Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts
Showing posts with label testing. Show all posts

Saturday, December 11, 2021

Theranos: A Company Made to Deceive (2015-2021)

 Theranos: A Company Made to Deceive (2015-2021)


Case Controversy:

In 2003, Elizabeth Holmes, a 19-year-old Stanford student dropped out of college and launched Theranos inc. Theranos was a blood testing company whose business model revolved around the idea that they could run blood tests using proprietary technology that required only a finger prick and a small amount of blood. These tests were allegedly supposed to be able to detect medical conditions like cancer and high cholesterol using small, automated devices (Hartmans Leskin Jackson 8). Between the years of 2004 and 2007 Theranos attracted investors and raised millions of dollars. Theranos’ valuation went from about $30 million in 20014 to $197 million in 2007.

In 2009 Ramesh Balwani, who was romantically involved with Holmes’ at the time, joined the company. Balwani would serve as president and CEO of Theranos. Balwani and Holmes would continue to grow the company and in 2013 Theranos’ blood tests were available to the public through a partnership with Walgreens. Theranos’ value would skyrocket as it reached $9 billion. Holmes’ net worth was now $4.5 billion, and she was considered the youngest self-made billionaire on planet Earth (Tun 3). 

On October 15, 2015, an article published by the Wall Street Journal exposed the shortcomings of Theranos. The article claimed that the blood tests were not being run on proprietary technology but instead on commercial blood analyzers. The effectiveness and accuracy of Holmes’ breakthrough blood testing machine “Edison'' was also brought into question in the article as it was reported the device could only perform 15 tests which is not what Theranos’ website claims. The article stated, “But Theranos’s outside lawyer, David Boies, acknowledges that the company isn’t yet using the device for all the tests Theranos offers. The transition to doing every test with the device is “a journey,” he says. Asked about the claim on the company’s website, Mr. Boies replied that using the device for the “full range” of blood tests is a goal Theranos will eventually achieve.” (Carreyrou 9). In the midst of the Wall Street Journal’s reporting Theranos deleted claims on their website that their test only required a few drops of blood among other things. They would come out publicly and say that the website alterations were done for marketing accuracy. 

Holmes continued to back her company and claimed that they were in a pause period while waiting for federal approval of their proprietary technology. However, in January of 2016 during an inspection by the Medicare and Medicaid services it was discovered that Theranos’ California lab which housed its proprietary technology had deficiencies that posed immediate health and safety risks to patients. The four-page letter from the Medicaid and Medicare services included major infractions in five different categories including Hematology tests. Hematology tests are extremely important for patients with diabetes and with blood coagulation issues. The tests determine whether patients should be put on anticoagulation medication whose side effects are life threatening (Carreyrou 12). Shortly after the inspection Balwani would leave Theranos for good in May 2016

In October 2016, about a year after the Wall Street Journal's initial reporting Theranos made the decision to close its medical lab operations. About 6 months later the Arizona attorney general announced that all Arizonians could get a full refund if they purchased a Theranos product as part of a $4.65 million settlement with the company. In 2018 after another $100 million settlement with an investment firm Theranos collapsed. In March of 2018 the Securities and Exchange commission charged Theranos, Holmes, and Balwani with civil securities fraud. Theranos and Holmes reached settlements without admitting or denying liability. On June 18, 2015, federal prosecutors brought criminal fraud charges to Holmes and Balwani. The initial indictment detailed two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud and nine counts of wire fraud. “According to the indictment, the charges stem from allegations that Holmes and Balwani engaged in a multi-million-dollar scheme to defraud investors, and a separate scheme to defraud doctors and patients.  Both schemes involved efforts to promote Theranos, a company founded by Holmes and based in Palo Alto, California.” (United States Department of Justice 1). The indictment further explained how Holmes and Balwani knew Theranos’ tests were not able to produce accurate and reliable tests and that Theranos’ technology was likely to produce inaccurate and unreliable results. It is stated that Holmes was aware that Theranos claimed to use their own proprietary technology for blood tests but instead was using third party, commercial blood analyzers. (United States Department of Justice 2). The indictment continues to allege that, “defendants used a combination of direct communications, marketing materials, statements to the media, financial statements, models, and other information to defraud potential investors.  Specifically, the defendants claimed that Theranos developed a revolutionary and proprietary analyzer that the defendants referred to by various names, including as the TSPU, Edison, or minilab.” (United States Department of justice 5).

