Officials were a no-show for panel on government transparency, science news
Six journalists and an empty chair gathered at the National Press Club yesterday for a discussion about whether the Obama administration has lived up to early promises of openness and transparency in science news.
Photo by epSos.de via Flickr
Despite multiple invitations from Curtis Brainard, science editor for the Columbia Journalism Review, the chair designated for a representative from the Obama administration remained empty. It was symbolic of the relationship reporters say they have with many public information officers in the government.
We are hoping for an archived version of the webcast but, in the meantime, this Storified collection of tweets hits the high points, with suggestions for journalists and those working in government to improve the relationship.
The panel, which included AHCJ board member Felice Freyer, was cosponsored by the National Press Club, Columbia Journalism Review, Society of Environmental Journalists and Reporters Without Borders.
Earlier: Panel of science, health journalists will discuss government transparency in webcast panel
HHS releases guidelines for handling media requests
The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has adopted a set of guidelines on how it will provide information to the media. The guidelines reaffirm that employees’ contacts with the media must be cleared by a public affairs office, but call on media officials to respond promptly and accurately.
AHCJ had no part in writing the guidelines but had pushed for a media policy that would promote consistency among all HHS agencies and allow reporters to know the ground rules.
Although the guidelines are in force, Richard Sorian, HHS assistant secretary for public affairs, called them a “living document” and said he welcomed feedback.
AHCJ members are encouraged to read the six-page document and share their thoughts with Felice Freyer, Right to Know Committee chair at felice.freyer@cox.net.
Among the key features are:
- An emphasis on timely response and respect for reporters’ deadlines
- Putting bloggers on equal footing with mainstream journalists
- Encouraging, but not requiring, HHS employees to consent to interviews
- Requiring that employees arrange such interviews through media offices
- Allowing employees who speak at conferences or other public events to answer reporters’ questions at that time
- Specifying that “media interviews should be on-the-record and attributable to the person speaking to the media representative, unless an alternate attribution arrangement is mutually agreed upon in advance.”
Although employees are required to arrange their contacts with the media through the public affairs offices, they do not need to seek approval for scientific, technical or policy articles or commentaries written for peer-reviewed journals.
The guidelines also extend to all HHS agencies the policy on embargoes recently adopted by the Food and Drug Administration. That policy permits reporters to share embargoed materials with sources, provided the sources promise to honor the embargo.
The guidelines do not state whether a media representative must or should listen in on interviews with HHS employees. They also do not address whether reporters from large and small media outlets should be treated equally.
Sorian released the new guidelines Wednesday, after the second quarterly phone conversation between AHCJ and HHS public affairs officers. Freyer and AHCJ President Charles Ornstein spoke with Sorian and others as part of a continuing effort to improve HHS responsiveness to reporters’ requests for information.
Asked whether reporters would ever be allowed to contact and interview federal employees on their own, Sorian said that HHS has no plans to change the policy requiring interview requests to be cleared by a public affairs office. But he emphasized that public affairs officers are supposed to be helpful and should not “shape the interview.” If a reporter feels that press officer has been heavy handed, “we definitely want to hear about that,” he said. Sorian can be reached at Richard.Sorian@hhs.gov.
FDA creates embargo policy in response to reporter concerns
The Food and Drug Administration has adopted a policy on embargoes that permits reporters to share embargoed information with outside sources, provided the sources agree to uphold the embargo.
The policy explicitly supports embargoes as a way for reporters to add depth and detail to their stories, and conforms to common practice among medical journals and other sources of complex information.
The policy was shared with AHCJ this week after complaints from the organization earlier this year. In January, the FDA barred reporters from interviewing experts about new regulations on medical devices until the embargo lifted. AHCJ wrote to the FDA that such an approach created obstacles to serious journalism.
In an embargo, the group releasing information chooses the time and date that it will be made public, and reporters get an advance look as long as they agree to delay publication or broadcast until that time. Reporters are willing to do this because it allows time digest the information and seek comments from experts.
