Podcast plus some media bashing
HOUSTON—As an esteemed member of the Fourth Estate, it pains me to say this, but many of my colleagues just don’t get it.
Although I have been covering healthcare issues for 5½ years now and health IT for 4½ years, I feel like I don’t belong at the annual Association of Health Care Journalists conference, which is going on here this weekend. Saturday in particular was a complete waste of my time, as there was not one session on the agenda that I found relevant to the work I do. There is too much of a focus on clinical and consumer issues and little that someone in the non-scientific trade press would care about.
The lunchtime keynote speaker on Saturday, acting Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Andrew von Eschenbach, M.D., just got nominated to the job on a permanent basis, and thus chose not to speak about any policy or his regulatory philosophy until the Senate has a chance to hold hearings. I walked out before his speech ended, and I was not the only one who was disappointed.
What was more disheartening, though, was the session that I personally moderated Friday morning on issues related to health IT. You can hear the audio here.
The panel, consisting of Sam Karp of the California HealthCare Foundation; Certification Commission for Health Information Technology Chairman Mark Leavitt, M.D.; and Linda Dimitropoulos of RTI International; went well. But attendance was sparse. I counted 19 people in the room, but that included publicists for two of the panelists, plus an editor from a techie magazine.
Given the fact that conference registration was close to 350 and that there were only four other sessions going on at the time, I was disappointed. Health correspondents from metropolitan daily papers mostly stayed away. This tells me that the average health correspondent does not understand the significance of IT, even though the session was entitled, “IT: Its promise for changing health care.” Reporters continue to write about how the American health system is broken, but they ignore one of the most obvious cures.
On Friday, we were lucky enough to have Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Director Carolyn Clancy, M.D., for a press conference and a keynote address. Privately, Clancy told me that she shares my concern that the mainstream press does not understand the role of IT in healthcare reform. Publicly during her speech, she implored the journalists present to help inform the public about how electronic health records can improve outcomes and save money.
Later, more than one fellow AHCJ member told me they found Clancy’s speech uninspiring. The technology message apparently went over everyone’s head. No wonder there is little consumer pressure on healthcare providers to change their ways.
Despite being a shy person, I’ve always been a bit of an anti-establishment rabble-rouser when I feel like something is wrong, so during Saturday’s AHCJ membership meeting, I voiced my disappointment about the fact I found most of the program irrelevant to what I do. I also mentioned that I am questioning the value of my membership.
At the risk of sounding pompous, I get the sense that they need me more than I need them.
Listen to the podcast and tell me I’m not crazy. It’s a long session and a big file, but I think it’s worth it. Too bad my colleagues in the health media don’t seem to agree with me.
I suspect many working in the health IT space share your frustration about this issue and wonder about the cause. I recently ran across something related to this issue that I found helpful in a presentation at the 2005 “Connecting Americans to Their Health Care” conference (see http://www.phrconference.org/resources.php). Bill McInturff, Partner at Public Opinion Strategies (Washington, DC) presented findings from focus groups and two national surveys conducted for the Markle Foundation. In his series of “final thoughts” slides, he made the following point: “It might be true ‘even the longest journey begins with a single step,’ but there’s something about human nature which proves people must believe it is possible to complete the *entire* journey, before they are willing to get off the couch and take the first step!” Could it be the “lack of belief in the ability to complete the entire journey” that is behind the lack of interest?
I’d argue anyone sitting in the lunch meeting or sitting in the membership meeting would have to agree about the speaker. While we were all disappointed I think it’s important to remember those planning the conference didn’t know and I know did NOT want to have that happen. People put their heart and soul and an incredible amount of hours into planning these things. Personally I think this was all covered in the membership meeting when even the board members were cracking jokes about it and nodding at how there would be changes in the future.As for the lack of interest in the technology session, not to be rude, but it was up against the panel on hospital finance/quality. When it comes to choosing between the two I’ll choose finance over technology any day and that’s cause tips on covering finance are much more important and I’d argue a bit more difficult to get, than the update on technology in the system. Plus I get bombarded with tech ideas in real life and am planning future stories on it. And if you doubt I’ve never done technology articles and am ignoring the issue than go to bizjournals.com and pull up my byline for the past 4+ years and you’ll realize this is not true.Conferences are all about choices. I’d argue more people would have attended the session I organized and moderated, but it was up against HIPAA, health care fraud, and prioritizing stories. I realized going in that would be the case and I didn’t take it personally and I think we all need to focus on what we got out of it, take the issues we have to the board, move on and get back to the plethora of stories that are waiting to be told.Just my opinion.Jennifer Gordon