Christina Jewett

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a tweet Wednesday that the agency plans to release hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of previously unpublished injury and malfunction reports tied to about 100 medical devices.

“We’re now prioritizing making ALL of this data available,” Dr. Gottlieb tweeted.

A recent Kaiser Health News investigation revealed the scope of a hidden reporting pathway for device makers, with the agency accepting more than 1.1 million such reports since the start of 2016.

Device makers for nearly 20 years were able to quietly seek an “exemption” from standard, public harm-reporting rules. Devices with such exemptions have included surgical staplers and balloon pumps used in the vessels of heart-surgery patients.

Dr. Gottlieb’s tweet also referenced the challenge in opening the database, saying it “wasn’t easily accessible electronically owing to the system’s age. But it’s imperative that all safety information be available to the public.”

The agency made changes to the “alternative summary reporting” program in mid-2017 to require a public report summarizing data filed within the FDA. But nearly two decades of data remained cordoned off from doctors, patients, and device-safety researchers who say they could use it to detect problems.

Dr. Gottlieb’s announcement was welcomed by Madris Tomes, who has testified to FDA device-review panels about the importance of making summary data on patient harm open to the public.

“That’s the best news I’ve heard in years,” said Ms. Tomes, president of Device Events, which makes the FDA device-harm data more user-friendly. “I’m really happy that they’re taking notice and realizing that physicians who couldn’t see this data before were using devices that they wouldn’t have used if they had this data in front of them.”

Since September, KHN has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for parts or all of the “alternative summary reporting” database and for other special “exemption” reports, to little effect. A request to expedite delivery of those records was denied, and the FDA cited the lack of “compelling need” for the public to have the information. Officials noted that it might take up to 2 years to get such records through the FOIA process.

As recently as March 22, though, the agency began publishing previously undisclosed reports of harm, suddenly updating the numbers of breast implant malfunctions or injuries submitted over the years. The new data was presented to an FDA advisory panel, which is reviewing the safety of such devices. The panel, which met March 25 and 26, saw a chart showing hundreds of thousands more accounts of harm or malfunctions than had previously been acknowledged.

Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s health research group, said his initial reaction to the news is “better late than never.”

“If [Dr. Gottlieb] follows through with his pledge to make all this data public, then that’s certainly a positive development,” he said. “But this is safety information that should have been made available years ago.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a tweet Wednesday that the agency plans to release hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of previously unpublished injury and malfunction reports tied to about 100 medical devices.

“We’re now prioritizing making ALL of this data available,” Dr. Gottlieb tweeted.

A recent Kaiser Health News investigation revealed the scope of a hidden reporting pathway for device makers, with the agency accepting more than 1.1 million such reports since the start of 2016.

Device makers for nearly 20 years were able to quietly seek an “exemption” from standard, public harm-reporting rules. Devices with such exemptions have included surgical staplers and balloon pumps used in the vessels of heart-surgery patients.

Dr. Gottlieb’s tweet also referenced the challenge in opening the database, saying it “wasn’t easily accessible electronically owing to the system’s age. But it’s imperative that all safety information be available to the public.”

The agency made changes to the “alternative summary reporting” program in mid-2017 to require a public report summarizing data filed within the FDA. But nearly two decades of data remained cordoned off from doctors, patients, and device-safety researchers who say they could use it to detect problems.

Dr. Gottlieb’s announcement was welcomed by Madris Tomes, who has testified to FDA device-review panels about the importance of making summary data on patient harm open to the public.

“That’s the best news I’ve heard in years,” said Ms. Tomes, president of Device Events, which makes the FDA device-harm data more user-friendly. “I’m really happy that they’re taking notice and realizing that physicians who couldn’t see this data before were using devices that they wouldn’t have used if they had this data in front of them.”

Since September, KHN has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for parts or all of the “alternative summary reporting” database and for other special “exemption” reports, to little effect. A request to expedite delivery of those records was denied, and the FDA cited the lack of “compelling need” for the public to have the information. Officials noted that it might take up to 2 years to get such records through the FOIA process.

As recently as March 22, though, the agency began publishing previously undisclosed reports of harm, suddenly updating the numbers of breast implant malfunctions or injuries submitted over the years. The new data was presented to an FDA advisory panel, which is reviewing the safety of such devices. The panel, which met March 25 and 26, saw a chart showing hundreds of thousands more accounts of harm or malfunctions than had previously been acknowledged.

Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s health research group, said his initial reaction to the news is “better late than never.”

“If [Dr. Gottlieb] follows through with his pledge to make all this data public, then that’s certainly a positive development,” he said. “But this is safety information that should have been made available years ago.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, announced in a tweet Wednesday that the agency plans to release hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of previously unpublished injury and malfunction reports tied to about 100 medical devices.

“We’re now prioritizing making ALL of this data available,” Dr. Gottlieb tweeted.

A recent Kaiser Health News investigation revealed the scope of a hidden reporting pathway for device makers, with the agency accepting more than 1.1 million such reports since the start of 2016.

Device makers for nearly 20 years were able to quietly seek an “exemption” from standard, public harm-reporting rules. Devices with such exemptions have included surgical staplers and balloon pumps used in the vessels of heart-surgery patients.

Dr. Gottlieb’s tweet also referenced the challenge in opening the database, saying it “wasn’t easily accessible electronically owing to the system’s age. But it’s imperative that all safety information be available to the public.”

The agency made changes to the “alternative summary reporting” program in mid-2017 to require a public report summarizing data filed within the FDA. But nearly two decades of data remained cordoned off from doctors, patients, and device-safety researchers who say they could use it to detect problems.

Dr. Gottlieb’s announcement was welcomed by Madris Tomes, who has testified to FDA device-review panels about the importance of making summary data on patient harm open to the public.

“That’s the best news I’ve heard in years,” said Ms. Tomes, president of Device Events, which makes the FDA device-harm data more user-friendly. “I’m really happy that they’re taking notice and realizing that physicians who couldn’t see this data before were using devices that they wouldn’t have used if they had this data in front of them.”