In a letter this week to AHCJ, the FDA outlined its policy going forward:
“A journalist may share embargoed material provided by the FDA with non-journalists or third parties to obtain quotes or opinions prior to an embargo lift provided that the reporter secures agreement from the third-party to uphold the embargo.”
The letter, from Meghan H. Scott, FDA’s acting associate commissioner for external affairs, said the FDA did not previously have a policy on embargoed news. After AHCJ’s inquiry, she wrote, the media staff met with AHCJ members, other journalists, and editors of medical and scientific journals as it worked to develop a policy.
“The FDA is committed to a culture of openness in its interaction with the news media and the public,” Scott wrote to Charles Ornstein, AHCJ president, and Felice Freyer, chair of AHCJ’s Right to Know Committee.
She specified that the FDA may provide embargoed information when:
- the issue is not related to regulatory or enforcement issues and does not contain confidential, commercial information; and
- the subject is complex or technical and early access to materials and subject matter experts will help reporters prepare their articles in a timely, accurate manner with the context needed to understand the material.
“We’re grateful that the FDA media staff took the time to study the issue and develop a suitable policy,” Freyer said. “The results are clear rules that are reasonable and workable – and a step forward in improving relations between the FDA and the media.”
AHCJ joins objections to proposed cuts to federal transparency websites
Filed under: Government, Health policy, Public records
All eyes are on the federal budget negotiations today, with most attention focused on whether or not an impasse will lead to a government shutdown. But thousands of people have expressed concern over proposed budget reductions to a number of data transparency and government accountability programs.
The Sunlight Foundation says, “The budget for Data.gov,USASpending.gov, the IT Dashboard, and other data transparency and government accountability programs funded through the Electronic Government Fund would be slashed from $34 million to $2 million if the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act passed by the House or considered by the Senate became law.”
The Association of Health Care Journalists has added its name to a letter organized by the Sunlight Foundation objecting to the proposed cuts and asking that Congress sustain funding for the programs.
Those interested in signing the letter or otherwise contacting congressional representatives to weigh in on the topic can visit the Sunlight Foundation’s page.
Public Letter: Save Online Transparency Programs (updated 4/2/2011)
AHCJ pushes for access to publicly funded research
Filed under: Government, Health data, Health journalism, Public records, Studies
The strong public interest in “direct, free and full text access to research articles” prompted the Association of Health Care Journalists to send comments to the House Oversight and Government Reform committee.
The letter [PDF] was in support of full-text access to the fruits of publicly-funded research to members of Congress considering H.R.5037 – Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009. One section of that bill would require researchers who receive funding from federal agencies to provide free online public access to final peer-reviewed manuscripts or published versions as soon as practicable, but not later than six months after publication in peer-reviewed journals.
While AHCJ did not take a position on the specifics of the bill, the group highlighted the strong public interest in “direct, free and full text access to research articles,” noting that for journalists to be able to provide readers and audiences with accurate and comprehensive reporting, they need to be able to see the full details of research reports, not merely the highlights contained in abstracts or news releases.
“The fundamental principle at issue is the public’s right to examine both the evidence produced by research studies and the methods employed by researchers. When the researchers are supported by taxpayers, the public’s claim is even stronger,” AHCJ’s statement read in part.
The statement took note of the concerns of some publishers who fear the mandate could cut into their income, while also pointing out that other publishers already provide free online access to the full text of research articles within six months of publication.
Related:
Bill would require public access to research
July 1 marks a big day for health reform
Scott Hensley, on NPR’s Shots blog, has a nice rundown of the health care provisions that go into effect today, including the so-called tanning tax, high-risk insurance pools and the new healthcare.gov website.
