The awards, presented by the Sacramento Press Club, honor political and public policy reporting from across California.

Reporter Byrhonda Lyons won the impact in journalism award for her investigation into how the California Department of Motor Vehicles handled surplus proceeds from auctioned vehicles. Her reporting found that the DMV collected more than $8 million between 2016 and 2024 from nearly 5,300 vehicle auctions in which cars sold for more than the costs owed, but former owners were not notified that they could be entitled to the remaining money.

CalMatters journalism engineer Mohamed Al Elew followed the investigation by building an online tool that allowed people to search whether their towed vehicle had generated excess proceeds. The DMV later created a similar lookup system.

The reporting also prompted legislative action. In March, state Sen. Kelly Seyarto, R-Murrieta, cited Lyons’ work when introducing SB 1029, a bill that would require the DMV to notify vehicle owners when surplus funds from a lien sale may be owed to them.

Awards judges called the project a clear example of public service journalism, noting that CalMatters used reporting and public records to uncover money that should have been returned to Californians.

CalMatters investigative reporter Sergio Olmos was among the journalists honored with the courage in journalism award. The Sacramento Press Club recognized reporters who continued covering protests against federal immigration enforcement actions in Los Angeles in 2025 despite being struck, detained or otherwise targeted.

The award included journalists whose experiences were referenced in legal action filed by the Los Angeles Press Club and Status Coup against the Los Angeles Police Department. The lawsuit alleged that officers targeted journalists even when they were clearly identified as members of the press. A court later issued an injunction barring law enforcement from interfering with journalists doing their jobs.

Olmos was included after he was hit in the chest by a crowd-control munition while reporting on an immigration protest in downtown Los Angeles on June 8, 2025. He told The Washington Post he was wearing a press pass and recording video near a federal building complex when LAPD officers fired munitions at demonstrators. Olmos said he believed he was struck by a 40 mm sponge grenade.

Over the past year, Olmos has reported extensively on immigration raids in California. His investigative series examined the conduct of immigration agents from Bakersfield to Los Angeles, and later in Chicago and Minneapolis, documenting allegations of forceful tactics and questionable detentions that courts have said likely violated constitutional protections.

Anat Rubin won in the criminal justice reporting category for “The Man Who Unsolved a Murder,” an investigation into the shortage of investigators working with public defense teams in California. The reporting found that low-income defendants, who make up at least 80% of people charged with crimes, are often convicted without anyone independently investigating the allegations against them.

Rubin’s work showed that nearly half of California’s 58 counties do not employ full-time public defense investigators. In counties that do have them, access varies widely and is often insufficient.

Judges praised the project for its reporting and writing, saying it clearly showed the consequences of inadequate investigative support for defendants. They also noted the reporting on the risks of relying on flat-fee defense attorneys instead of public defenders.

CalMatters reporter Joe Garcia was a finalist in the same category for reporting from inside California’s prison system. His work examined the realities of shared prison cells and the state’s parole process, including how rehabilitative programming has expanded while the share of prisoners found suitable for parole has gradually declined.

In public health reporting, Jocelyn Wiener, Marisa Kendall and Erica Yee won for an eight-part series on California’s CARE Court program. The program allows family members, first responders and others to petition courts to help people with severe mental illness obtain treatment, and in some cases gives judges authority to order care.

The series examined how the program has worked in practice, including the experiences of families trying to get loved ones off the streets and into psychiatric treatment, and the legal limits courts face when handling petitions. Judges said the reporting explained how the law’s original goals were weakened during the legislative process and why the program has struggled to deliver on its promises.

Adam Echelman won in education reporting for his coverage of financial aid fraud in California’s community college system. His reporting found that colleges were seeing unprecedented levels of fraud, with scammers stealing millions more in student aid than in any prior period, according to reports colleges submitted to the California Community Colleges Chancellor’s Office.

Following the CalMatters reporting, Republican members of Congress called for a federal investigation, a Democratic state lawmaker requested a state audit and the chancellor’s office approved a new identification verification policy for students. Jory Hadsell, an executive in technology initiatives for the chancellor’s office, said colleges have become more aggressive in detecting fraud through improved filtering practices and new software.

Judges said Echelman’s coverage combined deep reporting, data and the voices of people affected by the fraud, while underscoring the stakes for students, faculty, staff and taxpayers.

