ObamaCare's latest black eye
ObamaCare has another problem (as if it needs one): a lack of transparency over a $4.8 million contract for teaching doctors about the health-care law that gives at least the appearance of a conflict of interest for a popular medical-information website.
The contract builds on an existing WebMD pact with the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS), reports The Washington Times. WebMD maintains it wasn't obligated to disclose this $4.8 million windfall because it concerns content for a password-protected, doctors-only online portal run independently of its news operations for consumers.
Yet as Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, says, “Even if certain content is not produced with federal funding, but the same company takes federal government money to produce other materials, consumers would be better-informed in knowing the financial relationships.”
Not disclosing this contract upfront fuels suspicions that WebMD and CMS are hiding something — and that the contract is influencing WebMD's news reporting on ObamaCare. Even if it isn't, WebMD has given its reputation a black eye — and CMS has added to ObamaCare's woes.
The decision by WebMD and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services to keep this contract in the dark is all too reminiscent of Americans being told that Congress had to pass ObamaCare before they could find out what was in it. And such lack of transparency is one more reason — among so many — to scrap ObamaCare.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Pittsburgh Tuesday takes
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- McKeesport Tuesday Takes
- Apple Music & Taylor Swift: A good & timely lesson
- Alle-Kiski Tuesday takes
- Immigration crock: Inducing illegals
- Checking the Somali threat: A-s-s-i-m-i-l-a-t-i-o-n
- King v. Burwell: Affirming ‘SCOTUScare’
- U.N. Watch: Sanction sidestep
- Greensburg Tuesday takes
- Sunday pops