About AHCJ: General News
More journalism groups join effort to restore access to National Practitioner Data Bank Date: 09/21/11
See an interactive timeline of the National Practitioner Data Bank controversy.
Oct. 2: Former Practitioner Data Banks official says HRSA ‘erroneously interpreting the law’
Oshel's letter & statement (PDF)
Letter to Sebelius & Wakefield (PDF)
Sept. 28: Journalists turn to Sebelius for access to National Practitioner Data Bank file
Letter to Sebelius (PDF)
Sept. 22: Agency declines to restore public data
Letter from HRSA (PDF)
See how reporters have used NPDB’s public use file to expose gaps in oversight of doctors
Sept. 21: More journalism groups join effort, send letters to Congress to restore access
Letter to members of Congress (PDF)
Articles, editorials about public access to the NPDB public use file (PDF)
Sept. 15, 2011: AHCJ, other journalism organizations protest removal of data from public website
HRSA letter to Bavley (PDF)
Get the NPDB public use file
Investigative Reporters and Editors, working with AHCJ and the Society of Professional Journalists, has posted the data for download, free to the public.
Three additional journalism organizations have joined the campaign calling for the Obama administration to restore access to a public version of the National Practitioner Data Bank. And letters are going out to key members of Congress asking for their assistance.
The National Association of Science Writers, Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, and National Freedom of Information Coalition have signed the letter, along with the Association of Health Care Journalists, Investigative Reporters & Editors, and the Society of Professional Journalists. The groups have more than 15,000 members.
The U.S. Health Resources and Services Administration removed the Public Use File (PUF) from the data bank website earlier this month because officials believe it was used to identify physicians inappropriately.
The National Practitioner Data Bank is a confidential system that compiles malpractice payouts, hospital discipline and regulatory sanctions against doctors and other health professionals. For years, HRSA has made a public version of it available without identifying information about the health providers.
"The Public Use File, while it didn't identify doctors by name or address, provided invaluable information about the functioning of state medical boards and hospital disciplinary systems," said the letter from the groups to members of Congress. "Reporters for years have used the data to identify holes in their states' regulatory systems that have led to patient harm. As a result of these stories, states have enacted new legislation and medical boards have taken steps to investigate problem doctors."
The groups also provided the representatives and senators with details of major stories written with the assistance of the Public Use File and descriptions of the changes that resulted.
Finally, the letter once again expressed concern that HRSA sent a threatening letter on Aug. 26 to Alan Bavley, a health reporter at the Kansas City Star. The letter, signed by Division of Professional Data Banks director Cynthia Grubbs, said that Bavley could be subject to a civil monetary penalty of up to $11,000 if he identified a physician based upon confidential information in the data bank. The threat came even though other reporters have done the same thing for years without penalty.
In news reports, HRSA acknowledged that the letter--and the agency's subsequent decision to remove the Public Use File--was prompted by a single complaint: from the lawyer of a doctor who was the subject of Bavley's story.
Although HRSA said in some news reports that it will not pursue sanctions against Bavley, he has not received an apology.
"Without stories written by our members, it's fair to say that some unsafe doctors would continue to be practicing with clean licenses and patient protection legislation in several states likely would not have been enacted," the letter said.