Original source: CalMatters

The post CalMatters Earns Golden State Journalism Awards Praise for Public Service Reporting appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Last year, the state committed $15 million to support the California Local News Fellowship and the Propel Initiative, two programs aimed at strengthening local reporting and community-based news organizations. Supporters say the funding marked a significant public investment in journalism at a time when many communities are seeing fewer reporters covering schools, city halls, public agencies and neighborhood issues.

That funding, however, was not included in the Legislature’s proposed budget. Unless legislative leaders and Gov. Gavin Newsom restore the money before the budget is finalized, the programs could lose support just as organizers say they are beginning to show results.

The debate comes as California faces a period of major political and social change. Voters will choose a new governor in the coming year, and communities across the state continue to confront economic uncertainty, wildfires, other natural disasters, rapid changes in technology and a complicated information landscape.

Advocates for local news funding argue that reliable, community-based reporting is especially important in those conditions. Nationally, more than 70% of journalism jobs have disappeared over the past two decades, and nearly one-third of local newspapers have closed, according to research from Northwestern University’s Local News Initiative.

The decline has affected communities across California, including areas where residents depend on ethnic media, in-language reporting and small local outlets for information they do not receive elsewhere. Supporters say the loss of trusted local coverage can leave residents more vulnerable to misinformation, reduce civic participation and weaken public accountability.

The California Local News Fellowship, launched in 2023, has placed more than 110 journalists in newsrooms throughout the state. Those fellows have produced more than 10,000 stories, according to program supporters. More than one-third of the first graduating class has since been hired into permanent positions by their host newsrooms.

The program was designed not only to add reporting capacity, but also to help develop a journalism workforce that better reflects California’s diversity.

The Propel Initiative focuses on the institutions that serve local and ethnic communities. The effort is a partnership involving the Robert C. Maynard Institute for Journalism Education, California Black Media, American Community Media and the Latino Media Collaborative. Together, participating outlets serve more than 20 million Californians.

This spring, Propel convened journalists, editors, publishers, freelancers and students from ethnic, community, local and legacy media organizations for training in storytelling, audience engagement, leadership, innovation and sustainability.

This summer, the initiative is expected to launch Fire Up, an entrepreneurship program intended to help emerging media leaders and local news organizations improve their business models and work toward long-term stability.

Martin G. Reynolds, co-executive director of the Maynard Institute and former editor-in-chief of The Oakland Tribune, has urged state leaders to continue supporting the programs. He cited the philosophy of Robert C. Maynard, who emphasized that all Americans should have “front door access to the truth.”

Supporters say continuing the funding would help preserve access to reliable information, strengthen civic participation and sustain news organizations that serve California’s diverse communities.

Original source: CalMatters

The post California Lawmakers Weigh Local News Funding Cuts as Industry Pressures Mount appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio voiced strong opposition after his motion to stop AB 2624 — introduced by Attorney General Rob Bonta — failed to gain enough support. The bill has drawn attention from supporters of citizen journalism, who argue it could restrict the ability to share video evidence of alleged fraud online.

DeMaio said the measure could discourage individuals from documenting and publishing wrongdoing, particularly in publicly funded programs. He framed the proposal as a shift away from addressing fraud itself and toward penalizing those who bring it to light.

The legislation comes at a time when independent content creators, including online investigative figures like Nick Shirley, have gained large audiences by posting firsthand footage of suspected misuse of government resources.

According to DeMaio, the bill’s language could open the door for certain groups to request the removal of recorded material — even in cases where the footage appears to show misconduct. He warned that financial penalties could also be imposed on individuals who publish such content.

His attempt to stop the bill was intended to prevent it from advancing further this year. However, with that effort unsuccessful, AB 2624 remains under consideration as it moves through the legislative process.

DeMaio said he plans to continue opposing the measure, arguing it raises concerns about transparency and First Amendment protections.

The post California Democrats Keep Controversial Journalism Bill Alive appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

In late July, sponsored content appeared sandwiched between paragraphs of legitimate journalism in Politico Pulse, the outlet’s daily health care newsletter. Humana, the country’s second-largest seller of Medicare Advantage (MA) plans, told readers that “with Medicare Advantage, seniors save an average of $1,640 in annual out-of-pocket spending compared to fee-for-service Medicare.” Humana added that it was “committed to affordable quality care,” echoing that shopworn slogan from the marketing pitch used to sell Obamacare in 2009.

