive dream,” Kaatz explained to ABC News, noting, however, that he voted guilty on the three counts on which the jury could not agree. “[We] respected Elizabeth’s belief in her technology, in her dream. [We thought], ‘She still believes in it, and we still believe she believes in it.’”
In the light of Holmes’ conviction, McQuade suggested it would not be shocking to see Balwani consider a plea deal in exchange for a lighter sentence.
“Could we perhaps, enter a guilty plea and get a reduction for acceptance of responsibility?” she said. “It’s certainly something that you have to look at.”
And so, the saga continues. Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who followed Holmes’ trial with rapt interest should prepare for a new set of twists and turns as Ramesh Balwani prepares to face his own day in court.
Jurors are expected to hear closing arguments beginning on December 16 and then will decide Holmes’ fate in criminal fraud trial
It was seven days of testimony from former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes, reported in detail by most major news outlets. The jury in her criminal fraud trial heard the once-high-flying Silicon Valley executive attempt to explain away charges of deception. She acknowledged that she made mistakes while leading the clinical laboratory blood-testing company but claimed that others were ultimately responsible for the company’s failures.
Rosendorff left Theranos in November 2014. He was followed by three more Theranos laboratory directors, all of whom have testified in the fraud case against Holmes.
Presumably, in her testimony, Holmes was laying the blame for key failures in the accuracy of the lab tests performed for patients, along with major deficiencies in how her medical lab company complied with CLIA regulations, on these former Theranos laboratory directors (as the clinical laboratory company’s CLIA lab directors of record during those years).
“Whether you have an intent to defraud is really a state of mind,” she said.
The illustration above depicts ex-Theranos CEO and founder Elizabeth Holmes concluding seven days of testimony in her criminal fraud trial in San Jose, California. Closing arguments are scheduled to begin December 16. Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists following the fraud trail may soon learn whether the four clinical laboratory directors who worked for Theranos may in some way be held accountable for some of the company’s activities. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/The Wall Street Journal.)
‘We Wanted to Help People’
Holmes’ testimony may have both helped and hurt her case. According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Holmes “hasn’t flinched during questioning by her lawyer or the government.
“The persona of the confident yet traumatized chief executive could create reasonable doubt in the minds of jurors, legal observers following the trial say, and muddy the evidence prosecutors put forward over 11 weeks to prove she intended to defraud investors and patients about the reach of Theranos’ technology,” the WSJ wrote.
During testimony, Holmes maintained that her goal in founding Theranos was to increase access to healthcare. “We wanted to help people who were scared of needles,” she told jurors, the WSJ reported.
In building its case, prosecutors presented witness testimony and other evidence strongly suggesting Holmes lied to investors about Theranos’ laboratory testing capabilities and deployment, concealed its use of commercial blood testing machines, and hid ongoing issues with its Edison device.
One of the most damaging moments of Holmes’ own testimony may have been when she admitted to affixing the logos of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Schering-Plough to reports sent to Walgreens and potential investors.
Holmes told jurors that her intent was to give credit to others, not to deceive and her defense attorneys attempted to show that many of Holmes’ more questionable decisions were aimed at protecting Theranos trade secrets.
“We had a huge amount of invention that was happening in our laboratories,” Holmes testified, according to CNN’s trial coverage. “We had teams of scientists and engineers that were working really hard on coming up with new ideas for patents and trade secrets, and we needed to figure out how to protect them.”
Holmes Claims No Responsibility for Theranos’ Lab Operations and Product Development
On the witness stand, Holmes acknowledged she was the final decisionmaker at Theranos. However, she worked to distance herself from the company’s medical laboratory troubles. She pointed out that others within the company had control over laboratory operations and scientific decision-making.
The WSJ reported that defense lawyer Kevin Downey asked Holmes, “Who was responsible for operational management of the lab?”
Holmes replied, “Sunny Balwani.” She explained that her former No. 2 executive oversaw all the “business parts” of the lab. Meanwhile, the clinical/scientific decision-making, Holmes stated, was the job of the laboratory director and laboratory leadership.
When given the opportunity to cross-examine Holmes, prosecutors focused on Holmes’ response to the 2015 WSJ investigation into Theranos and her retaliatory actions against whistleblower Erika Cheung, a former lab employee who became a source for the WSJ’s expose and a prosecution witness.
