1. Provide the title of your story or series and the names of the journalists involved.
"The Best Medicine? Health Policy By Comparison" by Rebecca Adams.
2. List date(s) this work was published or aired.
Aug. 16, 2010.
3. Provide a brief synopsis of the story or stories, including any significant findings.
Congress and the Obama administration are pumping billions of dollars into comparative effectiveness research. There has been some debate over it, but it usually revolves around the question of whether the research will be used in rationing health care. That vastly oversimplifies a much more complex issue. In the four dozen people interviewed for this article, staff writer Rebecca Adams found remarkable consensus: whether they're supporters of the research or skeptics of it, the truth is no one is quite sure how comparative effectiveness research will be integrated into the current system, and everyone is trying to fit it into their vision of the future of health care. This was true whether she was talking to supporters of the research or skeptics of it — health care providers, government officials, research scientists or consumer advocates. This article and its sidebars, about 10,000 words in all, examined three central questions: " How will the results factor in coverage decisions by insurance companies and government health programs? " How will the results of broad-based studies of large populations sort with the movement toward personalized medicine? " Will doctors and patients, and the political establishment, accept the research? The bottom line is that the answers to these questions may need to be answered by the government after the research is well under way – meaning that much of the policy on comparative effectiveness is lagging the investment. Rebecca's stories were accompanied by sidebars and case studies that correlated with each of the three central questions.
4. Explain types of documents, data or Internet resources used. Were FOI or public records act requests required? How did this affect the work?
Among the information she examined were federal budget documents, the scientific literature related to comparative effectiveness research (CER), information about the history of CER, documents used to make advisory committee recommendations in a state (Washington) that uses CER to guide coverage decisions, internal federal agency documents and data from companies involved in the research. None of the documents required a FOI query but a significant number of them were provided to me after she requested them.
5. Explain types of human sources used.
Rebecca conducted nearly four dozen interviews with policy analysts, health industry executives, scientists, state and federal officials, lobbyists, and members of Congress.
6. Results (if any).
We received a range of unsolicited comments praising on the package.
7. 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 had only one quibble. The president of the Personalized Medicine Coalition took issue with our characterization of the group as one that "receives funding from the drug and device industries." He did not dispute that PMC receives funding from the drug and device industries but wanted to made point out that it receives funding from other sources as well.
8. Advice to other journalists planning a similar story or project.
Be persistent, don't be afraid to explore issues that have not been widely covered before. Follow the money. There are billions of dollars going into this initiative, yet few people have really tried to tackle it the way we have.