Since September, KHN has filed Freedom of Information Act requests for parts or all of the “alternative summary reporting” database and for other special “exemption” reports, to little effect. A request to expedite delivery of those records was denied, and the FDA cited the lack of “compelling need” for the public to have the information. Officials noted that it might take up to 2 years to get such records through the FOIA process.

As recently as March 22, though, the agency began publishing previously undisclosed reports of harm, suddenly updating the numbers of breast implant malfunctions or injuries submitted over the years. The new data was presented to an FDA advisory panel, which is reviewing the safety of such devices. The panel, which met March 25 and 26, saw a chart showing hundreds of thousands more accounts of harm or malfunctions than had previously been acknowledged.

Michael Carome, MD, director of Public Citizen’s health research group, said his initial reaction to the news is “better late than never.”

“If [Dr. Gottlieb] follows through with his pledge to make all this data public, then that’s certainly a positive development,” he said. “But this is safety information that should have been made available years ago.”
 

Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Annette Katz didn’t expect to be part of a major social movement. She didn’t set out to take on a major health organization. But that all began to change when a coworker saw her fighting back tears and joined Katz to report to her union what amounted to a criminal sexual offense at a Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 2012 and 2013.

Four years later, Katz, a licensed practical nurse at the hospital, testified in a court deposition that a male nursing assistant had shoved her into a linen closet and groped her and subjected her to an onslaught of lewd comments.

In speaking out and taking legal action, Katz joined a growing group of women who are combating sexual harassment in the medical field at every level, from patients’ bedsides to the executive boardroom.

Much as the #MeToo moment has raised awareness of sexual harassment in business, politics, media, and Hollywood, it is prompting women in medicine to take on a health system where workers have traditionally been discouraged from making waves and where hierarchies are ever-present and all-commanding. While the health care field overall has far more women than men, in many stations of power the top of the pyramid is overwhelmingly male, with women occupying the vast base.

In a recent survey, 30% of women on medical faculties reported experiencing sexual harassment at work within the past 2 years, said Reshma Jagsi, MD, who conducted the poll. That share is comparable to results in other sectors and, as elsewhere, in medicine it had been mostly taboo to discuss before last year.

“We know harassment is more common in fields where there are strong power differentials,” said Dr. Jagsi, director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “And we know medicine is very hierarchical.”

Workers in the health care and social assistance field reported 4,738 cases of sexual harassment from fiscal 2005 through 2015, eclipsed only by fields such as hospitality and manufacturing, where men make up a greater proportion of the workforce, according to data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A Kaiser Health News review of dozens of legal cases across the U.S. shows similar patterns in the waves of harassment cases that have cropped up in other fields, from entertainment to sports to journalism: The harassers are typically male. The alleged harasser supervises or outranks the alleged victim. There are slaps on the butt, lewd comments, and requests for sex. When superiors are confronted with reports of bad behavior, the victims, mostly women, are disbelieved, demoted, or fired.

But recently, physicians have taken to Twitter using the #MeTooMedicine tag, sharing anecdotes and linking to blogs that chronicle powerful doctors harassing them or disrobing at professional conferences.

Women who work in cardiology recently told the cardiology trade publication TCTMD that they felt the problem was particularly widespread in their specialty, where females account for 14% of the physicians. A Los Angeles anesthesiologist made waves in a blog post urging “prettier” women to adopt a “professional-looking, even severe, hair style” to be taken seriously and to consider self-defense classes.

Among those speaking out is Jennifer Gunter, MD, a San Francisco obstetrician-gynecologist, who recently wrote a blog post about being groped in 2014 by a prominent colleague at a medical conference – even naming him.

“I think nothing will change unless people are able to name people and institutions are held accountable,” she said in an interview. “I don’t think without massive public discourse and exposure that things will change.”

Lawsuits, many settled or still making their way through the courts, describe encounters.

A Florida nurse claimed that in 2014, a surgeon made lewd comments about her breasts, asking her in a room full of people if he should “refer to her as ‘JJ’ or ‘Jugs,’ ” the nurse’s lawsuit says. The nurse said she “responded that she wished to be called by her name.”

In other cases: A phlebotomist in New York alleged in a lawsuit that a doctor in her medical practice gave her a box of Valentine’s Day candy and moved in for an unwanted kiss on the mouth. A Florida medical resident alleged that a supervising doctor told her she looked like a “slutty whore.” A Nebraska nurse claimed that a doctor she traveled with to a professional conference offered to buy her a bikini, if he could see her in it, and an extra night in a hotel, if they could share the room. She declined.

A Pennsylvania nurse described the unsatisfying response she got after reporting that a colleague had pressed his pelvis against her and flipped through her phone for “naked pictures.” A supervisor to whom she reported the conduct expressed exasperation, saying “I can’t deal with this” and “What do you want?”

Kayla Behbahani, DO, chief psychiatry resident at University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, did not file a lawsuit but recently wrote about sexual harassment by a subordinate. In an interview, she said her instincts were to pity the man, and also to follow a dictate that’s drilled into medical students: Don’t make waves. So, she disclosed the harassment only after another woman’s complaint launched an investigation.

“As a professional, I come from a culture where you go with the flow,” Dr. Behbahani said. “You deal with what you’re dealt. In that regard, it was a dilemma for me.”

Annette Katz, the Veterans Affairs nurse, initially didn’t complain about the harassment. A single mother with two children, she needed her job. Her attacker, MD Garrett, was also a nursing assistant but had more seniority, was a veteran, and was friends with her boss.

“I really did feel that I would lose my job,” Ms. Katz said in an interview. “I would be that troublemaker.”

But as the abuse escalated, she went to the VA inspector general and the Cleveland police.

She estimated that five times Mr. Garrett pushed her into a closet where he would ask for sex. She would “tell him ‘no’ and fight my way out of [his] grip,” her statement said. He shoved her into an unconscious patient’s bathroom and would “try to restrain me, but I eventually could break free.”

After one such assault, a colleague noticed tears in Ms. Katz’s eyes. The coworker shared with Ms. Katz that she, too, had been a target of Mr. Garrett’s lewd behavior.