According to WSJ live coverage, Holmes testified that Theranos hired a law firm and threatened Cheung with litigation after she left the company, but only did so to protect Theranos’ trade secrets. Holmes acknowledged that Cheung’s concerns about Theranos’ blood-testing technology ultimately were proven correct.
“I think I mishandled the entire process of the Wall Street Journal reporting,” Holmes said.
Closing Arguments
In her closing day of testimony, Holmes was asked if she ever intentionally misrepresented Theranos’ technology to patients and investors, the WSJ reported.
“Never,” Holmes responded.
Asked if investors lost money because of her attempting to mislead them, she answered, “Of course not.”
Clinical laboratory directors and pathologists who have taken a keen interest in the Holmes fraud trial will soon learn if the jury buys her arguments. Closing arguments are set for December 16, after which the jury must decide whether Holmes intended to defraud patients and investors or is guilty only of falling short in her goal of revolutionizing clinical laboratory medicine.
Former CEO also testified that she believed company’s proprietary blood-testing technology could perform ‘any’ clinical laboratory blood test
One relevant question in the federal fraud trial of ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes was whether she would testify on her own behalf. That question was answered shortly after the government rested its criminal fraud case against the former Silicon Valley clinical laboratory testing company founder. Holmes took the stand in her own defense, a risk her defense team hopes will pay off in her favor.
During her first three days of testimony leading up to the Thanksgiving holiday break, Holmes—who faces 11 counts of fraud and conspiracy related to her tenure as founder and CEO of Theranos—made headlines by admitting she did personally put the logos of pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Schering-Plough on reports she sent to Theranos investors and executives at Walgreens and Safeway. She expressed regret for doing so to the jury, but claimed her intent was not to deceive but to give credit to others.
“This work was done in partnership with these companies, and I was trying to convey that,” she testified, according to a trial coverage from Ars Technica.
When asked if she realized that others would assume the pharmaceutical companies—not Theranos—were the authors of the report, Holmes replied, “I’ve heard that testimony in this case, and I wish I’d done it differently.”
If found guilty, Holmes—who once claimed Theranos’ Edison proprietary blood-testing technology would to be able to complete as many as 200 clinical laboratory tests using a single finger-stick of blood—could face maximum penalties of 20 years in prison, a $2.75 million fine, and possible restitution.
The illustration above depicts ex-Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes testifying on her own behalf. Former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News, “(T)he best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. … I think the jury will like her.” That remains to be seen. But there’s no doubt that Clinical Laboratory Directors should take a strong interest in the outcome of this trail. (Graphic copyright: Vicki Behringer/Reuters.)
Holmes Testifies She Believed the Edison Device Could Perform “Any” Blood Test
In its trail coverage, NPR described Holmes’ first three days of testimony “as having involved deflecting responsibility, pointing to the expertise of the Theranos board of directors, lab staff, and other company employees whom Holmes has suggested were close to how [Theranos’] blood analyzers worked.”
According to Reuters, Holmes’ defense team is arguing that Holmes’ always-rosy forecasts about her company’s technology and finances were based on her belief the proprietary Edison device worked as advertised, which, in turn, was based on feedback from pharmaceutical companies, her own employees, and the military.
During her testimony, Holmes compared a traditional blood-testing device to Theranos’ “3.0” device, which she said would reduce the human-error rate that can occur during blood sampling.
“If we had the ability to automate much of that process, we could reduce the error associated with traditional lab testing,” she told the court.
Reuters reported that Holmes told jurors her confidence in the Theranos device was in part due to how well the unit had performed in studies completed in 2008 and 2009, including those run by drug companies such as Novartis.
The Mercury News described Holmes as speaking with “confidence—and frequently a small smile”—during her opening day of testimony.
Asked by one of her lawyers, “Did you believe that Theranos had developed technology that was capable of performing any blood test?” Holmes responded, “I did.”
Holmes Testifies about Military’s Alleged Use of Edison Device
Prosecutors maintain that Holmes knew Theranos’ proprietary blood-testing technology had serious accuracy issues yet lied about its capabilities and use to lure investors. One of those false claims included allegedly stating the US military was using the Edison device on the battlefield. Earlier in the trial, CNBC reported, prosecution witness Brian Grossman, Chief Investment Officer at PFM Health Sciences, which invested $96 million into Theranos, testified he was told in a 2013 meeting with Holmes and Balwani that Theranos technology was being used in medical-evacuation helicopters.
