a Better Bubble™

Aggregator

“I Thought He Was Helping Me”: Patient Endured 9 Years of Chemotherapy for Cancer He Never Had

1 year ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

Anthony Olson wanted a career, children, a partner with whom he could hike Montana’s trails. Despite the diabetes diagnosis at age 4, the anemia, the kidney transplant that failed at age 29, the dialysis, he clung to those dreams. He attended community college and later moved from his parents’ house in Helena to study accounting at Montana Tech in Butte. He thought he might live a nearly normal life.

All of that was taken away in early 2011 when an oncologist at St. Peter’s, Helena’s only hospital, diagnosed him with myelodysplastic syndrome, a blood disorder that’s often described as pre-leukemia. The life expectancy of MDS patients is short. “He told me that without treatment, I’d be dead before the end of the year,” Olson said. He was 33.

“That diagnosis changed the direction of my life,” Olson, now 47, told me.

Olson couldn’t have known that he was one of many patients who, according to court records, may have received inappropriate, harmful or unnecessary treatments from Dr. Thomas C. Weiner. As I reported earlier this month, administrators at St. Peter’s suspected Weiner, who directed the hospital’s cancer center, was hurting patients for years. Yet hospital administrators allowed him to keep treating people until late 2020, when they suspended and then fired him. Weiner has denied all the allegations.

“I trusted that he was doing what was best for me,” Olson said of Weiner. “I never really questioned that until someone else told me that there was reason to.”

I discovered Olson’s story in a cache of records related to an ongoing legal dispute between Weiner and St. Peter’s. I was struck by how similar his case was to that of another Weiner patient, Scot Warwick. Weiner had diagnosed Warwick with Stage 4 lung cancer and treated him with chemo and other therapies for 11 years, court records show; after Warwick died in 2020, his family learned, from both a biopsy and an autopsy, that he never had cancer. Weiner insisted that Warwick had cancer all those years and that other doctors “missed” the disease.

Olson’s diagnosis was similarly flimsy, and he had been treated over nearly the same period of time. But there was a key difference between the two men: Olson lived to tell his story.

After he was diagnosed, Olson dropped out of college, moved back in with his parents and began Weiner’s prescribed regimen: four straight days on chemo, four weeks off. Repeat until he died. Olson endured this for nine years.

“I stopped moving towards a career and a future and was trying to figure out, ‘What can I do now? What’s most important to me?’” Olson said. “I spent a lot of time thinking about that, but I didn’t really have the money, especially with the cost of treatments, to do anything. I was kind of just stuck.”

In our conversations, Olson downplayed what happened to him next. As chemo goes, he said he had it easier than most. He kept most of his hair, for example. But exhaustion from the chemo anchored him to his parents’ basement. He sank into himself, tinkering with computers and dabbling in photography, “reaching for anything that I could do in my relatively short amount of time.” He told loved ones he’d soon be gone. He asked his parents to take his car. His father refused.

Early in his treatment, tests showed the chemo had worsened Olson’s anemia. Weiner placed him on weekly iron-rich blood transfusions. Over months and then years of chemotherapy and other treatments, Olson bonded with Weiner and St. Peter’s staff. He thought of them as friends. As the iron levels in his blood continued to rise, the cancer center nurses began calling him “The Iron Man.”

“I thought he was helping me,” Olson said of Weiner. “I actually felt pretty fortunate that we had such a gifted doctor in such a small community.”

His parents, too, believed they’d found “a miracle” in Weiner. Olson appreciated that Weiner had taken over as his primary care physician. Like dozens of Weiner’s patients, Olson told me he thought he had found a sort of concierge alternative to the broken maze that is the American health care system. Weiner often fast-tracked patients for hospital stays, which made him popular with patients. It also increased his patient load — as many as 70 patient contacts a day, records show. The more treatments and visits Weiner billed, the more money he made.

“He always made the process fairly easy,” Anthony’s mother, Patti Olson, said of Weiner. “So, if we needed medications or anything like that, he would bridge that gap for us. That went a long way in helping us through a lot of pretty difficult situations.”