For reporters writing about the tanning tax, we remind you to look carefully at the numbers and be sure to accurately report the data behind this policy decision. Much of the reporting we’ve seen cites numbers presented by the World Health Organization: “use of sunbeds before the age of 35 is associated with a 75% increase in the risk of melanoma.” But that statistic represents the relative risk, while the absolute risk – the chance of something happening – is far different. Reuters Health Editor Ivan Oransky, M.D., has written about the subject for Covering Health:
“You can see how if someone is lobbying to ban something – or, in the case of a new drug, trying to show a dramatic effect – they would probably want to use the relative risk.”
For a detailed explanation, be sure to read Oransky’s post about the statistics on tanning.
If you’re reporting on the high-risk insurance pools that go into effect today, don’t miss our tip sheet on the topic, with story tips, suggestions and resources from four experience reporters. Apart from being a policy story, it’s of great interest to all your readers, viewers or listeners who have pre-existing conditions and are struggling to find coverage.
Another tip sheet addresses what needs to be covered now that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act has been passed and begins to be implemented.
A recent briefing, “Reporting on health reform between now and 2014,” offers further advice and resources from some top Washington, D.C.-based journalists on implementation deadlines, how to cover local issues, Medicare reimbursement rates, what reporters should look for in their states and more.
PEJ: Reform coverage centered on politics
Filed under: Government, Health care reform, Health journalism
Six basic facts about how the media handled coverage of health care reform have been distilled from a study of more than 5,500 health care stories in the mainstream media from June 2009 through March 2010.
A new report from the Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism finds that coverage was dominated by the politics of the debate and there was far less coverage of how the health care system works. Some other findings:
First, health care coverage followed a roller coaster trajectory, spiking dramatically at times and plunging at other points. And the media platforms best suited for ideological debate proved to be especially interested in the subject—particularly the liberal talk media. In the war of words over health care, however, the opposition seems to have prevailed, as their terms and ideas showed up far more often than the key ideas of supporters of the Democrats’ reform plans. The media also seemed to focus far more on the politics and the passions that drove the debate than the health care system it was trying to reform.
Finally, President Obama’s presence as a key figure in health care coverage vacillated markedly over the 10 months studied, lending credence to the idea that he did, at times, lose control of the narrative.
The report’s conclusion tells us that, in the heat of the battle, when politics became most partisan, the media focused on those aspects rather than the system. It points out that while some outlets did good work, “the public seemed consistently confused by the health care debate and had a difficult time sorting out fact from fiction.”
Tell us about your access to federal officials
Have you recently tried to get information from the federal government or arrange an interview with a federal official?
AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee is calling on journalists to report their experiences, as part of a continuing effort to pry open the doors of the federal government. We’re looking for recent anecdotes about journalists’ experiences with public information officers, especially at the Department of Health and Human Services and any of the agencies that are part of it (e.g., CDC, FDA, CMS etc.).
Freyer
Please write to Felice J. Freyer, Right-to-Know Committee chair, at felice.freyer@cox.net, about problems you have encountered, including mandates to clear interviews with the press office, slow responses, refused interviews, burdensome requirements (such as written questions and answers only), extreme time limitations on interviews, PIOs listening in on your conversations, or anything else that made it hard for you to get the information and quotes that you needed in time. Additionally, do you know whether your requests have been sent to HHS or the White House? What effect did that have?
For background on the committee’s work so far, see these links:
- Major journalism groups demand agency end newsgathering constraints
- AHCJ calls on new administration to improve access to federal experts
FDA to track media calls, develop policy
The FDA’s Transparency Task Force released 21 draft proposals [PDF] as part of its transparency initiative today. A just-released Perspective article in the New England Journal of Medicine [PDF] discusses the proposals.
A section of the report addresses concerns raised by AHCJ’s Right-to-Know Committee about the agency’s requirements that journalists and FDA employees notify or obtain permission from an agency official to conduct an interview. A letter sent in December to the FDA’s transparency committee, signed by AHCJ, 10 other journalism organizations and two dozen individuals, explained, “These relatively new practices hinder reporters’ ability to learn the truth by inhibiting and sometimes barring employees from providing essential information.”