Ms. Katz and the colleague filed complaints in March 2013 with their union, the police, and with their managers. That July, Mr. Garrett was indicted by a grand jury and later pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual imposition and one count of unlawful restraint. He was also dismissed from his job.

Reached by phone, Mr. Garrett said he agreed to the plea because he was facing multiple felonies and didn’t know what a jury would do. He said that even though he pleaded guilty to four misdemeanors, he did not commit the crimes of which he was accused. “There was no harassment; she and I were friends,” he said.

In 2013, Ms. Katz sued the VA, alleging that it failed to protect her from harassment and retaliated against her by refusing to give her a job-site transfer before firing her for not showing up to work.

The VA attorneys argued that the department had no direct knowledge of harassing behavior before Ms. Katz reported it, and that once it was informed, immediate action was taken. Veterans Affairs Deputy Press Secretary Lydia Blaha said in an email that anyone engaged in sexual harassment is swiftly held accountable.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs agreed in February to pay $161,500 to settle Ms. Katz’s lawsuit.

Ms. Katz said it was costly and emotional to press on with her legal case but hopes it helps other women see that seeking justice is worthwhile. “I do think there are a lot of women who just suffer in silence,” she said.

Dr. Gunter, the San Francisco physician-blogger, said that needed change will come only when people who are more established across all professions stand up for those who are more junior. “Speaking quietly, going to HR – if that worked, we wouldn’t be here,” she said.

It’s ironic, she said, that as a gynecologist she’s trained to believe patients’ claims about sexual assault. In the workplace, though, it’s well known that raising such matters can backfire. She added: “Physicians should be setting a standard on this.”

KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by the John A. Hartford Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Annette Katz didn’t expect to be part of a major social movement. She didn’t set out to take on a major health organization. But that all began to change when a coworker saw her fighting back tears and joined Katz to report to her union what amounted to a criminal sexual offense at a Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 2012 and 2013.

Four years later, Katz, a licensed practical nurse at the hospital, testified in a court deposition that a male nursing assistant had shoved her into a linen closet and groped her and subjected her to an onslaught of lewd comments.

In speaking out and taking legal action, Katz joined a growing group of women who are combating sexual harassment in the medical field at every level, from patients’ bedsides to the executive boardroom.

Much as the #MeToo moment has raised awareness of sexual harassment in business, politics, media, and Hollywood, it is prompting women in medicine to take on a health system where workers have traditionally been discouraged from making waves and where hierarchies are ever-present and all-commanding. While the health care field overall has far more women than men, in many stations of power the top of the pyramid is overwhelmingly male, with women occupying the vast base.

In a recent survey, 30% of women on medical faculties reported experiencing sexual harassment at work within the past 2 years, said Reshma Jagsi, MD, who conducted the poll. That share is comparable to results in other sectors and, as elsewhere, in medicine it had been mostly taboo to discuss before last year.

“We know harassment is more common in fields where there are strong power differentials,” said Dr. Jagsi, director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “And we know medicine is very hierarchical.”

Workers in the health care and social assistance field reported 4,738 cases of sexual harassment from fiscal 2005 through 2015, eclipsed only by fields such as hospitality and manufacturing, where men make up a greater proportion of the workforce, according to data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A Kaiser Health News review of dozens of legal cases across the U.S. shows similar patterns in the waves of harassment cases that have cropped up in other fields, from entertainment to sports to journalism: The harassers are typically male. The alleged harasser supervises or outranks the alleged victim. There are slaps on the butt, lewd comments, and requests for sex. When superiors are confronted with reports of bad behavior, the victims, mostly women, are disbelieved, demoted, or fired.

But recently, physicians have taken to Twitter using the #MeTooMedicine tag, sharing anecdotes and linking to blogs that chronicle powerful doctors harassing them or disrobing at professional conferences.

Women who work in cardiology recently told the cardiology trade publication TCTMD that they felt the problem was particularly widespread in their specialty, where females account for 14% of the physicians. A Los Angeles anesthesiologist made waves in a blog post urging “prettier” women to adopt a “professional-looking, even severe, hair style” to be taken seriously and to consider self-defense classes.

Among those speaking out is Jennifer Gunter, MD, a San Francisco obstetrician-gynecologist, who recently wrote a blog post about being groped in 2014 by a prominent colleague at a medical conference – even naming him.

“I think nothing will change unless people are able to name people and institutions are held accountable,” she said in an interview. “I don’t think without massive public discourse and exposure that things will change.”

Lawsuits, many settled or still making their way through the courts, describe encounters.

A Florida nurse claimed that in 2014, a surgeon made lewd comments about her breasts, asking her in a room full of people if he should “refer to her as ‘JJ’ or ‘Jugs,’ ” the nurse’s lawsuit says. The nurse said she “responded that she wished to be called by her name.”

In other cases: A phlebotomist in New York alleged in a lawsuit that a doctor in her medical practice gave her a box of Valentine’s Day candy and moved in for an unwanted kiss on the mouth. A Florida medical resident alleged that a supervising doctor told her she looked like a “slutty whore.” A Nebraska nurse claimed that a doctor she traveled with to a professional conference offered to buy her a bikini, if he could see her in it, and an extra night in a hotel, if they could share the room. She declined.

A Pennsylvania nurse described the unsatisfying response she got after reporting that a colleague had pressed his pelvis against her and flipped through her phone for “naked pictures.” A supervisor to whom she reported the conduct expressed exasperation, saying “I can’t deal with this” and “What do you want?”

Kayla Behbahani, DO, chief psychiatry resident at University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, did not file a lawsuit but recently wrote about sexual harassment by a subordinate. In an interview, she said her instincts were to pity the man, and also to follow a dictate that’s drilled into medical students: Don’t make waves. So, she disclosed the harassment only after another woman’s complaint launched an investigation.

“As a professional, I come from a culture where you go with the flow,” Dr. Behbahani said. “You deal with what you’re dealt. In that regard, it was a dilemma for me.”