Dr. Thomas C. Weiner (Louise Johns, special to ProPublica)

In 2016, Dr. Robert LaClair, the kidney specialist who was managing Olson’s dialysis, became concerned. After hundreds of blood transfusions, Olson’s body was suffering from “iron overload” (a ferritin level of over 10,000), which can destroy internal organs. It could have killed him.

LaClair tweaked Olson’s treatments, which improved his anemia and iron overload. He told him that he could now be a candidate for a new kidney, which would supplant the need for dialysis and maybe allow him to regain his life. The only problem? His chemo treatment disqualified him from the transplant waitlist.

Olson told me there were moments of real anger at his situation, “but most of the time, I think I was pretty level, and just did it because it had to be done, and this was the treatment. For a lot of it, I was amazed that I was still around and that it was working as well as it was.”

By 2019, LaClair suspected that Weiner may have misdiagnosed Olson and urged his patient to get a second opinion. But LaClair kept quiet about his misgivings for years, according to records and interviews. Weiner was a powerful figure within St. Peter’s and in Helena. He was earning $2 million a year and had threatened to sue the hospital several times, court records show. While his nurses adored him, others inside St. Peter’s feared him. Many on staff credited him with forcing out two hospital CEOs who had challenged his pay, court records show.

“If any one of us came up against him, we would have been crushed,” LaClair told me. “He had too much power and too much money.”

LaClair finally took his concerns to the hospital’s peer review committee, an internal group of doctors charged with examining questions about patient care. In early 2020, he became the committee chair and would lead the effort to remove Weiner. He acknowledged that he and the hospital waited too long to act.

In December 2020, St. Peter’s fired Weiner, accusing him of “harm that was caused to patients by receiving treatments, including chemotherapy, that were not clinically indicated or necessary,” among other allegations.

Weiner responded by suing the hospital for wrongful termination and defamation. Former patients created a Facebook group called “We stand with Dr. Tom Weiner” and held the first of hundreds of small protests outside the hospital. A Montana judge dismissed Weiner’s suit. He filed an appeal, which is pending with the state Supreme Court.

When Olson learned that Weiner had been removed, he was outraged, convinced that he’d lost a brilliant medical mind, who had been kind and given him years he otherwise would never have seen. He and his parents cheered on the protestors. “I would have been probably one of those people, on his side, up until all this blew up and we found out what was really going on,” he told me.

Olson didn’t know that his case was among dozens that St. Peter’s sent to outside medical reviewers at the University of Utah and The Greeley Company, a health care consultancy. The reviewers discovered that Weiner had ordered two bone marrow biopsies in 2011. The first showed signs of MDS, which researchers in recent years have found is commonly misdiagnosed. However, the second, taken 10 months later, indicated no disease.

Weiner shared the negative biopsy result with Olson but told him to ignore it; all it proved was that the regimen was working. Weiner continued Olson’s chemotherapy.

That second biopsy, at the very least, should have prompted more testing to confirm or eliminate MDS, the reviewers wrote. It was unclear “why this second bone marrow biopsy result was ignored, and why another bone marrow biopsy was not done,” the report said. “The patient may have been exposed to the toxicities of these treatments unnecessarily.”

When I questioned Weiner about Olson’s case, he dismissed the reviewers’ conclusion that he should have stopped chemotherapy when the follow-up biopsy was negative. “That doesn’t say you didn’t have the disease,” he said. “It just means that the treatment worked, and it knocked it away. It doesn’t mean you didn’t have it at the beginning.”

I pressed Weiner. If the chemo had “knocked it away,” wouldn’t that call for adjusting the treatment? He said he continued chemo for another nine years on the advice of experts at the Mayo Clinic. Olson scoured his medical file and found no evidence to support this claim.

After Weiner was gone, Olson received another biopsy, which came back negative. St. Peter’s also retested the sample from the first biopsy. It, too, showed that he never had MDS. Despite the overwhelming evidence that Weiner had misdiagnosed and improperly treated Olson, LaClair felt he couldn’t just say, “Dr. Weiner did this to you.” Records show many Weiner patients bristled when told to get a second opinion or became hostile at the suggestion that Weiner had mistreated them.