However, on the witness stand, Holmes described Theranos’ projects with the US military as much more limited in scope than the descriptions outlined by investors testifying for the prosecution.
According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), Holmes told jurors a 2010 partnership between Theranos and a US Army Institute of Surgical Research doctor in Texas looked into using the Theranos device to measure blood markers to detect kidney performance. A second project involved the military’s Africa Command, which was determining whether the device could withstand high temperatures. Holmes testified the devices used in Africa “held up well,” though some modifications were needed, and some issues were revealed with the touchscreen.
Should Holmes Have Testified on Her Own Behalf?
Trial experts maintain Holmes’ decision to testify in her own defense could backfire.
“It’s always a risk to put your client on because if they make a mistake they can sink the whole case,” former Santa Clara County prosecutor Steven Clark, JD, told The Mercury News. He added, “what’s at issue here is Elizabeth Holmes’ intent. And the best person to say what Elizabeth Holmes’ intent was is Elizabeth Holmes, and that’s why I think she’s taking the stand. She’s very charismatic. She’s really good on her feet. And I think the jury will like her.
“This is the pitch meeting of her life,” Clark added. “She’s going to be explaining herself to 12 people as to what was in her mind.”
Judge Drops One Count Due to Prosecution Error, Government Rests Its Case
Holmes is now charged with nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud after the government dropped one count of fraud from the indictment. According to WSJ coverage of the trial, US District Judge Edward Davila blocked a patient named in the indictment as “B.B.” from testifying because of a filing error by the prosecution. The judge’s decision resulted in the government dropping one count.
The government rested its case against Holmes on November 19 following testimony from independent journalist Roger Parloff, who wrote a flattering 2014 Fortune magazine story on Holmes. He later redacted his earlier writing in another Fortune article, titled, “How Theranos Misled Me.”
The government alleged Holmes used media publicity as part of her scheme to defraud investors, patients, and physicians. All totaled, 29 witnesses appeared for the prosecution, the WSJ reported.
Former Theranos Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani—Holmes’ one-time boyfriend—faces similar charges of defrauding patients, investors, and physicians. His trial is expected to begin in January 2022.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists who have watched the federal court proceedings with keen interest should expect the trial to wrap up at the conclusion of Holmes’ testimony, just in time for the Balwani fraud trial to begin.
Pathologist Kingshuk Das, MD, tells jurors he voided 50,000 to 60,000 blood-tests from a two-year period due to unreliable results
As the prosecution in the criminal fraud trial of ex-CEO Elizabeth Holmes closes in on resting its case, a fourth and final former Theranos laboratory director took the stand to describe the problems he encountered when overseeing the startup’s medical laboratory operations.
Los Angeles, Calif., board-certified clinical pathologist Kingshuk Das, MD, testified that he reported directly to Holmes and repeatedly warned her about problems and errors with the company’s Edison blood-testing technology, CNBC reported. While describing the proprietary technology’s reliability issues, Das spoke of one conversation with Holmes in which he pointed out that female patients were receiving test results showing abnormal levels of prostate-specific antigen, or PSA, which typically is associated with the male prostate gland.
“Females should generally not have PSA detectable,” Das said during testimony. He “recalled that Holmes offered an alternate explanation, citing ‘an article or two’ claiming rare breast cancers might cause PSA results in women,” CNBC reported.
Assistant US Attorney Robert Leach, JD then asked Das, “Was that explanation satisfying to you?”
“It seemed implausible,” Das replied.
According to CNBC, Das—who worked at Theranos from March 2016 until June 2018—testified that he “voided every test on the Edison devices from 2014 and 2015” and that he had “explained to Holmes that ‘these instruments were not performing from the very beginning.’
During his testimony, Das explained, “I tried to present it in a more understandable format. I recall [Holmes] offering an alternative explanation,” CNBC reported.
Das testified that “Holmes told him it wasn’t an instrument failure but rather a quality control and quality assurance issue,” CNBC reported.
According to The Wall Street Journal (WSJ), corrected reports were issued to doctors for an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 voided results.