Annette Katz, the Veterans Affairs nurse, initially didn’t complain about the harassment. A single mother with two children, she needed her job. Her attacker, MD Garrett, was also a nursing assistant but had more seniority, was a veteran, and was friends with her boss.

“I really did feel that I would lose my job,” Ms. Katz said in an interview. “I would be that troublemaker.”

But as the abuse escalated, she went to the VA inspector general and the Cleveland police.

She estimated that five times Mr. Garrett pushed her into a closet where he would ask for sex. She would “tell him ‘no’ and fight my way out of [his] grip,” her statement said. He shoved her into an unconscious patient’s bathroom and would “try to restrain me, but I eventually could break free.”

After one such assault, a colleague noticed tears in Ms. Katz’s eyes. The coworker shared with Ms. Katz that she, too, had been a target of Mr. Garrett’s lewd behavior.

Ms. Katz and the colleague filed complaints in March 2013 with their union, the police, and with their managers. That July, Mr. Garrett was indicted by a grand jury and later pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual imposition and one count of unlawful restraint. He was also dismissed from his job.

Reached by phone, Mr. Garrett said he agreed to the plea because he was facing multiple felonies and didn’t know what a jury would do. He said that even though he pleaded guilty to four misdemeanors, he did not commit the crimes of which he was accused. “There was no harassment; she and I were friends,” he said.

In 2013, Ms. Katz sued the VA, alleging that it failed to protect her from harassment and retaliated against her by refusing to give her a job-site transfer before firing her for not showing up to work.

The VA attorneys argued that the department had no direct knowledge of harassing behavior before Ms. Katz reported it, and that once it was informed, immediate action was taken. Veterans Affairs Deputy Press Secretary Lydia Blaha said in an email that anyone engaged in sexual harassment is swiftly held accountable.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs agreed in February to pay $161,500 to settle Ms. Katz’s lawsuit.

Ms. Katz said it was costly and emotional to press on with her legal case but hopes it helps other women see that seeking justice is worthwhile. “I do think there are a lot of women who just suffer in silence,” she said.

Dr. Gunter, the San Francisco physician-blogger, said that needed change will come only when people who are more established across all professions stand up for those who are more junior. “Speaking quietly, going to HR – if that worked, we wouldn’t be here,” she said.

It’s ironic, she said, that as a gynecologist she’s trained to believe patients’ claims about sexual assault. In the workplace, though, it’s well known that raising such matters can backfire. She added: “Physicians should be setting a standard on this.”

KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by the John A. Hartford Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Annette Katz didn’t expect to be part of a major social movement. She didn’t set out to take on a major health organization. But that all began to change when a coworker saw her fighting back tears and joined Katz to report to her union what amounted to a criminal sexual offense at a Cleveland Veterans Affairs Medical Center in 2012 and 2013.

Four years later, Katz, a licensed practical nurse at the hospital, testified in a court deposition that a male nursing assistant had shoved her into a linen closet and groped her and subjected her to an onslaught of lewd comments.

In speaking out and taking legal action, Katz joined a growing group of women who are combating sexual harassment in the medical field at every level, from patients’ bedsides to the executive boardroom.

Much as the #MeToo moment has raised awareness of sexual harassment in business, politics, media, and Hollywood, it is prompting women in medicine to take on a health system where workers have traditionally been discouraged from making waves and where hierarchies are ever-present and all-commanding. While the health care field overall has far more women than men, in many stations of power the top of the pyramid is overwhelmingly male, with women occupying the vast base.

In a recent survey, 30% of women on medical faculties reported experiencing sexual harassment at work within the past 2 years, said Reshma Jagsi, MD, who conducted the poll. That share is comparable to results in other sectors and, as elsewhere, in medicine it had been mostly taboo to discuss before last year.

“We know harassment is more common in fields where there are strong power differentials,” said Dr. Jagsi, director of the Center for Bioethics and Social Sciences in Medicine at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. “And we know medicine is very hierarchical.”

Workers in the health care and social assistance field reported 4,738 cases of sexual harassment from fiscal 2005 through 2015, eclipsed only by fields such as hospitality and manufacturing, where men make up a greater proportion of the workforce, according to data gathered by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.

A Kaiser Health News review of dozens of legal cases across the U.S. shows similar patterns in the waves of harassment cases that have cropped up in other fields, from entertainment to sports to journalism: The harassers are typically male. The alleged harasser supervises or outranks the alleged victim. There are slaps on the butt, lewd comments, and requests for sex. When superiors are confronted with reports of bad behavior, the victims, mostly women, are disbelieved, demoted, or fired.

But recently, physicians have taken to Twitter using the #MeTooMedicine tag, sharing anecdotes and linking to blogs that chronicle powerful doctors harassing them or disrobing at professional conferences.

Women who work in cardiology recently told the cardiology trade publication TCTMD that they felt the problem was particularly widespread in their specialty, where females account for 14% of the physicians. A Los Angeles anesthesiologist made waves in a blog post urging “prettier” women to adopt a “professional-looking, even severe, hair style” to be taken seriously and to consider self-defense classes.

Among those speaking out is Jennifer Gunter, MD, a San Francisco obstetrician-gynecologist, who recently wrote a blog post about being groped in 2014 by a prominent colleague at a medical conference – even naming him.

“I think nothing will change unless people are able to name people and institutions are held accountable,” she said in an interview. “I don’t think without massive public discourse and exposure that things will change.”

Lawsuits, many settled or still making their way through the courts, describe encounters.

A Florida nurse claimed that in 2014, a surgeon made lewd comments about her breasts, asking her in a room full of people if he should “refer to her as ‘JJ’ or ‘Jugs,’ ” the nurse’s lawsuit says. The nurse said she “responded that she wished to be called by her name.”

In other cases: A phlebotomist in New York alleged in a lawsuit that a doctor in her medical practice gave her a box of Valentine’s Day candy and moved in for an unwanted kiss on the mouth. A Florida medical resident alleged that a supervising doctor told her she looked like a “slutty whore.” A Nebraska nurse claimed that a doctor she traveled with to a professional conference offered to buy her a bikini, if he could see her in it, and an extra night in a hotel, if they could share the room. She declined.

