- http://c-hit.org/2012/07/28/40_of_high-prescribing_docs_get_pharma_perks/
- http://c-hit.org/2012/07/28/the_bottom_line_on_high-prescribers/
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
published: July 28, 2012
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
The Affordable Care Act requires pharmaceutical companies to publicly report all payments to physicians by September 2013. Some drug companies have already compiled — but few consumers know that the information is available or how to access it. What this story did is disclose for the first time for CT consumers * how many doctors in Connecticut are high-prescribers of certain psychotropic and pain medications, (108) * the cost of written prescriptions (hundreds of thousands of dollars in some cases) * how many of these doctors received payments from drug companies (at least 43) * and the amounts that the doctors received from the drug companies ($30,000 – $99,000) It also reported that only 3 doctors on the high-prescribing drug list have been disciplined by the state Medical Examining Board.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
The first thing that Lisa did was submit a FOI to the Connecticut Department of Social Services for the report sent to U.S. Sen. Charles Grassley — who had requested a list of top Medicaid prescribers of certain psychotropic and pain medications. After obtaining the list, Lisa reviewed at least 6 drug company websites (and went back several years) to check each doctor on the list to determine if he or she had received any payments or perks (lunches, etc.) She compiled the payments, analyzed it and from there did her reporting. It took several weeks to complete.
Explain types of human sources used.
Lisa called every doctor named in her story. (Not the most pleasant of conversations — in some instances. But she had to do that.) She also spoke to CT DSS officials, a spokesperson from Grassley’s office, Dr. Carl Elliott, a professor at the University of Minnesota, who has written about physician ties to drug companies. The sources provided context for the story.
Results:
When Lisa questioned DSS about the high-prescribing docs, the agency got back to her a week later and said that department’s behavioral health contractor would conduct “an analysis of psychotropic medication prescribing patterns for all Medicaid patients.” Lisa plans on following up on this.
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 corrections or clarifications.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
A lot was reported by national media on Sen. Grassley’s concerns about high-prescribing doctors. What Lisa did is take it the next step and FOI the Dept. of Social Services for the information that they gave him. From there, she produced a high-impact story that no one else had reported.