1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
"You're In Bad Hands" by Alan Prendergast.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Feb. 11, 2010
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
"You're in Bad Hands," along with the sidebar "Fines and Denials: A Brief History of Time," published Feb. 11, 2010, examines a key issue in the national debate over affordable health care: the insurance industry practice of rescinding health-care policies over various pretexts to avoid paying costly claims. It follows a particularly dramatic and significant case to its stunning conclusion. Jennifer Latham was severely injured when her car was broadsided by a meth dealer fleeing police; her insurance company refused to pay her hospital bills, claiming that she'd failed to fully disclose health information on an application submitted months before the accident. After four years of costly litigation, the case finally made it to a courtroom, where the insurance company's dubious handling of a brain-damaged customer and its relentless "bottom-line" approach to rescission were exposed, resulting in one of the largest punitive damage verdicts in Colorado history. Prendergast was the only journalist to cover the trial and presented exclusive interviews with Latham, jurors and attorneys, as well as detailed reporting on the mounting tide of evidence that established the company's unethical use of "post-claim underwriting" to deny claims and boost profits.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Court records and exhibits, including extensive medical records and internal company memoranda, were important sources, supplemented by congressional testimony, news reports, corporate websites, and other material available online. No FOI requests were required, but some state records dealing with insurance industry regulation and fines proved valuable, too.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Interviewed plaintiff and her attorneys, jurors, family members and other witnesses as well as a corporate spokesman.
6. Results (if any).
The article was republished or linked to by various sources, from other newspapers in the Village Voice Media network to health care advocacy sites and legal forums. Columbia Journalism Review singled out the piece for a "laurel," calling its extensive reporting "a rarity" in current coverage of health-care issues. The notoriety of the case may have also contributed to the decision by Assurant Health to quietly settle the case after initially vowing to appeal the verdict and to undertake a formal review of its rescission process.
7. Follow-up (if any). Have you run a correction or clarification on the report or has anyone come forward to challenge its accuracy? If so, please explain.
No challenges on accuracy. One follow-up story dealt with documents released in another case involving Assurant that suggested its practice of targeting certain types of clients for rescission was more extensive than previously reported.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Educate yourself in the subtleties of state insurance regulation and local rules for issuing and rescinding health-care policies. It turns out that states differ greatly in their approach to regulating the industry, disclosure requirements to clients, and the window of time available for companies to deny claims or repudiate policies altogether. With the evolving battle over new federal mandates about who can be excluded and for what, the situation could get murkier rather than clearer.