WBBM in Chicago last week asked, "Is Medicare Ignoring Cheaper Lung Cancer Test?"

In its report, the TV station's "investigator" team promoted a company president's complaints against Medicare for much of the piece. They let him get away with saying:

"This is a potentially very powerful tool in the toolbox against lung cancer. You can zap the cancer and potentially be cured of early-stage lung cancer without ever having the surgery."

Should we be hearing that from a company president worried about his bottom line while he "wows" the audience with blown-up images like the one at left that appeared in the story? Or should we hear about evidence and data from an independent investigator whose research could speak to efficacy? The story never provided any data to back up the company president's self-interested claims.

They also let him get away with saying, "I think it has the potential to save Medicare millions of dollars."

We're not getting much smarter from stories like this. We're sure not getting a better understanding that in health care, "more is not always better and newer is not always better." We're also not being shown how often special interests - Pharma, device makers, specialty physician groups, etc. - are digging in against health care reform.

Recently, Trudy Lieberman wrote in the Columbia Journalism Review about how cardiologists were using journalists to complain about their reimbursement levels being cut by Medicare. She wrote:

"The doctors' letter warned that they "will be either forced out of business or forced to drastically increase the number of patients seen, most likely with physician assistants or nurse practitioners." Oh, oh. The specter of rationing and inferior care--"

See the similar themes in what she wrote about and in what we saw in the Chicago WBBM story?

Lieberman praised a Miami Herald story for how it handled the issue but said that:

"..a bunch of news articles for the most part passed along the cardiologists' complaints, threats, and warnings without any hint that there was another side to the story. Between the slanted newspaper articles and audio news releases from the American College of Cardiology, millions of Americans learned that the incomes of heart doctors, which can be upwards of $400,000, could take a hit. As an example of the kinds of cuts Medicare envisioned under the new rule, the administrator of one Florida heart practice explained that the reimbursement for a nuclear stress test could drop from $850 to $600. Presumably he said it with a straight face."

News stories that foster rhetoric and fear-mongering aren't making us any smarter. As Lieberman wrote:

"Containing the runaway cost of medical care is the thorniest of all the thorny issues in the health-reform debate. It is a complicated, charged, and crucial issue; the press needs to dig in and own it."

In another fine example of its dedication to important health care journalism, the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel published a piece, "Debate on MRI payments just one hurdle for reform."

Gems in this piece include:

• Information on the Access to Medical Imaging Coalition, a group backed by the major manufacturers of imaging equipment, including GE Healthcare. The paper reports: "That industry backing goes unmentioned by the innocuously named group. The Access to Medical Imaging Coalition, which includes cardiologists and radiologists, is just one of the myriad special interest groups that often oppose cuts in what Medicare pays for medical services."

• "The reality is the status quo puts a lot of money in a lot of people's pockets," said Alwyn Cassil, a spokeswoman for the Center for Studying Health System Change, a policy research organization in Washington, D.C.

  Another reality is groups such as the Access to Medical Imaging Coalition often succeed in persuading Congress to protect their interests.

Read the entire piece. It includes local angles on local industry affected and about Wisconsin legislators' activities in this area. A fine example of local journalism on a national issue.

That quote comes from a Minnesota physician in a Pioneer Press article that includes many good elements:

• Info on disparities in Medicare spending;


• Dartmouth Atlas data and graphic;


• Local angle on Atul Gawande's New Yorker piece .

Kudos to reporter Jeremy Olson.

Newer is not always better. Evidence is important. Simple themes, oft forgotten in health journalism.

Back in October, an Atlanta Journal-Constitution story talked of the wonders of virtual colonoscopy, saying it replaced the dreaded colonoscope and lessened patient risk. It used these words to refer to the technology: "science fiction, Star Wars, video game, Disney World."

Also in October, the Wall Street Journal promoted the growing popularity of virtual colonoscopies.

Neither story mentioned the fact that the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force had stated that same month that "The evidence is insufficient to assess the benefits and harms of computed tomographic colonography as a screening modality for colorectal cancer."

Last week's announcement that Medicare may stop paying for virtual colonoscopies also got little news attention. At least the New York Times reported it. Excerpts:

The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services said in a decision posted on its Web site that there was "insufficient evidence" to conclude that virtual colonoscopy "improves outcomes in Medicare beneficiaries."

