Tag Archives: transparency

Journalists call on USDA to release food stamp information

Felice J. Freyer & Irene Wielawski

About Felice J. Freyer & Irene Wielawski

Felice J. Freyer and Irene Wielawski are co-chairs of AHCJ's Right to Know Committee and members of AHCJ's board of directors.

The Association of Health Care Journalists, along with six other journalism and open-government groups, has called on the U.S. Department of Agriculture to release to the public vital information about the multibillion-dollar food stamps program.

Currently, the USDA refuses to reveal how much money individual retailers make from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, better known as food stamps. Additionally, the USDA does not disclose which products are purchased with SNAP dollars or how much is spent on each product, in aggregate.

This information could show which businesses benefit from the program and also inform public policy debates about obesity and its causes, the organization argues.

The USDA’s position runs contrary to President Obama’s promise of government transparency, and stands in sharp contrast with practices at other federal agencies. For example, the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families discloses where recipients used their EBT cards to withdraw cash assistance. A wealth of information is available about Medicare and Medicaid. Continue reading

Forum on Medicaid expansion, previously closed to press, now open

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

For the past few days, AHCJ has been working with the Obama administration to resolve questions about whether reporters can dial in to an open door forum tomorrow about the Medicaid expansion.

Originally, the administration’s notice said that the event was open to stakeholders and other interested parties, but was closed to the press. That runs counter to the administration’s policy about such events. HHS and CMS have now confirmed to us that reporters can indeed call in to listen to the forum (details are below).

Note that this is not a press conference and press questions will not be taken, but it is a good opportunity to hear from officials and to hear from stakeholders who ask questions, provide comments etc. If you want to follow up, you should contact the CMS or HHS press offices afterward with questions. Here is the information about the forum:

Low-Income Health Access Open Door Forum

WHAT:  Affordable Care Act Implementation Update for Clinicians, Hospitals and other Healthcare Providers
TOPIC:  Medicaid Expansion
DATE:  Sept. 13 at 2 p.m. ET
DIAL IN:  1-888-455-2963  Passcode:  2954962

AHCJ and our Right to Know Committee take reporters’ access to open meetings seriously. If you encounter any difficulty, please contact AHCJ Board President Charles Ornstein or our Right to Know co-chairs Felice Freyer and Irene Wielawski know immediately.

AHCJ urges Joint Commission to release inspection results

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

The Association of Health Care Journalists has called upon The Joint Commission to make public its hospital accreditation surveys and complaint reports.

In a letter to the agency sent last week (PDF), AHCJ president Charles Ornstein noted that some consumers can obtain hospital inspection reports while others cannot, depending on where they live and which organization or regulator did the survey.

State licensing agencies and the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services consider the results of their inspections to be public record. But the Joint Commission does not release details on inspections it performs.

“This peculiar patchwork system treats consumers unequally and leaves millions in the dark about the performance of their local hospitals,” Ornstein wrote to Joint Commission president Mark Chassin, M.D.

AHCJ’s letter follows an effort by a group of consumer organizations to change the law to make inspections public.

“I urge the commission to take the lead on this issue, and demonstrate your commitment to transparency, by voluntarily opening these records to the public,” Ornstein wrote.

The Joint Commission said it has received AHCJ’s letter and is reviewing it.

After AHCJ protest, HHS stipulates public meetings are open to media

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

Can you imagine holding public meetings open to everyone – except reporters who want to cover them? That’s exactly what the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services did last year. But, after complaints from the Association of Health Care Journalists, HHS has agreed to make it a policy that public meetings are open to the media.

“We are hopeful this will not happen again,” said Felice Freyer, chair of AHCJ’s Right to Know Committee. “But to make sure, we will need your help.”

Here’s what happened:

In November, HHS held a series of “listening sessions” in 10 cities to gather input on an important aspect of the Affordable Care Act. These meetings were publicized among thousands of invited “stakeholders,” and anyone who heard by word of mouth could also attend.