Holmes’s lawyer has repeatedly stated that “Failure is not a crime” to counter assistant US attorney general Robert Leach who, “painted Ms. Holmes as an executive who took shortcuts to try to keep her company solvent and lied to keep investor money flowing” (Randazzo 2). During the opening statements of Holmes' trial on September 8th. While the trial is yet to conclude Holmes is facing up to 20 years in prison. This is an unusually long sentence for a Silicon Valley startup failure. Reasoning for this is, “The reason Holmes is facing up to 20 years in prison, rather than a slap on the wrist, has to do with the brazenness, magnitude and longevity of her alleged deceits, which included secretly sending blood samples for outside lab tests rather than using the company’s own technology.” (Oremus 7)









Stakeholders: 

 

         The stakeholders in this specific case are the company, Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, investors, the patients and doctors that used Theranos’s technology, and the stores that sold Theranos’ products. Theranos is an obvious stakeholder in this case. As a company, before the allegations of inaccurate test results and findings, Theranos was worth billions of dollars. After the allegations and charges, the company was forced to collapse and is now no longer a thing. Elizabeth Holmes as her reputation as an entrepreneur, valuation, and future are all affected by this case. Holmes' reputation as an entrepreneur is at stake as it now appears she is willing to deceive and mislead investors in order to get their money. Before the case Holmes was valued at $4.5 billion and was named the youngest self-made billionaire of all time. After the case her net worth is now estimated to be zero due to her entire net worth being her 50% stake in Theranos. Now that Theranos has collapsed that value is gone (Herper 2). Her future is at stake as she is currently at trial for her role in the Theranos scandal and is facing up to 20 years in federal prison. The many people that invested mass amounts of money into Theranos were greatly affected as they lost all of their money due to the collapse of the company. The doctors who implemented and used Theranos supposedly proprietary technology are affected as they could have possibly run false and misleading tests on their patients. This could lead to serious life-threatening repercussions for patients and could ruin a doctor’s reputation and credibility. Patients who were given blood tests administered by Theranos’ technology are also affected by this. Due to many tests, being inaccurate and unreliable, patients ' health and safety is severely at risk. The companies and stores that distributed Thernaos’ product such as Walgreens and Safeway, are also affected. These companies are obviously forced to no longer sell these tests and will have to revert to the old products they used to distribute


Utilitarianism: 

Under utilitarianism, businesses should ​​ aim to maximize happiness for all parties that are involved in the business action. This happiness should be maximized not only in the short term but also in the long term. Utilitarians must compare the business actions with other possible actions to find out which possible actions would benefit happiness in the long term (Salazar 17). A utilitarian would view Elizabeth Holmes, and her company Theranos as very unethical as they didn't maximize the short term or long-term happiness of all the stakeholders involved in their business actions. For Elizabeth Holmes, her happiness was maximized in the short term, with the wealth she acquired, but was not maximized in the long term as she would end up losing all her money, and potentially facing jail time for her role in the Theranos scandal. The investors that pumped money into Theranos At the start of the fraudulent product also did not have their happiness maximized. Like Holmes, the investors would end up being happy in the short term as the company's value steadily grew, but in the long term they would suffer as the company was found out to be fraudulent and collapsed. The doctors that were involved in this case due to using Theranos’ “new technology'' did not benefit from this case at all. By using the technology, doctors were making false and unreliable blood test readings for their patients. This puts patients at short- and long-term health risks. Patient’s happiness in this case was not maximized in the short or long term. Theranos’ inability to produce effective blood testing kits put the patients in a situation where they had to make important health decisions based on false readings. Patients that received these false readings most likely had to return to their respective doctor and get new readings done with the proper testing kits. They were also forced to most likely change medications based on new results. There were also many instances where the original medication a patient was put on due to the false readings had side effects that were life threatening and could have ended up being deadly if used incorrectly. Theranos’ partners, Walgreens, Safeway, and Capital BlueCross are also unhappy. Due to them distributing Theranos’ blood testing kits it makes them have to revert back to their previous contract with another company that had reliable blood testing kits. This costs money and time in the long term. Overall, none of the Stakeholders involved in this case benefited from the actions of Theranos. A company that would be considered ethical under a utilitarian viewpoint would maximize their stakeholder’s happiness. Unfortunately, Theranos almost maximized unhappiness for its stakeholders in both the short term and the long term. Theranos deceived not only the investors that trusted them with their money, but the everyday person that trusted them with their health and safety.

Individualism:

Under individualism, businesses should act in order to maximize their profits while remaining with the constraints of the law. Milton Friedman developed the doctrine as a theory of business ethics that states that “an entity’s greatest responsibility lies in the satisfaction of the shareholders.”  He also said Friedman “there is one and only one social responsibility of business—to use its resources and engage in activities designed to increase its profits so long as it stays within the rules of the game, which is to say, engages in open and free competition, without deception or fraud” (DesJardins 2014).