A Pennsylvania nurse described the unsatisfying response she got after reporting that a colleague had pressed his pelvis against her and flipped through her phone for “naked pictures.” A supervisor to whom she reported the conduct expressed exasperation, saying “I can’t deal with this” and “What do you want?”

Kayla Behbahani, DO, chief psychiatry resident at University of Massachusetts Memorial Medical Center, did not file a lawsuit but recently wrote about sexual harassment by a subordinate. In an interview, she said her instincts were to pity the man, and also to follow a dictate that’s drilled into medical students: Don’t make waves. So, she disclosed the harassment only after another woman’s complaint launched an investigation.

“As a professional, I come from a culture where you go with the flow,” Dr. Behbahani said. “You deal with what you’re dealt. In that regard, it was a dilemma for me.”

Annette Katz, the Veterans Affairs nurse, initially didn’t complain about the harassment. A single mother with two children, she needed her job. Her attacker, MD Garrett, was also a nursing assistant but had more seniority, was a veteran, and was friends with her boss.

“I really did feel that I would lose my job,” Ms. Katz said in an interview. “I would be that troublemaker.”

But as the abuse escalated, she went to the VA inspector general and the Cleveland police.

She estimated that five times Mr. Garrett pushed her into a closet where he would ask for sex. She would “tell him ‘no’ and fight my way out of [his] grip,” her statement said. He shoved her into an unconscious patient’s bathroom and would “try to restrain me, but I eventually could break free.”

After one such assault, a colleague noticed tears in Ms. Katz’s eyes. The coworker shared with Ms. Katz that she, too, had been a target of Mr. Garrett’s lewd behavior.

Ms. Katz and the colleague filed complaints in March 2013 with their union, the police, and with their managers. That July, Mr. Garrett was indicted by a grand jury and later pleaded guilty to three counts of sexual imposition and one count of unlawful restraint. He was also dismissed from his job.

Reached by phone, Mr. Garrett said he agreed to the plea because he was facing multiple felonies and didn’t know what a jury would do. He said that even though he pleaded guilty to four misdemeanors, he did not commit the crimes of which he was accused. “There was no harassment; she and I were friends,” he said.

In 2013, Ms. Katz sued the VA, alleging that it failed to protect her from harassment and retaliated against her by refusing to give her a job-site transfer before firing her for not showing up to work.

The VA attorneys argued that the department had no direct knowledge of harassing behavior before Ms. Katz reported it, and that once it was informed, immediate action was taken. Veterans Affairs Deputy Press Secretary Lydia Blaha said in an email that anyone engaged in sexual harassment is swiftly held accountable.

The U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs agreed in February to pay $161,500 to settle Ms. Katz’s lawsuit.

Ms. Katz said it was costly and emotional to press on with her legal case but hopes it helps other women see that seeking justice is worthwhile. “I do think there are a lot of women who just suffer in silence,” she said.

Dr. Gunter, the San Francisco physician-blogger, said that needed change will come only when people who are more established across all professions stand up for those who are more junior. “Speaking quietly, going to HR – if that worked, we wouldn’t be here,” she said.

It’s ironic, she said, that as a gynecologist she’s trained to believe patients’ claims about sexual assault. In the workplace, though, it’s well known that raising such matters can backfire. She added: “Physicians should be setting a standard on this.”

KHN’s coverage of these topics is supported by the John A. Hartford Foundation and The David and Lucile Packard Foundation. Kaiser Health News is a nonprofit news service covering health issues. It is an editorially independent program of the Kaiser Family Foundation that is not affiliated with Kaiser Permanente.

Health and Human Services secretary nominee Tom Price showed little restraint in his personal stock trading during the 3 years that federal investigators were bearing down on a key House committee on which the Republican congressman served, a review of his financial disclosures shows.

Rep. Price (Ga.) made dozens of health industry stock trades during a 3-year investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission that focused on the Ways and Means Committee, according to financial disclosure records he filed with the House of Representatives. The investigation was considered the first test of a law passed to ban members of Congress and their staffs from trading stock based on insider information.

Rep. Price, who is a retired orthopedic surgeon, was never a target of the federal investigation, which scrutinized a top Ways and Means staffer, and no charges were brought. But ethics experts say Rep. Price’s personal trading, even during the thick of federal pressure on his committee, shows he was unconcerned about financial investments that could create an appearance of impropriety.

“He should have known better,” Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics attorney under President George W. Bush and a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School said of Rep. Price’s conduct during the SEC inquiry.

As Rep. Price awaits a Senate vote on his confirmation, Senate Democrats and a number of watchdog groups have asked the SEC to investigate whether Rep. Price engaged in insider trading with some of his trades in health care companies. Rep. Price has said he abided by all ethics rules, although he acknowledged to the Senate Finance Committee that he did not consult the House Ethics Committee on trades that have now become controversial.

The SEC’s inquiry began in 2013, as it battled Ways and Means for documents to develop its case.

A few weeks ago, the day before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the SEC quietly dropped its pursuit of committee documents without explanation, according to federal court records. No charges were brought against the staffer, Brian Sutter, who is now a health care lobbyist. Sutter’s lawyer declined to comment.

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, described Rep. Price’s volume of stock trades during the SEC inquiry as “brazen,” given the congressman’s access to nonpublic information affecting the companies’ fortunes.

“The public is seeing this and they really don’t like it,” said Holman, whose watchdog group recently filed complaints about Rep. Price’s stock trading with both the SEC and the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Trump administration officials and Rep. Price have dismissed questions that news reports and lawmakers have raised about stock trades coinciding with official actions to help certain companies, saying Rep. Price’s brokers chose the stocks independently and all of his conduct was transparent.

After acknowledging that he asked his broker to buy stock in an Australian drug company, he told the Senate Finance Committee that he did not direct his broker to make other trades.

“To the best of my knowledge, I have not undertaken such actions,” he wrote in response to finance committee questions. “I have abided by and adhered to all ethics and conflict of interest rules applicable to me.”