Humana also referred readers, who undoubtedly include Congressional staffers and possibly their bosses, to a report from the Better Medicare Alliance, an industry-financed lobbying group for MA plans, released earlier this year. The report, the “2021 State of Medicare Advantage,” predictably lauded these plans, noting that 98% of beneficiaries were satisfied with their coverage; 97% were “specifically satisfied” with their network of physicians, hospitals, and specialists; and that “Medicare Advantage’s overall satisfaction rate rises to 99% among minority beneficiaries.” The lobbying group also applauded 70 members of Congress from both sides of the aisle who had sent a letter to the Secretary of Health and Human Services in support of MA plans. The group then took to Twitter to single out individual members of Congress such as Alabama Rep. Terri Sewell, thanking her for co-signing the letter and for “expressing strong support for Medicare Advantage.” Such gestures are like valentines, a lobbyist once told me, to flatter legislators into supporting a group’s agenda.

Flattery seems to have worked! Congress has given Medicare Advantage plans every advantage over traditional Medicare in an ongoing effort to diminish that program in favor of a privatized version of Medicare. The underlying goal, I have long argued, is to shift more of the cost of medical care to seniors themselves, relieving the financial pressure on the federal government to pay for their health needs. Over the years, the government has overpaid Medicare Advantage plans to encourage their growth. In addition plans have been able to get more money by overstating the severity of their beneficiaries’ illnesses.

All this money has enabled Medicare Advantage plans to entice new members with goodies like dental, vision, and hearing benefits, free transportation to doctors’ offices, and two weeks of meals after a hospital stay. MA plans are allowed to offer those benefits, which the traditional Medicare program and Medigap policies that accompany it usually do not offer. With such a government-sanctioned edge, no wonder MA plans have been able to bring 42% of the Medicare population into their fold.

There’s a dark side, though, to the rising popularity of Medicare Advantage plans, which the public does not see, since the media has largely taken a pass on covering the story. Academic research, however, is beginning to reveal that thousands of Medicare beneficiaries, taken in by over-the-top poll results from the Better Medicare Alliance and ubiquitous TV commercials featuring Joe Namath may not be so delighted with their plans after all. People are enticed by cheaper premiums and lots of benefits, but they often don’t go beyond the premiums to understand how the plans’ cost-sharing and provider networks really work.

“These findings suggest that Medicare Advantage members in rural areas are experiencing limited access to care,” Sungchul Park, an assistant professor at Drexel’s Dornsife School of Public Health, told me. “They may realize that staying in an Advantage plan is not good for them, and they switch.”

In March, the policy journal Health Affairs published a significant study that offers strong warnings for Medicare Advantage members, particularly those living in rural areas. The study found that while switching from traditional Medicare to MA plans was not common for beneficiaries in either rural or urban areas, those living in rural areas were twice as likely (10.5%) to leave an MA plan as people who live in urban or suburban areas (5%). In other words, more beneficiaries who had chosen Advantage plans in rural areas were dissatisfied with their coverage. About one-fifth of beneficiaries in rural areas who were dissatisfied with the ease of getting to their doctor or getting care at the same location switched to traditional Medicare.

“These findings suggest that Medicare Advantage members in rural areas are experiencing limited access to care,” Sungchul Park, an assistant professor in the department of health management and policy at Drexel’s Dornsife School of Public Health and the lead study author, told me. “They may realize that staying in an Advantage plan is not good for them, and they switch.”

“If you’re living in an area with few providers to begin with, you might have access to an even smaller number of providers in your network,” said David Meyers, an assistant professor of health services policy and practice at Brown University and another of the study’s authors.

What makes these results even more noteworthy is that so many rural beneficiaries were willing to leave their Advantage plans even though most of them can’t buy a supplemental insurance (Medigap) policy to fill in traditional Medicare’s coverage gaps. Many seniors have health problems that make them uninsurable at this point. But without a Medigap policy, they must pay the 20% of a bill that Medicare does not pay. People in traditional Medicare usually buy Medigap policies, which cover things like coinsurance, copayments and deductibles, when they first become eligible for Medicare. Depending on which of the 10 standardized Medigap plans they buy, they may have negligible out-of-pocket expenses. However, only four states — New York, Connecticut, Maine, and Massachusetts — allow people to return to traditional Medicare and buy a Medigap policy without an insurer taking into consideration their health after their initial enrollment period. That makes it more likely in other states for an insurer to deny someone a Medigap plan — coverage is not guaranteed. But staying in an MA plan may mean they cannot access certain doctors to treat their condition. They’re stuck in a bind.

