Judges’ comments: A commendable look at a major public employer in the coverage area with questionable business practices.
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
May 8, Aug. 4, Oct. 26, 2011
See this entry.
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Our investigation found that DaVita’s use of the anemia drug Epogen – a drug found to be dangerous at high levels – was higher than any other company when Medicare was reimbursing the kidney dialysis firm per dosage. Two weeks before the government stopped reimbursing per dosage, company protocol changed drastically – in a significant shift, levels of the drug were kept lower in kidney dialysis patients than ever before. Our reporting showed a direct correlation between the drug’s usage and its money-making potential. We also found DaVita used high amounts of the drug when it was profitable despite several key studies and FDA warnings that raised cause for concern.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Documents used for these stories included DaVita’s internal protocols for use of anemia drugs, which the newspaper obtained through anonymous sources. Also, we reviewed dozens of research papers on the safety of anemia drugs at various levels and transcripts from FDA hearings on the drug Epogen.
Explain types of human sources used.
Our sources included multiple experts on kidney dialysis, nephrologists who worked for DaVita in the past and nephrologists who did not, FDA experts and DaVita’s chief medical officer and legal counsel.
Results (if any).
The main investigative piece published May 8 led to several follow-up stories, including one detailing the work of a federal grand jury looking into another aspect of DaVita’s business practices. Our careful, deeply-sourced investigative piece earned us respect and trust from doctors who had worked for DaVita and were willing to leak us further information. Several investigations into the company – criminal and civil – continue.
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.
We have published several follow-up stories related to ongoing investigations by a federal grand jury and lawsuits against the company. Despite the pre-publication strife with company executives, including threats to withhold information in order to cause a reporting error and offers to organize a medical “symposium” for us, they did not challenge one fact in our stories.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
The company has high-powered attorneys and medical directors who tried to spin the story by sending us stacks and stacks of medical research by bike messenger. They were also masters at steering conversation and not answering the questions we were asking. Our advice is to persevere; we had to regroup after interviews with company executives and request follow-up sessions. Also, it was highly important we knew the material – every fact, name, medical explaination – backward and forward, especially when top editors and an attorney reviewed this story about one of Denver’s largest employers.