CMS Audit: Theranos Lab Posed ‘Immediate Jeopardy to Patient Health and Safety’
The CMS report stated, “As a result of the survey, it was determined that your facility is not in compliance with all of the conditions required for certification in the CLIA program. … The deficient practices of the laboratory pose immediate jeopardy to patient health and safety,” CNBC reported.
Former Theranos Laboratory Director pathologist Kingshuk Das, MD, testified in the Elizabeth Holmes fraud trial that, when he was hired, he was not told the laboratory had previously been inspected by the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services and found deficient. He testified in federal court that he ultimately voided an estimated 50,000 to 60,000 clinical laboratory test results due to the unreliability of the proprietary Edison blood-testing devices. (Photo copyright: LinkedIn.)
Testimony of Four Former Theranos Lab Directors
Das is the fourth Theranos laboratory director to take the stand. He joined the startup in 2016 and was laid off in 2018.
Previous reporting in Dark Daily and our sister publication The Dark Report covered court testimony from the three lab directors who preceded Das (click on names to be taken to those stories):
Lynette Sawyer, DPH, who told jurors she never set foot inside Theranos’ lab while serving as co-director;
Sunil Dhawan, MD, who was former Theranos Chief Operating Officer Ramesh “Sunny” Balwani’s personal dermatologist, and who while Theranos’ lab director worked a total of five to 10 hours and only went to the lab twice; and,
Adam Rosendorff, MD, PhD, a board-certified pathologist, who previously testified he quit Theranos because the technology did not work, CNBC reported.
Rosendorff provided some of the trial’s most explosive news when it was revealed that he was the whistleblower behind The Wall Street Journal’s exposé into Theranos that first raised questions about the startup’s technology and operations.
Defense Claims Holmes Did Not Intentionally Mislead Investors
As noted in The Verge, Holmes’ defense strategy centers on convincing jurors she did not intentionally mislead investors, patients, physicians, and clinical laboratories about Theranos’ proprietary technology, but that she simply failed to achieve the goals she set for Theranos.
“Trying your hardest and coming up short is not a crime,” defense lawyer Lance Wade, JD, told jurors in his opening statement, The Verge reported. “And by the time this trial is over, you will see that the villain the government just presented is actually a living, breathing human being who did her very best each and every day. And she is innocent,” Wade added.
While Holmes is not expected to take the stand in her own defense, prosecutors used her own words against her last month when they played audiotapes for the jury of telephone calls Holmes made to investors in 2013. According to KRON4-TV in San Francisco, Holmes told investors Theranos’ revenues would reach $140 million in revenue in 2014, though the company had not recorded any revenue the two prior years.
Legal analyst Michele Hagan, JD, a former San Francisco Assistant District Attorney, told KRON4-TV the audiotapes are likely to impact the jury.
“It’s very powerful testimony when you can use the defendant’s own words, and these audiotapes can incriminate her,” Hagan said.
Holmes, 37, faces maximum penalties of 20 years in prison and a $2.75 million fine if convicted of two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and 10 counts of fraud, plus possible restitution, the Department of Justice has said. Balwani’s criminal fraud trial is scheduled to begin in January 2022.
With the prosecution just inches away from resting its case, clinical laboratory managers and pathologists will not have to wait long to learn if Holmes’ defense team mounts a defense against fraud charges or allows the case to be turned over to the jury.
Speakers at this week’s Executive War College in San Antonio explained that the way records are collected and stored plays a large part in the long-term usefulness of clinical laboratory data
Data structure as a term may not flow off the lips of clinical laboratory and pathology laboratory managers, but it should be top-of-mind. Well-structured data improves reimbursements and, in aggregated form, can be an enticing avenue to partnerships with outside parties.
Data structure refers to the makeup of digital records—in other words, how data is collected, stored, and accessed. Structured information offers consistency and is easier to analyze and share.
“You have to make sense of all that messy data, and that’s a heavy lift,” she said. “Results are not standardized.”
Appeals Payments Increase with More Clinical Data
Data quality can improve claim reimbursement appeals, Goede noted. When a more complete clinical record is provided to payors, they are more likely to reimburse for services.
According to information Goede covered along with Julie Ramage, Director of Precision Medicine Quality Initiatives and Partnerships at biopharmaceutical company AstraZeneca, when appealing a denied claim for a colon cancer molecular test, for example, the average appeal payment was $318 without cross-specialist clinical records.
Meanwhile, payment for a similar claim appeal which included that added data jumped to $612!