But apparently no media advisories went out and, worse, reporters who happened to learn about the meetings were barred from attending.  The meetings were not transcribed or recorded.

AHCJ learned about these meetings from Laura Newman, an independent medical journalist and blogger at Patient POV, who asked to attend and was told she could not. Alarmed that the government would bar coverage of public meetings, AHCJ wrote to every member working in the cities where the listening sessions were held (Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Dallas, New York, Kansas City, Atlanta, Seattle, Denver and San Francisco) to find out what they knew.  Among the 26 who replied, only two knew about the meetings before they took place – Newman and another member who had not been interested in attending.

Over a period of weeks, AHCJ worked with the HHS media office to find out what had happened and to express our concerns. “By excluding the news media, HHS was essentially shutting the door on the majority of people who weren’t on the mailing list or connected with someone who was,” Freyer said. “Most people don’t go to such events, but rely on the news media to tell them what happened.”

The meetings sought input on the definition of “essential benefits,” the minimum that would be covered by plans sold on health insurance exchanges. This was a key aspect of carrying out the health care law; in the end, HHS decided to leave that question to the states.

We asked for the list of “stakeholders” who attended and any notes from the meetings, but HHS was unable to provide them. In a phone conversation last month with Freyer and AHCJ president Charles Ornstein, HHS media officials acknowledged that such meetings should be open to the media.  At our request, they agreed to add this sentence to their media guidelines: “Meetings that are open to the public are, by definition, open to the media.”

Please watch out for any violations of this principle, and let us know about them.

“This incident illustrates how members can make a big difference by alerting us to access problems,” Ornstein said. “We’re grateful to Laura Newman for bringing this to our attention, and to all those who responded to our letter. The work of the Right to Know Committee is among AHCJ’s most important endeavors – but none of it can happen without our members’ vigilance and willingness to step forward with information.”

AHCJ opens dialog to improve journalists’ access to medical society meetings

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

The Association of Health Care Journalists has launched an effort to improve reporters’ access to the data and information released at medical society meetings.

These meetings are often the world’s first look at research findings and advances in medical science. But the policies of some medical societies can make it hard for reporters to do their jobs well.

Felice Freyer

Felice Freyer

At these meetings, reporters have to collect and digest complicated data presented in fast-moving talks. To ensure accuracy, reporters typically want to take pictures of slides and posters and tape-record presentations. At many meetings, this is not a problem. But some associations bar or severely restrict recording and photography.

The volunteer members of AHCJ’s Right to Know Committee sent letters to 10 organizations that have restrictions on recording or photographing presentations at medical meetings. The letters seek to open a dialog about these policies in the hope of working to improve them. These 10 societies are the first of dozens the committee intends to approach.

“We understand that medical societies have legitimate concerns about possible inappropriate commercial use of presentations, or disruptions from flashbulbs or bulky equipment,” said Felice J. Freyer, chair of the Right to Know Committee. “But many societies have found other ways to address these issues without barring journalists from documenting the presentations. Clearly, there are workable alternatives to the blanket restrictions on recording and photography.”

The Right to Know Committee researched the policies of the 87 largest medical meetings and found that 36 (41 percent) have minimal or no restrictions and 38 (44 percent) have restrictions. (The committee was unable to determine the policies of 13.)

“AHCJ members are just trying to get it right,” Freyer said. “We’re confident that medical societies share our desire for accurate coverage, and we hope to collaborate with them to find solutions that work for everyone.”

Freyer noted that the 10 letters were sent on Tuesday, and by Wednesday three organizations had already responded, expressing a willingness to consider AHCJ’s concerns.

Reporters: Federal public affairs staffers block access to information

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

Reporters who cover federal government agencies say they face impediments to getting information to the public because of interference from public affairs officers, according to a survey released by the Society of Professional Journalists. [Press release]sunshine-week1

About 70 percent of the 146 journalists who responded to the survey said they had a positive relationship with the public information officers with whom they work, and most reported that officers quickly respond to their queries most of the time.

