Politics can divide us. Fact-based local news unites us.
We are relying on readers like you to support this crucial election coverage. Give today and your donation will be doubled.
Dangerous human research alleged at San Diego VA; Rep. Peters vows action
Quality of care issues have plagued the Department of Veterans Affairs’ healthcare system for years, most notably the 2014 cover-up of long wait times veterans endured to get appointments.
Whistleblowers exposed that scandal, and VA employees today continue to lodge a high number of complaints.
Federal investigators looking into the whistleblowers’ allegations sent a strongly worded letter this month to President Donald Trump and members of the veterans affairs committees of Congress urging a “truly critical look” into the San Diego VA.
Ho used the San Diego VA’s facilities, staff and physicians from at least 2014 to 2016 to conduct research on alcoholic veterans suffering from liver disease as part of a federally funded study. His original research proposal included pregnant women, but it was denied on the grounds that it would endanger fetuses. It was allowed to continue with modifications.
The whistleblowers – Martina Buck and Mario Chojkier – alleged to government investigators that Ho coerced patients to undergo a liver biopsy through a catheter in the neck so he could obtain grant money and publish scientific articles. They said the biopsies were medically unnecessary and potentially dangerous for this type of patient – one already seriously ill, at risk of excessive bleeding due to liver problems and unable to benefit from the long-term study.
“The optimal way to practice medicine is to do everything that is needed, but nothing that is not needed,” said Chojkier, director of the liver and transplantation clinics at the VA and professor of medicine at UCSD.
The San Diego VA would not grant an interview for this story. Director Robert Smith relayed a statement to inewsource that read in part, “While the bulk of these allegations were not substantiated, where problems have been identified they have been addressed or are being addressed.”
The Office of Special Counsel, an independent investigative body, was responsible for taking Buck and Chojkier’s allegations in 2016 and delegating them to the VA for investigation. As a result, members of the VA Office of Medical Inspector visited the La Jolla facility for four days in April 2017 to investigate the complaints.
They toured the research lab, reviewed policies and procedures, and interviewed more than 30 doctors, nurses and specialists. The group substantiated some concerns but concluded “no substantial danger to public health” occurred at the San Diego institution.
“This approach has prevented the VA from acknowledging the severity of systemic problems and from taking the necessary steps to provide quality care to veterans,” Lerner wrote to President Barack Obama following the national VA wait-time scandal in 2014.
inewsource is unaware of any documented physical harm in the San Diego human research cases.
But Henry Kerner, the special counsel in this latest case, said in the conclusion of his report to Congress and the president that he remained “deeply concerned about the quality of care” provided to veterans at the San Diego VA, “especially those participating in the research protocol.”
The Standard of Care
The VA’s research safety panel, chaired at the time by Buck, denied Ho’s initial project proposal for several reasons in February 2013. Chief among them, according to Buck, was Ho’s plan to include pregnant veterans in a study that used X-rays. That’s a known risk for a developing fetus.
Ho submitted an amended research proposal that removed pregnant patients from the study and limited the research to “archival” samples of liver tissue, which Buck said means samples already in existence.
To produce the samples, the whistleblowers allege Ho oversaw transjugular liver biopsies on patients over the next few years, saying the procedure was necessary to diagnose an ailment. Then, he saved some of the tissue for the research project. The procedure involves placing a needle and catheter into the neck, guiding it with X-rays down to the liver and removing a piece of the organ.
It’s considered “a safe, effective and well-tolerated technique,” although not essential in managing patients with alcoholic liver disease who have already been diagnosed, according to Buck and Chojkier.
“The procurement of these biopsies in this way, to these specific kind of alcoholic patients, even the nonpregnant ones, is not standard of care,” Buck said. “And so then it leads to the question of, ‘Well, are these samples being obtained for research purposes and not being acknowledged that way?’ So then that’s another ethical dilemma. That’s huge, and the foundation of the protocol begins to crumble at that point.”
The VA report substantiated the standard of care claim by citing the opinion of a UC San Diego physician who had trained under Ho and co-authored research papers with him on the biopsies under question.
What is the Office of Special Counsel?
In addition, the office:
- Investigates allegations of whistleblower retaliation to determine whether an employee has been fired, demoted, suspended or subjected to another personnel action for blowing the whistle. If the office can demonstrate that a personnel action was retaliatory, it works with the agency to provide relief to the employee.
- Provides federal workers a safe channel to disclose violations of law, rule, or regulation; gross mismanagement; a gross waste of funds; an abuse of authority; or a substantial and specific danger to public health or safety. The office does not have investigative authority in disclosure cases but plays a critical oversight role in agency investigations of alleged misconduct.
Robert Cranston is the Illinois medical director for the American Academy of Medical Ethics and a clinical associate professor at the Carle Illinois College of Medicine. He read the special counsel’s report and told inewsource that if the allegations are true, Ho has “gone beyond” what the VA initially approved for research.
“But the second part that’s worrisome,” Cranston said, “is that if the whistleblowers’ accusations are true, and the VA’s responses are as stated, it looks like someone at the VA could be attempting to cover up exactly what went on.”
The whistleblowers also questioned whether all of the research subjects were capable of consenting to the biopsy. Patient histories they provided to the special counsel’s office say at least eight veterans signed a consent form without undergoing a “cognitive assessment by an experienced and unbiased expert.”
The VA report did not address these concerns, but it did find violations of privacy laws in Ho’s research, along with participation by unqualified staff, miscommunication and poorly maintained or missing research records. It issued recommendations and follow-ups for the San Diego VA but did not address discipline.
In concluding the Office of Special Counsel report, Kerner wrote that he would “strongly urge the VA to revisit its findings in this matter and take a truly critical look at the research being conducted and care provided to liver patients” at the San Diego VA.
Chojkier said his colleagues at UCSD and the VA are “extraordinary, talented individuals with exceptional dedication to patient care.” What’s happening in this case, he said, is “an extraordinary exception to the rule.”
“It’s about preserving the bureaucracy rather than protecting the vet. And this is all cover your bottom kind of stuff. Like ‘Let’s just not admit we have a problem, let’s not admit we did anything wrong.’
“But to really change the culture at the VA, to make sure that it’s first class, that’s the first thing you have to do – you have to say, ‘Listen, this is what we’re not getting right.’”
inewsource intern Lauren J. Mapp helped create the version of this story that shows it backed up by primary documents.
We’ll let you know when big things happen.