Meyers and his colleagues have recently published other studies, which raise more questions about the care minorities receive in Medicare Advantage plans. In January, one study published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine found that MA plans with higher premiums, higher enrollment, and higher market share tended to have wider networks. The study also found “substantial racial/ethnic disparities in access to wider MA networks when it came to primary care, psychiatry, and mental and behavioral health” care for Hispanic and Asian beneficiaries. This June, another Health Affairs study found that as of 2018, 47% of Hispanics, and 37% of Blacks were in MA plans, compared to 26% of whites. The study concluded that the biggest increases in MA enrollment were among Black enrollees and those who lived in the poorest neighborhoods.

There’s a dark side, though, to the rising popularity of Medicare Advantage plans, which the public does not see, since the media has largely taken a pass on covering the story.

“Racial and ethnic minorities tend to concentrate in specific plans that may be lower in quality than the plans white beneficiaries are enrolling in,” Meyers said. “Hispanic and Black beneficiaries also tend to enroll in low-premium plans, and we’ve found lower premiums may be associated with narrower networks.” Meyers added that it’s well-established by existing research that Black and Hispanic enrollees experience poorer outcomes in the Medicare Advantage program than white enrollees.  

Given such findings and the zeitgeist of the moment, it is disappointing to see the media take a pass reporting on Meyers’ research, which is significant for millions of Americans of color and those living in rural areas. That’s hardly surprising, since as I have pointed out in this space, journalists barely cover Medicare these days, despite its importance to so many Americans. The Health Affairs press office picked up only 12 stories about its March report on rural Americans leaving MA plans. All appeared in trade or health-related news outlets. It picked up only five stories — four in the trade press and one in a fitness magazine — discussing the findings of the Health Affairs study published in June. The AARP Bulletin, which reaches 35 million readers, including those in rural areas heavily targeted by Medicare Advantage sellers, did not run a story about Meyer’s findings, according to an AARP spokesperson.

So where can journalists, people on Medicare, and those about to join actually learn objectively what their options are? The best source of such information about the limitations of Medicare Advantage plans Meyers and his colleagues have pointed out is their State Health Insurance Assistance Program, or SHIP, for short. The SHIPs were set up by Congress in 1990 to help Medicare beneficiaries, who were confronting a confusing marketplace long before there were Advantage plans.

I called three SHIP programs in rural states asking about options for a hypothetical relative. They all suggested the person make an appointment to see a counselor, but gave me a bit of information when I asked about ease of seeing physicians. In Indiana, a counselor said a doctor can leave an Advantage plan “for any reason they see fit. It’s definitely not uncommon.” A North Dakota counselor noted, “there aren’t a lot of doctors in rural areas, and they (people) have to travel to bigger areas. Original Medicare might be a better option because it is accepted nationwide. It’s more broad.” In Georgia, a counselor advised, “Each option works for some, but it doesn’t work for others.”

This spring a rare and excellent Medicare story appeared, this one in Kaiser Health News and picked up by some of Kaiser’s media partners. Fred Schulte reported that Humana had overcharged Florida seniors on Medicare nearly $200 million in 2015 by overstating how sick they were. The Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General said this would be “by far the largest” audit penalty ever imposed on a Medicare Advantage company if finalized. Humana told KHN it disputed the findings. I sent an email to the company asking for an update and Humana did not respond to the request. Schulte is a veteran journalist who has covered this issue for years and is one of the rare reporters to write critically about Medicare Advantage plans, let alone cover Medicare in the first place. He reported that despite their popularity, MA plans have been the target of many government investigations, Medicare audits, and Department of Justice and whistleblower lawsuits.

Schulte’s dogged pursuit of Advantage plan overcharges and the health researchers’ findings about network shortcomings in rural areas and for Americans of color should be reason enough to revive media interest on this neglected beat. You can bet when Joe Namath is back in the fall hawking Medicare Advantage plans, he won’t be talking about narrow networks, lack of access to doctors, or overcharging the government. But someone should.

Veteran health care journalist Trudy Lieberman is a contributing editor at the Center for Health Journalism Digital and a regular contributor to the Remaking Health Care column.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Massive changes are afoot in Medicare, and the media keeps missing the story appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

NEW YORK (AP) — The Associated Press’ recent firing of a young reporter for what she said on Twitter has somewhat unexpectedly turned company and industry attention to the flip side of social media engagement — the online abuse that many journalists face routinely.

