Reporter digs into nonprofit hospital CEO pay
Filed under: Health data, Health journalism, Hospitals, Public records, Studies
At The Atlanta Journal-Constitution’s M.B. Pell has assembled a look at CEO pay at local nonprofit hospitals. Pell hits hard at the top of the story, pointing out that top executives are pulling in ever-growing six- and seven-digit salaries in a time of cutbacks and job losses, and demonstrating that the state loses millions in tax revenue thanks to the hospitals’ exempt status.
It’s the sort of meaty accountability work that we expect to see on a tax filing-based story. Slightly more surprising? Pell endeavored to complete the picture with a healthy dose of perspective, reminding readers that in urban areas like Atlanta, even nonprofit hospitals are often complicated billion-dollar conglomerates. In Georgia, Pell writes, “hospitals report to 27 state and federal agencies and engage in multimillion-dollar building projects. The larger hospital systems have billions in revenue and are among the largest employers in their communities. Many also operate for-profit subsidiaries.” Those “billions” provide valuable context when discussing a $600,000 pay package.
Hospital executives and industry experts consider the examination of salaries a titillating issue for the public, but a subject lacking in substance.
Even if salaries were cut dramatically, the savings would not add significantly to hospitals’ charitable missions, Parker said.
Tax exempt hospitals in the metro area provided $932 million in charitable care in 2009, according to an analysis of financial survey data reported to the state by hospitals. The hospitals spent $61 million to pay officers, directors, trustees and key employees, tax forms show.
Of the uncompensated care, nearly a third, or $287.5 million, was provided by one hospital, Grady Memorial. Grady CEO Michael Young, who left the hospital in June, made $833,646 in 2009.
But for-profit hospitals in the Atlanta area pay taxes and they provided uncompensated care totaling $87 million in 2009, according to financial survey data.
For a counterpoint, Pell turned to a few outspoken patient advocates and a 2009 study conducted by University of Connecticut researchers. It’s another data point that demonstrates the depth of Pell’s research.
CEOs of nonprofit hospitals in Connecticut who increased the number of beds at their facilities by 10 percent typically got pay increases of just under 8 percent, shows a study of nonprofit hospitals by two professors at the University of Connecticut.
A 10 percent increase in the amount of charity care provided, however, typically resulted in a 1.5 percent decrease in the CEO’s pay, the study shows.
Pell’s story takes the national picture into account, but if you’re just looking to get up to speed on the national debate over nonprofit hospitals, charity care and tax exemption as it relates to executive pay, I recommend you scroll down to the final subhead: “Eyeing tax exemption.”
Journalist compares U.K. science writers, American health reporters
When the Association of British Science Writers announced the nominees for their 2011 Science Writers’ Awards, Guardian science blogger Martin Robbins noted a familiar pattern.
Of the 12 places on the shortlists for science writing, 6 went to New Scientist, 1 each to Nature and the BMJ, and 1 each to the Guardian and the Independent The final two places went to a freelancer and the website SciDev.Net. That means that newspapers combined took just two spots, while specialist science publications took eight. Meanwhile, the TV shortlist was occupied by BBC 3, BBC 4, and BBC 2, while the radio shortlist featured BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 4 again, and, yes, BBC Radio 4.
A lists of nominees from earlier in the decade reveals a similar pattern of “Near-dominance of broadcast science by the BBC, while specialist publications competing with a dwindling group of broadsheet newspapers for the literary prizes,” Robbins writes. To better understand this apparent one-sidedness, Robbins talked to ABSW chair Connie St. Louis, who suggested that U.K. newspapers have succumbed to a form of churnalism and “communication,” because they simply don’t have the resources for in-depth work like that which occurs at the BBC or the specialty outlets. Here’s St. Louis:
I have this thesis which is… science journalists have forgotten how to be journalists. They’re actually science communicators, and they go into the job and… the job was to tell you what science was doing and help you understand science, and I think that’s an incredibly important function, but don’t call yourself a science journalist if that’s what you’re doing, call yourself a science blogger, call yourself a science communicator, but if you’re going to call yourself a journalist then behave like a journalist, dig for stories, ask questions of science, ask questions of scientists, look at numbers, look at figures, and do what journalism does.