However, overwhelmingly, comments from the surveyed journalists indicated increasing frustration at what they perceive as efforts by agencies to control the message to the public. “PAOs tend to make up information,” stated one respondent. “You can never trust the information they provide. They make our jobs almost impossible and they treat journalists with barely any professionalism.”

Carolyn S. Carlson, lead author of “Mediated Access: Journalists’ Perceptions of Federal Public Information Officer Media Control,” notes that reporters are “running into interference rather than assistance from the very people hired by the government to help them. Public affairs officers need to facilitate media coverage, not interfere or block it.”

The survey reveals that reporters have to get approval from public affairs officials before interviewing sources, something AHCJ and other journalism groups have protested in the past, and some agencies are not allowing interviews of employees. About 84 percent reported their interviews have been monitored by PIOs, another issue AHCJ has written about.

Journalists agreed that government control over who is interviewed is a form of censorship and that the public is not getting vital information as a result of these controls.

The survey was conducted by Carlson, an assistant professor of communication at Kennesaw State University in Kennesaw, Ga., and David Cuillier, director of the School of Journalism at the University of Arizona in Tucson, Ariz., on behalf of the SPJ Freedom of Information Committee, of which both are members. They were assisted by Kennesaw journalism student Lindsay Tulkoff.

Tell us about your experiences with HHS

Tomorrow AHCJ will hold our quarterly conference call with the HHS media office. This usually includes a summary of our members’ experiences with the various HHS media offices (CDC, FDA, NIH, NIDA, CMS, etc), as well as discussion of specific issues.

As always, we depend on you to inform these discussions. Have you interacted with HHS or any of its divisions in recent months? Felice Freyer, chair of AHCJ’s Right to Know Committee, would like to hear from AHCJ members. Please send her a quick note describing what happened, whether it was positive or negative. Are there any concerns you’d like us to raise with them? Please send your comments to felice.freyer@cox.net or share them in the comments below.

Disciplined doctors in Conn. continue to get drug industry payments

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

Lisa Chedekel of the Connecticut Health I-Team reports that, even as doctors are investigated and disciplined for violating medical conduct rules – including over-prescribing – they have collected thousands of dollars from pharmaceutical companies for meals, speaking or consulting work.pills-and-money

Chedekel used records from Connecticut’s Department of Public Health and public disclosures from pharmaceutical manufacturers: “A check of physician records shows about a dozen Connecticut doctors receiving drug company benefits either shortly before or after being sanctioned by the state for various offenses.”

Her reporting reveals a doctor received payments from three drug companies while he was being investigated for allegations that he over-medicated patients. Some of the payments continued after his license was suspended. Another doctor got payments from four companies while “federal prosecutors were investigating allegations that he wrote out 11 illegal prescriptions for controlled substances.”

Other doctors reaping the benefits from drug companies were disciplined for things that included failing to provide proper post-operative care, referring a patient for an MRI despite the fact the patient had a pacemaker, over-prescribing narcotics, allowing unlicensed employees to practice medicine and nursing and more.

Currently a dozen pharmaceutical manufacturers publicly disclose their payments to physicians. As Chedekel points out, many do so as the result of legal settlements with the government. Beginning in September 2013, such payments will be posted online in accordance with the Physician Payment Sunshine Act, though it’s not yet clear exactly how the law will be implemented.

Chedekel notes that ProPublica’s Dollars for Docs investigation also has revealed payments to doctors who had been accused of professional misconduct, had been disciplined or lacked credentials.

AHCJ opposes taking taxpayer-funded research out of public’s reach

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

Congress should not roll back public access to taxpayer-funded research reports, AHCJ wrote in a letter to members of Congress (PDF).research-works-act-011212-1

AHCJ is opposing the Research Works Act (H.R. 3699), which would remove the public’s access to medical journal articles about publicly funded research. They are currently available for free to the public no more than 12 months after their publication in a medical journal.