“The worst part of the harm is that they believed in him,” LaClair told me. “The harm that he’s done to these people — they’re broken both physically and mentally because of what he did.”

For years, LaClair could not comprehend why so many in Helena continue to support Weiner, but in watching the change in one of his favorite patients, he came to understand something: Olson didn’t just feel betrayed; he was heartbroken. “You want to hear something that really makes you sick?” LaClair asked. “He said to me, ‘I just wanted him to say he’s sorry.’”

After receiving chemo through his 30s and into his 40s, Olson’s cancer treatments were stopped in early 2021.

In a court filing that year, the hospital alleged that Weiner “misdiagnosed and/or failed to properly diagnose numerous other patients whose subsequent chemotherapy treatments may not have been warranted … .” St. Peter’s, however, did not provide a full accounting. The hospital reported that it had suspended Weiner to the state medical board, which declined to comment. But it’s unclear whether St. Peter’s relayed Olson’s case or any of the other misdiagnoses to the board. Hospital administrators declined to comment on the case, even though Olson signed a medical privacy waiver granting them permission to talk to me. A spokesperson said in a statement that “St. Peter’s is focused on moving forward, and we remain fully committed to providing the great care and experience our community deserves.”

When I presented Weiner with examples of alleged patient harm, he denied that he mistreated anyone and remained unapologetic. He does acknowledge, however, that Olson suffered for no reason.

“I felt that he had MDS,” Weiner said. “I was continuing this medicine to suppress it and control it for as long as possible, because he had no other option. Obviously, if I knew that he never had MDS, I wouldn’t have done it, but I was under the belief from the reports and everything that he should continue it. Now, again, hindsight says that he got it needlessly, and that part of it, I’m sorry about. I am.”

For Olson, the acknowledgement that he didn’t have cancer is 13 years too late. In 2022, he sued St. Peter’s for malpractice. The hospital settled and paid an undisclosed amount. Because Weiner was an employee of St. Peter’s, he was not held liable.

No longer overloaded with iron or receiving chemo, Olson became eligible for a donor kidney. In the summer of 2023, he got one. He continues to struggle with an array of health issues, but he knows there’s a chance he can live into old age.

Olson tries not to think about what happened to him. It takes him to a dark place. He still wants to see the best in people, even Weiner. But he sometimes can’t help but wonder what motivated his former oncologist. “Did he just do this for money?” he asked. “Was he betting on me to die and just thought he could make more money?”

by J. David McSwane

The CDC Hasn’t Asked States to Track Deaths Linked to Abortion Bans

1 year ago

ProPublica is a nonprofit newsroom that investigates abuses of power. Sign up to receive our biggest stories as soon as they’re published.

After the Supreme Court overturned the constitutional right to abortion in 2022, President Joe Biden issued an executive order tasking the federal government with assessing the “devastating implications for women’s health“ of new state abortion bans.

Experts were warning that these bans would interfere with critical medical care and lead to preventable deaths. And the states that passed the laws had little incentive to track their consequences.

Biden directed the secretary of Health and Human Services to make sure federal agencies were “​​accurately measuring the effect of access to reproductive healthcare on maternal health outcomes.” He called on the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to drive targeted research and data-collection efforts.

But the Biden administration has missed a critical opportunity to illuminate how abortion bans are interfering with maternal health care, leading to deaths and irreversible injuries: The CDC has not pushed state committees that review maternal deaths to examine the role these new laws have played.

The CDC leads the nation’s work to track and reduce maternal mortality, spending nearly $90 million over the last five years to fund state panels made up of health experts who analyze fatalities to spot trends and recommend reforms. While it cannot require states to collect or report certain data, the CDC gives committees detailed guidance for assessing whether deaths were preventable and which factors contributed to them.

Following this guidance, committees consider factors including obesity, mental health issues, substance use, homicide and suicide. In 2020, the CDC added a checkbox to its model case review form for committees to indicate whether discrimination played a role.

Yet the agency has issued no guidance to address the recent rollback of reproductive rights or to direct committees to consider how abortion bans factor into deaths. Some state officials point to this silence as a reason their committees haven’t made any changes to their process. “The committee must follow national guidelines in maternal mortality review committee death investigations,” said a spokesperson for Oklahoma’s health department, which oversees the committee in the state.