An analysis of Rep. Price’s trades shows that he bought health stocks in 2007, the first year Congress financial disclosures are posted online. In 2011, the first year Rep. Price sat on the health subcommittee, he traded no health-related stocks, according to his financial disclosures filed with Congress.

That same year, members were facing public criticism because of a book detailing how they could use inside information and a “60 Minutes” investigation focused on how members and staff could legally use inside information to gain from their own stock trades.

In 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act to rein in insider trading by members and require more disclosure. Public watchdog groups suggested at the time that the law would curb the practice.

That year, after his 1-year break in health care trades, Rep. Price resumed investing in health care companies.

Along with investments in technology, financial services, and retail stocks, he also bought and sold stock in companies that could be impacted by actions of his subcommittee, which has a role in determining rates the government pays under the Medicare program.

Health care firms spend heavily to influence members of Congress, lobbying on health matters, funding political campaigns, and seeking favor with Medicare officials who decide how much the program will pay for certain drugs and devices. The Food and Drug Administration holds similar power, approving or putting conditions on drug and device use.

Beyond his personal investments in health care companies, Rep. Price has also advocated their interests in letters to officials and proposed laws, government records show.

In 2012, disclosure records show Rep. Price sold stock in several drug firms, including more than $110,000 worth of Amgen stock. Amgen’s stock price had steadily climbed out of a recession-level slump, but Rep. Price’s sale came a few weeks before the company pleaded guilty to illegally marketing an anemia drug.

By 2013, the health subcommittee was at the center of a major conflict between Medicare, which sets Medicare Advantage rates, and the insurance industry. Medicare issued a notice early that year announcing its intention to reduce Medicare Advantage rates by 2.3 percent as part of a major cost-cutting initiative.

That prompted fierce lobbying by the health insurance industry. Members of Congress, including Rep. Price, wrote a letter to Marilyn Tavenner, then acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, protesting the rate cut, saying the decrease would “disadvantage vulnerable beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions.”

Ultimately, Medicare decided not to cut rates but instead, to increase them. Yet an hour before Medicare announced the change, a Height Securities analyst fired off a “flash” report to 200 clients that touched off a surge of trading.

The analyst’s report said a political deal was hatched on Capitol Hill to prevent the cuts as a condition for moving forward on Tavenner’s confirmation. Medicare officials increased rates by nearly 4 percent, a change that would positively impact the bottom lines of health insurance companies.

The SEC began looking for the leak’s source, and within weeks, FBI agents began interviewing staffers at the Ways and Means Committee, court records show.

They discovered communications between Sutter and a health care lobbyist. The HHS Inspector General also began a probe, and federal prosecutors briefly examined the matter as well.

As the case unfolded, Rep. Price bought more health care-related stocks, according to his financial disclosures. He has testified that his broker directed all of the trades, except for his investments in Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian company partly owned by Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), according to Collins’ disclosures. An HHS spokesman said Monday that Rep. Price held three broker-directed accounts.

Ethics experts have said that Rep. Price should have further distanced himself by placing his assets in a blind trust.

On April 30, 2013, Rep. Price bought $2,093 worth of stocks in Incyte, a company that develops cancer drugs; $2,076 in Onyx Pharmaceuticals, a drug maker that would soon merge with a larger drug firm; and $2,097 in Parexel International, a consultancy that helps drugs and devices win FDA approval, according to the financial disclosure records.

The same day, Rep. Price shed shares of Express Scripts, a drug management firm, and Danaher, which makes products hospitals and doctor’s offices using for testing and diagnostics. In August of that year, he bought a $2,429 stake in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which makes sleep and cancer drugs.

On May 6, 2014, the SEC served its first subpoena for the Ways and Means Committee documents. The committee launched a vigorous fight, appealing a federal district judge’s ruling that it should comply with the SEC subpoena.

Rep. Price continued his health stock trades, including $1,000 to $15,000 in drug firms Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He also bought stock in Aetna, a major health insurer, and Athenahealth, which sells electronic medical record and medical billing software. In 2016, he also increased his investment in Innate Immunotherapeutics.

The purchase became controversial because both he and Collins bought stock in a private placement at a discounted price.

“You’re asking for trouble if you have access to nonpublic information about the health care industry and you’re buying and selling health care stocks,” Painter said.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Health and Human Services secretary nominee Tom Price showed little restraint in his personal stock trading during the 3 years that federal investigators were bearing down on a key House committee on which the Republican congressman served, a review of his financial disclosures shows.

Rep. Price (Ga.) made dozens of health industry stock trades during a 3-year investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission that focused on the Ways and Means Committee, according to financial disclosure records he filed with the House of Representatives. The investigation was considered the first test of a law passed to ban members of Congress and their staffs from trading stock based on insider information.

Rep. Price, who is a retired orthopedic surgeon, was never a target of the federal investigation, which scrutinized a top Ways and Means staffer, and no charges were brought. But ethics experts say Rep. Price’s personal trading, even during the thick of federal pressure on his committee, shows he was unconcerned about financial investments that could create an appearance of impropriety.

“He should have known better,” Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics attorney under President George W. Bush and a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School said of Rep. Price’s conduct during the SEC inquiry.

As Rep. Price awaits a Senate vote on his confirmation, Senate Democrats and a number of watchdog groups have asked the SEC to investigate whether Rep. Price engaged in insider trading with some of his trades in health care companies. Rep. Price has said he abided by all ethics rules, although he acknowledged to the Senate Finance Committee that he did not consult the House Ethics Committee on trades that have now become controversial.

The SEC’s inquiry began in 2013, as it battled Ways and Means for documents to develop its case.

A few weeks ago, the day before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the SEC quietly dropped its pursuit of committee documents without explanation, according to federal court records. No charges were brought against the staffer, Brian Sutter, who is now a health care lobbyist. Sutter’s lawyer declined to comment.

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, described Rep. Price’s volume of stock trades during the SEC inquiry as “brazen,” given the congressman’s access to nonpublic information affecting the companies’ fortunes.