During internal meetings after the Arizona-based reporter, Emily Wilder, was let go, several journalists expressed concern over whether the AP would have the backs of employees under attack from the outside.

“The Emily Wilder situation triggered this for many people on the staff,” Jenna Fryer, an AP sportswriter who spoke at one of the meetings, said in a subsequent interview.

Wilder was fired last month because of what the company said were tweets on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that violated AP’s social media policy against offering opinions on contentious issues. Before her firing, a conservative group had sparked an online campaign against her over her pro-Palestinian views, and while the AP has said it wasn’t responding to pressure, her dismissal ignited debate over whether the news organization acted too rashly.

Journalists are often subjected to racist or sexist slurs, vile insults and threats of rape, dismemberment or other violence from online readers.

Online harassment is hardly unique to journalists. But the visibility of reporters makes them particularly vulnerable to attack, said Viktorya Vilk, program director for digital safety and free expression at the literary and human rights organization PEN America.

Fryer, who covers auto racing, said she “was in tears daily” over online abuse she received for coverage of a noose found last year in an Alabama garage stall used by NASCAR’s only full-time Black driver. She said the only time she heard from the company about harassment was when a manager remarked that Fryer had gotten a lot of it.

“Sometimes you feel like you’re on a total island,” she said.

The news agency says it has worked with law enforcement in many cases when its journalists were attacked online. Still, following the meetings, the AP ordered a study on whether more can be done.

“I can speak from personal experience that we have not been ignoring this,” said Julie Pace, the AP’s Washington bureau chief. “What we have to do is put this on a par with the way we handle what we have traditionally viewed as security threats for our journalists — if you are going to Syria, or if you’re covering protests that could potentially become chaotic.”

News organizations were often quick over the past decade to press their journalists to build social media profiles, recognizing it as important to their brands, but slow to see its dangers, said Vilk, who has worked with more than a dozen media outlets on this issue.

Women and minorities usually have it worse. Vilk believes the preponderance of white men in management has contributed to the industry’s delay in reacting.

Some members of the AP’s race and ethnicity reporting team approached their editor, Andale Gross, following Wilder’s firing with concerns over whether the company would support them if their stories or tweets proved controversial, he said. Racist slurs and threats happen frequently to the reporters he supervises, who include Blacks, Latinos and Asian-Americans, and AP security has responded to a number of them, he said.

The team’s story two weeks ago about racism in the military provoked many hateful messages from people who said they were in the military — essentially proving the article’s point, he said.

“I don’t want people to think it should be accepted or tolerated,” Gross said. “But it comes with the territory of the things we write about. We know that every story we produce, we can be dealing with an onslaught of racism.”

The National Association of Black Journalists has offered members help on the problem through in-person information sessions and webinars, said Dorothy Tucker, NABJ president.

Nearly three-quarters of 714 female journalists surveyed said they had experienced online attacks, according to a study released in April by UNESCO and the International Center for Journalists. Twelve percent sought medical or psychological help. The survey said 4% left their jobs and 2% quit the business altogether.

Washington Post columnist Margaret Sullivan wrote in March about receiving “viciously misogynistic name-calling and sexualized fantasies about dismembering me.”

“Unless you’ve been there, it’s hard to comprehend how deeply destabilizing it is, how it can make you think twice about your next story, or even whether being a journalist is worth it,” she wrote.

Taylor Lorenz, a reporter at The New York Times, wrote on Twitter this spring about the “unimaginable” attacks she had received online. “It’s not an exaggeration to say that the harassment and smear campaign I’ve had to endure over the past year has destroyed my life,” she wrote. “No one should have to go through this.”

Both journalist Glenn Greenwald and Fox News Channel host Tucker Carlson belittled her concerns.

“Destroyed her life? Really?” Carlson said on the air. “By most people’s standards Taylor Lorenz would seem to have a pretty good life, one of the best lives in the country, in fact.”

A “suck it up” attitude or feeling that nothing can really be done about online harassment leads many journalists to stay silent. Anne M. Peterson, a veteran sportswriter for the AP, said she has received lewd pictures online and a threat from someone who chillingly attached a Google image of her house. She has never reported an incident to management.