This information is often available, but may not be structured in a way that makes it easy to share with a payer. “You really have to be thinking about what elements you need,” Goede said.
Market for Structured, Anonymized Lab Data
Clinical laboratories that want to provide or sell anonymized, aggregated data to outside parties—such as research firms or pharmaceutical companies—also need to pursue efficient data structure. The re-use of existing, high-quality lab data can create a new business revenue stream.
“But it has to be more than that vanilla, male/female, date-of-birth stuff,” Ramage noted.
For example, she said, genetic testing builds up data registries, and that’s what pharma is looking for to find patients early on.
“If you don’t have a way to structure your data, you’re not going to be able to play in the sandbox,” she added.
Co-presenters Julie Ramage (left), Director of Precision Medicine Quality Initiatives and Partnerships at AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, and Patricia Goede, PhD (right), Vice President of Clinical Informatics at XIFIN, Inc., answer attendee questions about data structure during their presentation at this week’s Executive War College Conference on Laboratory and Pathology Management in San Antonio. To register for EWC 2022 and receive a special early-bird rate, click here by November 6.
How Clinical Laboratories Can Improve Clinical Data Structure
Here are some tips for clinical laboratory executives to consider as they tackle data structure:
Standardize how to enter patient information and test results. A common problem with data input is that the same information is entered differently over time. For example, various patient records might refer to dates in different ways: November 1, 2021, can also be entered as 11/1/21, 11/1/2021, or 11-01-21. Structured data uses a single way to list dates in records. This lesson applies to all similar clinical data.
Use dropdown menu choices instead of free-typing, open fields. An online box to enter a test result can create a variety of entries that affect data structure. While not perfect, drop-down options create a consistent set of entries, Goede said.
Ask patient advocacy groups about common nomenclature. Clinical laboratory data should reflect how patients speak, Ramage said. For example, do patients refer to genomic and genetic testing as the same thing? Establishing more consistency improves data structure as records are updated.
Enlist your organization’s IT or research team for help. Tech workers and principal investigators can easily look at clinical laboratory data and tell what information is missing or inconsistent, said Cheryl Schleicher, Director of IT Strategy at Northwell Health Labs in Lake Success, NY. Schleicher attended this week’s Executive War College.
Look Further into Clinical Laboratory Data Structure
Data structure can help clinical laboratories and pathology laboratories grab more reimbursement dollars and potentially sell anonymized data to external partners.
It is an area many lab executives are not familiar with and need to investigate more, particularly following the accelerated move to digital lab services during the COVID-19 pandemic. Your organization’s IT department or Chief Information Officer can be a useful ally.
If you could not make it to this week’s Executive War College, then join us for our next Executive War College on April 27-28, 2022, in New Orleans. Click here to take advantage of special early-bird pricing for this critical event.
Under-resourced British healthcare system faces a record high backlog of care with 5.61 million people in England waiting for hospital-based medical procedures
Healthcare in the United Kingdom (UK) is about to become much more expensive. The UK government has announced plans to substantially increase payroll taxes to fund the surging demand for care due to the COVID-19 pandemic. But that may only be the part of the healthcare-funding iceberg visible above the surface. Below the surface is a healthcare system where wait times for access to many types of care—including cancer diagnoses—are already unacceptable.
Some pathologists and medical laboratory executives in the US who have long questioned healthcare reformers’ desire to introduce an NHS-like single-payer healthcare system in this country will not be surprised to learn that the UK’s notoriously underfunded National Health Service (NHS) is facing a record waitlist for hospital-based medical diagnostic tests and procedures.
Consequently, Reuters reported, the high cost of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic has pushed British Prime Minister Boris Johnson into breaking with election promises and announcing plans to raise payroll taxes to record levels so that more money can be funneled into the struggling government-run healthcare system.
Speaking to lawmakers in the House of Commons, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson (above) acknowledged his tax plan breaks his Conservative Party’s election year pledge to not raise VAT (value-added tax), income, or national insurance taxes. He insists that the COVID-19 pandemic created unprecedented challenges for the national health system. “I accept that this breaks a manifesto commitment, which is not something I do lightly, but a global pandemic was in no one’s manifesto,” he told lawmakers, Reuters reported. (Photo copyright: The Independent.)