Researchers say that this can obscure the impact of abortion bans.

“It’s pushing it under the rug in a way — like we don’t want to count it, we don’t want to know what’s happening,” said Maeve Wallace, an epidemiologist at the University of Arizona who has published studies on the intersection of intimate partner violence and maternal deaths, including one that found a rise in maternal homicides in places with increased abortion restrictions.

When asked about this, the CDC said the information submitted by states is sufficient to understand any effects from abortion bans.

“Maternal mortality review committees already comprehensively review all deaths that occur during pregnancy and through the year after the end of pregnancy, including abortion-related deaths,” said David Goodman, lead health scientist with the CDC’s Maternal Mortality Prevention Team. “The current process includes documenting and understanding contributing factors.”

But experts said that the CDC’s current guidance gives committees no standard way to consider the role abortion bans played in maternal deaths, which makes it harder to study deaths related to the restrictions and create an evidence base to inform recommendations.

Georgia’s maternal mortality review committee blamed the state’s abortion ban as a factor in one of the deaths examined by ProPublica, that of Candi Miller. The 41-year-old mother of three ordered abortion medication online and suffered complications, but did not visit a doctor “due to the current legislation,” her family told the coroner, who documented the statement. Committee members told ProPublica that the explicit mention in the records indicated the law created a barrier to care.

Candi Miller and her family (Courtesy of Turiya Tomlin-Randall)

The case of Amber Thurman wasn’t as clear-cut; she had taken abortion medication at home and she sought care in a Georgia hospital for complications similar to Miller’s. Records showed doctors discussed, but did not provide, a dilation and curettage procedure to clear her uterus of infected tissue as she suffered for 20 hours with sepsis. Any impact the law may have had on the doctors’ decisionmaking was not noted in records the committee reviewed.

The committee concluded that one of the factors in her preventable death was the delay in care. And while members were able to check a “discrimination” box for Thurman’s case, they did not have any method to flag that she experienced a delay in receiving a procedure that is commonly used in both abortions and miscarriages and that had recently been criminalized.

If such a category were created by the CDC, it would allow researchers to see if there have been increased delays in care after abortion was banned, maternal health researchers said.

Experts told ProPublica this categorization would likely have covered the three other deaths ProPublica reported on, of Texas women who had not considered ending their pregnancies but who needed the same kind of procedure to manage their miscarriages. In those cases and that of Thurman, doctors diverged from the standard of care in ways that raise serious questions about how criminal abortion bans are affecting care for pregnancy loss, ProPublica’s reporting found.

“CDC public data shows an alarming increase in maternal mortality in states that ban abortion,” said Nancy L. Cohen, president of Gender Equity Policy Institute, a nonpartisan research organization. “Our analysis of the evidence and other factors strongly indicates that the bans are driving this increase, but there is no way currently to determine from publicly available data if abortion restrictions contributed to a particular death.”

The CDC “has the power to correct this,” she said, by asking states to collect information about whether abortion restrictions contributed to a death.

Amber Thurman with her son (Via Facebook)

Inas Mahdi, a maternal health researcher who previously worked at the CDC for 15 years, said officials at her former agency know the power that investigating the impacts of policy can have. “The CDC is well aware that without data, there’s no action,” she said. But she added that officials likely experienced “trepidation” over wading into a “polarizing” topic without more direct support from the administration.

In Republican-led states, there’s little appetite to study the harmful effects of laws that their leaders avidly support, and any backlash could hamper efforts to improve maternal health that are seen as bipartisan, she said.

Her fellow CDC alum, Dr. Zsakeba Henderson, agrees. “If CDC were to request that of maternal mortality review committees, I know there would be pushback at the state level,” said Henderson, who previously worked in the agency’s reproductive health division supporting state-based perinatal quality collaboratives. The maternal mortality program is voluntary, and states could simply opt out. In the past year, for example, Texas decided to forgo federal funding and not share maternal death data with the CDC. Officials at the CDC declined to comment on the reason for the change. A spokesperson for the Texas Department of State Health Services said the Legislature directed the agency to do this.