The AP’s Pace, who also writes stories and appears on television, said she has been a target of abuse and has had to address it for employees she manages.

“There have been moments when I sort of chalked it up to, ‘Yeah, this is part of the job,’” she said in an interview. “I know I’m in a high-profile job. … Then there are moments where they really cross a line, or if it affects your personal safety or your family where you think, ‘No, this is not something I should have to put up with. This is unacceptable and scary.’”

“So we don’t want to normalize it,” she said. “We don’t want people to feel like they have to sit there and take it.”

Online attacks in general have worsened. The Pew Research Center said in January that 41% of U.S. adults say they have been harassed online, up from 35% in 2017. The percentages of people who say they have been threatened or sexually harassed online have both doubled since 2014, Pew said.

There are signs that the problem is being taken more seriously in newsrooms.

One indication is a greater willingness to publicly back journalists under attack. That happened this past winter, when Washington Post reporter Seung Min Kim was criticized for asking Sen Lisa Murkowski her reaction to something President Joe Biden’s failed nominee for budget director, Neera Tanden, had tweeted about Murkowski.

Kim’s boss, Post national editor Steven Ginsberg, said the attacks were “wildly misguided and a bad-faith effort at intimidation. What she did was basic journalism.”

Vilk advises news organizations to conduct an anonymous internal survey to determine the extent of their problems, and to examine social media policies. Most policies concentrate on what journalists should or shouldn’t do, as opposed to what happens when the audience goes on attack, she said.

Organizations should provide cybersecurity training and support, legal and mental health counseling and access to services that can scrub an employee’s personal information from the web, she said. Companies must also be aware that harassment is often more organized than it appears, and be prepared to investigate the source of campaigns, she said.

The AP set a Sept. 1 deadline for a committee of staff members to bring forward ideas to improve how harassment is dealt with.

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post Journalists demanding more action against online harassment appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

I have a passion for vibrant, local editorials. I believe energized, local editorials are at the foundation of energized communities. The Golden Quill recognizes the top 12 editorials written among non-dailies.

The competition is a reminder that many newspapers – even the smallest – still wave the banner of local editorials. They are a bright note amid a disappointing landscape of more and more newspapers giving less attention to their editorial consciences.

Among last year’s honorees:

Overall winner Brian Wilson at the Star News in Medford, Wis., addressed the death of a mentally ill man who was killed after shooting at and injuring a police officer during a standoff. “Legislative leadership cares more about playing political games than in having a grown-up discussion about firearms and lack of mental health care,” he wrote. “ … No action will be perfect, but action needs to take place in order to prevent the next tragedy.”

Marcia Martinek at the Herald Democrat in Leadville, Colo., gave accolades to a deputy who brought to light official misconduct in the sheriff’s department that was reinforced by a grand jury investigation. “For several years, we’ve been writing stories about how various law enforcement officers in Leadville and Lake County have run amok,” she wrote. “… So what a relief it is to be able to talk about a law enforcement officer who did the right thing.”

Dan Wehmer at the Webster County Citizen in Seymour, Mo., articulated in detail why residents should support a levy increase for the school district. “Over the past two decades, this newspaper has never endorsed a tax increase of any type,” he wrote. “Our tax-bump tally is zero. Until today.”

The editorials represent the best in community journalism. Many newsrooms devote immense resources to coverage of local public affairs. Yet they often fall short in the final step: advancing the exchange of opinions through local editorials.

It’s pretty easy to weigh in on national issues. Yes, you’ll have your detractors. But the response from readers – even those strongly opposed – will likely be less animated than if you take issue with the local human rights or economic development commission or criticize a decision by the school board.

Courageous publishers and editors take those stances, regardless of potential repercussions. That does not mean advancing positions with reckless abandon. Editorials, especially those certain to generate strong reaction, should be thoroughly researched and carefully crafted.

Here is one set of principles to guide editorial writing:

• Don’t portray yourself as an ivory tower: Editorials should not be positioned as the “correct” opinion or the final word on a subject. Editorials should present a well-reasoned argument and conclusion.

• Welcome rebuttals: Newspapers should readily publish contrary opinions.

• Be consistent in stances: Editorials should be unwavering in promoting common themes. Newspapers often are labeled – and criticized – for promoting a conservative or liberal agenda. But newspapers that regularly flip-flop on issues will lose their credibility. At the same time, be open to revisiting an issue and changing an editorial perspective if circumstances change.