Those quotes and this theory go alongside how Holmes and Sunny had strategic advertising and marketing plans and were able to gather over $700 million from investors. Holmes and Sunny promised this revolutionary type of testing that brought so much hope to not only consumers but also investors making them so willing to contribute and invest in the company. These two were trying to maximize their company’s profits and make the most money however they failed to follow the single most important part of individualism, which is remaining within the constraints of the law. The defendants Holmes and Sunny knew Theranos was not capable of consistently producing accurate and reliable results for certain blood tests even though they allegedly knew they were likely to contain inaccurate and unreliable results yet continued the company while scamming their investors. Not only were the two wrong for scamming their investors but they also “misled doctors and patients about the reliability of medical tests that endangered health and lives," said John F Bennett of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Since they failed to produce devices that were FDA approved as well as mislead patients to believing these tests were reliable, Theranos failed to maximize profits for the owners, and failed to stay within the constraints of the  law, therefore rendering their practices unethical and destroying the company that was once worth 9 billion dollars. 

Kantianism:

A Kantian would view Theranos’ way of handling the situation as incredibly unethical and impermissible. Kantianism’s basis for deciding whether or not an action is ethical or permissible uses consistency within a person’s judgement and their actions performed. In order for a person and their action to be considered permissible and ethical, they would have to not treat anybody as a mere means in order to achieve a result and act as though everyone is a person who should be respected. This would be the basis for the Formula for Humanity. That person would also have to act rationally and not out of bad intentions or motivations. Deceit and lying would be a form of bad intention because you are not complying with Categorical Imperatives which include the opposite of irrational actions. In our case, Elizabeth Holmes is caught lying and spreading false information to everybody including the stakeholders. This would be an immediate form of deceit which would then deem this case as unethical. 

Virtue Theory:

Virtue theory is best described as that something is inherently good if it serves its function well. There are five main virtues in virtue theory, and these main virtues help us get along with the rest of society. These five virtues are courage, honesty, temperance/self-control, justice, and fairness. When looking at the case of Elizabeth Holmes and her company, these virtues are well represented in both positive and negative ways. Someone who displayed multiple virtues was John Carreyrou, the writer for Wall Street Journal. He went into the company and observed their environment. This led to him finding issues within the company and calling them out on it. He received backlash from the company, and the company even threatened to sue him for becoming a perceived enemy to the company. Also, there were reports of company employees starting a chant saying, “F*** you Carreyrou”. Despite all this backlash, he still displayed courage and was able to fight for what is right. He promoted honesty by not trying to hide what was going on with the company. The reason he was honest was because he wanted to promote justice and fairness in order to make things right and not allow this company to take advantage of anymore people.  Elizabeth Holmes and Ramesh Balwani were two people who displayed almost the opposite of all these virtues. These two individuals were the masterminds behind all of the company’s success. When looking at the five main virtues, it is safe to say that they lacked all five of these virtues. They did not have courage because they were hiding and operating in secret for an entire decade before they were eventually forced to go public. They lacked any sort of honesty as they lied and manipulated many different investors into investing millions of dollars into the company. They also had no self-control because of how quickly they gave in to their desires. They saw a market to manipulate people and make money in the blood testing business and went straight for it, without even considering the negative aspects of it. They did not promote justice in any way because they were sneaking around and doing illegal things. They had no interest in doing what was right, and they only cared about doing what would make them the most money. Lastly, they did not have any fairness either. There were reports of them running tests while using other companies' technology. They did not play by the rules or play fair and would use whatever cheap tricks they could to gain an advantage over the competition.

​​Overall, none of the Stakeholders involved in this case benefited from the actions of Theranos. Not only were the two wrong for scamming their investors but they also “misled doctors and patients about the reliability of medical tests that endangered health and lives," said John F Bennett of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Unfortunately, Theranos almost maximized unhappiness for its stakeholders in both the short term and the long term, broke the law while trying to maximize their profit, had poor judgement deeming their actions impermissible, and broke the virtues of honesty, justice and fairness . Theranos deceived not only the investors that trusted them with their money, but the everyday person that trusted them with their health and safety.

Action Plan:

Theranos’ main problem revolved around the company's dishonesty about what their technology and products were capable of doing. The CEO of Theranos, Elizabeth Holmes, and the COO, Ramesh Balwani were consistently dishonest about their capabilities of their new blood testing technology, in order to deceive investors into dumping hundreds of millions of dollars into the company. This all came crashing down when it was discovered that Theranos’ technology was ineffective and nothing like it was marketed to be. Theranos as a company collapsed after Balwani and Holmes were charged with fraud. 

