Share your thoughts on database design for tracking pharma payments to doctors

Curtis Brainard of Columbia Journalism Review reminds reporters that their input is needed on the design of a federal database that will track payments from drug and device makers to doctors.

Investigations and databases, such as Dollars for Docs by Propublica, have revealed payments to doctors who had been accused of professional misconduct, had been disciplined or lacked credentials. Researchers have found evidence that payments can influence doctors’ treatment decisions (PDF).

Provisions in the Affordable Care Act mean that companies will have to report such payments to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, which will post the data on a public website. CMS has asked for “comments on how to structure this Web site for ultimate usability.”

There are a number of ways to submit your comments, detailed in this Federal Register announcement. Comments must be received by 5 p.m. EST on Feb. 17.

Journalists should learn about study design, evidence-based medicine

Earlier this month I saw on Twitter one of those collisions between journalism and wonkdom. Maybe “collision” isn’t the right word; maybe it was some kind of interspecies mating dance. Anyhow, the gist of it was that we, journalists, don’t know how to evaluate evidence and someone should step in and teach us.

So I stuck in my two cents (or, rather, my two tweets) pointing out that, yes, there is a need for training and, yes, there are places to get the training, including through AHCJ. (See more after the Twitter discussion.)

So, before I remind you about those resources, just a word on why we need them:

On the surface, it may seem that AHCJ houses two kinds of health journalists – those of us who report on the science side of things, and those of us who are more in a policy world. But some of us do both – and research/evidence/evaluating science are also becoming an increasing part of the underpinnings of policy beats. Value-based purchasing, comparative effectiveness, benefits of screening/prevention, quality measures, outcome research … these are all part of the health care reform story.

That doesn’t mean all of us must become  economists/biologists/epidemiologists/statisticians. Old fashioned reporting – including calling experts who can help us make sense of numbers  – is certainly part of the job. But it’s also good to have some sense of what the experts are talking about, what these numbers mean. Why a study on N=16 patients doesn’t really tell us that much. What do we mean by “endpoints,” “outcomes,” “progression?” What’s relative versus absolute risk? Etc.

So for those of you who haven’t  taken a cyber-stroll through the AHCJ website, take five minutes and check out tip sheets, resources and slim guides. Of particular relevance to this discussion is Gary Schwitzer’s slim guide, “Covering Medical Research.”  There’s also a tip sheet/PDF presentation by Schwitzer on “Understanding studies.” His Health News Watchdog blog is also useful.

Reporting on Health (at USC) also has a lot of useful resources, and this essay “Tricks of the Trade: Finding Nuggets in the River of Medical Studies” is a good entry point to understanding data. It’s by Lauran Neergard, a longtime Associated Press health and science writer.

In addition,  there’s a course called Medicine in the Media, sponsored by National Institute of Health’s Office of Medical Applications of Research.  It’s free, but you have to apply, and there’s not room for everyone.  I know of at least one recent summer (the only one I, personally, could have managed the timing!) it wasn’t given, and as of now, there’s nothing on the website about this year. But you can sign up for email notifications, so if you are interested, do that now because the deadline in past years has been early.

The Poynter Institute has some online modules, too. Lots of the focus is on new media and writing and story telling, but there is a math basics refresher for those of you who haven’t taken it since the SATs, some online Excel training, and a unit on reporting on nonprofits