• Offer kudos, too: Don’t hesitate to write complimentary editorials. Your credibility will take a hit – and communication with key individuals will be hindered – if certain bodies are always on the receiving end of an editorial rant.

• Think local: Editorials should be localized in the same manner as news stories are.

• Write with substance: Effective editorials, by definition, should leave an impression. In contrast, nondescript editorials are easily forgotten.

I fondly remember my late wife, who I often used as a sounding board. She’d admit, on occasion, that the aggressive local editorials could be uncomfortable among our circle of friends. We once were walking downtown about to cross paths with a local official who we had taken to task in our coverage. I could almost hear her saying, “Can we turn around?”

But, as I would remind her, many subjects received their editorial due at one time or another: Democrats and Republicans, downtown and strip mall merchants, business and labor leaders, school administrators and coaches. We’d never leave the house if we wanted to shy away from potential confrontations.

She knew that, too, and was my biggest booster. She admired and respected the fact that we took strong stances on local issues as an institution in the community. She’d suggest ideas, too. As you sit down to write an editorial, keep that at the forefront: Strive for the same admiration and respect from your community, and you’ll have the foundation for a strong editorial.

In truth, writing the editorial is almost the easiest part. You should introduce the subject, present the pros and cons, and reach a conclusion. The challenge is getting the ideas, then approaching a topic with facts and self-confidence. It’s not as foreboding as you might think if you devote attention to your editorial page on a regular basis and create an editorial mind-set.

The Golden Quill winners should inspire us all to strive for that editorial excellence.

—

Jim Pumarlo is former editor of the Red Wing (Minn.) Republican Eagle. He writes, speaks and provides training on community newsroom success strategies. He is author of “Journalism Primer: A Guide to Community News Coverage,” “Votes and Quotes: A Guide to Outstanding Election Coverage” and “Bad News and Good Judgment: A Guide to Reporting on Sensitive Issues in Small-Town Newspapers.” He can be reached at www.pumarlo.com and welcomes comments and questions at jim@pumarlo.com.

Jim Pumarlo • Contributor

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post A salute to those who wave the editorial banner appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.

“will be required to enroll” in what’s being called a “direct contracting entity.” That entity, which could be a physician group, insurance company, managed care organization, or accountable care organization, would deliver all the care for those in the plan and receive one payment from the government for giving that care.

The goal is to boost quality and lower costs. It would work sort of like Medicare managed care does now, but unlike people in Medicare managed care who have chosen to be in that program, beneficiaries who live in one of those selected regions would be required to choose one of these new entities in order to receive any Medicare benefits at all. That would be the first time in the history of the program that beneficiaries would be forced into any kind of new care arrangement.

This proposal, The Commonwealth Fund report said, is “one of the most significant changes to the way Medicare beneficiaries receive health care since managed care was introduced into Medicare in the 1970s,” adding the model was “raising critical questions particularly among beneficiary groups.” Perhaps due to the wonky nature of the discussion, the proposed change has generated almost no media coverage although it would upend the health insurance for millions of Americans.

CMS is scheduled to start testing the new program in 2022. At the beginning of March Elizabeth Fowler, one of the authors of the report, started a new job at the CMS office that will be in charge of creating and implementing the new model. That same day the agency announced that the model, which was supposed to begin taking applications for becoming a “direct contracting entity,” was now “currently under review,” meaning that tweaks or deeper changes from the new Biden administration might be in the works. That, of course, gives journalists more time to investigate the plan and explain it to the millions of beneficiaries who would be affected, and perhaps generate a robust discussion about the consequences of being forced into managed care.

Private business interests are also keeping an eye on the development of the new Medicare model as well, perhaps eyeing a new source of profits. “I’m hearing more and more about industry interest and investment in this model,” said David Lipschutz, associate director of the Center for Medicare Advocacy. “Why are investors interested in this?” “This is the privatization of traditional Medicare over time, turning it in to another form of Medicare Advantage plans,” said Diane Archer, who founded the Medicare Rights Center and is now president of Just Care USA, an independent digital hub that covers health care.

“The purported goal is to see whether these entities which will come between doctors and their patients will be able to reduce costs and improve quality.” Archer noted that “many government and independent analyses of Medicare Advantage plans show that people who need complex care tend to leave them in disproportionately higher rates.” Unlike Medicare Advantage plans, however, which include many HMOs, all the Geo plans are supposed to work like PPOs, which allow members to go out of network for care, said Gretchen Jacobson, one of the authors of the Commonwealth Fund report.