5.6M People on Growing NHS Waiting List for Treatments and Procedures
When the COVID-19 pandemic struck the UK in March 2020, the NHS suspended elective surgeries such as hip or knee replacements and cataract removal and postponed many patients’ medical laboratory diagnostic tests.
In “Record 5.6M People in England Waiting for Hospital Treatment,” The Guardian estimated that 1.4 million patients were added to the waiting lists during the pandemic’s first 18 months. More than one-third of the 5.6 million people waiting for care in July 2021 had been on a waitlist for at least 18 months, the paper noted. Since then, the waiting list has grown by 150,000 people per month, as more people who did not seek or could not access NHS treatments during the pandemic returned to their doctors’ offices.
Johnson’s tax hike formula for fixing the record NHS backlog and improving social care for the elderly created shockwaves in the UK’s Conservative Party, which, like the Republican Party in this country, has championed low taxes. But Johnson maintains the government is out of options.
“It would be wrong for me to say that we can pay for this recovery without taking the difficult but responsible decisions about how we finance it,” Johnson told Parliament. “It would be irresponsible to meet the costs from higher borrowing and higher debt,” he added.
But Johnson’s proposal drew the wrath of some members of his own party and provided the opposition Labor Party with ammunition to denounce the prime minister’s leadership during the pandemic.
In “U.K. Is Among First Western Nations to Increase Taxes to Cover COVID-19 Costs,” The Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that Labor Party leader Keir Starmer compared Johnson’s tax increases to putting a bandage “on gaping wounds that his party inflicted,” and questioned why they weren’t levied more directly on the rich. The UK government says the wealthiest 14% will pay about half of the extra tax revenues, the WSJ noted.
“This is a tax rise that breaks a promise that the prime minister made at the last election … Read my lips, the Tories can never again claim to be the party of low tax,” Starmer told Reuters.
The BBC graphic above illustrates how the tax hikes, which were approved by the Parliament on September 8 by a 319 to 248 vote, will increase the national insurance payroll tax paid by workers and employers by 1.25% each. CNBC reported that the UK government projects the increased taxes will raise £36 billion (US$49.6 billion) over the next three years. (Graphic copyright: BBC.)
Politics versus Hard Facts
According to The Guardian, in 2023-2024, national insurance contributions will be rebranded as a health and social care levy, with more of the money raised going to social care. The added funding will enable the UK government to implement a new cap on total care costs so that no individual will pay more than £86,000 (US$117,142) over their lifetime for social-care programs. Currently, many seniors are forced to sell their homes to meet unexpected care costs, the newspaper noted.
“One message to voters and investors is that taxes are set to rise for years to come,” the WSJ editorial board wrote, predicting the cost of social care will escalate as the UK’s population ages, and that the planned diversion of future taxes for social care will be presented as a “cut” in NHS funding. They maintained that the danger in Johnson’s decision goes deeper than breaking an election campaign pledge or nationalizing more of the UK’s healthcare economy.
“The larger problem is that national healthcare and other entitlements become ever more unaffordable even as they are politically impossible to reform,” the newspaper stated. “The Tories are becoming tax collectors for the entitlement state, which is deadly for parties of the right.”
Bloomberg noted that the UK Institute for Fiscal Studies predicts the planned April 1 tax increase will “raise the UK tax burden to its highest-ever sustained level since records began in 1955—about 35% of national income.”
But, according to the UK-based The Health Foundation, at £2,646.95 (US$3,648.43) per person in 2019, the United Kingdom spends less on healthcare than many developed countries. Less per person than the:
US (£6,782.80),
Germany (£4,131.21),
France (£3,307.54),
Japan (£2,949.19) and
Canada (£2,823.07).
And when healthcare costs are viewed as a percentage of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP), the UK (8% GDP) lags behind the US (13.9%), Germany (9.9%), Japan (9.3%) and France (9.3%) and exceeds only Canada (7.6%) and Italy (6.4%).
While US hospitals, healthcare systems, and patients continue to struggle with ever-increasing healthcare costs, reformers who promote a single-payer healthcare system as an answer to this nation’s healthcare ills may want to take a hard look at the outcomes of the UK’s model.
Clinical laboratory managers and pathologists interested in how the US healthcare system can be improved might be well-served to study the experience of the National Health Service in the UK, that, like all other health systems in the world, has its own unique methods for how it serves its population.