A spokesperson for the Biden administration responded to ProPublica’s questions about whether his order had been fulfilled with a list of efforts to gather and make available data on contraception access and maternal health care outcomes. They said the administration had also “amplified” data from other sources on the impact of abortion bans in a memo.

When asked why the CDC has not created a checkbox to track deaths related to abortion access, a spokesperson for HHS, the CDC’s parent agency, said that the CDC “receives feedback from states on data fields.” The spokesperson noted that the discrimination checkbox was “added based on state requests” after a work group went through a multiyear process.

The spokesperson also said the lack of a checkbox does not mean HHS failed to meet the goals of Biden’s order. The spokesperson forwarded a 73-page update on the maternal mortality crisis that had been sent to Congress this past July. The report is packed with information on progress combating major maternal health risks: task forces to support mental health, initiatives to respond to the opioid crisis, research on intimate partner violence.

It doesn’t include a single reference to abortion access.

Ushma Upadhyay, a public health scientist at the University of California, San Francisco, said collecting data is crucial for understanding how the new abortion bans are impacting maternal health. Her research through WeCount, a project from the Society of Family Planning, has helped establish that the number of abortions has increased nationally since Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Though she has participated in roundtables with HHS officials about how it could better support reproductive health research related to abortion access, she never saw the agency take action based on these talks, she said. (When asked about what these conversations had led to, the agency shared a readout on an expert roundtable about contraception and said its work on studying how abortion restrictions impact maternal health care is ongoing.)

Upadhyay said sending a congressional update on maternal mortality with no mention of abortion access as evidence of fulfilling the order “kind of says it all.” When it comes to measuring the impact of abortion restrictions, “HHS is not doing much.”

The federal government’s largest contribution to this effort comes in the form of millions of dollars of NIH funding to research projects by academics looking into the impact of abortion restrictions, Upadhyay said. But more than two years after the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization decision allowed abortion bans to go into effect, none of those studies have been published and it’s unclear whether the incoming administration will continue funding them.

Researchers who track reproductive health lament the failure to think creatively and act urgently to monitor the fallout of abortion bans while the department had a chance.

“The Biden administration’s lost opportunity is that it viewed Dobbs as a political moment to gain advances for the Democratic Party,” said Tracy Weitz, the director of the Center on Health, Risk, and Society at American University. “It did not take this seriously as a public health crisis.”

The window is closing as President-elect Donald Trump prepares to take office. There is little chance a Republican administration will try to collect data that helps shed light on the impact of abortion bans, which were uniformly passed by Republican-majority state houses.

Last week, Trump named Ed Martin, a prominent anti-abortion activist, to be the chief of staff for his Office of Management and Budget, which oversees how the federal budget is administered. Martin has opposed abortion exceptions, supported a national ban and discussed the idea that women and doctors should be prosecuted for abortions.

If Project 2025 is any guide to how the Trump administration will approach abortion, the CDC may soon start a very different project: launching a mandatory, nationwide surveillance program aimed at portraying abortion care as dangerous.

The conservative blueprint for reshaping the federal government recommends that the agency require all states to report detailed data on abortions, miscarriages and stillbirths or risk losing federal funding.

It states that the CDC “should ensure that it is not promoting abortion as health care.” Instead, “It should fund studies into the risks and complications of abortion.”

Mariam Elba contributed research.

by Kavitha Surana, Robin Fields and Ziva Branstetter

Jingle

1 year ago

JINGLE! will give St. Louis an extra dose of joy this holiday season. The spectacular, multisensory experience will completely transform O’Fallon’s CarShield Field with an immersive holiday light maze made […]

The post Jingle appeared first on Explore St. Louis.

Rachel Huffman

Francis Howell School District earns lowest-possible ranking in state audit

1 year ago
Recent findings from a state audit have put the Francis Howell School District under a microscope. On Wednesday, Missouri State Auditor Scott Fitzpatrick released a 31-page review and a "poor" rating of the school system in St. Charles County. It is the worst rating a school can receive. The report states Prop S to build the district's newest high school was misleading. "District officials were not transparent with the Board or the public about the Francis Howell North High School (FHN) construction…
Travis Cummings