...the United States Preventive Services Task Force, which advises the government on prevention, said last year that there was insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of the CT technique. Some private insurers pay for the tests; others do not.
...
In its analysis, Medicare said many studies supporting virtual colonoscopy were done in people with a mean age around 58, so results might not fully apply to Medicare's older population.

For instance, older people are more likely to have polyps. So the proportion of people who would have to have a conventional colonoscopy after a virtual one would be greater. That would make the CT scan less cost-effective.

Wish I had a nickel for every story about vagus nerve stimulation that trumpeted it as a treatment for depression.

This week, Medicare rejected Cyberonics’ implantable nerve stimulator, saying the device, the VNS Therapy System, hasn't been shown to be necessary. The $25,000 device is already approved for epilepsy. Cyberonics wanted to expand its use.

Bloomberg News reports “The Food and Drug Administration approved the device in 2005 to treat depression, overruling 20 agency advisers who urged rejection.��?

On the Cyberonics website the company boasted of dozens of news stories from across the country over the past two years, with headlines such as:

"Implant can relieve depression: VNS Therapy is proving beneficial."

"Omahan says she's proof device zaps depression."

"Emerging from the depths of depression."

"The Pacemaker for the Brain" is Saving Lives."

"Up from hopelessness."

"Implanted device helps fight drug-resistant depression - Giving new hope"

Among the media reporting the potential for the device:

U.S. News & World Report
Saturday Evening Post
Redbook
Reuters Health
Arizona Daily Star
San Antonio Express News
El Paso Times
Corpus Christi Caller Times
Toledo Blade
Omaha World Herald
Chicago Tribune
KSAT, San Antonio
WMUR Manchester, NH
WCCO, Minneapolis
KETV, Omaha
KUTV, Salt Lake City
KSL, Salt Lake City,
WBZ, Boston
WCBV Boston
WISN, Milwaukee
WKYC, Cleveland
KTBS, Shreveport
KOMO, Seattle

Each one of those news organizations owes it to their audience to play up the Medicare rejection of the device as prominently as they promoted the potential in the giddy glory days.

If you didn’t see 60 Minutes last Sunday (April 1), go to their website and read the story and watch the video link for the segment called “Under the Influence.� It’s the story of the incredible manipulation of Congress by the drug industry that took place to get the Medicare Part D legislation passed.

Excerpt:

The unorthodox roll call on one of the most expensive bills ever placed before the House of Representatives began in the middle of the night, long after most people in Washington had switched off C-SPAN and gone to sleep.

The only witnesses were congressional staffers, hundreds of lobbyists, and U.S. Representatives like Dan Burton, R-Ind., and Walter Jones, R-N.C.

"The pharmaceutical lobbyists wrote the bill," says Jones. "The bill was over 1,000 pages. And it got to the members of the House that morning, and we voted for it at about 3 a.m. in the morning."

Why did the vote finally take place at 3 a.m.?

"Well, I think a lot of the shenanigans that were going on that night, they didn't want on national television in primetime," according to Burton.

"I've been in politics for 22 years," says Jones, "and it was the ugliest night I have ever seen in 22 years."

Despite what a terrific piece this was, one wonders why it took 60 Minutes several years to catch up to this story. Some viewers wrote to CBS about how late this report came. Examples:

“Great story, AWESOME Story!!! Too bad CBS & 60 minutes waited over 3 YEARS after President Bush Jr. signed the bill into law to report on this. Perhaps if we the American people had heard this story back in early 2004, we would have made different choices when the 2004 presidential election came around.�

“CBS, where the hell were you in reporting this when it happened. Everyone else who was paying attention knew we were being screwed by this legislation, that it was just a give away to the drug companies. but like all (mainstream media), you were totally going to let it pass. Shame on you for taking so long wake up.�

On the listserv of the Association of Health Care Journalists, a journalist raises an important issue that we don't hear enough about. That journalist wrote:

"May I suggest that while Washington is obsessing about Walter Reed, the rest of us should be paying attention to what’s happening in our back yards in the run-up to the deadline for switching Medicare Advantage plans? In many areas, plans have contracted with independent brokers/agents to make a last push to persuade beneficiaries to switch plans. Many broker/agents who signed beneficiaries up for one plan in the fall (to begin Jan. 1) are now urging them to switch before the deadline; that way, they collect commissions twice. There’s a lot of misinformation being spread, a lot of dirty tricks. By the time we get around to reporting on it, the March 31 deadline will have passed and the misinformation campaigns will have been successful."

Have you heard anything about this from your news organizations in your market?