Something really, really awesome happened on the site last week: I picked up a bit of evidence from the site itself about a possible network contract negotiation.
More specifically, someone ran a keyword search about a specific provider. That search sent me out to do some digging, and I discovered that there was indeed a network contract negotiation going on. Once I had verifiable sources, I put it up right away.
It struck me, though, that this incident might be a good time for me to elaborate a little about how, exactly, I find the information I publish on this site — and what I will and won’t accept as a “verifiable source.” As a working employee benefits specialist, I am privy to a lot of different sources, but I also have a very strict policy about never violating confidentiality.
That means, if I get something from a tip or from one of my professional contacts, I don’t post it, but I also don’t ignore it. Instead, I keep it on my list of things to be specifically looking for as I run general searches to look for public-facing links. Having a specific carrier/provider pair to hunt for means I can run targeted searches. That, in turn, means I’m far more likely to find publicly posted information.
There have been times when I’ve had to “sit” on information because I couldn’t find anything on a public-facing website. A good example is the recent dispute between UnitedHealthcare and UHealth (University of Miami). At both the beginning and the end, I was aware of developments a few days before I actually announced them. But because my source was private, I waited until I was able to find something on a public website before posting the information.
The bottom line for you, readers, is that if you know about something, please send in a tip. There’s an option on the contact form where you can request to stay anonymous. If you do, I won’t name you as the source — and I won’t post unless I can cite public information.
That, of course, leads to a logical next question: what do I consider a credible public source?
I prefer, but don’t insist on, primary sources (i.e., carrier or provider websites). But, at the same time, I’m also not interested in contributing to the spread of misinformation. If I’m unable to find a primary source but I can find a mainstream news outlet as a secondary source, I’m willing to cite that.
Again, here’s where being a practicing employee benefits specialist helps. I am familiar with the reliable trade publications and news sources in my industry, and I routinely check their websites even when I’m not following up on a tip. I’m on email lists for receiving updates from those sources and directly from carriers themselves. And, in addition, being a practitioner means I speak the language. I know what phrases and words to look for in general sources, and if I spot one, I’ll do some digging.
There are, however, some sources I always verify. Here’s a short list of a few of them (not all of them):
- Anything found only on social media is subject to verification, since there’s no guarantee that anything there is factual.
- Anything posted on known “slanted” sites is also suspect, although I don’t discriminate by the slant itself. For example, if all I see is an article sourced from either ProPublica or Newsmax, I’ll verify it first.
- I also approach healthcare provider industry sites with a grain of salt, as many of them are slanted against carriers. I know which trade publications in benefits and insurance should be verified due to being slanted against providers, but I’m not as familiar with providers’ trade publications.
- Finally, any article that uses sensationalistic language is likely to get verified, even if it’s from a source I’d otherwise consider credible.
Note, though, that I mention above that I verify unreliable sources. In other words, I’ll accept them as potential leads because it’s often the case that something unreliable is rooted in something reliable. So it’s possible I might dig into something based on a less-than-credible source; if that digging results in something credible, I’ll post the latter.
While I don’t try to pretend that I understand the carrier side and the provider side equally well — I’m much more conversant with the carrier side — I do try to keep my language neutral and attempt to source both sides of a negotiation. I also categorically will not quote statements that appear to be intentionally inflammatory or irrelevant; I’m not going to add to any mud-slinging.
The search that led me to the Eye Health Northwest negotiation was a good reminder that useful information can come from unexpected places. A search term, a social media post, an anonymous tip, or something passed along privately may not be enough for me to publish, but it may be enough to tell me where to start looking. So if you know about a network contract negotiation I haven’t covered, please don’t assume I’ve already heard about it. Send it my way. I may not be able to use what you send me as a source, and I definitely won’t if you ask me to keep it anonymous. But I can — and will — certainly use it as a place to start digging.