“Our board of directors believes strongly that more transparency, not less, is vital for the public to assess how funds are spent and to benefit from and learn about the research underwritten by the government,” board president Charles Ornstein wrote in a letter to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. “The recently introduced Research Works Act is a step in the wrong direction.”

In the letter, AHCJ rebutted medical publishers’ assertions that the current system doesn’t work.

“We understand the objections of such publishers, who contribute editorial support and fear loss of income,” Ornstein wrote. “But it’s worth noting that much of that support comes from unpaid peer reviewers. And publishers still maintain a year of exclusivity, enabling them to reap profits during the time when interest in research is highest.”

In 2010, AHCJ voiced concerns about a similar bill, which did not become law.

AHCJ weighs in on FCC broadcast transparency proposal

Pia Christensen

About Pia Christensen

Pia Christensen (@AHCJ_Pia) is the managing editor/online services for AHCJ. She manages the content and development of healthjournalism.org, coordinates social media efforts of AHCJ and assists with the editing and production of association guides, programs and newsletters.

AHCJ is supporting a new effort to require broadcasters to report their funding sources online, because that would make it easier for people to recognize infomercials that masquerade as news.

The practice of broadcasting reports that, unbeknownst to viewers or listeners, are paid for by hospitals or other health-care organizations has long been a concern. For example, in 2010 a health reporter for a CBS affiliate in Los Angeles appeared in a segment interviewing a hospital’s chief medical officer – paid for by that hospital. The segment looked like news but the hospital considered it advertising. Viewers were left to guess.

Now, the Federal Communications Commission is proposing rules requiring that sponsorships be posted online in a searchable database. Currently, such information is available only to people who go to the station and ask to review paper files.

In comments filed Thursday with the FCC, AHCJ President Charles Ornstein wrote that AHCJ’s principles oppose giving favored treatment to advertisers and special interests, and having a personal or financial interest in a company being covered.

“Such practices are especially pernicious when applied to matters of health and health care – as they often are – because people make decisions affecting their well-being based on such reports,” Ornstein wrote. “The result is harm to individuals who make the wrong choice based on biased information and increased costs in the health care system that we all pay for.

“Such deceptiveness also threatens the credibility of all journalism. A bright line must be drawn between those who say what they’re paid to say and those who make an independent effort to find out what’s true.”

In 2008, AHCJ joined with the Society of Professional Journalists to provide guidelines opposing what has been called “pay for play.”

For more information about the FCC rules and the issues that prompted them, see this Washington Post story and this column in Columbia Journalism Review. The rules can be found here, and if you’d like to file your own comment, go here. (Use proceeding number 00-168.)

Ohio’s hospital transparency law under fire

Andrew Van Dam

About Andrew Van Dam

Andrew Van Dam of The Wall Street Journal previously worked at the AHCJ offices while earning his master’s degree at the Missouri School of Journalism, and he has blogged for Covering Health ever since.

Thanks are due to blogger and one-time hospital executive Paul Levy for drawing our attention to the Ohio hospital industry’s recent push to overturn much of the state’s recently passed transparency legislation.

The law required hospitals to post performance data, such as infection rates and patient satisfaction, on the Ohio Hospital Compare site.

According to Brandon Glenn’s report in the MedCity News, the hospital industry opposes the site, online since Jan. 1, 2010, because it serves the same purpose as the federal Hospital Compare site.

The OHA supports the new legislation… because it wants to remove “duplicative” reporting requirements on the state’s hospitals. Ohio hospitals already report the same data to a federal Hospital Compare website maintained for the public by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said OHA spokeswoman Tiffany Himmelreich.

The new legislation “doesn’t reduce reporting. It just eliminates reporting the same information to two different places,” she said. “We don’t want the public to feel that this is taking a step backwards in terms of data availability.”

For their part, consumer advocates say website maintenance is not an onerous burden, and that the hospital association’s push is part of a larger, statewide antitransparency trend.

As an interesting side note, Glenn found the Ohio Hospital Compare site to be rendered inoperable by apparent bugs on an initial visit but discovered that, after his inquiries to the state health department, the site was put into working order.