Provide names of other journalists involved.
None
List date(s) this work was published or aired.
March 13, 2011 Stashes of Cash Put State Health Insurers on Spot July 7, 2011 Health Board Stacked? July 21, 2011 HCA pact sows doubt
Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
March 13 Stashes of Cash — used annual state insurance reports and company documents to reveal two major Colorado nonprofit health insurers were hoarding cash surpluses much larger than required, while consumer advocates want them to spend the money on public health as payback for their nonprofit advantages. July 7 Health Board Stacked — The key state element of health care reform, the health insurance exchange board, was stacked with insurance industry executives and other pro-industry members with previously undisclosed ties to each other and to the for-profit insurance industry as a whole, jeopardizing the independence and effectiveness of the board for consumers. July 21 — The $1.45 billion sale by a health care foundation of its half-interest in Denver’s largest hospitals was not the boon for consumers and the public as previously touted; instead, without significant restrictions the pact could have threatened charity care, employment, Medicare and Medicaid participation and important graduate medical education residencies.
Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Stashes of Cash — insurance industry records, state reports and reviews of insurance rates and surplus statements, consumer advocacy analysis of surplus issues in many states Health Board Stacked — Reviews of extensive internet records and company annual and quarterly reports to reveal executive ties, private board memberships, past financial transactions, and announcements of contracts as obscure but important as Information Technology providers between connected insurance companies. HCA Pact Sows Doubt — State freedom of information request to attorney general’s office for correspondence and board minutes, past joint operating agreements, etc., to reveal the weakness of the proposed deal in terms of consumer and public health protections; extensive library searches of past HCA government fines, interviews with hospital consultants on how similar pacts in other states were altered for the public benefit once given public scrutiny.
Explain types of human sources used.
Insurance commissioners and deputy insurance commissioners; consumer advocates and analysts of health insurance balance sheets; hospital consultants; former board members of foundations upset about proposed mergers; corporate communications spokesmen and women; attorney general open records officers; current members of boards of directors, chief financial officers and general counsels; legal aid consumer advocates in multiple states; insurance company CEOs; advisors to Colorado governor on health insurance exchange, etc.
Results:
Stashes of cash — state insurance commissioner stepped up its review of high nonprofit surpluses and called insurance company CEOs in for explanations and consultations, for a better accounting of how they would spend their surplus for public benefit. Health board stacked — public scrutiny forced health insurance exchange board to deepen its conflict of interest policies and strengthen protections against board members voting on contracts they would have an interest in; consumer and legal groups have since attended and Tweeted every board meeting to a wide audience down to the smallest IT contract and staff appointment in order to root out any other potential conflicts of interest. HCA Pact Sows Doubt — Denver Post scrutiny and repeated followups, including repeated open records requests, interviews with disgruntled board members and doctors, and publicity of legal hearings helped put pressure on the attorney general to significantly alter the proposed pact to provide stronger and longer protections against closing hospitals, ending Medicare or Medicaid care, dropping charitable care or graduate medical programs, or otherwise absolving the foundation of responsibility for watchdogging the state’s largest hospitals for the public good.
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.
See above, we have continued to follow all of these stories with subsequent articles, and extensive interviews whether they lead to further coverage or not.
Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
You can never go wrong by following the money in policy questions. If you can see the public’s eyes glazing over in your mind as you write a policy story, keep asking yourself who is controlling the largest pots of money in a given story, and where that money flows as a result of the policy change. That’s how you can always connect with readers and make things simple enough to continue influencing policy with good information.