On Health Care Reform, Who's Watching the Watchdogs?

Kim Pearson — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:30:23 -0500

It seems the top domestic news story in the United States this week is the concern among Congressional leaders that draft legislation aimed at overhauling the health care system is doomed because of its projected $1 trillion price tag (.pdf) But the Obama administration hasn't even offered its plan, so the hard bargaining hasen't begun yet. When it does, one of the big challenges for consumers seeking reliable information will be a dearth of independent, knowledgeable reporters.

Part of the problem, of course, is that news organizations have been decimated, and the ranks of reporters with deep knowledge of any particular beat have been seriously depleted. Desperate for resources, news organizations and professional organizations have been accepting financial support from foundations associated with the health care industry. Journalism professor Gary Schwitzer finds that troubling:

Why don't journalists see any problem with these arrangements? Actually journalists did see problems with such activities - at one time. The ones who wrote the [Society of Professional Journalists] code of ethics. Something about "Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment....avoid conflicts real or perceived...etc.

For more than a year now, Columbia Journalism Review writer Trudy Lieberman has been tracking the questions journalists ought to be asking about the progress of health care legislation. Sen. Max Baucus (D-Mont) who chairs the Finance Committee, has received her special scrutiny. Lieberman has been urging attention to the impact that Baucus and other leaders' ties to the health insurance industry might be having on the draft legislation:

In January, we praised ABC Nightly News for its story about Washington lobbyists and their cozy relationships with legislators. Brian Ross reported Baucus's claim that lobbyists just want the best for America, and captured him on camera saying: "They really care about our country." The first peek at what the Finance Committee has in mind certainly looks like they've listened to the lobbyists. The insurance industry's fingerprints are all over the document.

Indeed, searches on OpenSecrets.org disclosed that several of the key Senators in the health care reform effort have received substantial campaign donations from pharmaceutical, insurance and other health care related interests. For example, here's a bit of what they had to say about Baucus:

Since 1989, Baucus's top donors have been American International Group (AIG), Goldman Sachs and New York Life Insurance--in the 2008 election cycle alone, these companies' employees and PACs contributed $148,550 to his campaign chest. After law firms, securities and investment companies and insurance companies, the most generous industries to Baucus's campaigns have been health professionals and pharmaceuticals. The health sector has given Baucus at least $2.8 million during his career, more than any other sector with the exception of finance, insurance and real estate companies, which have given him $4.6 million.

Ranking Finance committee member Charles Grassley's (R-IA) list of top donors is dominated by insurance companies, suppliers and law firms associated with the health care industry. Although health care interstest don't figure as prominently in Sen Dianne Feinsten's roster of donors, she did receive more than $180,000 from the insurance industry in 2008.

As this debate moves forward, it will be important to dig into the details of whatever legislation is proposed to ensure that lobbyists for special interests aren't able to determine the course of the debate. We've all got to become the watchdogs now.

Related: Taxgirl "Fat Tax" on the Scene Again

BlogHer - On Health Care Reform, Who's Watching the Watchdogs? - Comments

On Health Care Reform, Who's Watching the Watchdogs?