“The public is seeing this and they really don’t like it,” said Holman, whose watchdog group recently filed complaints about Rep. Price’s stock trading with both the SEC and the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Trump administration officials and Rep. Price have dismissed questions that news reports and lawmakers have raised about stock trades coinciding with official actions to help certain companies, saying Rep. Price’s brokers chose the stocks independently and all of his conduct was transparent.

After acknowledging that he asked his broker to buy stock in an Australian drug company, he told the Senate Finance Committee that he did not direct his broker to make other trades.

“To the best of my knowledge, I have not undertaken such actions,” he wrote in response to finance committee questions. “I have abided by and adhered to all ethics and conflict of interest rules applicable to me.”

An analysis of Rep. Price’s trades shows that he bought health stocks in 2007, the first year Congress financial disclosures are posted online. In 2011, the first year Rep. Price sat on the health subcommittee, he traded no health-related stocks, according to his financial disclosures filed with Congress.

That same year, members were facing public criticism because of a book detailing how they could use inside information and a “60 Minutes” investigation focused on how members and staff could legally use inside information to gain from their own stock trades.

In 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act to rein in insider trading by members and require more disclosure. Public watchdog groups suggested at the time that the law would curb the practice.

That year, after his 1-year break in health care trades, Rep. Price resumed investing in health care companies.

Along with investments in technology, financial services, and retail stocks, he also bought and sold stock in companies that could be impacted by actions of his subcommittee, which has a role in determining rates the government pays under the Medicare program.

Health care firms spend heavily to influence members of Congress, lobbying on health matters, funding political campaigns, and seeking favor with Medicare officials who decide how much the program will pay for certain drugs and devices. The Food and Drug Administration holds similar power, approving or putting conditions on drug and device use.

Beyond his personal investments in health care companies, Rep. Price has also advocated their interests in letters to officials and proposed laws, government records show.

In 2012, disclosure records show Rep. Price sold stock in several drug firms, including more than $110,000 worth of Amgen stock. Amgen’s stock price had steadily climbed out of a recession-level slump, but Rep. Price’s sale came a few weeks before the company pleaded guilty to illegally marketing an anemia drug.

By 2013, the health subcommittee was at the center of a major conflict between Medicare, which sets Medicare Advantage rates, and the insurance industry. Medicare issued a notice early that year announcing its intention to reduce Medicare Advantage rates by 2.3 percent as part of a major cost-cutting initiative.

That prompted fierce lobbying by the health insurance industry. Members of Congress, including Rep. Price, wrote a letter to Marilyn Tavenner, then acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, protesting the rate cut, saying the decrease would “disadvantage vulnerable beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions.”

Ultimately, Medicare decided not to cut rates but instead, to increase them. Yet an hour before Medicare announced the change, a Height Securities analyst fired off a “flash” report to 200 clients that touched off a surge of trading.

The analyst’s report said a political deal was hatched on Capitol Hill to prevent the cuts as a condition for moving forward on Tavenner’s confirmation. Medicare officials increased rates by nearly 4 percent, a change that would positively impact the bottom lines of health insurance companies.

The SEC began looking for the leak’s source, and within weeks, FBI agents began interviewing staffers at the Ways and Means Committee, court records show.

They discovered communications between Sutter and a health care lobbyist. The HHS Inspector General also began a probe, and federal prosecutors briefly examined the matter as well.

As the case unfolded, Rep. Price bought more health care-related stocks, according to his financial disclosures. He has testified that his broker directed all of the trades, except for his investments in Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian company partly owned by Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), according to Collins’ disclosures. An HHS spokesman said Monday that Rep. Price held three broker-directed accounts.

Ethics experts have said that Rep. Price should have further distanced himself by placing his assets in a blind trust.

On April 30, 2013, Rep. Price bought $2,093 worth of stocks in Incyte, a company that develops cancer drugs; $2,076 in Onyx Pharmaceuticals, a drug maker that would soon merge with a larger drug firm; and $2,097 in Parexel International, a consultancy that helps drugs and devices win FDA approval, according to the financial disclosure records.

The same day, Rep. Price shed shares of Express Scripts, a drug management firm, and Danaher, which makes products hospitals and doctor’s offices using for testing and diagnostics. In August of that year, he bought a $2,429 stake in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which makes sleep and cancer drugs.

On May 6, 2014, the SEC served its first subpoena for the Ways and Means Committee documents. The committee launched a vigorous fight, appealing a federal district judge’s ruling that it should comply with the SEC subpoena.

Rep. Price continued his health stock trades, including $1,000 to $15,000 in drug firms Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He also bought stock in Aetna, a major health insurer, and Athenahealth, which sells electronic medical record and medical billing software. In 2016, he also increased his investment in Innate Immunotherapeutics.

The purchase became controversial because both he and Collins bought stock in a private placement at a discounted price.

“You’re asking for trouble if you have access to nonpublic information about the health care industry and you’re buying and selling health care stocks,” Painter said.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.

Health and Human Services secretary nominee Tom Price showed little restraint in his personal stock trading during the 3 years that federal investigators were bearing down on a key House committee on which the Republican congressman served, a review of his financial disclosures shows.

Rep. Price (Ga.) made dozens of health industry stock trades during a 3-year investigation by the Securities and Exchange Commission that focused on the Ways and Means Committee, according to financial disclosure records he filed with the House of Representatives. The investigation was considered the first test of a law passed to ban members of Congress and their staffs from trading stock based on insider information.

Rep. Price, who is a retired orthopedic surgeon, was never a target of the federal investigation, which scrutinized a top Ways and Means staffer, and no charges were brought. But ethics experts say Rep. Price’s personal trading, even during the thick of federal pressure on his committee, shows he was unconcerned about financial investments that could create an appearance of impropriety.

“He should have known better,” Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics attorney under President George W. Bush and a professor at the University of Minnesota Law School said of Rep. Price’s conduct during the SEC inquiry.