St. Louis then goes on to compare U.K. science journalism (somewhat unfavorably) to the relatively higher level of scrutiny faced by American health journalists, scrutiny brought about thanks in part to a few key thought leaders.
We’re always explaining new cures, explaining new science, but where are the guys who are really digging down, where are our Ivan Oranskys, where are our Gary Schweitzers [sic], we don’t have them. It’s all very much “here’s a new cancer drug”, and I’m not knocking that, it’s really important, but actually we’re in a very deficit model of journalism at the moment.
Related
- Health news “infoxication” - info fatigue syndrome - not just a US phenomenon: reflections on European health journalism conference
- Storify: European Health Care Journalists - Coventry 2011
Regulations failed to slow cosmetic surgery deaths
Bob LaMendola and Sally Kestin, of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel, report that regulations put in place a decade ago have not reduced the number of deaths related to cosmetic surgery in Florida.
They report that at least 32 people have died in the past 10 years soon after having cosmetic surgery – including ”four South Florida mothers in their 30s who went under the knife in the past two years,” according to state incident reports and police records. The causes of death among the 32 people included poor medical care, reactions to anesthesia and heart and breathing problems.
A Sun-Sentinel series in 1998 by Fred Schulte and Jenni Bergal revealed 34 deaths in the preceding 12 years, some of which were “blamed on lengthy surgeries involving multiple procedures at doctors’ offices that were not then being regulated.” (Full disclosure: I was responsible for the online presentation of that series.)
Following the series, the Florida medical board put in place rules that limited lengthy operations, liposuction procedures and overnight stays and included regular inspections.
LaMendola and Kestin point out that the atmosphere around cosmetic surgery has changed in the intervening years:
One reason for the continued deaths may be a huge growth in cosmetic surgeries, but some surgeons, malpractice attorneys and industry experts say problems persist, and the state needs to do more.
Reporters find heart devices skipped FDA’s more rigorous approval process
Deborah L. Shelton and Jason Grotto of the Chicago Tribune couldn’t help but wonder: How does a medical device get implanted into patients without first getting FDA approval?
Tricuspid valve in a model heart. (Photo by robswatski via Flickr)
That question led to their two-day series in late May that reported for the first time that certain heart valve repair devices had been “down-classed” from class III to class II, a regulatory category that required that they undergo less scrutiny, even though the devices are permanently implanted and life-sustaining.
One of the annuloplasty rings had been stitched into the hearts of at least 700 patients in Chicago and elsewhere without going through proper channels. In fact, even though the company could have submitted both rings for clearance through a less rigorous regulatory pathway, it didn’t even do that. In these two cases, the process was skipped in its entirety.
In this article for AHCJ members, the pair explains how they reported the story, including finding documents and persuading affected patients to speak on the record.
Pushback against Medtronic’s Infuse hits boiling point
Filed under: Conflicts of interest, Health journalism, Hot Health Headline, Pharmaceuticals, Public records, Studies
Medtronic’s ongoing woes with its blockbuster spine fusion product Infuse have been a staple of Covering Health for as long as we can remember, but things have reached a crescendo this week.
The first blow came with the publication of John Fauber’s in-depth report (read it at the Journal Sentinel or in MedPage Today) on the conflicts of interest and regulatory weak points that kept Infuse going strong despite serious questions about medical outcomes.
The next day, The Spine Journal made the unprecedented move of dedicating an entire issue to repudiating the failures of science and medical journal publication that made Infuse what it is today. For the record, both those links point straight to journal press releases. If you’re looking for more context, you’ll find it in Fauber’s followup to The Spine Journal’s Infuse issue. HealthNewsReview editor and publisher Gary Schwitzer also blogged his take on the releases.
Fauber’s Medtronic coverage is a joint project between the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and MedPage Today.
-
Awards for Excellence in Health Care JournalismDeadline: Feb. 3
- How I did it: Falsified charts in nursing homes linked to patient care
- Access Denied: Looking at a lack of health care availability
- Transparency & medical errors: Public reporting of patient harm is a potent force
- Focus on freelancing: Tips for buying liability insurance
- Why do some patients get stuck in hospitals for weeks, months?
- Investigate health professionals and the boards that regulate them
- Presidents of AHCJ, SPJ call for more openness from Obama administration