If Theranos as a company stayed afloat it would need to seriously change their values and mission. Theranos mission moving forward should have been to produce innovative, effective blood testing devices that are smaller and cheaper than anything made prior. As a company, Theranos values convenient, simple, and cheap medical care, but most importantly the health and well being of all their customers 

As a company Theranos needs to establish new core values. Before the scandal it seemed as if Theranos valued things such as making money, dishonesty, and deception. Holmes and Balwani were not in the industry to improve other people's lives but they were solely trying to improve their own lives. A new look Theranos would have core values that prioritize patient safety, convenience, innovation, and honesty. These values would guide the company to doing what they initially intended to do, make innovative and effective medical equipment. By committing to patient safety, Theranos will make it their main goal to put patients first, they will be sure to research and test new testing devices effectively before putting them to market and will never prioritize profit over safety which they had previously done. Convenience and innovation are important values for the company as they are looking to release the smallest and cheapest blood testing devices on the market. By doing this they will be like no other medical technology/equipment company in the world. Honesty is obviously something Theranos needs to value. There was no honesty in the company run by Holmes and Balwani, and transparency will be of the utmost importance in order to gain back patients and doctors' trust.

To ensure ethical business procedures are being abided by, Theranos will obviously need to hire a new CEO and COO. Theranos should target leaders who value the same things that they as a company value. Theranos also needs to make sure that the engineers, doctors, and lab workers they employ in order to produce and analyze the tests are competent and qualified enough for their job. By doing these things, Theranos will be able to actually produce what they initially set out to produce. This will guarantee profit as it is already proven that the proposed technology will attract investors and distributors. This time around, Theranos just has to execute what they say they are trying to. 

Brian Geitner, Anthony Kelliher, Destiny Swierkosz, Ryan McCann



References: 

Avery Hartmans, Paige Leskin. “The Rise and Fall of Elizabeth Holmes, the Theranos Founder Who Is Now on Trial for Fraud.” Business Insider. Business Insider, August 31, 2021. https://www.businessinsider.com/theranos-founder-ceo-elizabeth-holmes-life-story-bio-2018-4.

Bloomberg. “Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes Charged with Wire Fraud.” Time, Time, 15 June 2018, https://time.com/5313978/elizabeth-holmes-indicted-wire-fraud/.

Carreyrou, John. “Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled with Its Blood-Test Technology.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, October 16, 2015. https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901.

DesJardins, Joseph R. An Introduction to Business Ethics. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020.

Elizabeth Holmes Trial: Key Takeaways from Week 8 - the ... www.nytimes.com/2021/10/27/technology/elizabeth-holmes-trial-takeaways.html

“Elizabeth Holmes Trial: Live Updates.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/elizabeth-holmes-trial-theranos.

Herper, Matthew. “From $4.5 Billion to Nothing: Forbes Revises Estimated Net Worth of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, March 22, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/?sh=74ad60a13633.

Khorram, Yasmin. “Elizabeth Holmes Said She Was the 'Ultimate Decision Maker' at Theranos in 2017 Deposition as Her Defense Team Argues the Opposite in Criminal Trial.” CNBC, CNBC, 4 Nov. 2021, www.cnbc.com/2021/11/04/elizabeth-holmes-said-she-was-decision-maker-at-theranos-in-2017-deposition.html.

Oremus, Will. “Analysis | Elizabeth Holmes's Trial Spotlights Silicon Valley's Thin Line between Hype and Deceit.” The Washington Post. WP Company, September 1, 2021. https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2021/09/01/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-trial-analysis-silicon-valley/.

Randazzo, Sara. “The Theranos Trial: Elizabeth Holmes, the Charges and What Else to Know.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, September 23, 2021. https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-theranos-trial-elizabeth-holmes-the-charges-and-what-else-to-know-11625865236.

Salazar, H. The Business Ethics Case Manual. N.d.

“Theranos Founder Hit with Criminal Charges.” BBC News, BBC, 15 June 2018, www.bbc.com/news/business-44501631

Thomas, Daniel. “Theranos Scandal: Who Is Elizabeth Holmes and Why Is She on Trial?” BBC News, BBC, 30 Aug. 2021, www.bbc.com/news/business-58336998

Tun, Zaw Thiha. “A Timeline of Theranos's Troubles.” Investopedia. Investopedia, August 3, 2021. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020116/theranos-fallen-unicorn.asp.

“U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, Et Al..” The United States Department of Justice, October 12, 2021. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al.


Barbaro, Michael, Michael Simon Johnson, Clare Toeniskoetter, Neena Pathak, Diana Nguyen, Paige Cowett, Marion Lozano, and Chris Wood. “The United States v. Elizabeth Holmes.” The New York Times. The New York Times, September 16, 2021. https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/16/podcasts/the-daily/elizabeth-holmes-trial-theranos-silicon-valley.html.

Carreyrou, John. “Hot Startup Theranos Has Struggled with Its Blood-Test Technology.” The Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones & Company, October 16, 2015. https://www.wsj.com/articles/theranos-has-struggled-with-blood-tests-1444881901.

“Elizabeth Holmes Trial Week 10 Recap: 'Hostile' Behavior from Theranos' Former COO, and 60,000 Voided Tests.” Yahoo! News. Yahoo! Accessed November 15, 2021. https://news.yahoo.com/elizabeth-holmes-trial-week-10-173918502.html.

Herper, Matthew. “From $4.5 Billion to Nothing: Forbes Revises Estimated Net Worth of Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes.” Forbes. Forbes Magazine, March 22, 2019. https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2016/06/01/from-4-5-billion-to-nothing-forbes-revises-estimated-net-worth-of-theranos-founder-elizabeth-holmes/?sh=2ab06c0c3633.

Jackson, Sarah. “Theranos Founder Elizabeth Holmes' Fraud Trial Is Now Underway. Here Are Some of the Big Players Listed as Potential Witnesses in the Case.” Business Insider. Business Insider, September 8, 2021. https://www.businessinsider.com/elizabeth-holmes-theranos-fraud-trial-witness-list-2021-9?utm_source=yahoo.com&utm_medium=referral.

Lagasse, Jeff. “CMS Letter to Theranos Claims Test Failed to Spot Prostate Cancer.” Healthcare Finance News. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/cms-letter-theranos-claims-test-failed-spot-prostate-cancer.

“Press Release.” SEC Emblem, March 14, 2018. https://www.sec.gov/news/press-release/2018-41.

Roper, Caitlin. “This Woman Invented a Way to Run 30 Lab Tests on Only One Drop of Blood.” Wired. Conde Nast, February 18, 2014. https://www.wired.com/2014/02/elizabeth-holmes-theranos/.

Sanborn, Beth Jones. “Theranos Appeals Sanctions Imposed by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.” Healthcare Finance News. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://www.healthcarefinancenews.com/news/theranos-appeals-sanctions-imposed-centers-medicare-and-medicaid-services.

Tun, Zaw Thiha. “A Timeline of Theranos's Troubles.” Investopedia. Investopedia, August 3, 2021. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/020116/theranos-fallen-unicorn.asp.

“U.S. v. Elizabeth Holmes, Et Al..” The United States Department of Justice, October 12, 2021. https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/us-v-elizabeth-holmes-et-al.

“US v Holmes Trial Notes.” /files/18-CR-258 USA v. Holmes/. Accessed November 15, 2021. https://files.cand.uscourts.gov/files/18-CR-258%20USA%20v.%20Holmes/.

Salazar, H. The Business Ethics Case Manual. n. d.


Monday, November 30, 2020

CityMD: Wrongly Tells Patients They’re Immune From COVID-19 (May 2020)

    CityMD is a healthcare company that runs urgent cares based in New York.  When COVID-19 came to the United States and testing became available, many turned to CityMD for these services.  They also had antibody testing to determine if patients had antibodies to the coronavirus.  However, they ended up mistakenly telling patients that were positive for antibodies that they were now immune to the coronavirus, something that was not proven and might not be true.  After the news broke, CityMD came forward and acknowledged their mistake, and contacted the affected patients.  This analysis will look at this case from the ethical theories of individualism, utilitarianism, Kantianism, and virtue theory.  An individualist, who values maximizing profits within the law, would argue that this was wrong, as a mistake like this could hurt profits, even though nothing illegal was done.  A utilitarian, who values happiness for all, would feel negatively about this case because being lied to and in danger would make people unhappy.  A Kantian, who values treating people with respect, would say that this is wrong because people were lied to.  Lastly, a virtue theorist would say that CityMD acted unethically because they lied, violating the cardinal virtues.  Going forward, CityMD should be more proactive with reviewing what they put out and doing their research.  They should also continue to maintain transparency and take responsibility for their actions.

Company Background

    CityMD is an urgent care company that was co-founded in 2010 in New York, New York by four ER doctors, including Dr. Richard Park, CEO.  The company operates 136 urgent care centers throughout New York, New Jersey, and Washington state. (CityMD)

    CityMD’s aim is to make healthcare inclusive.  Their mission is to serve their communities by “providing quality medical care through convenient access and an exceptional experience, and we consider this mission with every patient that walks through our doors.”  They state that they hire the best board-certified doctors, and provide them with “ongoing medical training and information, along with the most modern technology.”  They are also “built upon the philosophy of serving patients with kindness.” (CityMD)

People wearing masks waiting to be tested
for COVID-19 outside CityMD in
New York City, April 30, 2020

    When the coronavirus came to the United States, with the first case being in Seattle and cases skyrocketing in the New York area, CityMD stepped up and started testing many people.  They now offer three tests for COVID-19: the rapid test, the PCR test, and the blood (antibody) test. (CityMD, 2020) The first two test for whether you currently have the virus, and the third tests if you have antibodies for the virus.  According to the Daily Telegraph, “CityMD administered about 314,000 [COVID-19] tests across New York City, as of June 26. In total, 26 per cent of the tests came back positive.” (Gale) They test at all their locations across New York, New Jersey, and Washington.

Ethics Case Controversy

    When the first COVID-19 case was diagnosed in the US on January 20th, no one expected it to get as big as it did.  But on March 11th, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared COVID-19 a pandemic.  Many places countrywide started to quarantine, and New York and New Jersey, being some of the first, started on March 28th. (NBC) On April 2rd, after many people had contracted and recovered from the coronavirus, the FDA approved the first antibody test for COVID-19. (Mandavilli)

COVID-19 antibody test
These tests were very new, and no one quite knew what they could tell us, other than whether or not someone had had COVID-19 at one point.  According to the University of Maryland Medical System, antibody tests are primarily being used to “help determine how widespread coronavirus infection is in certain communities.” (UMMS) They go on to say that “this can be beneficial for creating public policy and better understanding how to keep communities safe.”  Many, though, have taken these antibody tests as a sign of being immune to the coronavirus.  This is what most likely led to CityMD’s mistake.  The World Health Organization says that “most people who are infected with COVID-19 develop an immune response within the first few weeks after infection. Research is still ongoing into how strong that protection is and how long it lasts. WHO is also looking into whether the strength and length of immune response depends on the type of infection a person has: without symptoms (‘asymptomatic’), mild or severe.” (WHO)  While the antibody test shows that you had an immune response from the coronavirus, it doesn’t tell you whether you are protected enough from reinfection.  “In general, reinfection means a person was infected (got sick) once, recovered, and then later became infected again. Based on what we know from similar viruses, some reinfections are expected. We are still learning more about COVID-19.” (CDC) Dr. Maria Van Kerkhove, head of the WHO’s emerging diseases and zoonosis unit, said, “Four months into this pandemic, we’re not able to say an antibody response means someone is immune.” (WHO) Some sources “found that people who recover from even mild cases of COVID-19 produce antibodies that are believed to protect against infection for at least 5 to 7 months, and could last much longer.” (Schimelpfening) However, this is a new virus and the little evidence we have is not enough to prove immunity, “simply because not enough studies have been done yet.” (Schimelpfening) Despite the lack of evidence, on May 11th, the news broke that CityMD had told 15,000 people who had positive antibody test results that they were immune to the coronavirus. (Feuer)  They had made antibody tests available to those who had previously tested positive for COVID-19, those who believed they already had it and have been symptom-free for at least two weeks, and for those who believe they were exposed to the virus. (ABC) There was also no charge from CityMD for these tests, as they waived insurance copays.  This led to many people getting tested and being told that they were now immune, even though there was no solid research to show that this was true.  While CityMD might have been using unproven assumptions about immunity, it could also have been an honest mistake.  According to CityMD, the mistake was “due to an editing error in the patient portal,” and they described the situation by saying that “some CityMD patients have received incorrect information saying a positive result on the COVID-19 antibody test confers immunity...CityMD patients getting the COVID-19 antibody test are given several documents explaining that a positive result does not mean they are immune to COVID-19.” (Feuer) While we don’t have access to the exact documents that patients received, this must have confused many patients.  That being said, this mistake may have been an error from reusing documents from past viruses where immunity was known.  This led many people to believe, for at least a short time, that they were immune, which put them in danger of being careless and exposing themselves to getting reinfected. 
People in New York City during the pandemic
being careless by not wearing masks,
putting themselves and others at risk
“The common perception is that if you test positive for COVID-19 antibodies, you’re “safe” from COVID-19 and are immune. But there are many factors in antibody testing, and not all tests are created equal.” (Tripucka) In fact, Professor Helen Ward says, “This very large study has shown that the proportion of people with detectable antibodies is falling over time...We don’t yet know whether this will leave these people at risk of reinfection with the virus that causes COVID-19.” (Ellis) After CNBC reached out, CityMD did say that they “removed the incorrect language and will contact all patients to ensure they have the correct information,” however, it is uncertain how much damage had already been done by then by a company that many people looked to for safe, accurate information.  As of now, their website currently states, under the description for the antibody test, “This test will detect if you have had prior exposure to or infection with COVID-19 and have built antibodies for the virus. For most viral illnesses, a positive antibody means prior exposure to a virus and possible immunity to future infection. As COVID-19 is a novel (new) infection, it is unclear if a positive antibody offers immunity.” (CityMD, 2020)

Stakeholders

    This particular case has two main stakeholders.  On one side, we have CityMD and its executives, and on the other side, we have the patients of CityMD.  CityMD is responsible for the information they provide to their patients, and their patients should be able to trust CityMD to care for them and provide them with accurate information.  CityMD will be affected depending on how they handle situations of misinformation.  Patients will be affected based on who they trust and how long they believe potential lies.  Since CityMD is popular for its health care, people should be able to trust it, and breaching that trust could have dangerous effects.

Individualism

    One way to view this case is from an individualist perspective.  Milton Friedman’s theory of individualism states that a company has the responsibility to maximize profits for the owners (which are most often stockholders) within the law.  Right or wrong aside, as long as it’s legal and makes a profit, an action is considered permissible according to individualism.  The individualist would not view the CityMD case as permissible.  While nothing they did was against the law, they told patients misleading information, and as a healthcare company, this breach of trust could hurt their business.  When the news came out that they had done this, they acknowledged their mistake, but by then it was after the fact and the damage had already been done.  They surely must have lost customers and business from this situation, which means they aren’t operating individualistically.  They didn’t maximize profits and in this way, their action is deemed impermissible.

Utilitarianism

    Another way to view this case is from a utilitarian perspective.  The goal of utilitarianism is to maximize happiness for all in the long run.  Instead of “good” versus “bad”, things are measured based on what is good, better, or best according to how many people are happy, and how happy they all are.  A utilitarian would most likely take a negative view of CityMD’s case.  The two main stakeholders in this case were CityMD and its patients.  After we found out that CityMD made the mistake that it did, many patients had to find out that they were lied to, and CityMD had to own up to their faults and contact everyone.  Long term, neither party will be very happy.  After finding out they were lied to about their immunity and indeed in danger of reinfection, patients won’t be happy.  And after having to admit they were wrong and take a hit to their public image, CityMD also won’t be very happy.  While it is unclear from the research available whether there was backlash or a spike in COVID-19 cases after this incident, this was still an impermissible action that made many people unhappy.

Kantianism

    Another way to examine this case is with Kantianism, which is the philosophy of Immanuel Kant.  Kantianism’s goal is to treat every person with respect, not using anyone as a mere means, and not lying or manipulating in any way.  It doesn’t regard the ends so much as the means of how one got there.  No matter how “good” the results of an action are, the means to get there must follow Kant’s ethics to be considered permissible.  A Kantian would argue that CityMD’s case was a very bad situation.  First and foremost, 15,000 patients were lied to.  Even if it was an honest mistake, not putting in the effort to research or review what they’re saying is a disrespectful move by the company.  CityMD didn’t take the patients’ health and safety into consideration before releasing the information that said they were immune, and in this way, they violated the formula of humanity, which is the claim that people should not just be a means to an end.  CityMD treated their patients as mere means (by lying to them) to an end (making their company look good and profit).  Kant would be pleased that CityMD later told the truth, respecting their patients by correcting their mistake, but overall, this situation would be considered unethical according to Kant.

Virtue Theory

    The last way we’ll look at this case is with virtue theory.  This ethical perspective is all about one’s character, and whether or not they not only act virtuously but are virtuous.  It judges based on whether one acts with good character traits, specifically the four cardinal virtues.  The four cardinal virtues associated with virtue theory are courage, justice, honesty, and temperance.  In order for an action to be considered ethical, or permissible, one must act with all four of these virtues.  A virtue theorist would overall take a negative view of this case.  We can look at both the action and the aftermath to determine whether CityMD demonstrated these virtues.  CityMD did not act with honesty or temperance when they carelessly released false medical information regarding immunity.  However, CityMD did act with courage and justice when they owned up to their mistake and sought to tell all their patients the truth.  Other good business virtues such as fairness, humility, and good leadership were also shown by the way CityMD reacted to the problem they were faced with.  Since they didn’t show all of the cardinal virtues though, virtue theory would count this situation as unethical.

Justified Ethics Evaluation

    In my opinion, CityMD acted unethically.  They released significant medical information about immunity without making sure it was completely accurate, and for a healthcare company, that could have very dangerous effects, such as many patients getting reinfected with COVID-19 after thinking they were immune.  They did try to fix their mistake, but we don’t know how much damage was already done by then, and the fact that they made this mistake in the first place trumps the fact that they fixed it.  All four of the ethical theories we looked at agree with this view as well.  Lying to people about important health information is not ethical on any level.  This could have been avoided simply by reviewing things and being more proactive with doing research.

Company Action Plan

    CityMD’s problem was that they had led their patients to believe that they were immune to the coronavirus if they had received a positive antibody test.  When this mistake went public, CityMD was quick to admit that it was wrong and that this was because of an error in the patient portal.  They also contacted the affected patients to let them know as well.  CityMD did a very good job in resolving the issue by themselves, but they can still go a step further to improve.  They should be proactive in spreading the truth about COVID-19 and immunity to their patients and communities.  They should also be vigilant about the accuracy of the information they use or provide to patients.

    CityMD’s mission statement is to “make healthcare as inclusive as possible.”  An improvement to this statement would be a mission to “make healthcare inclusive while maximizing accuracy and transparency for patients.”  As of now, their focus is on the people they serve and how they serve them.  However, especially in the medical community, they need to pay just as much attention to the accuracy of the information they provide as to who it’s for.  This new mission strikes the right balance that allows CityMD to best care for their customers.

    There are a few core values that exemplify what CityMD should strive for.  These include customer safety, honesty, accountability, and learning.  They should work first and foremost for the patients and making sure they are safe and well taken care of, then they should be committed to continually learning and being honest about medical facts and about when they make mistakes.

    In order to ensure that this problem doesn’t happen again, CityMD can make sure to review all of the information that comes out of their company.  This may include hiring people to proofread their documents, or researchers to double check the accuracy of what they’re saying.  And if the issue was just a technical error in the patient portal, they can train people on how to use this resource and have IT make sure no mistakes go out.  In regards to their public image, no improvements or marketing schemes need to be made.  They did a great job at correcting their error and are currently back to being a thriving, respected business, opening new locations to this day.  However, this plan of committing to research and transparency will benefit them as a whole because they will become more knowledgeable and trusted, which is sure to increase profits as more people come to CityMD for their medical needs as a place that values inclusion and honesty, which is key for being an ethical business.


Sarah Mollin


References

“Coronavirus News: CityMD Changes Messaging after Telling 15,000 Patients with Antibodies in New York, New Jersey They Have Immunity.” ABC7 New York, WABC-TV, 13 May 2020, abc7ny.com/citymd-coronavirus-antibody-immunity-tests/6176201/.

Feuer, Will. “CityMD Mistakenly Told 15,000 People with Coronavirus Antibodies They're Immune.” CNBC, CNBC, 11 May 2020, www.cnbc.com/2020/05/11/citymd-mistakenly-told-15000-people-with-coronavirus-antibodies-theyre-immune.html.

“Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Herd Immunity, Lockdowns and COVID-19.” World Health Organization, World Health Organization, 2020, www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/herd-immunity-lockdowns-and-covid-19.

“Coronavirus Immunity.” University of Maryland Medical System, 2020, www.umms.org/coronavirus/what-to-know/diagnosis-symptoms/immunity.

Schimelpfening, Nancy. “How Long Does Immunity Last After COVID-19? What We Know.” Healthline, Healthline Media, 14 Oct. 2020, www.healthline.com/health-news/how-long-does-immunity-last-after-covid-19-what-we-know.

"Immunity in New York as high as 68pc, tests suggest; Antibodies Findings raise hope that affected areas in London could protect themselves from a second wave." Daily Telegraph [London, England], 10 July 2020, p. 11. Gale OneFile: Health and Medicine, https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A629046739/HRCA?u=mlin_w_westnew&sid=HRCA&xid=35f0a5aa. Accessed 14 Nov. 2020.

“Reinfection with COVID-19.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2020, www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html.

Tripucka, Jennifer. “If You Tested Positive for COVID-19 Antibodies via City MD, You Should Read This.” Hoboken Girl, Hoboken Girl Publishing, 13 May 2020, www.hobokengirl.com/city-md-covid-19-antibody-testing-news/.

Ellis, Ralph. “COVID-19 Antibodies Decline Over Time, Study Shows.” WebMD, WebMD, 2020, www.webmd.com/lung/news/20201028/covid-19-antibodies-decline-over-time-study-says.

“On a Mission to Do More.” CityMD, www.citymd.com/our-story.

“COVID-19 Testing Information.” CityMD, 2020, www.citymd.com/news/covid-19-testing-update.

Mandavilli, Apoorva. “F.D.A. Approves First Coronavirus Antibody Test in U.S.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 Apr. 2020, www.nytimes.com/2020/04/02/health/coronavirus-antibody-test.html.

NBC New York. “CDC Issues 14-Day Travel Advisory for New York, New Jersey, Connecticut.” NBC New York, NBC New York, 28 Mar. 2020, www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/even-with-relief-bill-passed-no-rest-for-ny-as-cuomo-says-peak-of-crisis-still-yet-to-come/2348306/.