But there are enough similarities between Medicare Advantage plans and this new program to raise real concerns. Three years ago, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services’ Office of the Inspector General released a report questioning whether people in Medicare Advantage plans — managed care — were getting the benefits they were entitled to.

The IG found that over two-year period, 75% of the denials of care filed by beneficiaries were overturned on appeal, indicating that some “beneficiaries and providers were initially denied services and payments that should have been provided.” The IG’s Office said this was “especially concerning” because beneficiaries and providers “rarely used the appeals process.” Furthermore, the report noted that Medicare’s own audits have found “widespread and persistent performance problems related to denials of care and payment.”

You won’t find that information in any of the Joe Namath ads luring more Americans to Medicare Advantage plans on TV. Jacobson told me the proposed Geo model “is relatively complicated, and someone might not know they’re in one.” If people in selected regions don’t sign up for a plan as required, Medicare will simply pick a plan for them, where they will quickly learn what managed care style of cost control is all about — for example, obtaining prior authorization for services and undergoing reviews to evaluate the medical necessity of care before it’s delivered. Such moves could lower costs, and it’s no secret that the Medicare program needs to be shored up financially as more baby boomers become eligible for benefits.

The latest Medicare Boards of Trustees report said the Medicare Part A trust fund — which pays the hospital bills for all beneficiaries, including those in both managed care plans and traditional Medicare — will be able to pay only partial benefits beginning in 2026. Although the trustees have been making similar predictions for years, there has yet to be a robust public discussion of how to improve the health of the trust fund.

Will it come from increasing the payroll tax, or from reducing the costs of hospital and doctor services, which are the biggest drivers of Medicare’s escalating costs? Or by negotiating lower prices for prescription drugs, or from some mix of those options? Over the years Medicare managed care was supposed to lower those costs for the government’s program. Whether they’ve done that is open to serious dispute. The Medicare Payment Advisory Commission (MedPac), an independent government agency that advises Congress, showed that in 2009, the government was spending nearly 18% more to provide care for seniors in managed care organizations than those in the traditional program.

The Affordable Care Act put a stop to extremely high increases for Medicare Advantage plans until 2017 when the overpayments began to rise again. “The health plans have healthier than average patients, yet get paid amounts that are calculated for average patients and so they are able to pocket the difference,” said Dr. Robert Berenson, a senior fellow at the Urban Institute and a former member of MedPac. In a recent presentation, two MedPac analysts noted that Medicare is paying Medicare Advantage plans 4% more than what it spends on the same beneficiary in a fee-for-service plan, adding that these private Medicare plans “have never yielded aggregate savings to Medicare.” The major stakeholders, the 63 million beneficiaries in the entire Medicare program, will probably have little to say about this latest Geo experiment and any others likely to come along this year that address the solvency of the trust funds millions of Americans rely on for survival.

Business interests with deep pockets and experience profiting from Medicare Advantage plans, however, will likely have plenty to say. When it comes to Medicare, the Better Medicare Alliance, an organization that presents itself as a grassroots group to mask its corporate interests, has managed to gin up substantial support for in Congress for higher and higher rate Medicare Advantage increases. Two years ago, the Associated Press found that the Alliance was financed by three of the biggest sellers of Medicare managed care plans: UnitedHealthcare, Aetna, and Humana. The group is known for organizing networks of seniors across the country to talk about their positive experiences with Medicare Advantage plans.

In 2009 after Barack Obama had moved into the White House, a woman wrote to the president. “I don’t want government-run health care,” she said. “I don’t want socialized medicine. And don’t touch my Medicare!” That woman like millions of other beneficiaries didn’t know the ins and outs of the program they rely on so much or understand that the hospital coverage Medicare provides is social insurance. That lingering confusion about what the Medicare program is 55 years after it began may well have sown the seeds of its demise long ago. It has certainly made it easier now for new privatization models like Geo to take root and potentially turn every senior into a customer of a privately-run managed care organization.

Veteran health care journalist Trudy Lieberman is a contributing editor at the Center for Health Journalism Digital and a regular contributor to the Remaking Health Care column.

Trudy Lieberman • Contributor

Find your latest news here at the Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle

The post This latest under-the-radar program could push Medicare deeper into private hands appeared first on The Hemet & San Jacinto Chronicle.