From the FDA’s report on the drafted proposals:
Comments from some members of the media stated that FDA’s current procedures for dealing with the media restricted the flow of information between the public and FDA personnel. These comments stated that public affairs officials can play an important role answering questions and facilitating interviews, “[b]ut when they forbid, delay or monitor contact between reporters and employees, they interfere with the public’s right to know and can delay access to timely information necessary to protect and advance public health.” Comments stated that prior administrations allowed more communication between FDA employees and the media and that FDA’s practice is not universal among federal agencies.
A conference call was held on April 12, 2010 with representatives from the Association of Health Care Journalists and the Society of Environmental Journalists to follow-up on the comments they submitted to the Task Force. During the call, representatives provided suggestions on ways FDA can facilitate contacts with the press, including holding regular conference calls about activities at the agency, providing the press with a list of agency experts by topic area, and committing to return calls from the press within two hours. Participants stated that FDA would benefit from a written media policy. One participant noted that implementing a media policy is “harder at regulatory agencies,” such as FDA.
Given FDA’s regulatory authority and responsibility, it is very important that FDA provide information to the news media as promptly and accurately as possible. Like many other public agencies, FDA has a public affairs office to facilitate and coordinate requests from the media. On average, the public affairs office fields between 50 and 100 inquiries from journalists every day. FDA personnel may establish a record of what is discussed to improve their own understanding of issues and to identify additional information of relevance that can be shared with the journalists.
FDA plans to track and disclose measures of performance related to its interactions with the media and will start by tracking the number of press inquiries received each month. FDA will also draft a policy outlining FDA’s media process and post this policy on its Web site. FDA will continue to explore additional ways to make the Agency’s system as effective as possible.
In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services, as part of the President’s Open Government Initiative, is reviewing the media policies of various HHS agencies. FDA will participate in this process.
“We appreciate the FDA’s willingness to consider our concerns. We hope this process will lead to new policies that free the media to learn from and report on the work of federal experts – who are paid by taxpayers to serve the public,” said AHCJ president Charles Ornstein.
Health reform scrapes by on $1 trillion
Filed under: Health care reform, Hot Health Headline
You might think that more than $1 trillion, even when spread over 10 years, would be enough to cure all manner of problems in health care.
But USA Today’s Susan Page reports the “eye-popping price tag” that’s the budgetary line in the sand for proposals kicking around Capitol Hill right now won’t come close to fulfilling every reformer’s wish.
Most of the money would go to expanding coverage for the uninsured. But a House bill wouldn’t subsidize coverage for as many families as previously expected and would jack up Medicaid costs for states, USA Today reports. A decade from now 15 million to 20 million people would probably still be uninsured.
All right. But we’re still wondering where all that cash, limited as it now seems to be, is going to come from? Medicare savings are supposed to provide a big wad. And then there’s a proposal from House Democrats to soak the rich, which the Washington Post explains, would slap a surtax on families earning more than $350,000 a year and individuals pulling down more than $280,000.
None of the scenarios matter if nothing becomes law. The White House appears intent on pushing ahead, despite growing Republican opposition. David Axelrod, Obama’s top political strategist, told Bloomberg, that a bipartisan approach would be nice but not absolutely necessary. “We’d like to do it with the votes of members of both parties,” he said. “But the worst result would be to not get health-care reform done.”
Update
Health reform marched ahead on a Senate health committee vote along party lines that approved legislation to expand health coverage. In a statement, President Obama said, the milestone “should provide the urgency for both the House and Senate to finish their critical work on health reform before the August recess.”
-
Join us in Atlanta
for Health Journalism 2012
Fellowship applications
due Feb. 27
New at HealthJournalism.org
- Data gives depth to investigation of patient safety
- What reporters should know about Alzheimer’s and related dementias
- Apply for fellowships to attend Health Journalism 2012
- AHCJ asks Supreme Court to permit broadcast of arguments in health reform case
- Tips for print, online journalists to embrace broadcast opportunities
- Numbers reveal how often, or how rarely, states check doctors’ disciplinary records
- 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