As Rep. Price awaits a Senate vote on his confirmation, Senate Democrats and a number of watchdog groups have asked the SEC to investigate whether Rep. Price engaged in insider trading with some of his trades in health care companies. Rep. Price has said he abided by all ethics rules, although he acknowledged to the Senate Finance Committee that he did not consult the House Ethics Committee on trades that have now become controversial.

The SEC’s inquiry began in 2013, as it battled Ways and Means for documents to develop its case.

A few weeks ago, the day before President Donald Trump’s inauguration, the SEC quietly dropped its pursuit of committee documents without explanation, according to federal court records. No charges were brought against the staffer, Brian Sutter, who is now a health care lobbyist. Sutter’s lawyer declined to comment.

Craig Holman, government affairs lobbyist with Public Citizen, described Rep. Price’s volume of stock trades during the SEC inquiry as “brazen,” given the congressman’s access to nonpublic information affecting the companies’ fortunes.

“The public is seeing this and they really don’t like it,” said Holman, whose watchdog group recently filed complaints about Rep. Price’s stock trading with both the SEC and the Office of Congressional Ethics.

Trump administration officials and Rep. Price have dismissed questions that news reports and lawmakers have raised about stock trades coinciding with official actions to help certain companies, saying Rep. Price’s brokers chose the stocks independently and all of his conduct was transparent.

After acknowledging that he asked his broker to buy stock in an Australian drug company, he told the Senate Finance Committee that he did not direct his broker to make other trades.

“To the best of my knowledge, I have not undertaken such actions,” he wrote in response to finance committee questions. “I have abided by and adhered to all ethics and conflict of interest rules applicable to me.”

An analysis of Rep. Price’s trades shows that he bought health stocks in 2007, the first year Congress financial disclosures are posted online. In 2011, the first year Rep. Price sat on the health subcommittee, he traded no health-related stocks, according to his financial disclosures filed with Congress.

That same year, members were facing public criticism because of a book detailing how they could use inside information and a “60 Minutes” investigation focused on how members and staff could legally use inside information to gain from their own stock trades.

In 2012, President Barack Obama signed the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act to rein in insider trading by members and require more disclosure. Public watchdog groups suggested at the time that the law would curb the practice.

That year, after his 1-year break in health care trades, Rep. Price resumed investing in health care companies.

Along with investments in technology, financial services, and retail stocks, he also bought and sold stock in companies that could be impacted by actions of his subcommittee, which has a role in determining rates the government pays under the Medicare program.

Health care firms spend heavily to influence members of Congress, lobbying on health matters, funding political campaigns, and seeking favor with Medicare officials who decide how much the program will pay for certain drugs and devices. The Food and Drug Administration holds similar power, approving or putting conditions on drug and device use.

Beyond his personal investments in health care companies, Rep. Price has also advocated their interests in letters to officials and proposed laws, government records show.

In 2012, disclosure records show Rep. Price sold stock in several drug firms, including more than $110,000 worth of Amgen stock. Amgen’s stock price had steadily climbed out of a recession-level slump, but Rep. Price’s sale came a few weeks before the company pleaded guilty to illegally marketing an anemia drug.

By 2013, the health subcommittee was at the center of a major conflict between Medicare, which sets Medicare Advantage rates, and the insurance industry. Medicare issued a notice early that year announcing its intention to reduce Medicare Advantage rates by 2.3 percent as part of a major cost-cutting initiative.

That prompted fierce lobbying by the health insurance industry. Members of Congress, including Rep. Price, wrote a letter to Marilyn Tavenner, then acting administrator for the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, protesting the rate cut, saying the decrease would “disadvantage vulnerable beneficiaries with multiple chronic conditions.”

Ultimately, Medicare decided not to cut rates but instead, to increase them. Yet an hour before Medicare announced the change, a Height Securities analyst fired off a “flash” report to 200 clients that touched off a surge of trading.

The analyst’s report said a political deal was hatched on Capitol Hill to prevent the cuts as a condition for moving forward on Tavenner’s confirmation. Medicare officials increased rates by nearly 4 percent, a change that would positively impact the bottom lines of health insurance companies.

The SEC began looking for the leak’s source, and within weeks, FBI agents began interviewing staffers at the Ways and Means Committee, court records show.

They discovered communications between Sutter and a health care lobbyist. The HHS Inspector General also began a probe, and federal prosecutors briefly examined the matter as well.

As the case unfolded, Rep. Price bought more health care-related stocks, according to his financial disclosures. He has testified that his broker directed all of the trades, except for his investments in Innate Immunotherapeutics, an Australian company partly owned by Rep. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.), according to Collins’ disclosures. An HHS spokesman said Monday that Rep. Price held three broker-directed accounts.

Ethics experts have said that Rep. Price should have further distanced himself by placing his assets in a blind trust.

On April 30, 2013, Rep. Price bought $2,093 worth of stocks in Incyte, a company that develops cancer drugs; $2,076 in Onyx Pharmaceuticals, a drug maker that would soon merge with a larger drug firm; and $2,097 in Parexel International, a consultancy that helps drugs and devices win FDA approval, according to the financial disclosure records.

The same day, Rep. Price shed shares of Express Scripts, a drug management firm, and Danaher, which makes products hospitals and doctor’s offices using for testing and diagnostics. In August of that year, he bought a $2,429 stake in Jazz Pharmaceuticals, which makes sleep and cancer drugs.

On May 6, 2014, the SEC served its first subpoena for the Ways and Means Committee documents. The committee launched a vigorous fight, appealing a federal district judge’s ruling that it should comply with the SEC subpoena.

Rep. Price continued his health stock trades, including $1,000 to $15,000 in drug firms Amgen, Biogen, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, and Pfizer. He also bought stock in Aetna, a major health insurer, and Athenahealth, which sells electronic medical record and medical billing software. In 2016, he also increased his investment in Innate Immunotherapeutics.

The purchase became controversial because both he and Collins bought stock in a private placement at a discounted price.

“You’re asking for trouble if you have access to nonpublic information about the health care industry and you’re buying and selling health care stocks,” Painter said.

Kaiser Health News is a national health policy news service that is part of the nonpartisan Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation.