About us Login Get email updates
Research
Print

Media reports on Frist stock sale investigation largely omit company's history of fraud

October 07, 2005 1:10 pm ET
image

12 Comments

Out of hundreds of newspaper stories on Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist's (R-TN) stock sale currently under investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Justice Department, only a handful have noted that, in December 2002, HCA Inc. -- the company whose stock Frist sold off before share prices dropped sharply -- agreed to pay the government $1.7 billion in fines and penalties related to 14 counts of defrauding Medicare and Medicaid. HCA Inc. is the for-profit hospital chain founded by Frist's father. The total in penalties is the largest settlement ever recovered by the federal government in a health care fraud case, although many observers -- including a prominent Republican senator -- criticized the Bush administration's withholding of information in the case and aired concerns that the government may not have been adequately compensated.

Media Matters previously noted that network news broadcasts devoted little air time to coverage of Frist's stock sale. As first reported on September 19 by Congressional Quarterly, and subsequently by the Associated Press, Frist ordered the trustee managing his blind trust to sell all shares in HCA owned by his family on June 13. Frist's shares were then sold on July 1, and those owned by his wife and children were sold one week later. On July 13, the price of HCA shares dropped considerably after the company reported weaker-than-expected earnings [Associated Press, 9/20/05]. On September 29, HCA announced that the SEC had opened an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the transactions.

But few print stories have mentioned the company's history of fraud and its precedent-setting fine to settle charges stemming from kickbacks to doctors and overcharging the Medicare program. Media Matters has reviewed all 350 articles in the Nexis database that mention the Frist stock sale; only six articles -- five by print news outlets and one by a wire service -- have mentioned the record $1.7 billion settlement in their coverage of the investigation: Gannett News Service [9/21/05], The New York Times [9/22/05], Roll Call [9/26/05 (subscription required)], The New York Observer [10/3/05], and The Tennessean [9/22/05 and 10/1/05 (subscription required)].

Frist's defenders have highlighted his family wealth in claiming that he would have no incentive to try to profit from insider information. For instance, Nicholas E. Calio, a former aide to President Bush, defended Frist in a September 25 article in The Washington Post, noting, "To me, it's inconceivable that he [Frist] would sell stock based on inside information. He doesn't need the money." Readers might have thought it relevant that the Frist family might owe its underlying fortune in part to the family-founded company's illegal practices.

In addition, at the time of the record settlement, at least one Republican lawmaker raised concerns about the way the investigation into HCA concluded and was frustrated with the response from the Bush departments of Justice and Health and Human Services (HHS). Following years of litigation with the Justice Department, HCA agreed to a settlement on all remaining charges of fraud just prior to the anticipated testimony of Sen. Frist's brother Thomas Frist Jr., according to a December 19, 2002, Tennessean article:

Attorneys for the whistle-blowers who accused HCA Inc. of Medicare fraud say they were within weeks of taking testimony from HCA co-founder Tommy Frist Jr. and Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Jack Bovender Jr. when the company agreed to a final settlement.

[...]

HCA, the attorneys suggested, tossed in the towel to avoid the spectacle of Frist, a physician and an icon in the Nashville business community, being questioned about the former business practices of the company. He founded what is now HCA in 1968 with his father, Dr. Thomas Frist Sr., and businessman Jack Massey, both deceased.

Many of the questions, and the executives' answers, eventually would make their way into public court records, the lawyers observed.

"I speculate Bovender and Frist didn't want to be put under oath to explain what they knew (about) the worms under the rocks that were being uncovered," said Stephen Meagher, a San Francisco attorney with a firm that represented two whistle-blowers.

HCA spokesman Jeff Prescott said the company agreed to settle because it was "comfortable" with the amount it would have to pay.

In April 2003, following the final settlement, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), who was then the incoming chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft and HHS secretary Tommy Thompson demanding that the details of the HCA settlement be made available to congressional scrutiny. A press release Grassley's office sent out with the letter summarized the senator's concerns:

The most important question is unanswered.... That's whether the taxpayers will get their money back from any fraud perpetrated by HCA. I haven't seen the statistical evidence to show this settlement will fairly compensate the taxpayers for their losses. Until I see the math, I'll remain skeptical. I look forward to learning more about the government's case, although I'm getting tired of asking.

From Grassley's letter:

Given that HCA's track record includes several guilty pleas relating to Medicare cost report fraud, it is especially troubling that its cost reports allegedly were not subjected to heightened scrutiny. At this point, and because DOJ and CMS [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] decided to withhold information pertaining to my inquiries, the Committee is unaware of whether CMS conducted even a cursory review of the thousands of cost reports mentioned above. Despite my repeated attempts to cast sunlight on the basis behind this tentative settlement, it has been crafted in the dark for apparently a fraction of the damages. In light of the failure of DOJ and CMS to provide satisfactory and timely responses to my concerns, I am forwarding them by this letter to DOJ Inspector General, Glenn Fine, and HHS Acting Principal Deputy Inspector General, Dennis Duquette.

During the previous July, Grassley had submitted inquiries to Ashcroft concerning rumors that investigations by the Justice Department into cases pertinent to the False Claims Act (which provides for financial compensation to whistleblowers of medical kickbacks) were being scaled back. Grassley also raised concerns to Thompson about the involvement in the HCA case of Thomas A. Scully, the administrator of CMS. Scully was president and CEO of the Federation of American Hospitals, a lobbying organization of for-profit hospital chains, immediately prior to joining the CMS. Thompson responded by rejecting the notion that Scully's role in the federal settlement with HCA constituted an ethical conflict [Thomson Financial, August 12, 2002]. (The HCA settlement did not mark the end of ethical questions about Scully. Medicare chief actuary Richard Forster testified before Congress in 2003 that Scully, under orders from the White House, instructed him not to advise Congress of the real cost of President Bush's Medicare drug benefit plan and threatened to fire Forster if he did disclose the real cost [The New York Times, 3/25/05 and 3/14/05].)

From the September 22 edition of The Tennessean:

2000

November -- Frist is elected to a second Senate term.

December --Frist sets up new blind trusts, in accordance with stricter Senate Ethics Committee guidelines, to help minimize the HCA conflict-of-interest charges.

2000-03

Columbia/HCA pays a total of $1.7 billion to the federal government to settle charges of Medicare and Medicaid fraud. The company changes its name back to HCA to avoid public relations problems caused by the charges.

December 2002

Frist is elected Senate Republican leader, replacing Trent Lott of Mississippi after Lott made racially insensitive comments. Interest in Frist's ties to HCA rises in the national media.

April 2004

The Foundation for Taxpayer and Consumer Rights, a California-based watchdog group, files a complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee over Frist's HCA stock, saying he should be forced to recuse himself from voting on legislation to reform medical malpractice laws. The committee rejects the complaint.

2005

June 13 -- Frist asks the managers of his blind trusts to sell all of his and his family's shares of HCA.

July 1 -- Equitable Trust, based in Nashville, reports that it has sold Frist's HCA shares.

July 8 -- Northern Trust, based in Chicago, reports that it has done the same.

July 13 -- HCA reports that it will miss second-quarter earnings expectations. Its stock price falls 8.9%.

* Nexis search of U.S. newspapers and wire services for "Frist and HCA and stock; Frist and HCA and stock and 1.7 billion," September 19-October 7.

Expand All Expand 1st Level Collapse All Add Comment
    • Author by bluestocking (October 07, 2005 1:42 pm ET)
         

      In all fairness, just because the company was founded by Senator Frist's family and has been penalized for fraud does not automatically mean that Senator Frist must be guilty of insider trading. However, it's certainly a rather uncanny coincidence -- and it is said that the apple doesn't fall far from the tree...

      Report Abuse
    • Author by leatherhelmet (October 07, 2005 2:30 pm ET)
         

      The fraud fines were old news, why is it even relevant? The story is insider trading, timing and ownership. Frist should be investigated. My guess is nothing will happen. First, he was criticized for having the holdings since he is actively involved in legislation for the industry that could aid the company. Obviously, he wants to run for president so dumping the stock made sense. Second, in a blind trust you are allowed to know what you hold. Third, the trustees sold them at their discretion and if you look at the stock chart if he had insider knowlege he should have sold in March of 2003. The fall on quarterly earnings was not that great for an individual stock. If it goes up in the next few months on the traditional Santa Claus rally he will have lost money. The question is did he have insider knowledge? If he did he should be get Martha's old cell in West Virginia. The old news reporting the fines is years old and worthless information to the story.

      Report Abuse
      • Author by chiefsjen (October 07, 2005 2:44 pm ET)
           

        how can it be a blind trust if you know what's in it? i thought the whole idea that these guys do have a blind trust so there can be no way of them knowing and therefore, no conflict of interest...

        Report Abuse
        • Author by leatherhelmet (October 07, 2005 2:58 pm ET)
             

          Here's a Washington Post article on it: [link to www.washingtonpost.com]

          One guy called it a "seeing-eye" trust. Under senate rules Frist can tell the trustee to get rid of an entire asset.

          That does not answer the question of insider information though.

          Report Abuse
          • Author by Sagra (October 07, 2005 3:17 pm ET)
               

            Frist obviously knew what went into the trust originally, and the trustee was required to inform Frist if all of the stock had been sold. So of course he knew all along that he had HCA stock.

            However, he wasn't supposed to get detailed reports about his holdings... which it appears that he did.

            Frist was allowed to issue a "sell" instruction to the trustee if Frist determined that owning the stock would present a conflict of interest.

            However, that was supposed to happen if and when Frist took on a new duty that might involve a conflict -- not after Frist had completed work on several pieces of legislation that would benefit HCA.

            Report Abuse
      • Author by bluestocking (October 07, 2005 3:29 pm ET)
           

        "The old news reporting the fines is years old and worthless information to the story." -- leatherhelmet

        --------------------------------------------------------------

        I believe the point MMFA is trying to make is that this is not the first time HCA has been associated with scandal and corruption, yet this point is being largely ignored in the media. It may not pertain directly as such to the questions currently surrounding Senator Frist -- but the prior fraud nonetheless demonstrates that this company has been penalized for legal and/or ethical violations in the past. Of course, this does not prove that insider trading has taken place -- but the fact that they are known to have conducted themselves improperly once before might be adding fuel to the speculation that they may have done so again.

        Report Abuse
      • Author by losingfaith (October 08, 2005 6:19 pm ET)
           

        Martha Stewart did not go to jail for insider trading. She went to jail for lying to the FBI about accusations she was never indicted on.

        Report Abuse
        • Author by ufleirx (October 09, 2005 1:26 pm ET)
             

          I always found it questionable that you could be jailed on something they could not prove therefore you were "lying". While, creatures like Frist roam the Earth free.

          Report Abuse
    • Author by Sagra (October 07, 2005 3:02 pm ET)
         

      The Gottis also have a lot of money. Therefore they would never sell illegal narcotics?

      Report Abuse
    • Author by Buzzramjet (October 08, 2005 12:38 am ET)
         

      Well it's something I didn't know and it does make me wonder just how much fraud this company is involved in.

      AND on top of that this is just not a fifty or hundred thousand dollars in stock sales. This is apparently MILLIONS of dollars and apparently HIS BROTHER is the CEO and if anyone is stupid enough to think the brothers weren't doing a little trading with each other, then you are some serious drugs.

      Sorry this whole thing stinks to high heaven. Hopefully Frist will be out of office by the end of next year.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by mefirst (October 08, 2005 9:31 pm ET)
         

      if this was a democratic leader you wouldn't be able to get through a single article without it being mentioned. and rightfully so, because it indicates a pattern of previous behavior. just like the downing street memo. headlines for days in the united kingdom. here? nothing, and if it was mentioned at all, it was "this is old news" or this was just something the head of british intelligence "picked up from cabbies". media bias in this country? absolutely, and on behalf of the republican party. and it started well before 9-11, which is the mainstream media's phony excuse now.

      Report Abuse
    • Author by sl aronovitz (October 10, 2005 11:36 am ET)
         

      I've spoken to many Republicans who downplay the fraud of HCA. The important point to stress here is that this fraud was not 'alleged'. The corporation paid $630 million because of the actual and real defrauding of the American taxpayer and their patients. The amount of the fine, huge as it sounds, was a settlement to avoid publicity. The actual dollar amount STOLEN was likely much, much higher.

      Fraud on such a colossal scale also must involve a vast conspiracy. Consider how many active man hours and the extent of effort on several levels of HCA management it would take to steal $630 million in small to medium sized amounts. This could not be accomplished by a rogue accountant or manager. It was a planned and carefully assessed plan of action.

      Report Abuse