- http://bit.ly/TNWw0a
- http://bit.ly/UnZr3m
- http://medicarenewsgroup.com/context/understanding-medicare-blog/understanding-medicare-blog/2012/06/28/demo-projects-innovation-center-avoid-chaos-with-supreme-court-ruling
- http://medicarenewsgroup.com/context/understanding-medicare-blog/understanding-medicare-blog/2012/06/28/fears-of-medicare-advantage-catastrophe-laid-to-rest-with-aca-decision
Provide names of other journalists involved.
Donald Sjoerdsma, Kimber Solana, Helen Adamopoulos, Alison Szot, Peter Jacobson
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
June 28, 2012 and June 29, 2012
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
While the Supreme Court hearings on the Affordable Care Act focused on the controversial individual mandate and the Medicaid expansion, numerous Medicare provisions in the law hung in the balance. If the law were overturned, many facets of the program would have been thrown into uncertainty and any progress made as a result of the act stopped in its tracks. This series examined the outcome of the SCOTUS ruling on the Medicare program, looking at the issue through the lenses of various aspects of the program.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Followed live SCOTUSblog transcripts of hearings; reviewed online orders and case filings, read and aggregated industry and political statements on ruling.
Explain types of human sources used.
Timothy McBride, associate dean for public health at Washington University; John Hsu, M.D., director of the Mongan Institute for Health Policy’s Program for Clinical Economics and Policy Analysis; Lee Goldberg, vice president for health policy at the National Academy of Social Insurance; Marianne Udow-Phillips, director of the Michigan-based Center for Healthcare Research and Transformation; Peter Jacobson, health law expert at the University of Michigan School of Public Health;
Results:
The outcome of the historic case meant many provisions directly impacting Medicare, the future of America’s health care system and the country’s public health remained in place. But with Republicans vowing to overturn the law through Congressional action, the White House’s victory might be only a temporary reprieve for the controversial law.
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.
N/A
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Think through all of the various scenarios that could play out in the wake of a Supreme Court ruling, looking beyond the ruling itself and digging into how it will play out month by month, year by year. Think about: How a Supreme Court ruling on a Health Policy law would impact the pace of implementation? The likelihood various other stakeholders could take new action to halt or overturn a law in the wake of a SCOTUS ruling? How the ruling could impact the politics of the next Congressional and Presidential races? What the ruling means for the future of Health Policy? If other stakeholders could succeed in overturning the law, what would happen to less controversial aspects of the law? Would they be folded into new legislation or tossed out as a baby with the bathwater?