We might be able to excuse the administration’s inclination to put the best spin on the non-controversial aspects of the health reform law as part of its campaign talking points. But we can’t excuse journalists for not looking beyond the stuff they are being fed.
Campaign Desk
11:57 AM - February 6, 2012
USA Today Touts the Government’s Good News on Medicare
But was it the full story?
#Realtalk: This isn’t another ‘golden age’ for print - But it is one for media
Social media in smaller markets - How three social media managers deal with smaller markets and more local coverage.
A rally for laid-off Sun-Times photogs - A protest Thursday morning drew about 150 picketers to the newspaper’s headquarters
Reporting, or illegal hacking - Scripps reporters are accused of violating the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act
Exchange Watch: California Dreaming - Low healthcare premiums on the West Coast were trumpeted as a big, good-news Obamacare story. But: “Compared to what?”
Rolling Stone remembers Michael Hastings, dead at 33
The bold journalist died in a car accident in Los Angeles
On the journalistic value of being “a dick”
Buzzfeed’s statement on the death of its reporter
The disappearance of ‘Sports of the Times’
CJR’s panel discussion on coverage of gay marriage
On the eve of two related SCOTUS decisions, how should journalists be covering the issue?
CJR's Guide to Online News Startups
Uptown Messenger – Hyperlocal news for a neighborhood in New Orleans
Who Owns What
The Business of Digital Journalism
A report from the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism
Questions and exercises for journalism students.
You say:
"... HHS announced that 3.6 million people on Medicare (out of nearly fifty million) saved $2.1 billion on prescription drugs in 2011 because of rebates and discounts on brand name medicines once their drug expenses reached the notorious donut hole where the government provides no coverage."
Congratulations. You are the first journalist I've seen to point out that the donut hole only affects 8% of Medicare beneficiaries. (And only 3% reach the catastrophic hole.)
Now take it a step further. The "saved $3.1 billion" went as much to State Pharmaceutical Assistance Programs as to actual Medicare beneficiaries. (Not that I object to savings of any type but just in case you don't see a lot of us seniors out buying Cadillacs.)
And you should also dig into the statements that PPACA will "close the donut hole" by 2020. What will actually happen will be that the insurance will have to cover those drugs -- with 25% coinsurance -- instead of the situation for the next 8 years where the senior with high drug costs and the pharmacy manufacturer split the cost. That means higher premiums than otherwise would have been the case. (Again, I have no problem with that because that's what insurance is for. But stop tyring to fool seniors.)
#1 Posted by dennis byron, CJR on Thu 16 Feb 2012 at 05:18 AM